posted
Egypt bans European papers for comments on Islam CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt has banned editions of two French and German newspapers, Le Figaro and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, because of articles deemed insulting to Islam, the state news agency MENA said on Sunday.
Under a decree issued by Information Minister Anas el-Feki, the two editions will not be able to enter the country, it said.
"They published articles which disparaged Islam and claimed that the Islamic religion was spread by the sword and that the prophet ... was the prophet of evil," it added.
The edition of the German newspaper, dated September 16, contains an article by German historian Egon Flaig looking at how the Prophet Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was a successful military leader during his lifetime.
Flaig presents other arguments supporting the view that Islam has had a violent history.
The Egyptian agency said: "The minister of information said that he would not allow any publication that insults the Islamic religion or calls for hatred or contempt of any religion to be distributed inside Egypt."
It did not link the articles to Pope Benedict's speech in Germany on September 12, in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor as making similar remarks about Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.
The Egyptian government rarely bans mainstream European newspapers or magazines.
posted
Islam was spread by the sword, everyone knows that including the muslims that are complaining. They are STILL trying to spread it by the sword.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question that remains to be answered is why then so many people have chosen Islam throughout the more than 1400 years of its history. Islam has penetrated the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, West Africa, East Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Western China, and the Malay archipelago. Islam in all these regions replaced so many other well-established religions: Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and animism. What are the reasons behind the triumph of Islam over all these religions in so many different places at so many different times!
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the territory now known as Islamic were converted in war at the point of the sword. Certanily that is the case in areas formerly christian. You might try reading up on the conquest of the Byzantine Empire which culmanated in 1453. Its always been a brutal, repressive religion, as it remains today.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it.
The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert.
It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there!
So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Most of the territory now known as Islamic were converted in war at the point of the sword. Certanily that is the case in areas formerly christian. You might try reading up on the conquest of the Byzantine Empire which culmanated in 1453. Its always been a brutal, repressive religion, as it remains today.
With all due respect, that is a gross overstatement.
Islam was spread by the sword, true, for a period of 800 years that was true, we ruled the world.
But these were political invasions, a lot was at stake in many of them, I'd be the last to deny.
However, Islam is not a brutal religion, if you examine the Qur'an closely, you'll find that fighting is only permitted in self defense or retaliation.
And throughout our history, no looting was involved to the common people, freedom of religion was granted.
Now, you may be a christian, jew, hindu, buddhist, I don't care, no one has attacked your beliefs, so don't attack anybody else's.
Or would you permit people to mutilate your faith and defile it by generalising.
Treat people as you expect to be treated.
Posts: 67 | From: Cairo | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you tell it like it is. Obviously you have to do some generalizing when you are talking about these subjects. That said, the way Islam looks at the role of women is criminal. The very fact that we have a huge demonstration everytime they don't like what someone says makes my point. Christianity did have a repressive period which died with the seventeeth century enlightenment. What do you mean ...permit people? That statement implies force. If someone wants to defile your faith they have a right to so and you are POWERLESS to do anything about it, nor should you even want to. The point is, why should you care what they think?
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Most of the territory now known as Islamic were converted in war at the point of the sword. Certanily that is the case in areas formerly christian. You might try reading up on the conquest of the Byzantine Empire which culmanated in 1453. Its always been a brutal, repressive religion, as it remains today.
With all due respect, that is a gross overstatement.
Islam was spread by the sword, true, for a period of 800 years that was true, we ruled the world.
But these were political invasions, a lot was at stake in many of them, I'd be the last to deny.
However, Islam is not a brutal religion, if you examine the Qur'an closely, you'll find that fighting is only permitted in self defense or retaliation.
And throughout our history, no looting was involved to the common people, freedom of religion was granted.
Now, you may be a christian, jew, hindu, buddhist, I don't care, no one has attacked your beliefs, so don't attack anybody else's.
Or would you permit people to mutilate your faith and defile it by generalising.
Treat people as you expect to be treated.
Keep in mind the Caliphate through two empires marriage of the Caliph was rare. So cocubines or jarwah (sp?) produced heirs to the throne and thus is where the brutality lies. The heirs to the Caliph fought tooth and nail to gain the throne and everyone got in the way.
Plus the tradition of capturing foreign boys for military service and thrusting upon them "Islam for freedom and for promotion" didn't help Islam's public service campaign. And the cocubines or slave girls weren't even taught Arabi nor taught Islam thus preventing future Caliphs from understanding the importance of God's word in the role of the Caliph.
The last Caliph stepped down in 1924, he was a huge improvement over the last 600 years of Caliphates but a little too late.
Posts: 991 | From: My daughter is a stalker | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like I'm getting bombarded here, but fine, serves me right.
You're referring to the inquisitions, in which any man with any enlightened thought, which might prevent the church from maintaining it's status as intermediary between man and god, was prosecuted and exterminated, and in which anyone owning certain books, drawings or statues was declared a pagan and burned at the stake, or do you mean to forget the church's history with women, when any woman lived in danger of being procclaimed a witch and burned or drowned.
What about the "donations" to the church which was imposed on almost everyone, nobility in specific, and when they didn't wanna pay, they would be outcasts, no priest permitted to carry out baptism, marriage or funeral ceremonies to these nobles and their families.
I call this black-mail in the name of god.
It may have ended, but I assure you, had the church had the power to maintain this regime, it would have, power corrupts.
And as usual history is written by the victor, not necessarily the truth.
But that was in the past, no one is claiming that it's still done.
Now, because of a system that existed until 1492, when the arabs were expelled from Granada - the last arab city in Spain - everyone is discriminating.
History is written in blood, not necessarily heroic.
And as for my using the word "Permit", I may have chosen the wrong word, what I meant was, would you be happy about it?
Albino: The Ottoman empire was powerless long before 1924, it's last reign of power was in 1798, after that it was just a wounded beast, so having a Caliph didn't make that big difference to the world
-------------------- When you take something for granted as your own accomplishment. The lord takes it away to show you that all is his making and that you have done nothing to deserve his gift Posts: 67 | From: Cairo | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Umslopagas: Looks like I'm getting bombarded here, but fine, serves me right.
You're referring to the inquisitions, in which any man with any enlightened thought, which might prevent the church from maintaining it's status as intermediary between man and god, was prosecuted and exterminated, and in which anyone owning certain books, drawings or statues was declared a pagan and burned at the stake, or do you mean to forget the church's history with women, when any woman lived in danger of being procclaimed a witch and burned or drowned.
What about the "donations" to the church which was imposed on almost everyone, nobility in specific, and when they didn't wanna pay, they would be outcasts, no priest permitted to carry out baptism, marriage or funeral ceremonies to these nobles and their families.
I call this black-mail in the name of god.
It may have ended, but I assure you, had the church had the power to maintain this regime, it would have, power corrupts.
And as usual history is written by the victor, not necessarily the truth.
But that was in the past, no one is claiming that it's still done.
Now, because of a system that existed until 1492, when the arabs were expelled from Granada - the last arab city in Spain - everyone is discriminating.
History is written in blood, not necessarily heroic.
And as for my using the word "Permit", I may have chosen the wrong word, what I meant was, would you be happy about it?
Albino: The Ottoman empire was powerless long before 1924, it's last reign of power was in 1798, after that it was just a wounded beast, so having a Caliph didn't make that big difference to the world
Yeah, section of the Empire like Egypt had overpowered the Caliphate in order to gain sovernty and reign supreme over his subjects.
I must say what you had addressed above, while somewhat factual and is often the crutch used by non-west scholars only works if your audience is indeed ignorant of your own culture's history of intellectual and religious oppression, or shall I say hierarchal subordination.
Much of what you just lamblasted the Catholic church for is present in Muslim dominated society during the middle ages. It just wasn't as apparent to the people at the time due to prosperity and cultural supremacy over Europe.
later edit: it has also been present in Hindu religious hierarchy and also in Buddist religious hierarchy. You'd have to be in the room when a very outspoken Tibetan and a Chinese Vietamese start going at it. Talk about major, MAJOR conflicts of political superiority and a very long history to back up the conflict.
I mean come on Wahabism is a white rabbit that just emerged from the looking glass. The murkiness of religious authority that now manifests itself as Wahabism has always been lurking in the Middle East. Just as the murkiness of Catholic authority has always been in the Christian power structure. It just changes faces, regions and successions.
Posts: 991 | From: My daughter is a stalker | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right there, and that's my point, why raise the issue of the Islam's introduction now?
What's the point, each culture has its own skeletons, so why can't people just stop picking at each other, that was my message.
Some people take it personal though.
-------------------- When you take something for granted as your own accomplishment. The lord takes it away to show you that all is his making and that you have done nothing to deserve his gift Posts: 67 | From: Cairo | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Umslopagas: You're right there, and that's my point, why raise the issue of the Islam's introduction now?
What's the point, each culture has its own skeletons, so why can't people just stop picking at each other, that was my message.
Some people take it personal though.
It wasn't so much Islam's introduction, but the continuation of cultural integration patterns. Though slavery was banned by the Final Prophet (PBUH) Muslims continued to facilitate this practice, worse yet made it the centerpiece of their power structure. I actually think the Final Prophet (PBUH) had a much wiser interpretation of how God's word could be passed on to the people. I have read the biography of the Final Prophet and he was forced into the corner time and time again and had to defend the people who recognized his message as God's word. He did what he had to do. And he recognized people's weaknesses and dealt humanly with them.
Jesus (PBUH) expected alot out of people. Too much. And its really difficult to see Jesus (PBUH) for what he actually is.
And we can't pick on each other for what has happened in the past. But propping yourself up on a soap box and claiming that your cultural history is far more "pure" or "God affirming" than another when in reality you are banking on the tried and true prospect that people thousands of miles away are just plain ignorant of your cultural histories. Its the same thing the Pope just did.
And if you didn't take it personally you wouldn't have poked at Catholic history in the manner you did.
And please do remember that not all Christians in the west relate to Catholic history. Some of us are Protestant and don't take ownership over Catholic history.
I do heavily enjoy reading the agnostic texts (though I don't totally agree with them) and also enjoy reading Sufi texts and history. I think its a shame that mainstream Sunni Islam has reject Sufi thought, which had a tendancy to be more monothesistic and overall more integrative of Judiasm, Christian and Muslim tradition. Sufism has more value on the human individual and its rights as part of the world-wide community. While mainstream Sunni habits is more of a caste based "law and order" more than a quality of life system.
Posts: 991 | From: My daughter is a stalker | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the west we divide state and religion. In Egypt they are in a complicated mix. There also seem to be the need to follow imams in the interpretation of legislation and therefore in the exegeses of quran and older legislation. Anyone critisizing this comes under attack, even muslims themselves. Criticism on the exegeses and interpretation of legislation from imams (f.e. from Al Azhar) immediately would ask for the state te reply, since they are not divided.
So, nondivided and not open to criticism, what do you have? A religious dicatatorship. I don't envy Egyptians. It will be a huge effort to step back from this and take some real options to the future.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well in fact nothing will happen to them because , in most cases, they are correct.
There are people in the west that think you are all a bunch of barbarians and they are doing fine.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe Egyptians are barbarians but I do believe there are different lessons to learn. In the west we need to learn that we can't exploit others in terms of 'doing good' to them like Bush in Irak. We need to learn not to be to optimistic of our possibilities to bring lasting peace to a country in turmoil like Afghanistan and now Jordan. We need to improve the UN in terms of patience and effectiveness. 'Islamic' countries need to reconsider the results of Islamisation, give religion a proper space and let the state mind public businesses where you need criticism, the judgement of effectiveness can't do without criticism. Utopia's like an Islamic state always become dicatorships with ugly faces to the people and a backlash in terms of prosperity and wellfare, communism did. Pure liberalism will. We need to work on our systems constantly to keep them humane yet productive.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chinderella, I would not generalize to that extent, but, yes, I find much of the culture unappealing.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Umslopagas: You're right there, and that's my point, why raise the issue of the Islam's introduction now?
What's the point, each culture has its own skeletons, so why can't people just stop picking at each other, that was my message.
Some people take it personal though.
It wasn't so much Islam's introduction, but the continuation of cultural integration patterns. Though slavery was banned by the Final Prophet (PBUH) Muslims continued to facilitate this practice, worse yet made it the centerpiece of their power structure. I actually think the Final Prophet (PBUH) had a much wiser interpretation of how God's word could be passed on to the people. I have read the biography of the Final Prophet and he was forced into the corner time and time again and had to defend the people who recognized his message as God's word. He did what he had to do. And he recognized people's weaknesses and dealt humanly with them.
Jesus (PBUH) expected alot out of people. Too much. And its really difficult to see Jesus (PBUH) for what he actually is.
And we can't pick on each other for what has happened in the past. But propping yourself up on a soap box and claiming that your cultural history is far more "pure" or "God affirming" than another when in reality you are banking on the tried and true prospect that people thousands of miles away are just plain ignorant of your cultural histories. Its the same thing the Pope just did.
And if you didn't take it personally you wouldn't have poked at Catholic history in the manner you did.
And please do remember that not all Christians in the west relate to Catholic history. Some of us are Protestant and don't take ownership over Catholic history.
I do heavily enjoy reading the agnostic texts (though I don't totally agree with them) and also enjoy reading Sufi texts and history. I think its a shame that mainstream Sunni Islam has reject Sufi thought, which had a tendancy to be more monothesistic and overall more integrative of Judiasm, Christian and Muslim tradition. Sufism has more value on the human individual and its rights as part of the world-wide community. While mainstream Sunni habits is more of a caste based "law and order" more than a quality of life system.
I do like your reply, every culture have its own bros and cons and I stand with my culture, actually I see the cons in it and I know that it is not from the prophet, the Caliph's issue is not implemented by Mohamed (PBUH), the true Caliphas where the elected ones, what we called "the rightous Caliphas" also known as "Abubakr, Omar, Ossoman and Ali" adding to them "Elhassan and ElZobeer ibn El'awam". These were the first elected Calipha's and this is what islam mention in its traditions, yet from my point of view I see that the islamic traditions, have supported variaties in the time where this wasn't even known before, the right to have your faith openly and your believeth, of course there was political obression, but usually the victims were muslims "like what we call in arabic "'al elbayet" whom are related to Ali and consequently to Mohamed (PBUH)", yes there was obression and brutality with them actually they were all killed and that's the main reason for the emerge of "shia'as", but still the islamic culture have developed other things that was new to the world on this time, anyone whom say other than this is just an ignorant as arrogant as he might seem. picking up on our culture will not help because even if it contains some brutality but it can't be compared to what was in the time, and actually most of this struggle was political struggle for rights something at that time wasn't known with this way in other places, figuring the muslims as raider whom kill and capture people to slavery is not true, although slavery did happen but it wasn't likely that the slaves where captured except in a war "slaves where not to capture except if they actually is in wars with you, although there might have been exceptions but this is not likely to have happened otherwise the whole places the muslims have conquered would have been slaves to muslims". Yet slavery was at the time everywhere in the world and the slaves in islamic laws have had some rights, something that have never occured before, and the bazentinian empire should show this, actually slaves were permitted to work in the military again something that was never to occur before, and if they where treated brutely they would have done a revolution which have never happened in the islamic history, actually slaves have become the rulers for some countries like here in Egypt (el mamaleek). Something that would have never happened in the time in any other place on the earth, to note that "el mamleek" have not fought against the caliphas when they first ruled Egypt, only when conflict would occur such a thing would happen. I think that the idea of throne inheritance is against islamic rules "my opnion" and I have my evidence that are enough for me to believe in this, actually I believe this was the reason for the islamic era to end, and I stand with the people whom fought for the sunnah at the time like el hassan and el Zubbair ibn el'awam. Islamic culture wasn't perfect but it have introduced to the world a new era of rights and hopes for people to live in peace, the claim that islam was spread by the sword is falisfied by many truth in the current events in the world for instance islam is the most fast growing religion in the world, muslims are most religious culture "from the bookholders "ahlelketab"" whom still believe and follow there religion, islam comes in every color and race, islam have reached many places without sword, islam have treated people of el kitab more tolerable to any other culture at the time, ahl elkitab have rights in islamic tradition .. etc. That would answer any ignorant whom would say such a claim.
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demiana: In the west we divide state and religion. In Egypt they are in a complicated mix. There also seem to be the need to follow imams in the interpretation of legislation and therefore in the exegeses of quran and older legislation. Anyone critisizing this comes under attack, even muslims themselves. Criticism on the exegeses and interpretation of legislation from imams (f.e. from Al Azhar) immediately would ask for the state te reply, since they are not divided.
So, nondivided and not open to criticism, what do you have? A religious dicatatorship. I don't envy Egyptians. It will be a huge effort to step back from this and take some real options to the future.
The problem is we don't need your help and your very shallow analysis .. shows more that we don't need your help. I have noticed that everyone here says "muslims are not opened to critcisim" when actually they are not the one whom opened to criticism. just check your threads, I don't know how you are like in the life, but ask your friends to know how open you are to critiscim, the problem is thatt you think that you have knowledge and you can judge us while you can't even judge yourself, before calling on us call on yourself, and if you really want to make dialog then this should be from respect, I am sure that if you have mingled with the Egyptian you would have noticed that what you are saying is just a fantasy, anyone will never accept critiscim if it comes out of arrogance, for example in this thread people haven't accepted critiscim when it is made to catholic believe, yet they criticise islam , you wouldn't accept this cristicism that I have written, yet I write it to show you how much you don't follow your rule
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But did the Final Prophet ever saw that there was legitimate reasons for carrying on the practice of slavery?
I mean I can't recall one single hadith or Sunnah putting legality behind taking of slaves during war or any other reason for the legality of slavery.
He put every possible path to rid the Muslims of slavery. He didn't go out and demand that every slave be freed on the spot, but he did demand that Muslims stop acquiring slaves for putting people into slavery. I can't even find a Sunnah declaring it rightous to put "non-believers" under the yoke of slavery.
Posts: 991 | From: My daughter is a stalker | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: well in fact nothing will happen to them because , in most cases, they are correct.
There are people in the west that think you are all a bunch of barbarians and they are doing fine.
I am happy that such a fine person like have stated these words because actually your judgement is very very wise and it just relieves me when such words comes from such a mind, keep it up and try harder may be the next time you will get a couple of sweets for your wisedom.
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tigerlily: Egypt bans European papers for comments on Islam CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt has banned editions of two French and German newspapers, Le Figaro and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, because of articles deemed insulting to Islam, the state news agency MENA said on Sunday.
This is the article because of which the FAZ was banned:
posted
Arrow99, Nobody asked you to like us, we don't need your compassion, what we do need is for you to step away from here.
For the record, you are the one who came to an egyptian forum, so if you don't like the culture, then please leave, no one invited you here in the first place.
The egyptians you call barbaric had a civilization when your ancestors were crawling on all four.
So please just leave, before you cause anymore inconvenience, you're not welcome here.
My guess is you're just a 14 yo. kid who's reciting his parents quotes, so grow up, and learn to understand before you insult.
-------------------- When you take something for granted as your own accomplishment. The lord takes it away to show you that all is his making and that you have done nothing to deserve his gift Posts: 67 | From: Cairo | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bibo, you should consider this thread. Egypt bans western newspapers and then you respond like it is no issue in this thread. Of course I know in daily life how it is with criticism with my Egyptian family and of course I treat them with dignity. That is not the issue. Get everything involved and you will have a non-discussion on sensitivities spread around. Of course you can accuse me or the west from anything you like, that is not the issue here. The day is yet to arrive that in my country a foreign newspaper would be banned over a harmless criticism to the pope. This paper would need to threathen to kill the pope by themselves to have an inquiry on their pants.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And then again Bibo, Why don't you tell us why Egypt, under the state of law, would ban western newspapers if it is not to prevent riots and hammock between some people and groups in Egypt that are not open to criticism?
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem lies with Islamic leaders today. They do not publicly condemn violence enough. Islam is currently perceived as the main route of international terror, war, violence, death, murder etc. It's true that the Qur'an is being manipulated to encourage these. The question is - where are the Islamic leaders on the front of papers condemning people for this? They appear to weak. If they don't support violence then they must condemn those who do, otherwise they are just as bad. This is the bad samaritan story - people watching disgraceful, immoral behaviour... watching people die, and doing nothing about it. If you're truely anti-violence and are a muslim - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Posts: 46 | From: Cairo, Egypt | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well apparently there is not a lot we can do. But proceed on the road to strenghten our nations, negotiate peace and justice, vote for the right parties that will bring us justice in the long run, no shurtcut advantages. Balance in favor of progress for all. Educate ourselves.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Albino_Eskimo: But did the Final Prophet ever saw that there was legitimate reasons for carrying on the practice of slavery?
I mean I can't recall one single hadith or Sunnah putting legality behind taking of slaves during war or any other reason for the legality of slavery.
He put every possible path to rid the Muslims of slavery. He didn't go out and demand that every slave be freed on the spot, but he did demand that Muslims stop acquiring slaves for putting people into slavery. I can't even find a Sunnah declaring it rightous to put "non-believers" under the yoke of slavery.
Islam has been in many cases supportive to slaves, Mohamed (PBUH) have never treated any slave badly, his foster son "before islam" was a slave, he have freed him, Belal one of the most famous Sa'haba was a slave, islam in its preaching have supported freeing slaves, in the quran there are many verses that encourage the "mo'emneen" to free slaves, many "fard" "kafarah (penance)" is freeing slaves, "i.e. if someone missed a fard for some ligimated reason, his penance is to free slaves and if he can't "i.e. he has none or there is none" then he can fast many many "kafarah" is like this. Quran have addressed the slaves in such a way as to shed there tears.
Although islam haven't removed slavery yet it have developed rights for slaves and have developed the idea of equality, and when the world was ready to the idea of removing slavery it happened.
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bbqrobhaz: The problem lies with Islamic leaders today. They do not publicly condemn violence enough. Islam is currently perceived as the main route of international terror, war, violence, death, murder etc. It's true that the Qur'an is being manipulated to encourage these. The question is - where are the Islamic leaders on the front of papers condemning people for this? They appear to weak. If they don't support violence then they must condemn those who do, otherwise they are just as bad. This is the bad samaritan story - people watching disgraceful, immoral behaviour... watching people die, and doing nothing about it. If you're truely anti-violence and are a muslim - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
During twenty-nine years from December 18, 1972 to January 18, 2002, the issues related to terrorism were discussed at various occasions, but clarity and unanimity on the subject remained elusive. As a result what is terrorism according to one party is resistance, or movement for freedom or defence of democracy and liberty to the other. After the attack on World Trade Centre in USA on September 11, 2001 and brutal and aggressive bombing of Afghanistan by USA, the issue was discussed again by United Nations on January 18, 2002. The session was attended by forty nations. All participants agreed on the serious threat from terrorism and stressed its immediate eradication. However, a few countries, particularly Arab countries invited the attention of the participants that so much din has been raised about the threat of terrorism and its eradication. But it should be defined for effective action against the threat. No clear and convincing reply came from any quarter. There was a deliberate attempt to evade the issue. Arab countries upheld their stand that the resistance of Palestinians against foreign occupation of their lands cannot be called 'terrorism'. Illegitimate seizure of foreign territory is the worst type of organized terrorist activity. Stark, the head of the UN Committee diverted the discussion by stating the 'organized terrorism' is not a legal expression and the Security Council should not be dragged in political battles.
It indicates that the superpowers and under their influence UNO and its Security Council desire to continue ambiguity and confusion about the definition of 'terrorism' for keeping the option to act according their interests and requirements. The powers fully realize that if the real causes of the malady are revealed, they shall be found among the culprits. Present terrorist activities are the poisonous fruits of their own misdeeds.
Terrorist activities caused by malice, ill will and dishonesty, are being projected as rooted in the teachings of Islam. In that context, reference is made to three issues of Islamic Shariah. (1) The teaching of Islam about killing a Non-Muslim is Jihad (2) Islam teaches hatred and legitimizes fight against other religions and their followers. (3) It encourages intolerance towards the followers of other religions. All the three breed terrorism.
All the three allegations about Islamic Shariah are misconceived and motivated by malice and ignorance. Jehad finds a place in the teachings of lslam, but not for killing Non-Muslims. There is no provision encouraging perpetual hatred and fight against the followers of other religions. Linking Islam, a religion of peace with terrorism itself amounts to an act of terrorism.
Posts: 209 | From: Egypt | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demiana: Bibo, you should consider this thread. Egypt bans western newspapers and then you respond like it is no issue in this thread. Of course I know in daily life how it is with criticism with my Egyptian family and of course I treat them with dignity. That is not the issue. Get everything involved and you will have a non-discussion on sensitivities spread around. Of course you can accuse me or the west from anything you like, that is not the issue here. The day is yet to arrive that in my country a foreign newspaper would be banned over a harmless criticism to the pope. This paper would need to threathen to kill the pope by themselves to have an inquiry on their pants.
Do you really know our culture, just tell me what will we get right out of such a thing, either two ways more fornication or more violence, criticism shouldn't be like this, the writer can do whatever he wants in his place and people have the rights to protest over this, yet what will we get in our area our of this, what people will think of a man insulting everything they believe at. Is it so hard to understand this issue? In our culture our prophet, every prophet, every religion, everyones idol or percious thing or people (your father and mother included) is not to be subjected to mockery, this is our culture, if you wanna discuss with me don't insult me, you can discuss with me your views but never insult me if we are going to discuss something really then you should have respect to my idea, if you think you are better than me or my culture then believe me there is no need for the dicussion, I respect you and you should respect me, if you have respect to me and I have respect to you, this would be the building block of discussion, although this is way from the main point, which is why would we ban this simply for the reason above we ban every insult to any believe, if anyone would have want to insult any believe we should ban this we are ordered to do this: 6. The Cattle
108. Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did. Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am listening Bibo, moreso I looked up the text Wotever brought in from the Greek orthodox patriarch to the pope:
"We assert that religion is not so much for the practice of intellectual and philosophical refinement as it is for living and coexisting in love, so far as this harmonizes with beliefs, divine laws and rites."
Although I have an Egyptian family in law I have not been brought up in Egypt therefore I can only try to feel what this means.
I guess the pope did an Islamforever, Mr.Egypt and EgyBatman thing, making a contest out of believesystems by releasing this speech of his. He is challenging the debate, he is more of an intellectual then the former pope. He was juggling with symbolism. He had his mind with western responses and was incomprehensive on how insensitive he would be to the believers of the faith he was commenting the history on. I can give you that. His aim was not the interfaith dialogue per se, although debating issues might help, someone will stand up and correct your views.
Being brought up in the west considering the history and the culture of my country I can realize that I have a preference for the debate. I am not very good at it, but I can see the advantages. My identity has to be challenged to sharpen myself and realize the dephts of my believesystems, whether in real life (a lot of 'believíng' is going on there) or in my faith.
If I read the text from the Greek patriarch I can see overall several phenomena. Compassion with the believers, christians and muslims alike. Like Christ telling us that whomever should hurt or disturb his children.. . Telling us that in the end it all comes down to praying and relating to God and your neighbour. But it also has been the clergy that kept the 'flocks' ignorant and a text like this raises my attention. I don't want to be hushed and comforted and kept from the wear and tear of daily life by praying and connecting alone. I don't want to be told what to believe and how to act by an academic clergy. I want to know for myself and be permitted to ask questions and debate. I don't want to be treated as a child an been told what to do by other 'children'.
A dangerous statement, before you know it people will haunt you with the tree of knowledge and Eve and look where it got us!:-) And see how the snake is seducing us all (my fundamentalist family is a great source)
But we are not in paradise. We are on earth. My responsibility is to God straight away and to myself and to my neigbours. I don't accept mediators anymore. Thanks to Luther and other christian foremen that clearly showed us the dangers of an almighty knowing clergy and an ignorant people. You can be manipulated to believe anything that is in the interest of the one in charge. Need I go on?
Although I agree with the compassionate part of the Greek patriarch and his recognition of the true nature of religion I could not disagree more with his statement that religion is not for academic and philosophical debate. We need to, otherwise we would be mute to one another and to ourselves. We need to talk about religions and the place they should have in the human community and how we can benefit as a society or suffer. We would never be able to set the necessary boundaries between us and between the different spheres of society if we were not alowd to debate, we would be open to manipulations by those who are alowd to know and debate. To know what we are talking about and not have some silly contest where we aim to win. But to come to a better understanding.
Well, anyway, Ramadan Kareem Bibo Thanks for explaining at least I can get a better sight of what is going on culturewise I believe.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some other thing. I live in a country where by history we have a lot of differences and to stop the holy wars over them Willem van Oranje decided we need a republic where all religions should be considered private and equal, not one dominating over the others, dominating the public sphere. Although the wars stopped they turned into debate and of course more differences!:-) Not a day passes by when there is just another critic on religion in general or your religion in particular, it is as common as to debate your preferences in clothing. I don't have to agree and I don't take this personal. It is only getting me closer to where I want to be in my believes. Of course we do have 'believers' that will be insulted and take things personal and so they go demonstrate when Madonna is performing. Whatever you want. It is the outcome of our culture I guess. I have difficulties conforming to groupreligion when it is asking from me to turn in my own believes, questions, debate and conform to a controlling environment.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem when a debate occur on religion, but I don't like to doubt your faith, but I would like to clarify and ask about it, when there was a struggle going here on ES between faiths I watched and didn't interfere except when I wanted to understand how things that contradicts with my thought and believe, how other faith believers believe it. I have always tried to show my view of my religion according to my knowledge and my way of recognizing it. I think it is the better way to communicate if we really want to communicate and understand each other faith, hatrad will bring hatrad, people should see there own standards when they apply them to themselves, it is very easy to put the highest standard but it is hard to follow it. Condemning your faith and religion is like condemning my faith and religion, if you have any, and if you don't then it become more like condemning the rights for you to believe it is still a way to oppress someone believe. If we are really in debate and you issued something you heard or believe about islam, I have no problem with that we are debating and I will clarify it to you, I am sure if the pope was in a debate and he issued this people would have never done anything, but when you stand on a tribune and insult or condemn my believe with something to immense or persuade people of what you are saying or out of hatrad or because you don't have morals, I wouldn't accept this. And I have the right to protest at this and do whatever to show you that my believes are valuable for me more than you can imagine, I don't know what is your country, but if for example the pope have condemned Presbyterian and they protested for that, would your reaction be the same as it is now. You say that you have the full right to doubt whatever, but tell me what happen when people doubted the holocoast on newspaper, they became anti-sesemtic and to jail they were sentenced just for doubting the numbers (16 million, and now they are how much a couple of millions I guess, was there at that time 16 million jew in the world? why such a number contradicts and fluctuate? why would hitler kill jews? was there the 15th of may memo between zionism and hitler? ). It is you whom would judge this but as for me I believe you (the west) have double standards. who is Luther the one you have mentioned above
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: No, you tell it like it is. Obviously you have to do some generalizing when you are talking about these subjects. That said, the way Islam looks at the role of women is criminal. The very fact that we have a huge demonstration everytime they don't like what someone says makes my point. Christianity did have a repressive period which died with the seventeeth century enlightenment. What do you mean ...permit people? That statement implies force. If someone wants to defile your faith they have a right to so and you are POWERLESS to do anything about it, nor should you even want to. The point is, why should you care what they think?
Censorship of the media, by the government is plain wrong. Why aren't the people of Egypt protesting in the streets about banning criticism of Islam? What baffles me about some Muslims is why they see criticism of their faith as a personal attack. Banning criticism of faith is what is unacceptable.
There is a huge difference between disparaging religion and interfering with a person's right to practice that religion. The person's right to live peacefully is sacred. The religion is only sacred to those who follow it. The essence of Arrow's point is correct:
''If someone wants to defile your faith they have a right to so and you are POWERLESS to do anything about it, nor should you even want to. The point is, why should you care what they think?''
Now this may be maddening. It might make you want to tear your hair out, in frustration but it is how it should be. Should predominantly Muslim countries be denied freedom of speech? I believe that we must all have freedom of speech, as long as expressing it doesn't lead to inciting hatred and breaking the law. This should be is qualified by legal rights, which protect the ability to live peacefully, in harmony with your faith.
Criticism of religion is common in the west, as one poster pointed out. Of course, there was a time when it wasn't but I wouldn't like to turn back the clock to such dark times.
Isn't it time that some Muslims learn to accept criticism of their faith (and to do so, people don't need to read every line of every religious text ever written) as long as it goes hand in hand with the right to practice that faith in peace? Why waste so much time questioning the rights of critics to comment on faith? Why not spend that time promoting the great aspects of Islam?
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Chinderella, I would not generalize to that extent, but, yes, I find much of the culture unappealing.
Arrow, alot of westerners think the same way you do although they havent seen Egypt or known the Egyptian culture... they just heard negative stuff from the media & god knows from where....
And frankly, I have a hard time explaining to you guys something beyond your imagination. Beyond your imagination simply because you havent seen it with your own eyes or experienced it to have your own opinion, and not an opinion that you've borrowed from an ignorant someone else. It's just so frustrating, assuming that you care about the egyptian culture since you are on an EgyptSearch forum!
Imagine if I never left Egypt & believed all the bad stuff I heard about USA ...... wouldnt that be frustrating?
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Albino_Eskimo: But did the Final Prophet ever saw that there was legitimate reasons for carrying on the practice of slavery?
I mean I can't recall one single hadith or Sunnah putting legality behind taking of slaves during war or any other reason for the legality of slavery.
He put every possible path to rid the Muslims of slavery. He didn't go out and demand that every slave be freed on the spot, but he did demand that Muslims stop acquiring slaves for putting people into slavery. I can't even find a Sunnah declaring it rightous to put "non-believers" under the yoke of slavery.
Yes Albino you are right... Islam prohibited slavery
Posts: 3128 | From: Not Your Heaven | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: Censorship of the media, by the government is plain wrong. Why aren't the people of Egypt protesting in the streets about banning criticism of Islam? What baffles me about some Muslims is why they see criticism of their faith as a personal attack. Banning criticism of faith is what is unacceptable.
There is a huge difference between disparaging religion and interfering with a person's right to practice that religion. The person's right to live peacefully is sacred. The religion is only sacred to those who follow it. The essence of Arrow's point is correct:
''If someone wants to defile your faith they have a right to so and you are POWERLESS to do anything about it, nor should you even want to. The point is, why should you care what they think?''
Now this may be maddening. It might make you want to tear your hair out, in frustration but it is how it should be. Should predominantly Muslim countries be denied freedom of speech? I believe that we must all have freedom of speech, as long as expressing it doesn't lead to inciting hatred and breaking the law. This should be is qualified by legal rights, which protect the ability to live peacefully, in harmony with your faith.
Criticism of religion is common in the west, as one poster pointed out. Of course, there was a time when it wasn't but I wouldn't like to turn back the clock to such dark times.
Isn't it time that some Muslims learn to accept criticism of their faith (and to do so, people don't need to read every line of every religious text ever written) as long as it goes hand in hand with the right to practice that faith in peace? Why waste so much time questioning the rights of critics to comment on faith? Why not spend that time promoting the great aspects of Islam? [/QB]
Just tell me what is the reason for mockery or for insult, why should this be ligimated? I didn't get your point, I should stand with my mouth shut if someone insults me or my religion? if so you believe then you know nothing about our culture and our law, you can't implement your laws in our country, what is good for you isn't good enough for me, we come from different culture, what you think is wrong in your culture I think is not right in mine. I wouldn't go to history to show that the church wasn't the reason for what you call enlightment rather than the revolutions and the oppression at the time. I want to know what is the outcome of mockery and insult. You believe it is your right then please just right a sentence about the jews there lies history or the holocoast, the freedom you are talking about is not as you claim it is and your standards are not as you say it is, if it is so then you should be the one whom implement it rather than just promoting for something you don't practice .. I wouldn't comment on someone like Mr.Arrow apparently his brain is malfunctioned a 100 years ago and he think that he is the most brilliant person in his world, but he will wake up one day and see the truth , and such a person doesn' worth my words
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only people with a political or economic interest deny the holocaust or the Armenian genocide for that matter. The events are welldocumented and researched but also ideologized and highjacked by interestgroups. 6 Miljon jews, groups of gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped and mentally handicapped, psychiatric patients and other minority groups were killed in the second world war, the first war were they had the opportunity to kill on such a large scale. There is just no doubt about that. It is like denying the killing fields in Cambodja, the massacres in Rwanda and other occasions where humans were agressive and deadly towards someone they denied their humanity. We were there, we have witnesses of all sorts, not only jews. It is also senseless to deny the plight of the Palestinian people and the massacres of Shabra and Shatila. We were there they are accounted for. They are the reason why people behave like they do today, they are traumatized, justice is not served. Denying this is only serving political interest and will get us nowhere. Everywhere you will find corpses in the closet. The Dutch deny atrocities in the 'politional' actions in Indonesia, a former colony, out of 'respect' to the sensibilities of some old veterans. It is a shame and it will get us nowhere. It will only prevent us from realising our duty, our responsibility and our shared humanity. Wrong is wrong, denying it is a bloody shame. It is a shame to deny the occupation of Tibet by China, or the threat China holds on Taiwan. It is a shame to deny the dicatatorship of Saddam and it is a shame to condone the ongoing war 'against' the Americans and unbelievers in Irak. It will not get better if you pick your sides and blame one or the other. All these atrocities are a bloody shame to all of us no matter what. It does not give one any excuse to retalliate by violence. It will hurt your own people, civilians, women and children, elderly, the most as the victims prove in Irak and Afghanistan. It is a shame to support dictators in the ME and Latin America to serve your own interest, it is a shame to trade weapons to groups that serve your interest, when allies and then later on drop them for they no longer serve your interest, it is a shame. Life basically is unfair but as believers in a rightious God we cannot make up with wrongdoing to compensate for wrong done to us. We can only do what we can to make sure justice is done. And sometimes we have to let go, it is in the hands of God. We have to balance evil by good not by more evil. We have to talk to each other to find out what is going on and listen and observe, not retrieve and condemn.
Posts: 1419 | From: Amsterdam, Netherlands | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German monk,[1] priest, professor, theologian, and church reformer. His teachings inspired the Reformation and deeply influenced the doctrines and culture of the Lutheran and Protestant traditions, as well as the course of Western civilization. (Wikepedia) Luther stacked 95 theses against the practices of the Catholic church at the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. And got away with it. The authority of the clergy over the people was broken and one could stop being exploited by a lack of knowledge or power but retrieve our personal responsibility to God by ourselves without mediators. It was a huge change towards the individual freedom of people in society on all public and private domains. The pope in fact will subitly or more open still critisize the denominations that turned away from the 'motherchurch'. And those churches will debate his criticism or just ignore them. On the other hand there is some growing together also in liturgy and believes towards the Roman Catholic church. There is a revival of Catholicism in the west going on, but any 'atrocity' like childmolestation by priests or condoning condoms in Africa will be criticised openly and the Pope and his church will not take up arms but will debate and force their followers to line up. Some will, some want.
You will find that I have disagreed, quite vigorously, with previous posts made by Arrow. He appears used to debate and hasn't taken offence (yet) by the marked difference in views.
A tolerant, decent society should allow citizens freedom of expression, providing that doesn't lead to inciting hatred and is done lawfully. Even with these qualifications, you find room to object. Why do you endorse censorship? Those disagreeing with your religious views deserve freedom of speech. The press have to be allowed to publish a range of views, in order to inform.
If I were to live in your country, I would not be allowed to express my views or read views that you don't want me to have access to. That is what you are telling me. Yet, if you were to live in my country, you could express your views, although they might differ considerably with the majority of public opinion. Despite this, you then conclude that your culture is better than mine: '' what is good for you isn't good enough for me, we come from different culture, what you think is wrong in your culture I think is not right in mine''
What astounds me is that some Egyptian people seem to think everything is a battle of the gods. You assume that I will object to any criticism of the Christian church or debate on the holocaust. Well, guess what? I'm not jumping up and down. I've read many debates on this in the western media. The freedom of the press is worth defending. How do you know if the banned articles contained 'mockery or insult' ? You haven't had the chance to read them and decide for yourself.
Egyptians are not all Muslims. From my experience of Egyptian culture, people just don't get that everyone doesn't buy into a mainstream version of God. Clearly, you haven't even considered that I am agnostic, when responding - you just trot out the same old religious division arguments.
''I want to know what is the outcome of mockery and insult.'' Bilbo1978, why does any criticism have to be labelled as mockery and insult? It's not. You have the right to defend your position, in an argument. What more must you have to live freely and happily? Not once, have you seen me mocking Islam or any religion. That you use these terms is peculiar but predictable.
Bilbo1978, isn't the real truth that Islamic scholars advocating censorship of the press are afraid? Doubters might just argue that religion offers little to modern society, too effectively. After all, this has happened in the west, with traditional church membership tumbling in many countries. You can protest all you like but Egypt will change too. There was a time when western society was plagued by outdated religious dogma - where religious rights were deemed more important than human rights. I have faith in humanity that the world will move forward, allowing freedom of speech for all. The sad thing is that your vision is backward thinking and leads to oppression. We will just have to agree to disagree on this, Bilbo1978, as time will be the real test.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my faith I, and only I, am responsible to censor myself, to not take in what I consider hurtfull to my personal relation and growth in faith. No-one else should censor for me. I should not censor someone else. As a society we balance what we don't want on our streets and in our public domain but always considering the freedoms of others that are of other believes unless they are unlawfull or against human rights.
quote:Originally posted by Demiana: In my faith I, and only I, am responsible to censor myself, to not take in what I consider hurtfull to my personal relation and growth in faith. No-one else should censor for me. I should not censor someone else. As a society we balance what we don't want on our streets and in our public domain but always considering the freedoms of others that are of other believes unless they are unlawfull or against human rights.
This attitude makes sense to me.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
SayWhatYouDon'tSee I am not Bilbo I am bibo, its is your vision and your view, that doesn't make it the truth, how many time in your life have you been right and how many time have you been wrong. As for what I am telling you it is not this, it is you can read whatever you want and write whatever you want as long as you don't insult anybodies faith, you can doubt whatever but with no insult or mockery. you still didn't answer my question what will I get when I read about someone whom condemn my believe, in our society the religion is not something that we don't believe at or play with it is our faith, the Egyptians for more than 4000 years have always been a nation of faith even when they worshipped the idols, they have been always a nation of faith, something in there root and something that apparantly you can't understand or believe in. You say you know our culture while you actually don't. It is ok to debate and have your own view about subjects religion and others believe, it is ok to chat about that openly I have done this with some people that can tolerate this, but as I have described before it is not OK to make a mockery of someone's believe even if you don't think it is the truth, that doesn't make it the truth. Answering your question yes you have the full right to doubt and chat with muslims, oriental groups have been here in Egypt for centuries, those people you can try to contact or read there thoughts , you will find them vary in there opnion and you might find something to understand about us. Judging people is easy, judging oneself is hard. My point is just be fair with yourself and see what is the outcome of such behavior, as I have said before, two outcomes that we don't need in our society: 1- More Fornication 2- More Violence As I have said before you need to understand us, if you think that you are more human than we are then try to think it again, but try to understand our point of view, I have explained to you all I can do about how we do look to this issue, and if you don't believe me then just grab a book. that's more than enough for this issue, I hope you would take my words seriously as I did with yours, if you do then there might be some outcome from such conversation, yet if you don't then there is no need to argue we both have made our point more than clear
Posts: 1022 | From: cairo | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic