Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[xi0]

Well... as for the theological part of mormonism... If I had time, I'd delve in it more -_- What bothers me most is the fact that they have an "elitist system" in which only a certain number people who exceptionally further the Church of the Latter Day Saints' cause who are allowed to go to heaven, and the rest are given the Earth -_- ;_;

I'd say there are elements of a hierarchy-system in all Western Faiths, but I suppose their's is more blatant.

 

[ddadain]

"More blatant" is an understatement -_-

 

[Windmillblade]

I think that any religion is good if it helps a person become a better person. Any religions that allow killing and raping should be unexceptionable. i think any good person could agree that those should be the ultimate exceptions.

 

[hunter71485]

I think that any religion is good if it helps a person become a better person. Any religions that allow killing and raping should be unexceptionable. i think any good person could agree that those should be the ultimate exceptions.

Can you please elaborate on that? I can't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[miyi]

I think that any religion is good if it helps a person become a better person. Any religions that allow killing and raping should be unexceptionable. i think any good person could agree that those should be the ultimate exceptions.

I'm assuming you're talking about Islam?

i.e. killing as in terrorism,

and raping as in "honor killing"?

from what I've learned about Islam, there's only three cases in which Islam allows the "death penalty":

[1] when a married person commits adultery
[2] when a person kills another person(s)
[3] apostasy (when a Muslim abandons his faith or community)

even in war, there are certain rules against killing innocent people, especially against the killing of women and children.

terrorism is employed by those who distort the true message of Islam;

there's no evidence in the Qu'ran that would support the modern conceptualized term known as "terrorism"; killing is strictly forbidden, with the 3 exceptions mentioned above.

and honor killing, or "raping", is also forbidden; it was a common practice in pre-Islamic Arabia where the concept of chastity and honor were important values, and any violation of it were punished severely; however with the advent of Islam as a religion and law, efforts were made to abolish this practice. Unfortunately today, there are still those who perpetuate these crimes, and I guess you can attribute all crimes in the Middle East as external influences that falsely identifies with Islam; using Islam to justify crimes, if you will...

and the same can be said with most of the world's religions. Religions have the tendency to be misused and distorted by some (not all) of its followers.


I honestly feel that instead of trying to discredit religion, we can promote more peace in the world by trying to understand other religions, at least some of its basic fundamental teachings.

killing and rape are forbidden in Islam (specifically, the killing of "innocents"), and I think this is true in any of the major religions..

whoever commits these crimes and use religion to justify such acts, do so only as false followers. In other words, they have misinterpreted and distorted the original message of their respective faiths.



if you were suggesting a different religion other than Islam, please accept my apology..


here are more info I found in regards to "killing" and "honor killing" in relation to the teachings of Islam:

http://www.muhajabah.com/reallysays.htm
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392





on a side note:
one of my major criticisms with Islam is it's law against apostasy....I think it's a bit harsh..

also, something not mentioned, but equally true, is that during the formation of the Islam empire (roughly 8th-9th century CE), in regards to "religious conversion", Muslims generally tolerated, and in fact included them in their empire as "citizens", known by the term as "dhimmis", are the so-called "people of the Book" (i.e. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and later, even accepted Hindus and Buddhists).......although they had a few financial handicaps, i.e. they were taxed more than the average Muslims, the dhimmis were given plenty of the same freedoms as Muslims.

However, for the non-dhimmis (people who don't have a religious scripture like a Bible, Torah, Veda, etc.), they were the unlucky ones....these included atheists, agnostics, polytheists, animists, etc...and they were given three options: to convert to Islam, slavery, or death.


while it is made clear in the Qu'ran that "religious conversion" is not done via compulsion, the latter case I mentioned above is in fact a form of "compulsion". So this is probably my second major criticism of Islam...perhaps it's the political aspect of the religion, but still, it's a contradiction...

and I'm not sure how all this applies in modern Islam, in particular is the question, "how are Muslims to treat their non-Muslim, non-dhimmi neighbors?" Are they given the same 3 options of forced conversion, slavery, or death? or has this practice been changed since?

I wish I had learned this in my religious studies...so if anyone wants to help me out or wish to elaborate, I'd appreciate it.



plus, I have other criticisms, but they would fall more along the lines of politics, more so than religion, but that would be off topic. Islam afterall has a political component..

 

[walkie]

iwhile it is made clear in the Qu'ran that "religious conversion" is not done via compulsion, the latter case I mentioned above is in fact a form of "compulsion". So this is probably my second major criticism of Islam...perhaps it's the political aspect of the religion, but still, it's a contradiction...

from your point of view it is a contradiction but if you wanna look throught islamic worlds there no compulsion for religious conversion because atheism, agnosticm, polytheism, animistism, etc are not considered as religion. people who believe in those are consired as ones without religion..and also you are forgetting two words, you can use compulsion against those "if necessary"...that means dont use compulsion whenever you see one..ayway i think u get my point i believe...

and I'm not sure how all this applies in modern Islam, in particular is the question, "how are Muslims to treat their non-Muslim, non-dhimmi neighbors?" Are they given the same 3 options of forced conversion, slavery, or death? or has this practice been changed since?

i live in turkey, istanbul (contantinapol as old name) ..turkey: %90 percent muslim population, the rest mostly christian (armenian-orthodoks) and jewish and so few believes others like atheizm and etc...as we try to live in democracy, ( although usa doesnt want that ) no one forcing anyone to change him/her religion and i have non-muslim friends without any problems...we simply let anyone believe whatever they believe unless they harm harmony in the country..i wanna write more but i have to go now so i tried to keep it short

 

[miyi]

from your point of view it is a contradiction but if you wanna look throught islamic worlds there no compulsion for religious conversion because atheism, agnosticm, polytheism, animistism, etc are not considered as religion. people who believe in those are consired as ones without religion..and also you are forgetting two words, you can use compulsion against those "if necessary"...that means dont use compulsion whenever you see one..ayway i think u get my point i believe...




i live in turkey, istanbul (contantinapol as old name) ..turkey: %90 percent muslim population, the rest mostly christian (armenian-orthodoks) and jewish and so few believes others like atheizm and etc...as we try to live in democracy, ( although usa doesnt want that ) no one forcing anyone to change him/her religion and i have non-muslim friends without any problems...we simply let anyone believe whatever they believe unless they harm harmony in the country..i wanna write more but i have to go now so i tried to keep it short

re: "if necessary"

thanks for pointing that out.....I finally remember learning that in class......

indeed, during the Islam expansion immediately following Muhammad's death, those who converted did so willingly, because the new religion of Islam appealed to them....in fact, there was virtually no opposition to the spreading of Islam during it's first decades of expansion, so by comparison with other expansionist empires, Islam is relatively very non-violent.....so placed in this context, my criticism about the unfair treatment of the non-religionists (atheists, polytheists, animists, agnostics...etc.), is in actuality a negligible problem if given the bigger picture.

And I remember now that even then, Muslims avoided using force unless "necessary", as you noted...




and on the question of modern Islam and it's treatment of it's non-religionist neighbors:

I lived briefly in Saudi Arabia between 88-93....

and being a non-Muslim, I remember now how tolerant Muslims were towards us, even towards Americans (those stationed there militarily)...overall it was a very friendly mutual atmosphere, and everyone got along.....even after the Persian Gulf War, I didn't notice that much of a change as far as relationships between Muslims and non Muslims were concerned.....but then again I was too young to even notice the subtleties...my observation level was still not that very good at this point..



but that was over a decade ago, and so my question was more specifically concerning the present day conditions.....especially with the GWOT, I was assuming that relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims has soured, at least slightly....

but if what you say is true about the current situation in modern, present day Turkey, then I think that's awesome. We all need to coexist, and I'm glad that is the case there.

 

[walkie]

but that was over a decade ago, and so my question was more specifically concerning the present day conditions.....especially with the GWOT, I was assuming that relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims has soured, at least slightly....

but if what you say is true about the current situation in modern, present day Turkey, then I think that's awesome. We all need to coexist, and I'm glad that is the case there.

there is always people who hate or dislike others, people with different religion or different race, black or yellow or white...those people will always exist but general picture is more important.

if we specifically talk about turkey and effects of GWOT, i can say we know that is not about christian and islam thing..that war effected our ideas in a negative way about usa not about christians..of course some people trying to use that against christians but they didnt become very succesful in turkey yet....and yet americans living in turkey didnt effected negatively, i know some american teachers and talked to them....all we need tolerance to each other but things arent going well about but we are not in the red zone yet....

 

[miyi]

I'm kinda glad that the animosity is more to do with non-religious aspects, i.e. politics...

I think that's good, because if it was a matter of politics, it's easy to change.

religion is fixed and so it's hard to work around it.

thanks for the insights..



I once posed a question in my Middle Eastern history class: can Christians, Jews, and Muslims coexist "peacefully" in the world, within the near future?

I tend to be an optimist, but my professor claimed it's highly unlikely.

there is an inherent similarities and linkage between all these major religions, and if we focus on the common-ness, instead of sharpening each other's differences, I think a level of understanding is possible..........unfortunately the roots of misunderstandings and hostilities, in my view, is political, economical, etc.....not religion.

 

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

I'm kinda glad that the animosity is more to do with non-religious aspects, i.e. politics...

I think that's good, because if it was a matter of politics, it's easy to change.

religion is fixed and so it's hard to work around it.

thanks for the insights..



I once posed a question in my Middle Eastern history class: can Christians, Jews, and Muslims coexist "peacefully" in the world, within the near future?

I tend to be an optimist, but my professor claimed it's highly unlikely.

there is an inherent similarities and linkage between all these major religions, and if we focus on the common-ness, instead of sharpening each other's differences, I think a level of understanding is possible..........unfortunately the roots of misunderstandings and hostilities, in my view, is political, economical, etc.....not religion.

muslims, jews and christians generally could live in peace but im afraid politics, i.e israel-palestine wont allow this, but you got to be hopeful.

 

[hunter71485]

I don't think I agree on your statement TDA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080105/wl_nm/afghan_religion_dc

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Islamic council has told President Hamid Karzai to stop foreign aid groups from converting locals to Christianity and also demanded the reintroduction of public executions.
The council, an influential group but without binding authority, is made up of Islamic clergy and ulema (scholars) from various parts of Afghanistan and made the warning in a statement during a meeting with Karzai on Friday.
The ulema have always played a crucial role in Muslim Afghanistan and have been behind a series of revolts against past governments.
But since the ousting of Taliban's radical Islamic administration by U.S.-led troops in 2001, Afghanistan has seen an unprecedented period of freedoms.
"The council is concerned about the activities of some ... missionary and atheistic organs and considers such acts against Islamic sharia (law), the constitution, and political stability," said a copy of the statement obtained by Reuters.
"If not prevented, God forbid, catastrophe will emerge, which will not only destabilize the country, but the region and the world."
Quoting what he said were reliable sources, Ahmad Ali Jebrayeli, a member of the council and also a member of parliament, said unnamed Christian missionaries had offices in Kabul and in the provinces to convert Afghans.
"Some NGOs are encouraging them (to convert), give them books (Bibles) and promise to send them abroad," he told Reuters on Saturday.
STRONG CHRISTIAN LINKS
Numerous foreign aid groups and charities operating in Afghanistan have strong direct or indirect links to Christian organizations, but they insist they are not proselytizing.
Some 23 South Korean missionaries, were kidnapped by the Taliban last year and, amongst other things, accused of trying to convert Muslims. Two of the group were murdered before the rest, almost all women, were freed following a complex secret deal.
The conversion and spiriting out of an Afghan Christian convert following the intervention of several Western leaders and Pope Benedict in 2006 also sparked a series of protests locally.
Strict interpretations of Islam as practiced in Afghanistan treat conversions as apostasy, which is punishable by death.
The council also urged Karzai to stop local TV stations from airing Indian soap operas and movies -- enormously popular in Afghanistan -- which they said showed obscenities and scenes which threatened the morality of society.
The council also demanded a return to public executions for murderers as well as a crackdown against graft.
The Taliban, leading an insurgency against Karzai's government and foreign troops, used to publicly execute those convicted of capital crimes -- usually on Fridays after midday prayers.
While Afghanistan still has the death penalty on its books, it has been rarely been carried out since the Taliban's fall and never in public.
Karzai instructed various government departments to address the demands of the council, but stopped short of committing to change, Jebrayeli said.
"If he fails to listen to the Ulema, people will further distance themselves from the government (and) there will be more pessimism and instability," he said.

 

[Windmillblade]

Can you please elaborate on that? I can't understand what you're trying to say.

well what i mean is simple not only the Muslim religions but any religion that allows any type of killing is wrong. I think their shouldn't be wars but who would listen to that? my basic point is that there is no better religion if achieving a higher level of understanding and peace with the world is the aim.
If there are religions trying to achieve the same things for people but only in different ways their shouldn't be a problem. But for instance lets say even if you can kill over adultery i think thats still wrong. No body should have the right to kill under no circumstances at all. And a religion is bad once it gives you a reason to hate or to kill someone...any religion. If people actually knew that it was just us on earth and that happiness and balance in our planet rested on our shoulders and stop looking to statues and illusionary deity's and god's maybe we would be better off. Someone living good might say they believe in god or jesus or any other deity. But on the other hand if you ask anybody in darfur if a white long haired jesus exist somewhere we cannot see than they wouldn't agree because so many people being brutally killed their. Before people had telescopes they thought heaven was over the sky like (soul society,lol)But then they had telescopes and went to the moon and nothing.

 

[walkie]

I don't think I agree on your statement TDA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080105/wl_nm/afghan_religion_dc

you are showing us a specific example. during history people killed people with different religious belief and unfortunately there will always exist such people but what TDA ment was a general idea and i think prejudice against religion is same as prejudice against race..so can different races live together?? yes, why not? and can different religions coexist together?? yes, why not? and they exist together in different places, in different shapes, mono-style life is not human-ish

 

[hunter71485]

@walkie

but what TDA ment was a general idea and i think prejudice against religion is same as prejudice against race..so can different races live together?? yes, why not? and can different religions coexist together?? yes, why not? and they exist together in different places, in different shapes, mono-style life is not human-ish

So, you're telling me that a specific example shouldn't be given? Generalized statements are totally misleading, my friend.

The only way for people to co-exist together is to have only one religion altogether. The Muslim clerics know this, as do other religious leaders.

Strict interpretations of Islam as practiced in Afghanistan treat conversions as apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Why? because total control of a nation's morality depends on its major religion.

 

[miyi]

I also disagree with Islam's law regarding apostasy...

but the fact is, the Qur'an indeed say "apostasy" is forbidden, and punishable by death.

I'll assume that there is a political reason why this is the case:

Perhaps it is a means to protect Islam from deteriorating from within. If every Muslim, hypothetically, were to abandon their faith, then Islam as a religion will perish.

Given that apostasy is forbidden in Islam, why would these Christian missionaries even attempt to "convert" people? Even though they claim that they are not "proselytizing", the mere fact that they are in a Muslim predominant region makes them very suspicious...if they know that the people they convert are in danger of being punishable by death, my question is....why?

From a Muslim's standpoint, I see this as an encroachment to the faith, and also a violation of the Sharia law.

But on the other hand, from the standpoint of the apostate, I feel bad. I strongly feel that a Muslim should have the right to choose to abandon Islam whenever he/she wishes.

I think the law regarding apostasy needs to be relaxed a bit.

A few apostates will do no harm to Islam as a religion, since it's currently the second largest religion in the world, in terms of population.

To the Muslim friends here at MH, my question to you is this:


I understand the need to adhere strictly to the Qur'an, as it is designed to be followed.

However, if we are to wish for a future in which we are all peacefully coexisting, we all need to accommodate each other.

So how can you guys, as potential future Muslim leaders, re-interpret the Sharia in ways accommodating to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

we can start with the issue of apostasy (and there are several others).

Be reasonable..

The only way for people to co-exist together is to have only one religion altogether. The Muslim clerics know this, as do other religious leaders.

it does not have to be that way.

before the french revolutions, there was a time when Muslims and non Muslims coexisted in peace.

Let's diagnose the roots of where the divisions started, and aim at fixing them, rather than exacerbate the problems.

 

[hunter71485]

before the french revolutions, there was a time when Muslims and non Muslims coexisted in peace.

Wrong. The crusades existed before the French revolutions, and Muslims then control Portugal and half of Spain. Even before Islam, pagan Romans slaughtered Christians. History will tell you such peace is non-existent. There is only a period of peace between differing religions/beliefs when communications were cut during the bubonic plague.

 

[miyi]

So are you suggesting we should either eliminate religion completely, or have one unified religion? The fact is, religion must stay, and there’s nothing that can be done about it, unless it collapses on its own, or we resort to another religious war.

I disagree that we must discredit religion and its authority, in order to achieve world peace. We can keep religion, and equally achieve world peace.

Yes, the Crusades occurred before the French revolutions, but I was referring to the period in between the Crusades and the Revolutions, a time of relative peace (obviously, war is persistent elsewhere, but it’s comparatively negligible).

We live in a new era now, in which more people are educated, communications via internet is at its best, and where the fate of human civilization is at risk of destroying itself with nuclear weapons.

So it’s either we resolve all our differences, or we will all kill each other.

Yes, history will portray that violence is almost occurring continuously, but that’s because history is looking at it from the macroscopic level and covering a vast time period.

Similarly, if you examine the 20th century alone, think of all the world wars, the local and the proxy wars, and the bulk of which is political based (not religion), then is it that much different from the history we’ve learned that covers the last millennia?

The fact is, wars are inevitable, people will bicker and be in conflict, and there will also be times of relative peace. Our goal is to keep war to a minimum, if we want to live longer. So I think the best solution is to understand each other, rather than further sharpen our differences.

I used to think very negatively about religion myself, but the more I understood about the different faiths, the more positive and hopeful I’ve become, because I have faith that all major religion’s in the world emphasize the notion of “cooperation” more than they emphasize “conflict”. It’s all a matter of conditioning our way of looking at things. If we think “progress” and work towards that end, things will get better. There’s no other alternative. We all need to coexist.

Even if history suggests that there is no such thing as peace, we can minimize it. Religion has it's usefulness and purpose, and eliminating it will not cure the human tendency towards violence.

 

[TechnoMagus]

re: muslim apostasy
i read this before....with apologies to those not fond of wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Applying_law_in_the_Muslims_world

basically, executions for apostasy depends on the degree of secularization/influence of sharia courts in a muslim country. the more the courts have power over more civil jurisdictions, the more danger an apostate is in. checking if a country has the title "islamic republic/kingdom" is one sure way to determine that...

Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. In Pakistan blasphemy is also punishable by death.

an intriuging test-bed for apostasy cases in largely cosmopolitan and secular muslim countries can be seen in Malaysia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Malaysia#Conversion_from_Islam

you know which members/mod to ask for more clarification on that....

 

[walkie]

The only way for people to co-exist together is to have only one religion altogether. The Muslim clerics know this, as do other religious leaders.

uh-oh..you should consider what u say. one religion or one race..this is exactly what hitler and usame bin ladin said..(well not directly but they meant it) this exactly what terroists wants us to believe...

religion is not maths. in maths 2+2=4, you can not deny it but religion is a belief, you must have right to believe it or not, because you cannot prove what you say, otherwise what difference will be now and medieval-europe or ancient-despotism??

@walkie


So, you're telling me that a specific example shouldn't be given? Generalized statements are totally misleading, my friend.

well, then let me give you one more specific example, in turkey christians and muslims are living together more than a thousand years, yes in time some killings and bad stuff happened but we r still living together and i personally have non-muslim friends without any problems. a year ago terroists of ladin bombed a jewish synagogue in istanbul and both christian&islam&jewish people blamed and cursed the ones who did this. so tell me what should we do, kill all christians and jewish people (hundred thousands of people) in turkey so we get peace??

 

[miyi]

@walkie:

if what you say is true, I wish Turkey serves as a model for all Middle Eastern nations....you Muslims have a greater responsibility combating terrorism, and hopefully the West (which I am a part of) will aid you in that process.

Unfortunately the U.S. is bipolar at the moment in regards to foreign policy.

Anyway, my proposal is that Muslims like yourselves, ought to unite and combat terrorism, and it's to your best interest as well as to everyone else's.

you can start by educating the children;

the roots of the hatred stems from ignorance; my proposal is to educate the children in ways amiable to all human beings, that promotes religious (or lack thereof) tolerance.