Distinguishing Faithful and Woeful

The Archbishop is talking patent nonsense. Had he read the Qur'an, he would have learned that violence and killing is indeed what Islam teaches its adherents to do: Kill and maim in the name of Allah, to conquer the whole world for Allah and his so-called final messenger, the prophet Muhammad. Why! Even the prophet himself was known to be violent!

Making statements as the Archbishop has may be politically correct, but being politically correct makes them neither correct nor true.

The fact of the matter is this: Islam has been spread by the sword. This is indisputable. Each and every country that Islam has been allowed into, and has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually taken over. Each and every country! There is only one exception, and that is Moorish Spain, and it took the Spaniards about five hundred years to reconquer their own land. Five hundred years and much bloodshed!

Archbishop Tutu needs to learn a few facts. Read the Qur'an and the aHadith, or the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. Then he will find out just how violent Islam is!

What explanation does Archbishop Tutu give for the fact that wherever Muslims live, and reach critical mass, they turn to violence in order to achieve their goal of turning the 'House of War' (Dar ul Harb) into the House of Islam (Dar ul Islam)?

The Archbishop, I'm sorry to say, is talking poppycock!

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

here is what an islamic scholor just wrote:
We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia; Hinduism in South Asia, and, Buddhism—after the Taliban blew up their statues—in Bamiyan. And, Islam is on a collision course in the western province of China, where culture represents an amalgam of the philosophy of Confucius, Tao, and Communist ideology. see akbarahmed.org/id67.html. think that is just an unfounded sterotype?
and this article decrying negative views about islam. now that is a joke. its like a member of the kkk being upset becasue someone calls them anti black. or a member of the SS complaining that people say they are anti-jew. and if you want to know about islam the only place to start is the koran and the history of islam.
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority."
or the islamics crying over the crusades when they started them. here is a little short history about that:
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
so tell us pam, in what context do you put the war like history of islam, considering that they started the war before anyone ever knew about them. or why there are no longer any jews in mecca?

Dear Archbishop Tutu:

I am disappointed at your response. You indeed did not answer the question. Perhaps being "politically correct" has reached your level. While it is now acceptable to say all manner of things against "Christians", most of the panelist shy away from saying anything negative against Muslims. Why? Are not their religious zealots murdering around the world? They even have a word for it, Jihad, Holy war, RELIGIOUS Holy War. Are we so afraid of Muslims that we do not speak the truth while it hits us in the face?

Dear Archbishop Tutu,

The question was not about Christianity; it was about Islam. Nice job of side-stepping the question at hand though!

Wow, a response written in humility instead of idiotic statements of self-righteousness.

I wonder what this perspective has to do with Desmond Tutu's accomplishments.

This is a lyric from a song entitled 'From Source'

Do you dream of spiral stairs that rise
but wake and scream to bloody sunny skies
look and no-ones gonna come to save your soul
magnetic north pure energy from the (N)pole

Tommy John, dirty Dave, real sorry Sue
Steep mountain trail, someone had to do
Good & evil dance, what the hell is going on?
Timeless reminder don't forget the same old song

Blond moose, white bear, a roaming buffalo
Hit the highway missing signs as you go

A season changed on one the other feeds
Sometimes you can't see undone deeds
Deep winter snow, an ancient path revealed
Sunny skies, precious time, secrets concealed

Blond moose, white bear, a roaming buffalo
Hit the highway missing signs as you go
Question 2008 a dying plea
Pray for a time when father and son agree

Do you dream of spiral stairs that rise
but wake and scream to bloody sunny skies?

Ba'al

You noted correctly : If you include insurgencies based on religion, I could mention Thailand, Bali, and the Philippines. There is India and Pakistan. Then of course, there is Africa (Chad among several other places).

In Thailand and the Philippines, the Muslims are monorities. Southern Thai Muslims, culturally Malays, were waging wars against the the Thai kinddom for centuries. They see the Thais as occupiers. Same for the Moros of Southern Philippines. Their wars were waged from the time of the Spanish occupation of the Philippines and it was the Spaniards who called them Moros.

The issues they have with their respective central governments economic. Minorities that feels marginalized in any way do act up in violence agaisnt the state, as the IRA and Basque seperatist did, and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are still doing.

As for Bali bombings, it was Jemaah Islamiyah who have this naive notion of forming a pan South East Asian Islamic nation covering Indonesia Malaysia, Brunei, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines. Can never see that happening without a state army. It members are hunted down in all of Southeast Asia by the governments and brought to court when apprenended. They are not states, but sub-state actors.

As for India and Pakistan, the dispute over Kashmir is rooted in territory and self-determination unfulfilled. Read up on the conflict which Pakistan wants to be addressed at the UN Security Council and which India refused.

Certainly, I can't recall a Muslim state attacking a non-Muslim state just because it is non-Muslim and for the sole purpose of converting them all to be Muslims in the last century or this.

KILI FAQIRAN, Pakistan (AP) - The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive's head to cries of "God is great!" and hoists it in triumph by the hair.

Wiccan,

Too right.

a humble prayer-

Allah and Jesus, please save us from your followers.

While affirming my great love and respect for Bishop Tutu

his glasses are a bit rose-colored here.

God instructs the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites just after saying "thou shalt not kill."

The violent history of Christianity is manifold and clear to all of us who have our eyes open.

Islamic scripture and hadith instructs to "kill the infidels" in certain circumstances.

We must fact he violence of religion along with the benefits with clear eyed resolve.

"And also, when was the last time a Muslim state waged war against another state just because the other state is non-Muslim?"

If you include insurgencies based on religion, I could mention Thailand, Bali, and the Philippines. There is India and Pakistan. Then of course, there is Africa (Chad among several other places).

Mr. Tutu is a kind and gentle man.

I think there is something inevitable about people who believe they have the Absolute Truth being willing to use violence to ensure the victory of Good over Evil. I have seen it described as "Manichean paranoia".

"And also, when was the last time a Muslim state waged war against another state just because the other state is non-Muslim?"

The constant warmongering between Pakistan and India? The Palestinian "state" vs Israel? The Arab states vs Israel? Somalia vs. Ethiopia? Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia) vs Shiites (Iraq/Iran- non Muslim as per the Wahhabis) )

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html
"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.
Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

A quote from Peter above:

"You condone what you allow."

Five words of profound observation and very relevant to this discussion.

Tommy Tstars,

Sometimes, they have to create their own news. They were past the time when they should be off VT's campus, so they aired that video made by the gunman, and are now back on the campus asking students what they think of it! I'd call that a violent and opportunistic media.

Islam claims to be a peaceful religion. I think moderate Muslims should reel in these extremists and stop the violence. You condone what you allow.

Reply to: TOMMY_TSTARS

This is probably the best response I've read yet.

Friend:

You are absolutely right. Anytime someone claiming a certain faith or religion does something horrible or even in anyway not inline with the truths of their faith. The leaders of that faith need to stand up and be vocal about the faith. Explain that they are wrong and not represnting the faith they profress to be proclaiming.

Take for example (a mild example) the recent issues of Sean Hannity and the Catholic faith. Sean likes to claim he is a devout Catholic on air and at the sametime disagrees with and doesn't believe in several aspects of the Catholic faith. Fr. Thomas Euteneuer took him to task and even got on his show to point out that Sean is not representing his faith correctly.

Unfortunately almost all of us have misunderstandings about other faiths and beliefs that we do not know enough about. Too many of us are shaped just by what we hear on the news at night. That is why its critical for leaders in all faiths to stand up and correct errors when they arise. And to do it and a visible way.

A more interesting question would be "Is Newsweek/Washington Post/NBC inherently violent?"

The answer might be yes. While they do not advocate violence, the constant presentation of it in their various media certainly is a major source of their consumership and thus their income.

Even this forum was quick to post a question on the recent college rampage and now to ask this devisive and hateful question which singles out one of the multitude of faith based groups that have sponsored violence throughout history.

"I certainly know of no religion that teaches that killing or murdering is right or to oppress and illtreat others is acceptable."

I have to ask here, with all respect, are you serious? If this was true, how do Christians and Muslims find lines of text in their books condoning precisely these actions? And what is it about monotheism that lends itself so easily to fundamentalism?

Fine, anyone killing in the name of Christianity is ignoring "thou shalt not kill". But plenty of people have reached for Leviticus before the Sermon on the Mount. If stoning homosexuals and adulterers is no longer acceptable in the religion, why is it kept in the book (that allegedly has inherent holy power from being the True word of God?)

I think "people brought all the violence to religion" is a simplistic view. People brought everything to religion, and have constantly committed violence in the name of it from day one.

Normally I love Archbishop Tutu's ideas, but I think he is being disingenuous here. Those who commit violence in the name of their religion think they are following the "true" religion of God as much as Mr. Tutu believes that he is following the "true" religion of God. There is no way to adjudicate between their disagreement, as they fundamentally disagree on the proper emphasis to give the scripture. Ultimately though, they both draw from their religions what they want and both of them follow their own motives as much as the other.

Sadly, I can see that this artificial and arbitrary distinction between the "true" Islam (or religion of God) and the "corrupted" version is a theme that is going to continue throughout the panelists' replies. This attitude is certainly not going to be the one that cures us of the evils of religion, for it is as useful to tell a believer that they are not following the "true" version of their religion as it is to tell them that they are completely deluded about all that they think they know about God or faith.

I think there are violent "religions." There are groups that under the banner of religion delight in violence. I am not saying that Islam (as a whole) is included in that group, but there are factions of the "religion" that certainly do.

There is much about pure islamic thought and doctrine that I find difficult to link up with peace... but what do any of us know. It is only the followers of a religion that can speak to that.

"There is no religion that is violent."

A truer statement is:

"There is no religion that is not violent."

Violence is inherent in this universe that is said to have been created by Yahweh (the Cathers' "Ignorant Demiurge").

Think of the Big Bang and colliding galaxies, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteorite collisions with earth and species extinctions.

I'll agree with you BIGD if you can substitute your belief system in the last paragraph.

"Some Christians may be violent, as also some Muslims, Hindu, Jews, etc. As Kofi Annan declared, it is not faiths that are the problem. It is the faithful."

Yes.

I am worried about this thread, though. It seems whenever a poster tries to point out these ideas to a faithful poster, we receive the reply of a big, fat, "Nuh Uh."

Jacob said:

And Best of ALL, I know that MOST MUSLUMS ARE GOOD and they are suffering for the actions of some "Fanatic Spell or Over Believing or not seeing their real Reality or place & purpose here on Beautiful Space-Ship Momma/ Poppa Earth so to speaketh.
----------------------------------

You give me hope.

Did you ever see the following?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

God Bless you Archbishop. Your work and insight are immensely inspiring.

You make the point very precisely. People are the problem. No matter their claimed faith or their claimed atheism or agnostics. There are good and bad in every group.

I would make the assertion that these people who commit such atrocities are not truly faithful. They are not following their faith, whatever it is. If they were they would not do anything like these horrendous acts. They may claim a twisted distortion of their faith but that is not the true faith. The problem is getting people to really know their faith and then to actually live it out in day-to-day life.

We do need more Islamic leaders though speaking out harshly against any act that is claimed to be in support of Islam. Without the leaders speaking out loudly and condemning such actions it can come across as quite support. I have seen some signs that this might be on the rise, but I think there is a long way to go to help the Islamic and explain what the faith really believes.