Saudi Arabia: Is protesting for democracy un-Islamic?-Islam & Life-09-22-2011

[TheKRUCKYtapes]

Don't you see that it is only where and with whom you were raised that decides your religion?...... Should a little girl from Korea have her head cut off for no being Islamic ......... Religion is stupid. Why can't you see that?

[timesplitters333]

@TheRUCKYtapes How can islam be the truth and peace, when wars happen all the time in the middle east?

instead of fully embracing the central message of Islam, namely that of unconditional surrender to the will of God and the truth of God, many Muslims created a mixture of the true teachings of Islam and their warring culture. Thereby, as also happened to the early Christians, the culture of a warring people became imposed upon the true teachings of Islam.

How can Islam be peace?

[Desert1124]

There is only one God and only the wise know it, but stupid people will be mislead by there own people, scholars, rabbis, monks, and ect...

[Desert1124]

Stupid, dumb, and hypocritical scholars from Saudi Arabia and muslim brotherhood are the problem, they all of them use The religion for petty worldly gain. Just like the Rabbi's and monks use Judaism and Christianity for selfish gain. Because these scholars, and rabbis, monks are stupid the ruin religion and make people think that there is no God. They have always been the tool of the devil. Just plain stupid, but only wise people can see through the facade. None of them know God. The is One God

[timjohan]

ohh sorry..both are linked to the muslim brotherhood

[timjohan]

He is from the muslim brotherhood!

[volksmenner]

A very interesting and altogether honest conversation. Mr. Helbawy is very shrewd in his insights. Especially when he stated that, yes the Mufti has the right, to prohibit protest within the borders of Saudi for political reasons, but has not the right to denounce protest as un-Islamic. Since dignity is an Islamic principle elsewhere, it must then be an Islamic right everywhere, a universal right as Mr. Ramadan mentioned, which transcends culture and religion.

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@volksmenner

I agree with you. That's the problem with the church-state when the two are combined. The church becomes as corrupt as the state.

That is why; after centuries of warfare, the "West" decided that secular governments were the proper way to govern. Allowing all citizens to practice the personal religion of their choice; as long as other's rights are not violated; is the only rational way to govern.

[saadasim]

It is un-Islamic to have kingship!

[BoudiccaBlanc]

Thank you "PressTV" for this editorial. :)

[BoudiccaBlanc]

The situation in Saudi Arabia is a perfect illustration of why the state should be separated from religion. The church becomes corrupted when it is aligned with the state.

A state-sponsored religion can not effectively be an opponent to the abuses of the state. Throughout history; the state has abused it's power and harmed the human beings who are members of mankind.

The "West" learned this after centuries of conflict and abuses by state-sponsored religion as well as the state itself.

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc but islam and the state can work together if the rulers are not corrupt

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

Religions and states often work together when one or both are corrupt. This is the usual case when the two are combined with a state religion.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton

He was right. It is not in the interest of "the people" to allow either the state or an organized religion to accrue power. When the two combine; the people loose.

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc but if you look at history, you have the islamic state ( when the west was in the dark ages) which had both religion and law in working in harmony

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

In harmony for who?

The Blacks of Africa who were raided and traded as slaves?

The people of Europe's southern Mediterranean shore who were raided and traded as slaves?

The people of northern Europe who were sold by the Vikings to the Muslims?

The people of Persia and India who were killed for rejecting Islam? (Islam finally had to recognize Zorastarianism & Hinduism as "protected" faiths)

You've bought into a romanticized version of Dar al-Islam.

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc the idea of slave is not what the west have. a slave is like a butler in islam, we treat slaves as our guest, we give them the same food as we would give to our family, we look at the example of the prophet and he never abused his slaves.

now with the killing of non muslim, it is AGAINST islam to kill some one who rejects islam, or who leaves the religion. what they did 'if true' was wrong but that is not Islam

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

That's not true. The history of slavery within the Muslim world is well documented. Slaves were abused as much by Muslims as by others.

Ideally, one doesn't abuse slaves; however, they are still slaves. The reality does not agree with the ideal throughout history in any culture.

----

Regarding the killing of non-Muslims by Muslims; apparently there is not agreement about that within the Muslim world. Your prophet's example was that of warfare and murder.

[Iammram]

@BoudiccaBlanc

"Your prophet's example was that of warfare and murder"

Mind citing some examples?

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@Iammram

Read the Qur'an and Hadiths with open eyes! Both are full of examples

Read the Torah, Tanach and Gospels with open eyes! When one does so; one begins to question whether or not allah is the same god as YHWH and if Mohammad himself was not demon-possessed. It's obvious that he was not only a sociopath; but also a psychopath

(btw: I have read the Qur'an and several Hadiths, the Torah & entire Tanach and Gospels as well as the Epistles of the Apostles & the book of Revelation)

[Iammram]

@BoudiccaBlanc

I asked you to cite me some examples, not to try and hypnotize me with "read the torah, open your eyes!"

"He was a demon-possessed"

For a person who claims to have read, you seem far from being an informed person. Even basics are understood into who he really was.

Even people who debate against Muslims don't use such language the way you are.

You need to grow up and 'read' for yourself. It's your life not mine.

[BoudiccaBlanc]

1-2) @Iammram

Mohammad's mental state has been the subject of objective scholars for centuries.

Mohammad himself thought that he was going crazy when the "angel Gabriel" began speaking to him. He was seized by fear.

He was convinced by his wife and her relative (a Christian scribe) that his vision (apparition? channeling? imagination? hallucination?) was a message from a god.

(cont....)

[BoudiccaBlanc]

2-2) @Iammram

Since "al-lah" was the chief god of Mohammad's tribe it would not be inconceivable that he would invoke "al-lah" as that god

If YOU want to believe that Mohammad was a prophet; that is your right

However, neither you or your co-religionists have the moral right to force others to submit to the system of laws that YOU CLAIM are based on the revelations to a man who lived in Arabia during the 7th century!

Islam is a totalitarian ideology; not a "personal religion."

[Iammram]

@BoudiccaBlanc

"Mohammad's mental state has been subject of objective scholars for centuries"

What scholars? lol

"Mohammad thought he was going crazy when the angel Gabriel spoke to him"

And you wouldn't? This actually shows further that he was a genuine person, wouldn't it.? lol

"He was convinced by his wife and her relative that it was a message from God"

He wasn't "convinced" as much as it was "explained"

Why are you playing with words now?

I see by your last comment your real "view"

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc i laughed when you mentoned the prophet as an example of warfare. you probably using the incident of the jews, you are taking it way out of context

[BoudiccaBlanc]

1-2 @amerzeb07

The Jews of Khaybar were just one of many who were murdered and enslaved by Mohammad and his merry raiders. The man (Mohammad) was went after everyone and anyone who did not submit to his new religion. His followers do so today (whenever they have the power, money and means to do so).

(cont...)

[BoudiccaBlanc]

2-2 @amerzeb07

Speaking of the false prophet, Mohammad; if he were alive today; he'd be considered public enemy #1 in most countries; the guy was a one-man crime wave!

Just a few of Mohammad's activities: Murder, torture, robbing, rape, enslavement, extortion (Jizya) violation of human rights (non-Muslims & women) sexual libertine; adulterer, necro-sexual activity (his aunt), incest (marrying his son's wife) condoning sex with children child molester, etc....

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc actually you need to read the history books again, what really happened was the tribe commited treason against the state of madinah, the prophet pardoned them twice, but they didnt heed the warning, the prophet did not use the quran to justify what happened, he used the torah, and the torah says to those who commit treason to kill them, and the whole tribe committed treason. does that clear the misconception

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

"The tribe committed treason against the state of madinah"  That is YOUR version.

The true reason is that the Jewish tribes and the Mecca tribes other than Mohammad's group were opposed to Mohammad.

Some of the Jews thought he might have been the messiah or a prophet; but others did not. They saw Mohammad as a danger.

YOU are reading and believing Mohammad's and his followers version of the events. Don't you know that victors write history to suit themselves?

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc hey committed treason because they broke the treaty that the muslims made with the jews

[BoudiccaBlanc]

1-2 @amerzeb07

It's wasn't "Treason" to oppose Mohammad Medina was an independent city- state (settlement)

They dissolved their alliance with Mohammad, because n their mind; supporting Mohammad was no longer in their best interest. They re-established their former alliance with other tribes in Mecca

The only Arabian state (at the time - outside of Yemen itself) was in Mohammad's mind!. Arabia was a loose confederation of tribes and settlements in the Arabian peninsula

(cont.)

[BoudiccaBlanc]

2-2 @amerzeb07

Parts of the Arabian peninsula had been in sphere of influence of various entities (e.g. Babylon) over the centuries. "Felix Arabia" (Yemen) was a Roman Province (at one time).

North of the peninsula itself; were the Nabeteans (who built Petra) and the Edomites (descendents of Esau...Issac's oldest son; Abraham's grandson)

Various Phoenicians & Canaanite tribes lived along the coast and in some areas of the Sinai peninsula and into Egypt..

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc they didnt dissolve the treaty, they broked it, the prophet appointed Sa'd ibn Muad (who is from the Aus tribe who are ally to the quraiza tribe) andthey used the torah tojustify what they did Read this article if you want to understand the incident

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc they didnt dissolve the treaty, they broked it, the prophet appointed Sa'd ibn Muad (who is from the Aus tribe who are ally to the quraiza tribe) and they used the torah tojustify what they did

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

Dissolved? Broke? Ignored? .... Who cares? (other than historians)

It's Arabian history. It has no bearing on anything else other than the conquest of Arabia by Mohammad's army

(FYI: Any Jew with a brain; who re-read the Torah and Tanach; let alone the Talmud; would agree that Mohammad was not the messiah or a prophet of the the God named YHWH)

(btw: Religion gets used as an excuse for all kinds of nefarious deeds. example: Osama bin-Laden's justification for 9/11)

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc that is their choice, but most people are very islamaphobic because of a very small minority of muslims who commit bad things

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

Thank you for sending me the article by Sami Zatarri. It still doesn't change my mind. Because only one side of the historical record (Mohammad's version) is told. There is, to the best of my knowledge, not an alternative record of the events

Maybe there might be something in the Talmud; but that is doubtful because the area of Arabia was isolated from the area of the Middle East where the Talmud was being written

(The Talmud is not a religious book; it is a historic book)

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc ok i am guessing you are a jew then. it doesnt matter, there will always be two sides to everything

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

No I'm not Jewish. I am a historian who tries to be objective

I don't see Mohammad as a prophet; but I do believe that he was the founder of a nation-state Which is no small feat! He was a man of his time; as violent as anyone else during that era

Was he wise? The only records we have are Uthman's version of the Qur'an & a collection of hadiths that were organized a couple of centuries after Mohammad's death Who knows what embellishments were made?

He's a mystery :))

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc i have a queston for you. If Muhammad was a violent person, then why didnt he kill anyone when he conquered makkah, even though he had the chance to do so?

[BoudiccaBlanc]

@amerzeb07

I can't read a dead man's mind.

However, Mecca was his "hometown" one can't kill everyone and still have people to rule. Mecca became his power base. Those who conquered Rome didn't kill the inhabitants. Most places aren't slaughtered when they are conquered.

(The Jizya paid by Christians and Jews was a great source of income for the Ottomans (and for Mohammad's friends too!)

He was still a warlord; a man of his time.

[amerzeb07]

@BoudiccaBlanc ok

[BoudiccaBlanc]

"Is it 'un-Islamic' to protest for democracy"?

Only if you are "owned" by the Saudi royals... xD