The Forum > Article Comments > Darling of cultural warriors > Comments
Darling of cultural warriors : Comments
By Irfan Yusuf, published 29/6/2007Can't the Islam-haters out there find a more credible 'insider' to promote their cause than Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Page 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- ...
- 17
- 18
- 19
-
- All
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 4:23:06 PM
| |
Irfan wrote;
'Actually, I have no problems with AHA expressing her views and abandoning her ancestral faith. Further, I agree with numerous things she has to say.' This is good to hear Irfan. But I was was wondering. Since you are obviously an open minded and intelligent man do you ever entertain doubts about your faith? That is, on a sliding scale of 1-100 with 100 being absolute certainty, what numerical value do you assign to your faith? I have lived in the Middle East for 3 1/2 years and have spent the last 11 years researching the theology and history of the Islamic religion. I also have close friends who are Muslims but find no compelling reason to embrace Islam. I need good reasons to believe that Mohammed literally talked to an angel called Gabriel but find the evidence lacking. I have a feeling that Muslims like yourself remain Muslims because of social and peer pressures. In other words when push comes to shove it's just too damned difficult to 'come out' like Hirsi Ali and confess apostasy/leave the 'tribe'. Or have I got it wrong. You really do find the historical evidence for Mohammed's supernatural revelations water-tight and are therefore intellectually satisfied. Irfan, would you ever have the guts to do a 'Hirsi Ali'? (Note: If you choose to answer my questions Irfan then I will not reply with any negatives. I think that it is important to be hyper-critical of religion generically, but insulting someones personal expressions of faith is completely unacceptable.) Posted by TR, Tuesday, 3 July 2007 8:29:48 PM
| |
The nice thing about there being a multiple of choice is that we get to have a preference. Though I don't see any logic in suggesting that God in sending us an example of righteous behavior is inciting against anyone regardless of faith. As Jesus said, If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father.
It's important to note that Jesus is speaking with his people, fellow Jews, and leaves the deciding vote in their hands. They could carry on in their exclusionary tribal thinking or make some changes and start to consider the broader neighbourhood of God and bring the gentiles and others into the fold. The Jews chose to make no changes and from that developed Christianity. Islam didn't exist for another 650 years. So really, your argument of incitement becomes one of incitement itself. Remember, God also sent us His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Who himself speaks against exclusionary practices. Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:09:30 AM
| |
logic
I would of thought truth was more important than your preference! Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:41:38 AM
| |
The so called exclusiveness of Jews is in no small part caused by Christians and Muslims who at times in history forbade them to take in converts. It is possible to convert to Judaism, and DNA testing of Jews has in fact shown that that has happened to a significant level. I would have thought that the fact that Jews will share their faith but accept that others, including Atheists can still receive the same benefits of a deity is a significant advantage. Our non-believers will certainly share that view.
There are many truths, some Jews believe that Jesus, Mohamed, Suddharta were all approached by the same deity and given different forms of the truth, some would hold that we are all looking for something that is hidden. That is called tolerance, and may be why in Israel Muslims, Christians, Baha'i, Druze etc are all given equal rights in law and can have representatives in parliament. It took a long time for Christian nations took this step, and some Islamic nations have not yet made it. Posted by logic, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 8:35:05 AM
| |
Dear Logic
...actually its called SYNCRETISM :) Have a look at my recent post on this link http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=785#13722 The information from the hadith of Abu Dawud is a total revelation to me. (R u female ?) cheers. Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 9:06:41 AM
|
I do not condone MGM either... unless for rare medical reasons."
How presumptuous. You read more about it. Here is a discussion topic that I participated in. Take care to read my responses through,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=443