Problems of world could be solved following the teaching of Islam: Charles

[ECH1969]

Britain`s Crown Prince Charles has said that Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood and the problems being faced by the world could be solved by following the teaching of Islam.

Prince Charles further added that clash of civilizations could be averted by following the teaching of Islam and Quran.

He expressed grief and sorrow over the destructive earthquake that struck Pakistan last year in which more than 73,000 people were killed and left 3.5 million people homeless.

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?158527

[Egnever]

1. Woa

[JI7]

2. i disagree with that

but i think what he says does do good in reaching out to Muslims. especially since a lot of people in Brit and much of the rest of Europe have issues when it comes to relationships with Muslims.

it's much better for Muslims in the United States.

and i'm not talking about government but social relationships with the community. things like muslim kids and students getting along with non muslims at school. people working together and other things.

[Syrinx]

3. doesn't the Koran say to kill infidels?

Christianity in the US has been used and abused by bad people, but they are just bad people that lie. Doesn't the Koran actually say that infidels should be killed? Sure, the vast majority of Muslim people are good, decent people. But I'm not taking any advice from an inbred idiot like "Prince" Charles.

[ECH1969]

4. It does, but that was because the Koran was written 700 years ago

The views on women and the views on violence and stoning were the norm for the time it was written.

[Syrinx]

6. I'm not anti-Muslim in any way

I do think the New Testament is a better guide for living, if one is into that type of thing. However, I think human beings would be better off using rationality as opposed to superstition. I'm not an atheist, more of an agnostic. I honestly don't know if there is a God or not. But if there is one, then he has undoubtedly given us enough wisdom to treat people fairly, without relying on some ancient text.

[ECH1969]

7. The Koran is more similar to the Old Testament

[Syrinx]

10. yes

And that is why it sucks. ;)

[spag68]

19. or she

[davidinalameda]

14. and let's not forget

that stoning is still used in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran as punishment, and we know the way women are treated in Muslim countries as well

[Katzenjammer]

18. Actually, it was written 1400 years ago and it was a great advance on the norms

of the time, just as the (horrible to us) Blue Laws of 17th century Connecticut were a giant advance over the norm in England and Europe at that time, as Mark Twain pointed out.

The Prophet (pbuh) was an exceptionally humane, enlightened man. He was the "real Jesus", you might say, since we know Muhammad was an actual, historical, individual human being, whereas there is no convincing evidence for a historical Jesus (there's almost as much evidence for a historical King Arthur as for a historical Jesus).

Muhammad changed the status of women from chattel to independent human beings with civil and economic rights, something women didn't get in European-culture countries until the 20th century. He required Muslims to treat non-human animals with respect and kindness as fellow children of God, something still not really taught in Christianity. He preached peace and tolerance, forbade aggressive war, required that Muslims support the poor with alms, and taught that Jews and Christians must be treated with respect as fellow believers, something Jews and Christians certainly didn't and don't teach about Muslims.

Comparing him to his contemporaries, it really isn't a stretch to see him as someone sent by God, if you believe in God.

[papau]

22. In an otherwise nice post why the lie about "no evidence of Jesus"?

And I like the "if you believe in God" for the 6% (or is it 4%) that are certain there is no God.

Your "forbade aggressive war" is of course a lie because "aggressive" does not mean what we usually think it means - given that Islam was spread by the sword and not by conversion. Indeed it took several hundred years before even a majority of the population in the territory they controled were willing to call themselves Muslim - and that conversion was more related to the tax advantage of being a Muslim than anything else, IMHO.

but the thought you express in your post "Muhammad changed the status of women" is spot on.

And "written 1400 years ago and it was a great advance on the norms" is quite true as to his culture. The Christian Culture of course being a bit ahead of him in his thoughts of "peace" and indeed being the culture he was trying to copy while adding his own thoughts, did in respond to his Military attacks by changing - for the worse.

He is better compared to Julius Caesar - he was a great General - the greatest since Alexander.

[Katzenjammer]

28. You misread, I guess. I said no *convincing* evidence, which isn't quite the same as none at all

I don't know of any secular scholarship that agrees that Jesus was a unique historical figure. Do you? The closest anyone seems willing to go that I've seen is that "he" was probably an allegorical figure drawn from a number of military-messianic figures of that time and place, with his "kingdom of God" message shifted into the hereafter so as not to provoke complete extermination by nervous secular authorities (which is what happened to most of the Jewish rabble-rousers, culminating in nearly all the Jews being forced to flee Palestine)

And that only 4-6% are firm atheists doesn't imply, as you imply :) that the rest are believers. If you scratch most people, you'll find loud lip service, but not true belief. If they really believed, they would live in a completely different way, don't you think?

As to the aggressive war thing, I don't believe you can find anything anywhere in the Hadith that had Muhammad (pbuh) preaching any sort of prosthelyzing, much less by the sword. In fact, people like Moishe ben Maimon (ah) fled to Muslim-controlled Cairo from the Jewish community in Spain precisely because Muslims were known for their religious tolerance. Their belief was/is that if God wants to set someone's feet on the true path, he doesn't need any earthly helpers to do it.

I'm not by any means a scholar of Muhammad's life, but I've never heard that his military exploits were anything other than defensive in a general sense. His preaching annoyed the ones running the existing system and they attacked him and his followers. He fought back and even went on the offensive as a way to put an end to the attacks, but he didn't do anything that we'd think of as aggressive war. After his death, the various warlords somehow decided that it would be nice to spread Islam by the sword, but that was them. They didn't get that idea from anything he said (to my knowledge).

[papau]

30. Yes - I do know of scholarship supporting "real Jesus"- atheist allegorical figure" is

an idea from the 18th century that is nicely disproved today. The "he didn't do anything that we'd think of as aggressive war" is disproved by his own hand in the letter he wrote to the Christians of Cairo - the Coptic rulers of Egypt - where he says he can not be responsible for what his army will do -the death and destruction one would assume - if they do not surrender to his army. His army already had a great reputation for death and destruction and they surrendered. The letter is in the Topkapi Palace Museum in Turkey - nicely translated if you do not read the symbols of that day.

I've posted on this many times on DU - use the search function on DU - but - better to convince yourself of the existence of what at least a majority of the world of science sees as "convincing" just use goodle or drop by a library at a seminary,

I grant you that I have never changed an atheists mind :-) but then that is why this type of free lance dump on the religious has its own forum for such moments when one feels the urge to do such a dump. And again I grant you that the DU mods do not enforce a keep dumps on the religious out of other forums not labeled religious rule. Indeed when I objected to a free lance dump on the religious that was put into a preface of a post in science, it led to my being banned from the science forum - I just tested that fact and up came "The administrators of Democratic Underground have barred you from participating in this forum" so it is safe to say that I have not been forgiven for interfering (my interpretation of what I was doing) with an atheist dump on religion in the science forum.

As for your point that by their actions they shall be known as to being a christian believer - or any believer "the rest" - funny how the next paragraph does not apply that thought to Muhammad - or indeed to the Islamic scholars of today that would not agree with the Pope to put out a joint statement saying that everyone's beliefs should be respected and treat equally under the law.

The middle ages and Muslims as a place of refuge for Jews is all true - the Christians of that era treated Jews horribly. But if your point is that this proves Muslim tolerance is inherent to the religion, you have skipped a few steps needed for that logical result - and have ignored a great deal that suggests otherwise - but then you choose to ignore the evidence of a real Jesus, as you are indeed allowed to do - or to call it "not convincing". Again Google is your friend - although I am sure you will reject the sites on the web that assert that there is evidence - whatever they say one must remember that those sites tend to a religious bias so how can you trust anything they say, eh? :-)

Anyway - the disagreement is pointless as neither of us will change the mind of the other - and I need to get to a phone bank for last minute calling for this election.

But from the Harris folks poll -94& of the population think there may be a God or that there definitely is a God - interesting - or is it "just lip service" - well - whatever floats your boat I guess. Have a great weekend!

:-)

[Igel]

27. This isn't true.

In some medieval (and earlier) European cultures women could own property and sell it; they could run their own businesses and profit from it. Without needing a male guardian.

This wasn't true in all of them. And the pogroms in Muslim countries tended to be no better or worse.

Having a dhimma was a good thing; but it had a downside, in that the terms of the treaty/contract were oppressive. So in good times, Christian and Muslim cultures were about the same; in bad times, Christian and Muslim cultures were about the same. Zakat is less than the old fashioned Christian tithe for the poor.

The problem: We talk about the bad things Christians did, and how dishonorable and unjust many Christians, even those in positions of authority, were; Muslims don't like talking about massacres, injustice committed by the righteous caliphs, and the like. They wrote the history for the Middle East and N. Africa. But we know about the expulsion of Jews from Granada and the "Golden Age" beheadings of Spanish Christians that insisted on publically preaching. Pogroms. Injustice. And many, many other things that shows that "good Muslims" did many, many bad things and quoted the Qur'aan and Hadith to justify it.

We use the acts of Christians to point out Christianity's flaws; we refuse to do that with Islam. Interesting asymmetry in applying critical thinking skills.

[Katzenjammer]

29. I'm probably less sure about some of this than you are.

"In some medieval (and earlier) European cultures women could own property and sell it; they could run their own businesses and profit from it. Without needing a male guardian."

I'm aware that wealthy European women had more freedom than non-wealthy women (the difference being greater than between wealthy/non-wealthy men). And I'm aware that *widows* were allowed to continue to run the family business, if they could. And I'm aware of ambiguous cases where the records we have could be interpreted to mean some woman became a guild member on her own and started up her own business. But I'm not aware of any unambiguous evidence for such an independent life. Do you have some cites?

"Zakat is less than the old fashioned Christian tithe for the poor."

The Muslim alms requirement was 2% and the tithe 10%, it's true. But as far as I'm aware, the tithe was dedicated to support of the Church (keep the bishops supplied with good food and wine, sort of thing), whereas the Muslim alms was purely for and given directly to the poor. Perhaps if Islam had had an international hierarchy and infrastructure to support the way the Catholic church did, things would have been different. But I'm fairly sure it was as I've described it

[Igel]

26. For Muslims who impose their norms on the Qur'aan, great.

For Muslims who take the Qur'aan as establishing the norm, horrible.

Yet both sets of people are called Muslim, by moderates. The takfiiri Salafists turn out to have the correct insight here. When an Iraqi refers to a family saying they couldn't have been Shi'a because they were good monotheists, he's clearly drawing a line around his brand of Islam, and saying it and only it is Islam--and ruling that things such as Judaism and Christianity aren't monotheist.

Until moderate Muslims are willing to rule that at least a hundred million Muslims are actually apostates and to be shunned, pitched out of mosques and branded worse than infidels, the intellectual muddle in the West will continue, and the Islamists' fellow-travellers will be seen as complicit.

[JCMach1]

5. As dorky as he is... Charles has always been an advocate of a more progressive

political outlook.


And, it's shouldn't come as such a shock the Koran might say some pretty tough things as it arose under deep persecution and counter-warfare against it during the life of the prophet (PBUH).

[saracat]

9. No more than the crap the bible has in it! ! And I wouldn't be babbling

about inbred idiots with what we have in the White House. Charles at least showed up for Military service and has done a lot to say architecture In Britain and to develop communities as well as cooperate on efforts to stop global warming.He is a prominent environmentalist and has done a lot to promote that interest as well ads religious tolerance.We cannot say the same.

[Syrinx]

11. I cannot be accused of ever defending "our" inbred idiot!

Never, I say!

[Eugene]

12. Actually, the Koran says to fight the non-believers if they fight you

or they oppress you. Muhammad said to tolerate and
respect Christians and Jews.

[PsychoDad]

21. Indeed, after Muhammad returned to Mecca in triumph...

and shattered the idols at the Kabbah, that is as far as it went. The worshipers of those same idols were not forced to convert, nor did Muhammad and the Muslims force them to give up or destroy their Idols.

After years of bloody conflict with the Meccans, when the Muslims entered the city there was no revenge or looting. The Muslims were ordered by Muhammad to show tolerance and forgiveness.

Islam teaches respect for the rights of all men and women, regardless of race or creed.

Peace.

[papau]

24. Very true - conversion was via the lower tax burden for Muslims - it took

hundreds of years before even half the population under Muslim rule was Muslim.

[papau]

23. "oppress you" included just not being Muslim - n/t

n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. There'd be no infidels if everyone converted to Islam

then we can finally have peace :sarcasm:

[PsychoDad]

20. Only in self defense.

and under very rigid conditions of warfare even then.

The Quran states that aggression and oppression is wrong, no matter who is doing it.

Peace.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. If Charles becomes King, he'll be "The defender of the Faith"

ummmm....Chuck?

Wrong faith, bub.

Church of ENGLAND ring a bell?

[CJCRANE]

25. He actually wants to change it

to "Defender of Faith" to make it more inclusive.

[bowens43]

13. The problems of the world could be solved by eliminating religion.

ALL religion.

[Eugene]

16. Charles has a point, especially in the context in which he said it.

I stongly suggest reading the article in its entirety.

A clash of civiliations is the goal of the extremists.
Ignorance on both sides fuels this this conflict.
Teaching what Islam is and isn't without the distortion
of the Islamists and the Islamophobes is important.

[ixion]

17. Actually, if people would mind their own business and let others be

and not tell them what to believe or what religion they should practice, I think everything would be just fine.

Religion and spirituality are private matters, IMO, and are best kept that way, rather than paraded around and shoved in other culture's faces.


And that goes for ALL religious zealots, including those inhabiting the WH.

[applegrove]

31. At least Charles is trying to get along. I'm not sure anybody does

well to follow only maxims that are 1300 years old. But for sure there is good stuff in the Quran