Yes, the Edinburgh mosque holds a month-long exhibition during the Edinburgh festival with various events and free food.

But I think in general Islam is as you say more insular than Christianity in this country. But I think that's because (1) Muslims are mostly immigrants who might perhaps want to preserve their culture and traditions, (2) they feel under threat and hated by mainstream society, (3) what's the point of trying to attract people in when no-one will be interested, (4) they are less inclined to water down their faith and do a hard sell than perhaps Christians are.

I think that a lot of British Muslims are torn between two identities. As we have seen in the documentaries a lot of Muslim thought is now very inward-looking and backward-looking and self-protective, compared to what it used to be. People therefore probably feel forced to choose between religious allegiance and national/cultural allegiance which is a shame. There are some thinkers such as Tariq Ramadan and Ajmal Masroor that try to demonstrate that Islam can be followed fully in the context of western culture, but look at the response these scholars get on this forum. The pull to adopt an anti-western, closed-off stance is strong. But it's too easy an answer, I think.

It is sad to see such a good opportunity missed to showcase the richness of muslim culture and specially architecture and art on their golden age.

I am talking about the cheap Seven Wonders of the Muslim world program that does not dig enough to explain the historical context of each moment, nor the political situation, nor does put a timeline between the different programs... all in all this feels like a cheap program without bringing anything more than a touristic brochure.

If you want to jump on a cultural subject next time I suggest you hire a proper research team and make sure it brings some value.

In the context of today I would like to see this followed by Christian art which I believe could be a good opportunity to get it right... or not.

quote:

Originally posted by koko:
It is sad to see such a good opportunity missed to showcase the richness of muslim culture and specially architecture and art on their golden age.

I am talking about the cheap Seven Wonders of the Muslim world program that does not dig enough to explain the historical context of each moment, nor the political situation, nor does put a timeline between the different programs... all in all this feels like a cheap program without bringing anything more than a touristic brochure.

If you want to jump on a cultural subject next time I suggest you hire a proper research team and make sure it brings some value.

In the context of today I would like to see this followed by Christian art which I believe could be a good opportunity to get it right... or not.

I disagree. In the space of the documentary they managed to cover beautiful architecture, a bit of history, cultures, personal stories, 5 pillars of Islam, and the pilgrimage. It was all fascinating, not to mention remarkable that they got to film in Mecca. I suppose the title might have led you to expect it to be just about the buildings, but the trailers made it clear it was about more than that.

The film was visually stunning in places, I loved the cinematic effect of showing a person from behind slowly walking towards a magnificent mosque which was repeated in the different places. The still pictures on the website are also fantastic: http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_be...onders_gallery1.html

The only thing I didn't like was the music during the footage at the Mecca mosque. I would have liked to just hear the silence and the footsteps.

Some key questions that I’d like Ch 4 to investigate:

1. Why would God choose to deliver his message verbally to an illiterate man and over a period of 23 years, particularly as the same God wisely decided to deliver his original message in writing when he gave Moses his Commandments?

2. Why did God, after delivering unambiguous and unequivocal commandments to Moses feel the need to deliver a different message (or at best the same message in a different way) to Mohammed?

3. Why did God need 23 years to deliver his message, was it because (as it seems) that he kept changing or amending the message he’d delivered the year(s) before?

4. How do Muslims reconcile the fact that, although God kept changing the message he delivered to Mohammed, they have no way of knowing which message came first and which was God’s decided final version.

5. Why has wearing the veil and sporting long beards suddenly (over the past 10 years) become de rigeur for British Muslims?

6. Why is it that the Muslim world has failed to contribute anything of significance in the world (other than big Mosques and suicide bombers) for almost 1000 years.

7. Why (despite massive oil wealth) us the Muslim world less well advanced than the western world and the Muslim man ion the street poorer than his western counterpart?

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:
Some key questions that I’d like Ch 4 to investigate:

1. Why would God choose to deliver his message verbally to an illiterate man and over a period of 23 years, particularly as the same God wisely decided to deliver his original message in writing when he gave Moses his Commandments?

2. Why did God, after delivering unambiguous and unequivocal commandments to Moses feel the need to deliver a different message (or at best the same message in a different way) to Mohammed?

3. Why did God need 23 years to deliver his message, was it because (as it seems) that he kept changing or amending the message he’d delivered the year(s) before?

4. How do Muslims reconcile the fact that, although God kept changing the message he delivered to Mohammed, they have no way of knowing which message came first and which was God’s decided final version.

5. Why has wearing the veil and sporting long beards suddenly (over the past 10 years) become de rigeur for British Muslims?

6. Why is it that the Muslim world has failed to contribute anything of significance in the world (other than big Mosques and suicide bombers) for almost 1000 years.

7. Why (despite massive oil wealth) us the Muslim world less well advanced than the western world and the Muslim man ion the street poorer than his western counterpart?

Here are two pearls from the Tao Te Ching about flexibilty of the mind and triumph gained through non-action, I think it can be applied all areas of conflict, be they religious or political:

----------69---------------

The genrals have a saying: "Rather than make the first move it is better to wait and see. Rather than advance an inch it is better to retreat a yard."
This is called going forward without advancing pushing back without using weapons.

There is no greater misfortune
than underestimating your enemy. Underestimating your enemy means thinking he is evil. Thus you destroy your three treasures and become an enemy yourself.
When two great forces oppose each other, the victory will go To the one who knows how to yeild.

---------------76------------------

Men are born soft and supple;
Dead, they are stiff and hard.
Plants are born tender and pliant;
dead, they are brittle and dry.

Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible
is a disciple of death.
Whoever is soft and yeilding
is a disciple of life.

The hard and the stiff will be broken.
The soft and supple will prevail.

By "yeild" Lao Tzu is alluding to the method of stepping back slightly in order to take stock of the situation, providing your opposition with a false notion that you have either given up or that you are becoming weak. It's something like a boxer might do when he rests back on the ropes to catch his breath or to give himself time to adjust his tactics: By doing it he has not only gained some respite, but his opponent has also expended more of his own precious energy in his attack. Furthermore, he has come to know his opponent more because of the exchange.

The most obvious analogy regarding 'yeilding' in order to obtain the upper hand is the 'pincer movement,' successfully used by armies over countless years.

Being supple of mind is about 'yeilding' also because if one is able to think more flexibly and not remain blocked by dogmatism and intransigence, one becomes skilled at exchanging ideas across a wide spectrum of belief systems and social groupings. Fostering positive reactions through the establishment of a common ground based on the willingness to listen, reflect and comprehend empowers the 'yeilding mind' with further knowledge and understanding on how to influence and exact the most positive results from a situation.

If you mentally 'yeild' in an argument and offer your opponent victory on some of the less important issues, you will undermine their offensive by taking the power out of their assault. 'Yeilding' does not mean 'giving in,' or having to acquiesce to negative or unreasonable demands. It means acceptance and recognition of opposing forces. If you are seen not to budge an inch, so will your opponents adopt this stance and thus it will be harder to unbalance them in the exchange. Intransigence will undermine your ability to manipulate your opponent into accepting your ideas, by denying you any foothold in their argument.

If you allow yourself to become rigid and unyeilding then, one day, the force of constantly pushing back at everything is bound to break you.

Yeilding is not weakness but benevolence

I don't consider any religion to be a threat to me or my beliefs.

It seems strange to me that Christians, Muslims and Jews are so suspicious and unaccepting of each other when they are more or less worshiping the same God. Different Profits and specific practices, but the same God all the same.

What I'm basically saying is:

If you refuse to validate your opponents' legitimate ideological, social or customary practices and beleifs, as well as the negative aspects of their dogma, you risk not advancing or progressing yourself.

In response to ponit 6, made by balaclava9 above, I would just like to add that during the crusades over the 11th,12th,13th and 14th centuries, a whole gammut of ideas and knowledge was aquired from the Muslim world and applied to the western way of life.

So that knocks at least 400 years off balaclav9' s estimate.

quote:

Originally posted by obviouslyFAKE:
What I'm basically saying is:

If you refuse to validate your opponents' legitimate ideological, social or customary practices and beleifs, as well as the negative aspects of their dogma, you risk not advancing or progressing yourself.

In response to ponit 6, made by balaclava9 above, I would just like to add that during the crusades over the 11th,12th,13th and 14th centuries, a whole gammut of ideas and knowledge was aquired from the Muslim world and applied to the western way of life.

So that knocks at least 400 years off balaclav9' s estimate.

Obvious

Having difficulty with your maths? The last crusade was in 1270 that was 730 years ago.

Bye the bye, tell me that last significant thing achieved by the Muslim world (apoart from building mosques and suicide belts) tell me what it was and when was it?

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:

quote:

Originally posted by obviouslyFAKE:
What I'm basically saying is:

If you refuse to validate your opponents' legitimate ideological, social or customary practices and beleifs, as well as the negative aspects of their dogma, you risk not advancing or progressing yourself.

In response to ponit 6, made by balaclava9 above, I would just like to add that during the crusades over the 11th,12th,13th and 14th centuries, a whole gammut of ideas and knowledge was aquired from the Muslim world and applied to the western way of life.

So that knocks at least 400 years off balaclav9' s estimate.

Obvious

Having difficulty with your maths? The last crusade was in 1270 that was 730 years ago.

Bye the bye, tell me that last significant thing achieved by the Muslim world (apoart from building mosques and suicide belts) tell me what it was and when was it?

Appologies for the inaccuracy regarding the crusades. I must learn to brush up on my facts before I spout off.

I think you should do likewise balaclava9 as it only took me ten seconds to find the right wikipeadia page:
Muslim inventions.

What are you trying to say balaclava9? it's clear to see that you are also caught up in this ridiculous butting of religious heads. Here's the lastest stuff I found there, so by my reckoning you are even further off the mark by 999yrs...

# 2007 [astronautics, biology, medicine, industry, orthopedic surgery, space exploration, technology] Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, who is both an astronaut and an orthopedic surgeon, becomes the first to perform biomedical research in space. His medical experiments aboard the ISS were mainly related to the characteristics and growth of liver cancer and leukemia cells, and the crystallisation of various proteins and microbes in space.[340] The experiments relating to liver cancer, leukemia cells and microbes will benefit general science and medical research, while the experiments relating to the crystallisation of proteins, lipases in this case, will directly benefit local industries in Malaysia. Lipase are a type of protein enzymes used in the manufacturing of diverse range of products from textiles to cosmetics, and the opportunity to grow these in space will allow Malaysian scientists to producing these locally rather than importing them.[341]

May your God bless you for your effort in disrupting peace and harmony...

By the way, I am not a believer in the main religions as I don't see the point in pitting myself against a fellow believer (I mean don't both Islam and Christianity and Judaism share the same God, but follow different prophets' interpretations of that God's message?).

It's a shame that you are all essentially cutting the ideological throats of your religious brothers and sisters and not sharing the rewards and true meaning of holiness.

Which is, in my mind: Peace; Harmony; Balance; understanding; and compassion.

quote:

Originally posted by obviouslyFAKE:
By the way, I am not a believer in the main religions as I don't see the point in pitting myself against a fellow believer (I mean don't both Islam and Christianity and Judaism share the same God, but follow different prophets' interpretations of that God's message?).

Wrong on a few points. The non acceptance of Jesus as god incarnate (as part of the trinity) by Islam and Judaism is actually a gross heresy to christians. And of course by insisting Jesus is god christians commit a gross heresy to the other two. So it is actually much more than mere interpretation of the message.

Of course, the message itself is rubbish - you can only extol it as worthy of being followed by cherry picking the nice bits and ignoring the not so nice. Anyway, that aside, there is no message or wisdom ascribed to any flavour of monotheistic god which was not plagarised from earlier myth systems, thinkers and philosophers.

Do you really believe that one can only achieve (and have) "Peace, Harmony, Balance, understanding and compassion" when one believes in a mythical god. If anything history shows that religious belief most assuredly begets the opposites: War, disunity, imbalance, bigotry, misunderstanding and lack of compassion.

quote:

Originally posted by obviouslyFAKE:
I think you should do likewise balaclava9 as it only took me ten seconds to find the right wikipeadia page:
Muslim inventions.

Of course much of these are not truly invented or inventions by muslims but merely achievements or adoptions of existant technologies and inventions by muslim peoples. FFS it even mentions Alchemy and the Philosopher's Stone as being achievements by Muslims. You do realise alchemy is psuedo not real science.

# 2007 [astronautics, biology, medicine, industry, orthopedic surgery, space exploration, technology] Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor,...

Big deal. So he did an experiment in space. Hardly an Islamic achievement is it. Who invented and made the technology which put him there? And actually biomedical research has been done in space prior to this - so he wasn't really first, merely the first muslim to do so.

The real fact is that Islam only flourished in learning and knowledge during the period in Europe called the Dark Ages. Islam retained their knowledge base (gained mostly from the Greeks) and improved on it. Our learning curve, though, was not just curtailed but set back by the insidious power the christian church held over learning, research and knowledge - something Islam was more tolerant of (then).

This came to an end with the Rennaisance and the invention in Europe of the printing press. Knowledge, both new and previously lost, was quickly gained from the Moors who had invaded Spain. And, due to the printing press this fuelled Western knowledge expansion.

Islamic learning and knowledge just like Far Eastern knowledge and learning could not compete with the West in the speed of printing and dissemination of knowledge so they fell by the wayside. In Islam science and engineering prowess has never been a force since. Today, muslims make little contribution in science or technology. Yes there are the odd one or two but their numbers are not in any way reflected on a per-capita basis.

Anyway, it really is a red-herring arguing and citing achievements by muslims as being meaningful of anything. Science and engineering are secular they are not religious. A person discovers or invents because of their training not their faith. If you wish to argue being a Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever is the causal or even a major contributory factor then you will have to evidence that claim.

Obviously,

You asked – “what am I trying to say?”

First let me say that I call myself an agnostic and believe that all religious fundamentalism is bad.

What I am trying to do is make some serious points by asking some serious questions.

Having said that all religious fundamentalism is bad, it cannot be denied that, right now, here in the UK and elsewhere, we are at greater threat from Islamic fundamentalism than others.

When I ask questions about the Koran I am suggesting that the Koran, the book upon which Islam stands or falls is the words of man not God.

When I ask questions about Islamic achievement and the prosperity of Muslims I am not suggesting Muslims are thick, I am suggesting that there must be another reason. They (Muslims) generally like to blame it on the west but that’s because they don’t want to consider the possibility that it may be the repressive nature of their religion.

In short, these are questions I would like to see discussed and answered AND I believe they are questions that Muslims avoid because they don’t like the answers.

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:
Obviously,

You asked – “what am I trying to say?”

First let me say that I call myself an agnostic and believe that all religious fundamentalism is bad.

What I am trying to do is make some serious points by asking some serious questions.

Having said that all religious fundamentalism is bad, it cannot be denied that, right now, here in the UK and elsewhere, we are at greater threat from Islamic fundamentalism than others.

When I ask questions about the Koran I am suggesting that the Koran, the book upon which Islam stands or falls is the words of man not God.

When I ask questions about Islamic achievement and the prosperity of Muslims I am not suggesting Muslims are thick, I am suggesting that there must be another reason. They (Muslims) generally like to blame it on the west but that’s because they don’t want to consider the possibility that it may be the repressive nature of their religion.

In short, these are questions I would like to see discussed and answered AND I believe they are questions that Muslims avoid because they don’t like the answers.

It is not the fault of the West. The problems in the Islamic World started when the concept of itjihad was stopped. Itjihad allowed the muslims to deal with problems they never found before and still get a solution derived from Islam. No Itjihad caused stagnation and lack of progress. As soon as the industrial age started the Islamic world was left behind.

Another problem is the Muslim world is ruled by despots and dictators (propped up by the west may I add) who seek to keep there people at the level they want. They are happy to keep there people down and let them squabble over minute issues when in reality huge problems need solving. New political leadership is required before anything can really change. That does not mean embrace all the western methods in secular democracy and capitalism as this is not the answer. Islam is not a backwards religion who does not want to see progress or modernity. Islam should be at the forefront of technological advancement!!

Kilfah,

I agree with much of what you have said. Much of the fault in lack of progress and benefits for the general population can be blamed on the past and current rulers and your suggestion that new political leadership is the answer.

The problem is that the western solution to that question is democratic elections and the problem with that is that the general (possibly largely uneducated) population appears to lean towards electing an Islamic religious cleric to political leadership based on the suggestion that they lead through the words of God (the Koran) when in fact they are manipulating the text in the Koran for their own political gains. And further, the problem is that the Koran is such a convoluted mess of contradictions it is easy for them to find a reference in there that will support their argument for almost anything. Also, your Mosques are not simply there for the worship of God, they are used to propagate political agendas again using the Koran to support an agenda of Mullah’s whose motifs are not always in the best interests of their own people.

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:
Kilfah,

I agree with much of what you have said. Much of the fault in lack of progress and benefits for the general population can be blamed on the past and current rulers and your suggestion that new political leadership is the answer.

The problem is that the western solution to that question is democratic elections and the problem with that is that the general (possibly largely uneducated) population appears to lean towards electing an Islamic religious cleric to political leadership based on the suggestion that they lead through the words of God (the Koran) when in fact they are manipulating the text in the Koran for their own political gains. And further, the problem is that the Koran is such a convoluted mess of contradictions it is easy for them to find a reference in there that will support their argument for almost anything. Also, your Mosques are not simply there for the worship of God, they are used to propagate political agendas again using the Koran to support an agenda of Mullah’s whose motifs are not always in the best interests of their own people.

Electing Islamic leadership isnt the problem. Political Islam (khilafah/caliphate) has the necessary instruments to provide a state which is required from the Islamic world. Political islam doesnt mean dicatorship or a misuse of the quran to justify one's bogus decisions. A true Islamic state has an independent judicary, free press, the rule of law (no police state), education for all and the opportunity for people to satisfy one's needs. The Islamic world has the resources and the population to lead the way.

quote:

Originally posted by khilfah2return:

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:
Kilfah,

I agree with much of what you have said. Much of the fault in lack of progress and benefits for the general population can be blamed on the past and current rulers and your suggestion that new political leadership is the answer.

The problem is that the western solution to that question is democratic elections and the problem with that is that the general (possibly largely uneducated) population appears to lean towards electing an Islamic religious cleric to political leadership based on the suggestion that they lead through the words of God (the Koran) when in fact they are manipulating the text in the Koran for their own political gains. And further, the problem is that the Koran is such a convoluted mess of contradictions it is easy for them to find a reference in there that will support their argument for almost anything. Also, your Mosques are not simply there for the worship of God, they are used to propagate political agendas again using the Koran to support an agenda of Mullah’s whose motifs are not always in the best interests of their own people.

Electing Islamic leadership isnt the problem. Political Islam (khilafah/caliphate) has the necessary instruments to provide a state which is required from the Islamic world. Political islam doesnt mean dicatorship or a misuse of the quran to justify one's bogus decisions. A true Islamic state has an independent judicary, free press, the rule of law (no police state), education for all and the opportunity for people to satisfy one's needs. The Islamic world has the resources and the population to lead the way.

Can you name a muslim country that can lead the way?

Or a muslim country that Islam has been successful?

Nic

quote:

Originally posted by Tequila_nic:

quote:

Originally posted by khilfah2return:

quote:

Originally posted by balaclava9:
Kilfah,

I agree with much of what you have said. Much of the fault in lack of progress and benefits for the general population can be blamed on the past and current rulers and your suggestion that new political leadership is the answer.

The problem is that the western solution to that question is democratic elections and the problem with that is that the general (possibly largely uneducated) population appears to lean towards electing an Islamic religious cleric to political leadership based on the suggestion that they lead through the words of God (the Koran) when in fact they are manipulating the text in the Koran for their own political gains. And further, the problem is that the Koran is such a convoluted mess of contradictions it is easy for them to find a reference in there that will support their argument for almost anything. Also, your Mosques are not simply there for the worship of God, they are used to propagate political agendas again using the Koran to support an agenda of Mullah’s whose motifs are not always in the best interests of their own people.

Electing Islamic leadership isnt the problem. Political Islam (khilafah/caliphate) has the necessary instruments to provide a state which is required from the Islamic world. Political islam doesnt mean dicatorship or a misuse of the quran to justify one's bogus decisions. A true Islamic state has an independent judicary, free press, the rule of law (no police state), education for all and the opportunity for people to satisfy one's needs. The Islamic world has the resources and the population to lead the way.

Can you name a muslim country that can lead the way?

Or a muslim country that Islam has been successful?

Nic

I cant name a country but I would argue no country has truly implemented political Islam since the end of the Ottoman Caliphate.

There shold be no countries. The muslim world being split up into over 50 states makes no sense. The vast majority share the same belief system and same ideology. It's time to go back to the caliphate system where there will be one state and its heartbeat will be Islam. A Caliphate isnt taliban. A caliphate is political islam the way it should be. It's not about shutting out the west its just having an alternitive to the west. Islam has its own political, economic and social systems that just need to be implemented. Its no utopia and u wouldnt see drastic effects overnight but its the only real system which can work in the muslim world. Secularism will never ever work in the muslim world as the idea of god just being a private matter in the home or mosque is something a huge majority of muslims can not accept. Islam and politics cannot be separate. Islam is politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by obviouslyFAKE:
By the way, I am not a believer in the main religions as I don't see the point in pitting myself against a fellow believer (I mean don't both Islam and Christianity and Judaism share the same God, but follow different prophets' interpretations of that God's message?).

Wrong on a few points. The non acceptance of Jesus as god incarnate (as part of the trinity) by Islam and Judaism is actually a gross heresy to christians. And of course by insisting Jesus is god christians commit a gross heresy to the other two. So it is actually much more than mere interpretation of the message.

Of course, the message itself is rubbish - you can only extol it as worthy of being followed by cherry picking the nice bits and ignoring the not so nice. Anyway, that aside, there is no message or wisdom ascribed to any flavour of monotheistic god which was not plagarised from earlier myth systems, thinkers and philosophers.

Do you really believe that one can only achieve (and have) "Peace, Harmony, Balance, understanding and compassion" when one believes in a mythical god. If anything history shows that religious belief most assuredly begets the opposites: War, disunity, imbalance, bigotry, misunderstanding and lack of compassion.

That's my whole point I don't believe that an imaginary being up there in the ether sent cryptic messages to a couple of Bods who then wrote them down in a big book. Then claimed it was the word of that imaginary God.

It's perfectly obvious that most of what was written has been carefully constructed by men to enable the subjugation of the masses and ensure the survival of whatever religious order followed that doctrine. not to mention the centuries of shift in meaning caused by the historical change and development in language, culture and interpretation.

I think the only way to attain the positive conditions of Peace etc. is for the whole world to be aware and accepting of the teachings of the Buddha and also Lao Tzu in the
"Tao Te Ching."

Let them get on with their own particular brand of religion but apply some common sense, decency and logic to their practice.

Yes, monotheistic religions are the root cause of much of the violence that goes on. Therefore wouldn't it be a better idea if we just concentrated on doing the right thing whilst we're alive and forget all the grovelling and praying.

I think it's a shame that people have to hold on to the perception that after we die = if we've been good = then we go to some form of paradise.
C