منتديات إنما المؤمنون إخوة (2024 - 2010) The Believers Are Brothers

(إسلامي.. ثقافي.. اجتماعي.. إعلامي.. علمي.. تاريخي.. دعوي.. تربوي.. طبي.. رياضي.. أدبي..)
 
الرئيسيةالأحداثأحدث الصورالتسجيل
(وما من كاتب إلا سيبلى ** ويبقى الدهر ما كتبت يداه) (فلا تكتب بكفك غير شيء ** يسرك في القيامة أن تراه)

soon after IZHAR UL-HAQ (Truth Revealed) By: Rahmatullah Kairanvi
قال الفيلسوف توماس كارليل في كتابه الأبطال عن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم-: "لقد أصبح من أكبر العار على أي فرد مُتمدين من أبناء هذا العصر؛ أن يُصْغِي إلى ما يظن من أنَّ دِينَ الإسلام كَذِبٌ، وأنَّ مُحَمَّداً -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خَدَّاعٌ مُزُوِّرٌ، وآنَ لنا أنْ نُحارب ما يُشَاعُ من مثل هذه الأقوال السَّخيفة المُخْجِلَةِ؛ فإنَّ الرِّسَالة التي أدَّاهَا ذلك الرَّسُولُ ما زالت السِّراج المُنير مُدَّةَ اثني عشر قرناً، لنحو مائتي مليون من الناس أمثالنا، خلقهم اللهُ الذي خلقنا، (وقت كتابة الفيلسوف توماس كارليل لهذا الكتاب)، إقرأ بقية كتاب الفيلسوف توماس كارليل عن سيدنا محمد -صلى الله عليه وسلم-، على هذا الرابط: محمد بن عبد الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم-.

يقول المستشرق الإسباني جان ليك في كتاب (العرب): "لا يمكن أن توصف حياة محمد بأحسن مما وصفها الله بقوله: (وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِين) فكان محمدٌ رحمة حقيقية، وإني أصلي عليه بلهفة وشوق".
فَضَّلَ اللهُ مِصْرَ على سائر البُلدان، كما فَضَّلَ بعض الناس على بعض والأيام والليالي بعضها على بعض، والفضلُ على ضربين: في دِينٍ أو دُنْيَا، أو فيهما جميعاً، وقد فَضَّلَ اللهُ مِصْرَ وشَهِدَ لها في كتابهِ بالكَرَمِ وعِظَم المَنزلة وذَكَرَهَا باسمها وخَصَّهَا دُونَ غيرها، وكَرَّرَ ذِكْرَهَا، وأبَانَ فضلها في آياتٍ تُتْلَى من القرآن العظيم.
(وما من كاتب إلا سيبلى ** ويبقى الدهر ما كتبت يداه) (فلا تكتب بكفك غير شيء ** يسرك في القيامة أن تراه)

المهندس حسن فتحي فيلسوف العمارة ومهندس الفقراء: هو معماري مصري بارز، من مواليد مدينة الأسكندرية، وتخرَّجَ من المُهندس خانة بجامعة فؤاد الأول، اشْتُهِرَ بطرازهِ المعماري الفريد الذي استمَدَّ مَصَادِرَهُ مِنَ العِمَارَةِ الريفية النوبية المَبنية بالطوب اللبن، ومن البيوت والقصور بالقاهرة القديمة في العصرين المملوكي والعُثماني.
رُبَّ ضَارَّةٍ نَافِعَةٍ.. فوائدُ فيروس كورونا غير المتوقعة للبشرية أنَّه لم يكن يَخطرُ على بال أحَدِنَا منذ أن ظهر وباء فيروس كورونا المُستجد، أنْ يكونَ لهذه الجائحة فوائدُ وإيجابيات ملموسة أفادَت كوكب الأرض.. فكيف حدث ذلك؟!...
تخليص الإبريز في تلخيص باريز: هو الكتاب الذي ألّفَهُ الشيخ "رفاعة رافع الطهطاوي" رائد التنوير في العصر الحديث كما يُلَقَّب، ويُمَثِّلُ هذا الكتاب علامة بارزة من علامات التاريخ الثقافي المصري والعربي الحديث.
الشيخ علي الجرجاوي (رحمه الله) قَامَ برحلةٍ إلى اليابان العام 1906م لحُضُورِ مؤتمر الأديان بطوكيو، الذي دعا إليه الإمبراطور الياباني عُلَمَاءَ الأديان لعرض عقائد دينهم على الشعب الياباني، وقد أنفق على رحلته الشَّاقَّةِ من مَالِهِ الخاص، وكان رُكُوبُ البحر وسيلته؛ مِمَّا أتَاحَ لَهُ مُشَاهَدَةَ العَدِيدِ مِنَ المُدُنِ السَّاحِلِيَّةِ في أنحاء العالم، ويُعَدُّ أوَّلَ دَاعِيَةٍ للإسلام في بلاد اليابان في العصر الحديث.


 

 Killing For God or For Country?

اذهب الى الأسفل 
كاتب الموضوعرسالة
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn


عدد المساهمات : 48361
العمر : 71

Killing For God or For Country? Empty
مُساهمةموضوع: Killing For God or For Country?   Killing For God or For Country? Emptyالأربعاء 16 يناير 2019, 4:44 pm

Killing For God or For Country?
The history just referred to is actually very relevant for the contemporary discussion. It was this history that led to revulsion among Western thinkers to the idea of killing for the sake of God. There was so much killing of Christians by Christians in Europe that the great thinkers of Europe finally concluded that it makes no sense to kill “in the name of God.”

It did not take long for what occurred in the particular circumstances of Europe to be accepted by Western thinkers as “universal principles.” Nothing highlights this fact more than a short treatise prepared by the Institute for American Values shortly after 9/11. This paper was entitled, “What We’re Fighting For.” It was signed by many of the leading intellectuals in the United States, including Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and many others—including some of the leading just war theorists of today, such as James Turner Johnson, John Kelsay and Jean Bethke Elshtain.


In the opening passages of that paper, they state the following:
We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction: 
1. All human beings are born freeand equal in dignity and rights.   


2. The basic subject of societyis the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing..

3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truthabout life's purpose and ultimate ends.   

4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedomare inviolable rights of the human person.   

5. Killing in the name of Godis contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith.   

We fight to defend ourselves and to defend these universal principles.

Points numbers four and five are of most interest here. This author has to admit that the logic of this preamble escapes him. For example, how did Point 5 become a universal principle?  It definitely goes against what the West believed in for centuries. In reality, to this day, it is not a “universal principle” within the West—as can be seen by Christians who have been fighting each other in Northern Irelandand those who have committed murder at abortion clinics in the name of God. It is astonishing to see that after mentioning the basic principles, they then say that they fight “to defend these universal principles.”

At the very least, they should have said that they believe that these principles are good for all of humankind and deserving of the greatest amount of support. They way they have stated their case—and as signed by numerous dignitaries—has a fundamental logical flaw in it. How can they “fight” to defend the “universal principle” of “killing in the name of God is contrary to faith” while also fighting to defend the principle of “religious freedom” as one of the “inviolable rights of the human person”? From what they stated, one could argue that it is acceptable to fight for the sake of God against those people who kill in the name of God because killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God, as they have stated!

But what have they done in reality? All they have done is replaced religion—for which one is not allowed to fight—with some principles that they have concluded—for which one is allowed to fight! Why should more weight be given to their devised principles rather than the principles that one believes has been revealed from God? Isn’t fighting for man-made principles nothing more than a “secular holy war”? In one of his numerous writings, James Turner Johnson made a valuable comment that highlights the self-contradiction of the stance that these signatories have taken.


He wrote,
However, when the state itself develops a state ideology, something very much like holy war reasoning reasserts itself in secular guise. Examples include the ideologies of nationalism, nazism, communism, ethnicity, and even democracy. The West, then, has not completely rejected war for religion, for something very like it lives on in the form of wars for various justifying ideologies.

Now comes a very perplexing question for anyone who believes in God, which, it seems, is still the majority of humankind today: How is it that one is not allowed to fight for the sake of God’s religion—God who created and nourished all of humankind—yet it is considered acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made ideologies, such as “democracy” or “freedom”? Indeed, it is considered completely acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made “nations.” People get together and form a nation, sometimes a result of most arbitrary historical events, and yet it becomes considered acceptable and logical for the people of that nation to kill others in wars carried out in the name of that nation. The same people who defend those types of wars, including many of the signatories to the above mentioned treatise, will condemn killing or fighting in the name of religion or for the sake of God. Which one should make more sense to the one who believes in God, regardless of whether he be a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever?

The issue becomes even more perplexing for those who believe in God: An individual can be jailed for life and even put to death for treason, all in the name of the state, yet at the same time, in the name of freedom of expression, anyone is allowed to say anything they wish about God, religion or virtually any other subject. The man-made entity called the state—which may not even exist tomorrow, such as Yugoslavia, or may even give up its overriding ideology, such as the USSR—has the right to put someone to death but God has no right to call for the death of any individual.

The result is a rather hypocritical situation. If such rights for states are accepted then they must also be accepted for God, especially when one’s view of God embodies state, society and personal devotion, as in the case of Islam.



Killing For God or For Country? 2013_110
الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة اذهب الى الأسفل
https://almomenoon1.0wn0.com/
 
Killing For God or For Country?
الرجوع الى أعلى الصفحة 
صفحة 1 من اصل 1
 مواضيع مماثلة
-
» Eradicating the Misunder standing
» Egypt: first country in Eastern Mediterranean

صلاحيات هذا المنتدى:لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
منتديات إنما المؤمنون إخوة (2024 - 2010) The Believers Are Brothers :: (English) :: Group Forums No. 6 :: HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM-
انتقل الى: