Every religion is "cult-ish" (IMO) to some extent. Islam's aggressive expansion resulted in an inevitable clash with Christiandom. However, Europe underwent industrialization and it's around that time that you begin to see the influence of the more aggressive forms of Islam. Basically, people turned to religion when a historical rival began to surpass their civilization, becoming more fundamentalist in the process, the mockery you speak of. I'm certain that political stability and economic prosperity, which inevitably leads to higher education, would result in Muslims following the spirit of Islam, rather than the letter.
In this picture you didn't stress on the fact that the Muslims lost our way ... we started to wane and become desiring of dunya ... and that is when we started to get taken over ... knowing this the major tool to continue dominating the world the current controllers are using worldly lures to entice the elite around the globe for their fellowship in return.
In this picture you didn't stress on the fact that the Muslims lost our way ... we started to wane and become desiring of dunya ... and that is when we started to get taken over ... knowing this the major tool to continue dominating the world the current controllers are using worldly lures to entice the elite around the globe for their fellowship in return.
I disagree. The reason the West surpassed the Muslim world and the East is very complex, but religion is not a big part of it. India, China, and Britain were one of the three places primed to industrialize (based on economic measures) but only the British undertook it, and while it resulted in painful growth, they went on to dominate the world.
If we had desired worldly pleasures, don't you think our civilization would have been more ruthless (like the West) in the pursuit of said desires? We turned to religion because by all other measures, our civilizations were being surpassed.
I disagree. The reason the West surpassed the Muslim world and the East is very complex, but religion is not a big part of it. India, China, and Britain were one of the three places primed to industrialize (based on economic measures) but only the British undertook it, and while it resulted in painful growth, they went on to dominate the world.
If we had desired worldly pleasures, don't you think our civilization would have been more ruthless (like the West) in the pursuit of said desires? We turned to religion because by all other measures, our civilizations were being surpassed.
Hmmm ... taking this further will betray this thread ... For now I'll simply say that you are entitled to your different opinion :)
Dear brother sanjsingh, greetings. Nice to see you are raising some questions about islam and muslims.
Please take islam=peace as a goal set by God for mankind to accomplish. Take the quran as its manifesto=program to be spread among people so that if mankind like the program they come together and organise as a human society that is based upon the quran as its constitution.
Take claimants of islam as a separate thing. That is what muslims say and do, does not necessarily represents islam.
For that I recomend that you see the following thread.
After that please let me know if you have any problems. If not support Islam for the betterment of humanity by trying to educate yourself and others along the explained guidelines.
As for muslims making mockery of islam, yes they have. We try to show we are worse than nonmuslims through our beliefs and deeds. That is why other make our jokes and we get angry rather than educating ourselves and others.
islam the untold story (nonmuslims trying to prove islam is false and baseless)
I disagree. The reason the West surpassed the Muslim world and the East is very complex, but religion is not a big part of it. India, China, and Britain were one of the three places primed to industrialize (based on economic measures) but only the British undertook it, and while it resulted in painful growth, they went on to dominate the world.
If we had desired worldly pleasures, don't you think our civilization would have been more ruthless (like the West) in the pursuit of said desires? We turned to religion because by all other measures, our civilizations were being surpassed.
Dear Ghost, people who are are victim of religion cannot develop because religion turns thinking human beings into brain dead people because religion is ruled by priests who victimise humanity as much as they can just like rulers and bankers.
As for development, the quran offers the best way forward that cannot be argued against or surpassed but do people care to educate themselves so that they could think beyond themselves? So long as rivalries between mankind are not given up and laziness and craziness is not thrown out, humanity cannot really progress and prosper as it ought to and that is the real problem. We are not prepared to give each other time to help each other if anything each of us is trying to push down the other down the ditch of hell. Individuals, families, countries, all are doing it because we believe in law of jungle rather than rising above animal level and becoming proper human beings with caring and sharing mindset, attitude and practices. Once we reach that level, we will see a whole lot different world all around us. A paradise so to speak.
Every religion is "cult-ish" (IMO) to some extent. Islam's aggressive expansion resulted in an inevitable clash with Christiandom. However, Europe underwent industrialization and it's around that time that you begin to see the influence of the more aggressive forms of Islam. Basically, people turned to religion when a historical rival began to surpass their civilization, becoming more fundamentalist in the process, the mockery you speak of. I'm certain that political stability and economic prosperity, which inevitably leads to higher education, would result in Muslims following the spirit of Islam, rather than the letter.
[QUOTE]
The laws are made so that Islam is placed at the pinnacle of the value structure ... If a motion is proposed they will evaluate it against the principle of it being in greater favour of Islam or not ... and this may or may not render different answers in different societies ... What counts is the "intention" and the honesty in bringing out the answer ... in which case two Islamic countries with two different results may both be correct and rewarded for their application of the Islamic law ... And Allah (SWT) Knows Best.
[/QUOTE]
Individual countries enforce their laws according to their own interpretations of Islam. Many countries have strict apostasy laws which pratically enforce their religion on Muslims and make it difficult for them to leave, they do this as they feel this is what true Islam says. Then there is Saudi Arabia which doesn't allow Christians to bring the bible with them into the kingdom. Malaysia has strict laws on settlement of immigrants say Chinese or Indian but if they convert to Islam these restrictions are lifted, so bribery is used to spread the religion. These are example of mockery of religion and is enforced by scholars fully versed in Islam.
With all due respect when somebody shows you disrespect does that in turn mean you need to do the same. I do agree there is much discrimination in parts of the world media but that does not mean all discussion about Islam should be deemed as racist or propaganda.
Well you started it...comparing Muslim world with India and Christian world.
Blasphemy laws in Saudi and other countries are not necessarily written in hadith or Quran but most likely have been *derived *from the Islamic teachings.
Individual countries enforce their laws according to their own interpretations of Islam. Many countries have strict apostasy laws which pratically enforce their religion on Muslims and make it difficult for them to leave, they do this as they feel this is what true Islam says. Then there is Saudi Arabia which doesn't allow Christians to bring the bible with them into the kingdom. Malaysia has strict laws on settlement of immigrants say Chinese or Indian but if they convert to Islam these restrictions are lifted, so bribery is used to spread the religion. These are example of mockery of religion and is enforced by scholars fully versed in Islam.
Peace sanjsingh
:) None of what you say is a mockery of religion, it is just our religion.
We are told to give dawah to Islam - but at the same time we are not to coerce or force people to Islam
The Muslim situation in Malaysia - they must have strict methods to see if people are becoming Muslim just to get a visa - they will not accept false conversions ... you make it seem that Malaysia want people to become their citizens who are from other countries - that is deceptive.
Our strictness lies with Muslims - it is none of your concern - we are strict on ourselves to to prevent religion being a mockery
You are so artful at turning a situation completely on its head ...
Intolerance is certainily everywhere, I am not here to defend India but their laws are pretty clear when it comes to tolerance but this is written in the statute books in Muslim countries around the world.
Christian countries also had these laws but then realised it was wrong and did something about it and abandoned laws written in the bible.
Clearly, so tell me about Modi.
It has everything to do with education, where you have no education people will be led by the faintest of extremes. Without education even people without religion will act the same way.
In this picture you didn't stress on the fact that the Muslims lost our way ... we started to wane and become desiring of dunya ... and that is when we started to get taken over ... knowing this the major tool to continue dominating the world the current controllers are using worldly lures to entice the elite around the globe for their fellowship in return.
So science like physics, astronomy and medicine, to name a few, were religious things? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Our 'zawal' happened with the mongol invasions when the caliphate in baghdad got beaten militarily and muslims answer was to regress back to what christians were doing in the dark ages.
As far as apostasy is concerned, I do get that you could charge someone with treason if they are actively conspiring against muslims, but did the Prophet himself kill apostates just for converting out? Sorry, but how is it different from say MQM where people have allegedly gotten killed for leaving the party? I would rather give the person the option to leave islam than be a hypocrite about it. No wonder Jinnah tried to pull Pakistan to a secular underpinning, as knew how islam could be misused to create instability like we see fatwas of kaafirs against each sect, let alone apostates, in today's Pakistan.
I disagree. The reason the West surpassed the Muslim world and the East is very complex, but religion is not a big part of it.
I think religion had a lot to do with our failure. Islamic world during Haroon's and Mamoon's time was moving in right direction. But Muslims lost their way when mutazila lost and Asharis like Ghazali won.
Islam's problem was that the best brains of Muslims were striving to become a great scholar in some field of Islamic studies, instead of trying to be a great engineer or scientist.
Such mentality is present even today among many people, who differentiate between Islamic and scientific knowledge. To them, knowledge is ONLY religious. Physics, chemistry, etc, don't account for knowledge at all.
That is the reason Muslims were not able to break the threshold, even though they came so close to starting industrial revolution which ultimately happened in Europe.
To ignore this reality, and only blame Tatars for the downfall of Muslims is not true.
So science like physics, astronomy and medicine, to name a few, were religious things? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Our 'zawal' happened with the mongol invasions when the caliphate in baghdad got beaten militarily and muslims answer was to regress back to what christians were doing in the dark ages.
As far as apostasy is concerned, I do get that you could charge someone with treason if they are actively conspiring against muslims, but did the Prophet himself kill apostates just for converting out? Sorry, but how is it different from say MQM where people have allegedly gotten killed for leaving the party? I would rather give the person the option to leave islam than be a hypocrite about it. No wonder Jinnah tried to pull Pakistan to a secular underpinning, as knew how islam could be misused to create instability like we see fatwas of kaafirs against each sect, let alone apostates, in today's Pakistan.
That is absolutely correct ... Us Muslims became too desiring of the dunya and left religiousness for the lusts and pleasures of this world and the Mongols came and took us out ...
Temujin .... Gengis Khan used to say ... "The Mongols were sent by Allah to punish the Muslims" ...
And I'll give you a second chance to read up on my response regarding apostasy.
Reading over that link briefly I see it has well balanced arguments. It is actually quite close to what I have been saying here.
I just want to clarify that there is a big difference between the term “not tolerated” from “punishable by death” … May argument has always been that apostasy is not tolerated …
If "not tolerated" includes use of physical coercion to restrain someone from practicing their beliefs then all the same arguments apply as in "punishable by death".
I must say, your post #16 paints an awful picture of an Islamic society.
If "not tolerated" includes use of physical coercion to restrain someone from practicing their beliefs then all the same arguments apply as in "punishable by death".
I must say, your post #16 paints an awful picture of an Islamic society.
Well I don't think I said the use of physical coercion to restrain anyone from practicing their beliefs ... but I did say that Muslims becoming apostate is not tolerated - in other words something is done to attempt rectification of the situation.
I don't think what I wrote paints an awful picture of an Islamic society at all ... it may rather be that you want Islamic society to be more liberal than what is healthy for an Islamic society to thrive.
"If she influences other to convert then it is more serious and she should be put on trial to swear an oath to remain silent in her faith"
"She should be given the option to leave the country if she wants to converts others"
"If she continues to undermine the country and Islam by spreading either hatred falsehood about Islam and/or her new faith, then that would be treason ... And treason is usually met with a death penalty, by the courts alone."
The only non-coercive punishment would be shunning and ostracism. But, you are going way beyond that. I don't know how that can be justified.
Why would you want someone to be Muslim when their heart is not true?
Can you give reference from the Quran where there is a punishment prescribed for apostasy or if the prophet ever punished someone for apostasy? I know people were punished because their leaving Islam and betrayed the government and put citizens in danger i. e treason. But was there ever an example from the prophets lifetime where an individual leaves Islam but did not commit treason, and put lives of people in danger.
Using the same example of the girl becoming Buddhist, even if she starts preaching her new religion, her preaching wont put people in danger and cant be considered treason.
