Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Muslim Topic => Topic started by: john on September 28, 2015, 05:09:35 PM
-
Interesting report here on the way Islam treats people who loose their beliefs.
What does this tell us about the religion, is it so insecure it has to threaten it's critics?
All is it just scary control freakery.
Do they not realise how much damage they are doing to the image of Islam by such behaviour in this religion of "no compulsion"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34357047
-
A lot of it is cultural, not bringing shame upon family members etc. it's like having a child out of wedlock or getting divorced used to be in Christian (especially Catholic) circles, only for Christians the punishment for transgressing from other Christians has largely been psychological.
-
Interesting report here on the way Islam treats people who loose their beliefs.
What does this tell us about the religion, is it so insecure it has to threaten it's critics?
All is it just scary control freakery.
Do they not realise how much damage they are doing to the image of Islam by such behaviour in this religion of "no compulsion"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34357047
Do they not realise . . . ?
I am not sure if is is a case of not realising or a case of just not caring.
I truly do not believe that Muslims, particularly Muslim clerics, care one jot what those of other beliefs or none think of Islam.
They are, as are Christians, convinced, body and soul, that theirs is the one true religion; thus they do not consider any other religious belief to be of any value or to be worth even consideing.
Muslin clerics are only interested in keeping their religion "pure", and, in order to do so, they will resotrt to whatever measures they consider are required to clean out any impurities - often by the simple expedient of execution.
-
We must all remember that Islam is in its Middle Ages & just look what 'WE' were doing then ?!?!!??
-
We must all remember that Islam is in its Middle Ages & just look what 'WE' were doing then ?!?!!??
RUBBISH!
Islam might be in its Middle Ages - Muslims are not - they are in the 21st century and should act like it!
-
Well then i think that Islam has no sense of direction Mr. Monkey, cause it's racing right back to it's bloody roots. In it's middle ages, that's the lamest defense or pass I've ever read.
-
JC WELLLL We ALL know you hate everybody & everything so no change there then. ;) I agree with your roots statement btw.
As for what I said about Middle Ages, I'm not making excuses for Islamic thought. OK We ARE in the 21st century but a lot of the Middle East isn't as we can plainly see at the mo , agreed ??? Assuming the term means a more intelligent attitude to things.
This is all about power & those wanting it, for whatever reason, will use ANY means to get it. Islam does indeed put us all into 2 camps, Muslim & NON-Muslim & acts accordingly.
Have any of you plonkers here actually SEEN A Quran never mind read it? I have & I can see perfectly how Islam is fiercely self-protecting.
Rose
Yes, it's true Islam was flourishing at the time 'we' were doing nasty things in Europe ?!?!!?
CMG or whatever curtain you hide behind !!
''Islam might be in its Middle Ages - Muslims are not - they are in the 21st century and should act like it!''
Bit contradictory, no??
-
We must all remember that Islam is in its Middle Ages & just look what 'WE' were doing then ?!?!!??
In the UK we drove Alan Turing to suicide in the 1950s.
-
CMG or whatever curtain you hide behind !!
''Islam might be in its Middle Ages - Muslims are not - they are in the 21st century and should act like it!''
Bit contradictory, no??
Trippymonkey or whatever pile of crap you are sitiing upon
No!
-
We must all remember that Islam is in its Middle Ages & just look what 'WE' were doing then ?!?!!??
I've heard something similar argued.
It goes that Islam is a young religion and Christianity went through the same sort of process.
The only thing is, from my own looking into it, Islam used to be more tolerant. Pictures of Mohammed used to be allowed at one point even in the Sunni tradition, and also there was quite a lot of scientific discoveries made by Muslims.
Now it seems to have gone backwards in some cases.
I'm not sure what went wrong.
Patriarchy-driven cultural change.
-
CMG
You really don't get it, do you?
I can just see you sat there with your hands over your ears with 'I'm not listening' squirting out your gob ?!?!? ;) ::)
-
CMG
You really don't get it, do you?
I can just see you sat there with your hands over your ears with 'I'm not listening' squirting out your gob ?!?!? ;) ::)
If that is what you see - I'll have two bottles of whatever it is you are either drinkiing or mainlining!
-
You'll need it, believe me if you knew what I know about Islam !!!
-
I have been on this board and the previous BBC board and have discussed with many Muslims, most have been intelligent and caring, some frankly barking, the common thread is the absolute belief in the un-changeability of the Koran despite its obvious faults. Thus we have people argue that because Mohammad was married to Aisha it was OK to have sex when she was 9. So Muslims are in the 21st Century, but mentally emotionally and spiritually they are still in the time of Mohammad, that is why they behave so despicably sometimes. Of course the same could be levelled at xtians but the Bible is softer and xtians have generally put aside medieval practices
-
I have been on this board and the previous BBC board and have discussed with many Muslims, most have been intelligent and caring, some frankly barking, the common thread is the absolute belief in the un-changeability of the Koran despite its obvious faults. Thus we have people argue that because Mohammad was married to Aisha it was OK to have sex when she was 9. So Muslims are in the 21st Century, but mentally emotionally and spiritually they are still in the time of Mohammad, that is why they behave so despicably sometimes. Of course the same could be levelled at xtians but the Bible is softer and xtians have generally put aside medieval practices
Which chapter in the Quran talks about Aisha being 9 years old - since you seem to be using that as an example of the Quran not being subject to change?
Her age is mentioned in hadith and biographies written in the mid-9th century about events set in the 7th century. There were political reasons to do with succession of Caliph of the Arab empire after Prophet Mohamed's death that would have been a motive for Aisha to be depicted as young - so that her virginity would not be challenged at the time she was married to Prophet Mohamed thereby giving her views on succession more credibility due to the cultural norms of purity for women giving them value in society.
I agree that many Muslims feel an emotional or spiritual connection to the time of Prophet Mohamed - that sense of connection is an important part of the faith. However, different Muslims seem to have different ideas about what "being in the time of Mohammed" actually means, hence the widely different beliefs being practised under the banner of Islam, depending on the cultural interpretations of the Islam in each Muslim household.
-
MMMM OK
But it looks like Islam has failed to get ALL its adherents to think, know & feel the same thing, ???
-
Isn't it more to do with Mo being perfect dude therefore when he raped a 9 year old that was ok.
-
My point was that the 9 year old thing is not in the Quran so is not an example of the Quran not changing.
To address your point - not sure there are any Muslims who believe that he raped a 9 year old - my impression is that they do not think of it as rape, even if they believed the 9 year old age thing was accurate (and her age has ranged from 9 -19 years) because as part of the belief the story would be that Aisha was not harmed in any way because she would have been protected from harm by God, because she was divinely ordained to be Prophet Mohamed's wife. And given that the traditional stories say she did not have any children with him, she went on to be an important figure in the Muslim/ Arab empire, her words were passed down through generations, and she went on to lead an army after Prophet Mohamed died, not many Muslims apply her unique story to the general public.
Anyone who extrapolates that to mean that in the 21st century they could have sex with a 9 year old who has reached puberty , and believes that God would protect that 9 year old from harm, is likely to be pretty ignorant when it comes to both religion and women's issues, human biology, physiology, psychology, the dangers of childhood pregnancy, the importance of children being formally educated, the importance of job opportunities for young women etc.
What is more likely is that Muslims and non-Muslims who have child brides as part of their culture today do not think too deeply about these issues. Evidence from UNICEF shows that when communities are educated on these issues there are less incidents of child brides.
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/Child_Marriage_Report_7_17_LR..pdf
Girls who marry are not only denied their childhood. They
are often socially isolated – cut off from family and friends
and other sources of support – with limited opportunities
for education and employment. Households typically make
decisions about girls’ schooling and marriage jointly, not
sequentially, and education tends to lose out. Accordingly,
lower levels of education are found among women who
married in childhood. In Malawi, for instance, nearly two
thirds of women with no formal education were child brides
compared to 5 per cent of women who attended secondary
school or higher levels of education.
I don't see that blind faith in an idea is specific to religion - certain people cling onto all kinds of non-religious cultural beliefs that cause problems for societies. I think the issue is that some people are not willing to change their cultural beliefs because they have an over-riding emotional attachment to a particular idea or way of life or land.
-
Isn't it more to do with Mo being perfect dude therefore when he raped a 9 year old that was ok.
Let's face it - when it comes to religion the adherents to any religion that has as its basis a "HOLY" book will inevitably be splintered into diverse groups, each with its own interpretation of the content and the meaning thereof.
Paganism does not have such a book and is equally splintered, but this splintering is, except for the followers of Gardner and Sanders, not a problem. In cases in which a Pagan has such a Holy Book, it is the Book of Shadows that each Pagan who has decided to keep one, except in Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca where copying out, by hand, the Coven BoS and then keeping it constantly updated is a binding rule, keeps as a record of observations, spells, rituals etc. that the individual Pagan considers important to their particular belief path. It is a book that is so personal that no-one but the writer will read it and, in most cases, it is destroyed by fire upon the death of the writer.
-
Salaam G
Well explained....
Fear seems a be a most overriding factor in 'just doing' & not changing the past.
Nick
-
Once again Gabriella refuses to engage with a perfectly valid point and goes to extreme lengths to distract attention from the original point.
Those who advocate death to Jews, seek to treat them as inferior, deny them services, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who refuse to serve or let hotel rooms to homosexuals or subject them to assault, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who deny equality to others based on their racial appearance, are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
Some threaten to kill Muslims, treat them as inferior, deny them jobs, refuse them employment, etc. Muslims (quite rightly) demand legal and moral protection from such treatment.
Yet Muslims who simply leave their faith to become Christians or just atheists are likely to be killed or totally ostracised by their family and community, thus suffering great hardship at the least. Such treatment is condoned and encouraged by Islam.
What abject hypocrisy.
That's the point that needs addressing Gabriella.
-
Once again Gabriella refuses to engage with a perfectly valid point and goes to extreme lengths to distract attention from the original point.
Those who advocate death to Jews, seek to treat them as inferior, deny them services, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who refuse to serve or let hotel rooms to homosexuals or subject them to assault, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who deny equality to others based on their racial appearance, are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
Some threaten to kill Muslims, treat them as inferior, deny them jobs, refuse them employment, etc. Muslims (quite rightly) demand legal and moral protection from such treatment.
Yet Muslims who simply leave their faith to become Christians or just atheists are likely to be killed or totally ostracised by their family and community, thus suffering great hardship at the least. Such treatment is condoned and encouraged by Islam.
What abject hypocrisy.
That's the point that needs addressing Gabriella.
Getting Gabriella to admit to a downside or hypocrisy in Islam is like trying to get Sassy and Alien to admit to a downside or hgypocrisy in Christianity!
-
Once again Gabriella refuses to engage with a perfectly valid point and goes to extreme lengths to distract attention from the original point.
Those who advocate death to Jews, seek to treat them as inferior, deny them services, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who refuse to serve or let hotel rooms to homosexuals or subject them to assault, etc. Are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
People who deny equality to others based on their racial appearance, are committing an offence and will (quite rightly) be prosecuted.
Some threaten to kill Muslims, treat them as inferior, deny them jobs, refuse them employment, etc. Muslims (quite rightly) demand legal and moral protection from such treatment.
Yet Muslims who simply leave their faith to become Christians or just atheists are likely to be killed or totally ostracised by their family and community, thus suffering great hardship at the least. Such treatment is condoned and encouraged by Islam.
What abject hypocrisy.
That's the point that needs addressing Gabriella.
Actually John, there is no single point that needs addressing, the same way there is no single Islam. So once again let me correct you - there is not one Islam, there are many different interpretations of Islam- some good, some bad - hence some people's interpretations view apostasy as grounds to kill someone or treat them in a discriminatory way whereas other people's interpretations mean that they leave it to God to judge an apostate. People are influenced in their interpretations an beliefs by a mix of their political, social, economic, technological environment and their personality, the education they have had, etc etc
I don't need to distract attention from your point. I addressed a point about the Quran that was made by another poster because it interested me - whereas your point has been made many times before and been engaged with and answered by me many times. Feel free to continue clinging onto whatever belief you want about anything, including Islam. I of course will continue to express the opinion on here, in whatever thread I deem appropriate, that there are different interpretations of Islam, as is the case with any other belief, school of thought, philosophy, idea.
-
Salaam G
Well THIS is the problem when a script can be (mis) interpreted in any manner of ways.
If the Quran IS perfect guidance then there should be NO translation or interpretation possible, no ??
Mohd turned right at the Kabba NOT well, maybe he turned right but it might have been left.
It depends on the translation _ or
Nick
-
Salaam G
Well THIS is the problem when a script can be (mis) interpreted in any manner of ways.
If the Quran IS perfect guidance then there should be NO translation or interpretation possible, no ??
Mohd turned right at the Kabba NOT well, maybe he turned right but it might have been left.
It depends on the translation _ or
Nick
You could certainly hold the interpretation or belief or expectation that "perfect" means that there is no interpretation possible. The word "perfect" is open to many interpretations.
While it would certainly be helpful in a superficial way if a book or message could control people's minds and actions, I personally don't have that particular expectation of religion or scripture. I don't expect religion to make my decisions easier nor do I want to follow something that robs me of the ability to think about moral questions. I find religion useful and appealing precisely because it makes me think about morality, provides different perspectives on the nature and existence of spirituality and morality and because thinking about these perspectives leads me to question and reevaluate my philosophy, beliefs, decisions, feelings and behaviour.
-
Yes Agreed.
What I meant by 'perfect' is, where it matters, it can't misinterpreted.
A mere book cannot control ANYTHING by itself. It has to be used for & against people, as we've recently seen happening.
-
What in your opinion is "where it matters"?
Also, I have asked you this before - how do you prevent something from being misinterpreted? How do you or I go about proving that anyone's interpretation of any belief, philosophy, political or moral idea is false, if the other person keeps insisting that they are right and that we are the ones who have got it wrong?
Presumably the important stuff, or where it matters as you put it, are moral issues? How do you prevent someone from holding a different opinion on a particular moral value?
For example - based on the premise in the Quran that people have the right to defend themselves against oppressors but should act in a just manner when doing so and not transgress limits, people will interpret words such as "just" and "oppressor" in different ways. Most times in international politics most countries and groups within countries do not trust each other because most countries will behave in a way that serves their national interests even if it damages the national interests of other countries. Most internal factions will also protect their own interests even if it damages the interests of a rival group or minority, and this is all done to control national resources and gain power partly out of greed and self-interest, partly out of fear of being disadvantaged by a rival group, and partly in order to impose particular moral values on the rest of society in order to protect your own way of life .
What usually happens in these situations is that societies set up an institution to investigate and come to a decision on the stuff that really matters and decide which moral value or policy that society is going to follow. And they also have institutions to enforce these decisions.
The UN was supposed to be a way of negotiating these international conflicts out, but it doesn't work as countries and factions do not want to share power or territory even in the interests of peace, hence the number of violent conflicts all over the world despite the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations.
-
OK
If I say Do NOT kill another human UNLESS your very life is threatened, what does that mean in YOUR opinion?
Maybe this child me grow up to threaten me later so I'll kill them NOW ???
Maybe the 'problem' with, say, The Quran, other books are available ?!?!? ;) ;), is that it's not really in a language if not all but most cannot really understand. Bit like Sanskrit although both book(s) have lingual links to their more modern counterparts.
A much older volume of a different language WILL be open to alternative options & those doing the interpreting will have their own slant on things according to their own education & characters.
Maybe this will always be a problem as we're taking new views on very old written works.
We COULD discard them but much would be lost too, baby & bathwater ?!!??!
As you say about institutions but who do they REALLY represent - ie are they as neutral as they could or should be???
What agendas have they got?
As you concluded, we BOTH know total giving over to ANY older religion will not work as the mentality, attitudes & behaviours have changed dramatically since then.
We only need look at those mindless lunatics, IS, to see this.
-
IMO I would think that statement means you can't kill people except in self-defence.
But presumably many people will think that statement does not apply in wars or conflicts, where missiles are fired from long distance so there is no threat to the life of the person firing the missile, and people are killed by the missiles. Such action would be considered justified by some but not by others.
And how does your statement apply to people killed as collateral damage? Or in situations where people are killed if the person killing them believes they are preventing even greater numbers of dead in the process?
And how do you stop someone from interpreting that statement in a way that justifies pre-emptive force, because that person perceives an immediate threat and believes that using pre-emptive force was the best way to save the lives of that person's loved ones, even if it means the death of someone else's loved ones?
I don't think the age of the written work or idea is the issue. In the case of pre-emptive attack by the US against Iraq in 2003, Bush's justification based on an interpretation of the words "imminent threat" was that even though Iraq had not attacked the US, it might be a threat in the future.
So it doesn't matter if the written work or idea is old or new - they are all open to interpretation by anyone.
-
G
WELLL
That's all exactly my point. You cannot use any book to define a whole way of life for just the very reasons you state. That's one of many reasons I could never fully subscribe to any one faith as all offer many things others don't.
My second line says much as you've said re Iraq etc.
-
Not sure what you mean by define a whole way of life? The book contains a message or guidance but it is not detailed enough to define a whole way of life.
There are many aspects of being a Muslim today that are not covered in the Quran and were developed by different scholars in different cultures long after the Quran was revealed. Which is why there are contradictory interpretations of the ideas in the Quran. Whether some people choose to go to war or kill each other, either to enforce their particular interpretation or to use an interpretation to gain power or control, is one particularly ugly aspect of human nature that surfaces in political/ sectarian conflicts.
-
Last bits so true unfortunately.
What punishments are defined for disagreement or defiance of The Quran for Muslim AND non-Muslim?
-
What do you mean by defiance or disobedience? Are you talking about breaking laws or defiance in terms of belief? The punishments for breaking the laws in the Quran are not very detailed, hence the legal process and different punishments are interpreted and developed by each country and are different in different countries.
There are a number of potential punishments for defiance of belief described in the Quran following a Day of Judgement - some of them pretty gruesome - can't remember exact details but possibly drinking boiling water and burning in fire springs to mind.
My interpretation is that the whole judgement / punishment narrative for the Day of Judgement is part of the concept of accountability and being God-fearing, as the concept in the Quran is that defiance and disobedience in belief is something for God to judge - obviously I have no idea if the concept of the punishments after death is literal or metaphorical, since there is no evidence for any of it, so it would be a faith matter.
-
Well... technically speaking ALL non-Muslims are defying and-or disobeying your god by not bowing to Islam, no?
The so-called punishments are just the same as in the other 2 Abrahamic faiths of Judaism & Christianity. In fact, worse in some ways...
As you rightly say - there's no evidence for punishments or, indeed, even for Allah Himself.
They're all as bad as each other IMO
-
i am assuming the issue of supernatural or divine judgement for rejection of a belief in Islam is a lot more complex than just whether you call yourself a Muslim or not. For example Islam could have been presented to someone in a way that causes them to hate it.
I don't know the workings of someone else's mind to know what causes belief in Islam to exist when previously there was none. I can only be somewhat aware of my own mind and what led me to adopt a belief in Islam.
-
TBH G I find it fascinating why people 'change'.
It seems to be more on a personal level rather than regards the 'truth' of anything and that's fine.
As long as those people don't start going round telling everyone else THEY'RE wrong because they disagree with them. THAT'S human ego & seems to be going against the main idea that religion is supposed to make one a 'better person'
Nick
-
TBH G I find it fascinating why people 'change'.
It seems to be more on a personal level rather than regards the 'truth' of anything and that's fine.
As long as those people don't start going round telling everyone else THEY'RE wrong because they disagree with them. THAT'S human ego & seems to be going against the main idea that religion is supposed to make one a 'better person'
Nick
That cuts both ways - atheists who tell theists they are wrong because they disagree with them is presumably also about human ego and goes against the idea that not being religious is supposed to make one a 'better person'.
On here it certainly seems possible for some theists and atheists to debate ideas and public policies encompassing both their shared and differing moral beliefs (i.e. religious and non-religious moral beliefs) without getting into something as subjective as who is the 'better person'.
I changed because it felt 'true' for me.
-
Gabriella
You accuse me of clinging to my own beliefs about Islam, as if this problem was one I had made up or exaggerated.
I accuse you in return of being ill informed.
Clearly you did not watch the programme linked in the op which shows specific examples of the real problems the treatment of apostates lead to.
Yes it also refers to one small Islamic sect who have no problems with apostasy but they are a very limited minority.
You also appear to be unaware that in 13 Islamic countries The penalty for apostasy is death.
I suppose you will say its only my opinion and therefore of no import!!!!!
I claim that persecuting people and threatening them with death because of their faith or lack of is obscene.
It is this view that allows Muslims in the UK to practice their faith unhindered.
It is greatly to be regretted that Muslims do not reciprocate my attitude.
But it isn't just me saying this, watch the programme.
-
Stating that Muslims do not reciprocate is a lazy generalisation. Even if many, and indeed a majority (though you have not evidenced that) is true, the absolute of your statement is not justified.
-
I'm guessing people turn to Islam either because they see those elements of the golden rule in it and it makes more sense to them or it appeals because it offers them equality in a way other things don't.
I'm thinking of untouchables in India who by becoming Muslim become equal in the community.
I was reading about how untouchables in India were converting to Islam, I suppose to them it looks fairer more equal it was interesting to read.
What I read was in a book but you can google it
http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0730/073047.html
If Sriram sees it I shall never hear the end of it :o
LOL, no doubt, but it is just blatant propaganda. There have been mass conversions, mainly to Buddhism, but untouchables and other "lower" castes are far more likely to be targeted by Christian missionaries than Muslim - especially in South India. Unfortunately the caste system is just as rife in Indian Muslim and Christian communities as it is in Hindu.
-
Gabriella
You accuse me of clinging to my own beliefs about Islam, as if this problem was one I had made up or exaggerated.
I accuse you in return of being ill informed.
Clearly you did not watch the programme linked in the op which shows specific examples of the real problems the treatment of apostates lead to.
Yes it also refers to one small Islamic sect who have no problems with apostasy but they are a very limited minority.
You also appear to be unaware that in 13 Islamic countries The penalty for apostasy is death.
I suppose you will say its only my opinion and therefore of no import!!!!!
I claim that persecuting people and threatening them with death because of their faith or lack of is obscene.
It is this view that allows Muslims in the UK to practice their faith unhindered.
It is greatly to be regretted that Muslims do not reciprocate my attitude.
But it isn't just me saying this, watch the programme.
Another person on here who has trouble comprehending what they read. Must be some negative correlation between prejudice and ability to read on here.
I did not say that you had made up the problem - in fact what I actually said was that some individuals' or legal systems' interpretations of Islam advocate the death penalty for apostasy, and some don't.
It is not just members of one sect that advocate not imposing the death penalty or any other legal punishment for apostasy - there are scholars from various backgrounds who also advocate that position and I have linked t them before the last time this was brought up. There is no single Islam that universally advocates the death penalty for apostasy.
And no, I didn't watch the programme but yes I am aware that some Muslims face threats to their life if they leave Islam - it is fairly well publicised on the internet and in the media.
-
I read recently of a Muslim family who converted to Christianity and have had to move twice because of intimidation and abuse from their Muslim neighbours. They now live in a non muslim community. One assumes that these were not barking mad jihadists carrying out the abuse but regular moderate muslims. It is extremely disturbing that this is happening in the UK and like Rochdale the police are reluctant to treat as a faith hate crime, presumably concerned about upsetting the muslim community. It is difficult not to conclude that even ordinary muslims to not recognise equality of religions
-
Link to the story? To try and see why you assume the neighbours were moderate Muslims? That's a big assumption for you to make and would also depend on if your definition of "moderate" is someone who breaks the law by abusing and intimidating people.
-
I read recently of a Muslim family who converted to Christianity and have had to move twice because of intimidation and abuse from their Muslim neighbours. They now live in a non muslim community. One assumes that these were not barking mad jihadists carrying out the abuse but regular moderate muslims. It is extremely disturbing that this is happening in the UK and like Rochdale the police are reluctant to treat as a faith hate crime, presumably concerned about upsetting the muslim community. It is difficult not to conclude that even ordinary muslims to not recognise equality of religions
Islam most certainly doesn't recognise equality of religions so why should Muslims? It tends to say 'keep quiet if you're in a powerless minority' !!
-
Not sure what you mean by keep quiet - I haven't been told that by any Muslims and it isn't my understanding of Islam.
As for equality of religion - a religious label is meaningless IMO, it's the belief and actions that are judged if you believe in the concept of a day of judgement.
Islam means submission in Arabic - from my understanding whether someone feels in submission to something they view as their creator can't be determined externally by other people though each person may well hold an opinion on it based on the behaviour of others.
My understanding of Islam is that submission is an internal act - an act of faith, a belief in submission to something supernatural i.e. something other than what science can test and verify, that manifests itself in a sense of thankfulness, if you have a belief in the concept of a supernatural creator. Therefore presumably people can call themselves Muslims and outwardly act like Muslims in some cultural aspects but not be considered to be in submission. Or people can call themselves something else and still be in submission more than many Muslims - IMO the belief is that the degree of submission is judged by god.
-
Salaam G
You know as well as I do there's so much more in the Quran than 'simple' submission, whatever THAT means ?!!??
You'll know about those parts that suggest behaviours when a Muslim(s) are in a minority in another faith society? No?
Nick
-
Salaam G
You know as well as I do there's so much more in the Quran than 'simple' submission, whatever THAT means ?!!??
You'll know about those parts that suggest behaviours when a Muslim(s) are in a minority in another faith society? No?
Nick
Which chapter and verse are you referring to? I can't answer such vague questions - I need details.
-
No you don't, you know very well what I'm on about.
Anyway, no doubt you'd say 'well, it actually means this or that in MY interpretation of Islam'
Wonder what those loony preachers would think of your 'middle-of-the-road stance on all things Islamic !?!?
MMM
I cannot tell a lie - it was HIM !!!!
-
If I knew what you were on about, I wouldn't ask you for references.
There are lots of non-loony preachers who could probably explain it better than I could to the loony ones.
-
I DO respect your decision to be a Muslim but I so often feel you landed yourself in something you didn't realise would be like this. ???
This would explain all the 'I've no idea what you're on about' we constantly get on here,. despite references.
Nick
-
I have no idea why you are surprised with me disagreeing with your take on Islam - surely you weren't naive or arrogant enough to come on a forum and expect everyone to see things the exact same way you do. You have an expectation or belief that different people with different life experiences should still all see or react to philosophical ideas in the same way. That expectation has been disappointed.
Surely you are not going to suggest that everyone who disagrees with your views is in fact covering up for not realising what they were getting into? I was an atheist so not sure why would you think I didn't think things through or read the Quran or talk to Muslims before becoming a Muslim.
At the time I became a Muslim I was well aware that Muslims were viewed as a bunch of violent, misogynistic nutters. But I was also aware that the Muslims I spoke to and interacted with were nothing like the media stereotype - they were thoughtful and tolerant. So I realised pretty quickly that Muslims were individuals with diverse beliefs.
You can carry on believing it is a huge conspiracy if you want - and that Muslims are just biding their time - not much I can do about your beliefs.
-
You know I TOTALLY agree with you on most you say here !! Honest ?!!?!?
I don't 'expect' anyone to agree with anything I say &, to be really honest, I don't care.
One of the best guys I've ever known was a Muslim & I was very upset when I heard he'd passed on from one of his sons. His family still live in Southall. Him being a Muslim has nothing at all to do with him being, basically, a wonderful guy.
Which goes into this 'grey area' of Muslims being the same as everyone else. Of course !!!
SOME Muslims ARE biding their time, such as IS etc but neither am I so naive to think 99% of ANY people are totally fine. It only takes ONE person to cause absolute carnage. We've seen this in just this last week.
Have they ALL got a legitimate reason to hate the Kuffar ????
N
-
When you say "ALL" what do you mean? Are you working on the assumption that all Muslims hate the kuffar? Your evidence for that?
-
Salaam G
Of course not but you know as well as I do how the Kuffar were viewed in your prophet's time & we must take that always into account as to why religions appear.
Kuffar meaning 'ungrateful', that in itself can be quite insulting too, nah??
Would you please reread my previous post?