Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Virana]

Jesus Christ is the only son of God, the God of Israel, HE IS THE ONLY WAY,TRUTH,AND LIFE. HE SAID SO HIMSELF IN JOHN 14:6 Yeshua said to him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The Life; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.” He loves you and wants to have a personal intamate realationship with you. In order for that to happen you must have the Lord (which means master) Jesus Christ as your ONLY Lord and savior. Not 1 of but the ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER IS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ALONE!!!! You may be asking, well how do I accept Jesus Christ as the only son of God and my personal Lord and savior? By believing in your heart( not just with your mind) that he is the Only son of God and by accepting him as your only Lord and savior. Just believe he is who he claimed to be as stated in the Bible. Ephesians 2:8-9 For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--not from works, so that no one can boast. . Make Jesus Christ your only Lord( which means master) and your only savior today. Only Jesus can save you from everlasting torment. Why? Because he paid your fine on the cross so that by accepting JESUS CHRIST and JESUS CHRIST ALONE, NOT MUHAMMAD OR ANYONE ELSE you will be forgiven. But you must choose God for yourself freely. He doesn't and will not force anyone to believe. You must do it sincerly out of your heart! Ask Jesus to let you know if he is the only way, the only truth, the only life, and if he is the only way to the father as he claimed to be. If you are serious about finding truth Jesus will give it to you.

any questions, comments, disagreements, or anything else please telegram me or email me at ahuff3028@gmail.com

I would've loved to have an educated discussion regarding this sort of thing, but when you're presenting a one-sided opinion while completely ignoring the fact that your own info on the other side is horribly incorrect, further misinterpreting the fact that nothing you say will affect anyone, then there's really no way to have such a civil discussion.

Oh wait, that's how all religious arguments are.

[Eireann Fae]

I would've loved to have an educated discussion regarding this sort of thing, but when you're presenting a one-sided opinion while completely ignoring the fact that your own info on the other side is horribly incorrect, further misinterpreting the fact that nothing you say will affect anyone, then there's really no way to have such a civil discussion.

Oh wait, that's how all religious arguments are.

And you (like everybody else that's responded to the troll in a like manner) ignored the fact that such a debate is not what this thread is for in the first place.

Please, everybody, ignore the Crusader and kindly stay on topic. I'm not OP, and I'm not even a Muslim, but I don't want to see this thread so badly derailed.

[Tsalkha]

I am from a country that is next to a few Muslim Countries. I really admire Islam, and their dedication to the faith.

[Menassa]

I am from a country that is next to a few Muslim Countries. I really admire Islam, and their dedication to the faith.

Interesting you mention this.... Rashi comments on a verse in the Bible that says something along the lines of: "Learn but one thing from the foreigners"

He says it's their dedication to their Gods.

[Tsalkha]

I am from a country that is next to a few Muslim Countries. I really admire Islam, and their dedication to the faith.

Interesting you mention this.... Rashi comments on a verse in the Bible that says something along the lines of: "Learn but one thing from the foreigners"

He says it's their dedication to their Gods.

Ah. As an Orthodox Christian, the dedication of Muslims in Azerbajan and Turkey really do inspire

[Uawc]

I used to be a Muslim years ago, but it simply would not click with me. I disagreed with a lot of what I learned and find certain parts of it abhorrent. Rarely did I really feel any connection between myself and God. I was not raised with proper guidance towards Islam or anything, however, so this may have something to do with it. I was a Sunni most of the time, though near the end of my time with the Ummah, I was a Quaranist.

As a whole, I don't think Islam is so bad, and in my experience Muslims are no different from anybody else. People who want to bash Muslims and Islam while thinking they are advancing some great struggle are silly, petty and destructive in my opinion, and I believe that the Ummah has generally been a relatively progressive and overall force throughout history. In fact, the worst things "about" Islam and Islamic culture are recent developments, generally manifesting after 1924 when the Islamic state was dismantled.

My current religious beliefs can be described as Rastafari-influenced Deism with a strong reverence for nature. And before you ask, no, I'm not a stoner (not that I pass judgement on those who describe themselves as such).

Recently I've been feeling a little spiritual. I don't know what it is.

Nothing is above historical materialism in my mind, though.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I used to be a Muslim years ago, but it simply would not click with me. I disagreed with a lot of what I learned and find certain parts of it abhorrent. Rarely did I really feel any connection between myself and God. I was not raised with proper guidance towards Islam or anything, however, so this may have something to do with it. I was a Sunni most of the time, though near the end of my time with the Ummah, I was a Quaranist.

As a whole, I don't think Islam is so bad, and in my experience Muslims are no different from anybody else. People who want to bash Muslims and Islam while thinking they are advancing some great struggle are silly, petty and destructive in my opinion, and I believe that the Ummah has generally been a relatively progressive and overall force throughout history. In fact, the worst things "about" Islam and Islamic culture are recent developments, generally manifesting after 1924 when the Islamic state was dismantled.

My current religious beliefs can be described as Rastafari-influenced Deism with a strong reverence for nature. And before you ask, no, I'm not a stoner (not that I pass judgement on those who describe themselves as such).

Maybe I misread you, but are you seriously suggesting that Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate is responsible for modern Islamic fundamentalism and reactionary political Islamic movements?

Because that would be an incredibly silly claim. But perhaps I misread you.

[Uawc]

I used to be a Muslim years ago, but it simply would not click with me. I disagreed with a lot of what I learned and find certain parts of it abhorrent. Rarely did I really feel any connection between myself and God. I was not raised with proper guidance towards Islam or anything, however, so this may have something to do with it. I was a Sunni most of the time, though near the end of my time with the Ummah, I was a Quaranist.

As a whole, I don't think Islam is so bad, and in my experience Muslims are no different from anybody else. People who want to bash Muslims and Islam while thinking they are advancing some great struggle are silly, petty and destructive in my opinion, and I believe that the Ummah has generally been a relatively progressive and overall force throughout history. In fact, the worst things "about" Islam and Islamic culture are recent developments, generally manifesting after 1924 when the Islamic state was dismantled.

My current religious beliefs can be described as Rastafari-influenced Deism with a strong reverence for nature. And before you ask, no, I'm not a stoner (not that I pass judgement on those who describe themselves as such).

Maybe I misread you, but are you seriously suggesting that Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate is responsible for modern Islamic fundamentalism and reactionary political Islamic movements?

Because that would be an incredibly silly claim. But perhaps I misread you.

I don't know enough about the subject to suggest a direct correlation between the two events. Just making a vague observation.

[Menassa]

Interesting you mention this.... Rashi comments on a verse in the Bible that says something along the lines of: "Learn but one thing from the foreigners"

He says it's their dedication to their Gods.

Ah. As an Orthodox Christian, the dedication of Muslims in Azerbajan and Turkey really do inspire

The community I live in is pretty dedicated... everyone getting up early for prayers and stopping in the middle of their work for prayers.... but then again I'm not really around Muslims as much as I would like to be.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Maybe I misread you, but are you seriously suggesting that Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate is responsible for modern Islamic fundamentalism and reactionary political Islamic movements?

Because that would be an incredibly silly claim. But perhaps I misread you.

You did misread me, I don't know enough about the subject to suggest a correlation between the two events. Just making an observation, and I should have noted that the last 50 years or so is when reactionary political Islam seemed to really take flight.

Ah. My apologies. Anyway, you are right that it is a modern phenomenon; that is a good observation.

It actually took flight in the 60s with the death of Arab Nationalism following President Nasser's defeat by Israel in the Arab Israeli war of 1967 and really gained momentum with the Iranian revolution of 1979. Despite Iran being predominantly Shi'ite, the Islamic revolution actually provided momentum for a lot of Sunni movements who realised that if the Iranians could overthrow a secular dictator, then so could they, and they've been much more active ever since.

At a social level the driving factors have tended to be the influx into urban areas of rural migrants who become disenchated with the amoralism and impiety of city life, the subsidising of conservative preachers and intellectual currents as a counterweight to leftist political ideologies (with which you are no doubt familiar)....and well, a lot of other things. It's a long story. A very interesting one nonetheless.

[Uawc]

You did misread me, I don't know enough about the subject to suggest a correlation between the two events. Just making an observation, and I should have noted that the last 50 years or so is when reactionary political Islam seemed to really take flight.

Ah. My apologies. Anyway, you are right that it is a modern phenomenon; that is a good observation.

It actually took flight in the 60s with the death of Arab Nationalism following President Nasser's defeat by Israel in the Arab Israeli war of 1967 and really gained momentum with the Iranian revolution of 1979. Despite Iran being predominantly Shi'ite, the Islamic revolution actually provided momentum for a lot of Sunni movements who realised that if the Iranians could overthrow a secular dictator, then so could they, and they've been much more active ever since.

At a social level the driving factors have tended to be the influx into urban areas of rural migrants who become disenchated with the amoralism and impiety of city life, the subsidising of conservative preachers and intellectual currents as a counterweight to leftist political ideologues (with which you are no doubt familiar)....and well, a lot of other things. It's a long story. A very interesting one nonetheless.

I am absolutely dumbstruck as to why religious sects of all faiths insist on maintaining stronger enmity towards each other than towards practically anything else. It's pretty depressing, really.

[Menassa]

Ah. My apologies. Anyway, you are right that it is a modern phenomenon; that is a good observation.

It actually took flight in the 60s with the death of Arab Nationalism following President Nasser's defeat by Israel in the Arab Israeli war of 1967 and really gained momentum with the Iranian revolution of 1979. Despite Iran being predominantly Shi'ite, the Islamic revolution actually provided momentum for a lot of Sunni movements who realised that if the Iranians could overthrow a secular dictator, then so could they, and they've been much more active ever since.

At a social level the driving factors have tended to be the influx into urban areas of rural migrants who become disenchated with the amoralism and impiety of city life, the subsidising of conservative preachers and intellectual currents as a counterweight to leftist political ideologues (with which you are no doubt familiar)....and well, a lot of other things. It's a long story. A very interesting one nonetheless.

I am absolutely dumbstruck as to why religious sects of all faiths insist on maintaining stronger enmity towards each other than towards practically anything else. It's pretty depressing, really.

What?

[Azurand]

I used to be a Muslim years ago, but it simply would not click with me. I disagreed with a lot of what I learned and find certain parts of it abhorrent. Rarely did I really feel any connection between myself and God. I was not raised with proper guidance towards Islam or anything, however, so this may have something to do with it. I was a Sunni most of the time, though near the end of my time with the Ummah, I was a Quaranist.

As a whole, I don't think Islam is so bad, and in my experience Muslims are no different from anybody else. People who want to bash Muslims and Islam while thinking they are advancing some great struggle are silly, petty and destructive in my opinion, and I believe that the Ummah has generally been a relatively progressive and overall force throughout history. In fact, the worst things "about" Islam and Islamic culture are recent developments, generally manifesting after 1924 when the Islamic state was dismantled.

My current religious beliefs can be described as Rastafari-influenced Deism with a strong reverence for nature. And before you ask, no, I'm not a stoner (not that I pass judgement on those who describe themselves as such).

Maybe I misread you, but are you seriously suggesting that Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate is responsible for modern Islamic fundamentalism and reactionary political Islamic movements?

...yes.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Maybe I misread you, but are you seriously suggesting that Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate is responsible for modern Islamic fundamentalism and reactionary political Islamic movements?

...yes.

Global Political Islamic movements did not take off until 1979 starting with the Iranian Revolution, in the aftermath of which Khomeini established a Shi'ite theocracy in Iran. What on earth did Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate (one only accepted as legitimate by Sunnis...and not all of them mind you) have to do with that?

Or going back to historical antecedents, the Ottoman "Caliph" (a title which Mehmed II simply just gave himself incidentally...I don't think he was even descended from either the Quraish or directly from the prophet, so theologically it's a bit iffy his claim) was around when Muhammad Ibn Wahhab started his little movement.

[Azurand]

...yes.

Global Political Islamic movements did not take off until 1979 starting with the Iranian Revolution, in the aftermath of which Khomeini established a Shi'ite theocracy in Iran. What on earth did Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate (one only accepted as legitimate by Sunnis...and not all of them mind you) have to do with that?

Several Islamic movements, despite still small, was rose after the abolition of Ottoman Caliphate, as many Muslims, as you could expect, are Sunni and outraged with the abolition. In Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), In response to the collapse of the caliphate a committee was established in Surabaya on October 4, 1924 chaired by Wondosoedirdjo (later known as Wondoamiseno) of SI (Sarekat Islam) and vice chairman of the CRC. Wahab Hasbullah. The aim is to discuss the congressional invitation caliphate in Cairo. This meeting was followed up with Al-Islam organizing the Indian Congress III in Surabaya on 24 to 27 December 1924, which followed 68 Islamic organizations representing the central leadership (hoofdbestuur) and branch (section), as well as the written support of 10 branches of other organizations. The congress was also attended by many scholars from all over the East Indies. Important decisions of this congress is involved in the Khilafat movement and sent a messenger to be considered as representative of the Muslims of Indonesia to the congress of the Islamic world. The Congress decided to send a delegation to Cairo consisting of Suryopranoto (SI), Haji Fakhruddin (Muhammadiyah) and CRC. Wahab of the tradition.

Despite Ataturk doesn't caused the major, global Islamic movements, he does influenced Islamic political movements, and, all Islamist terrorists demand the return of Caliphate. I, honestly, also would like to see a Caliphate stand once again, but not the concept of "totalitarian Caliphate", just like current Saudi Arabia.

Or going back to historical antecedents, the Ottoman "Caliph" (a title which Mehmed II simply just gave himself incidentally...I don't think he was even descended from either the Quraish or directly from the prophet, so theologically it's a bit iffy his claim) was around when Muhammad Ibn Wahhab started his little movement.

Someone doesn't need to be a Quraish to be a Caliph.

[EnragedMaldivians]

1) Islamic political movements are upset that there is no Caliph. That does not mean that the fall of the Caliphate is responsible for reactionary Islamic political movements (which you agree with ...so your long response to me wasn't really a rebuttal).

2) It's a disputed point admittedly, but a significant amount of Sunnis believe that the Caliph should be descended from the Quraishi tribe. The Ottoman dynasty just simply started calling themselves Caliphs starting with Mehmed the Conqueror. Though that's alright I suppose, after all when it boils down to it, the Umayyads and Abbasids simply did just seize power as well.

Anyway, granting that the Sultan's claim to Caliph was totally valid at the time...then Ibn Wahhab's puritanical movement, which is still incredibly influential within Islamist milieus, coincided with the existence of a Caliphate.

[Kemalist]

Konya is surprising. I know I'm reaching back a hell of a long time ago (back to the 13-14th century in fact) but I can understand why ''fundamentalist" Sufism would have developed where the Ghazi principalities bordered Byzantine lands, because I know that the mysticism that developed in that frontier region was very militaristic. Note that I'm just speculating here and I'm thinking that if there is a tradition of militaristic or even ultra-conservative Turkish Sufism it is very plausible, to me at least, that it goes back to even Pre-Ottoman times.

But Konya if I recall correctly, is in Karaman, named after the Karamanid dynasty that ruled South Eastern Anatolia until the Osmanlis (Ottomans) conquered them. (Well, conquered and reconquered them; they briefly regained their independence after Timur decided to restore them to power after he defeated Bayezid I at Ankara, almost destroying the Ottoman Empire in the process...but I digress). While, as a rivial Islamic principality, they were obviously competitors to the Ottomans for a very long time, I know of no mystic frontier tradition that developed between the Karamanid-Ottoman borders.

The only other explanation I can think of would be that Konya might have been a stronghold of the "Devout Bourgeoisie". Was Konya ever a noted centre of pre-Industrial trade? If I recall correctly, the guild merchants of Turkey tended to be quite religious. They weren't Salaafis certainly, but they wete conservative in outlook whilst adding a pinch of mysticism and ritual to their business practices. Or is there another explanation for this?

(But you know, whatever one thinks of Turkish Sufism in terms of the prevalent outlooks of those who ascribe to it, those whirling dervish dances are very pretty).

Well the people living there are not descendants of Karamanids for sure, if that was the case this city would not be that bigotic anyway. After Karamanid territories were conquered by Ottomans, most of them were expelled to the Balkans.

You are right about Islamic Bourgeoisie, it's very strong there. But anyway, I don't give a damn about it, it is the last city I would ever think of visiting anytime soon.

And I don't like dervish. They seem irritating.

[Czechanada]

Global Political Islamic movements did not take off until 1979 starting with the Iranian Revolution, in the aftermath of which Khomeini established a Shi'ite theocracy in Iran. What on earth did Ataturk's abolishing of the Caliphate (one only accepted as legitimate by Sunnis...and not all of them mind you) have to do with that?

Several Islamic movements, despite still small, was rose after the abolition of Ottoman Caliphate, as many Muslims, as you could expect, are Sunni and outraged with the abolition. In Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), In response to the collapse of the caliphate a committee was established in Surabaya on October 4, 1924 chaired by Wondosoedirdjo (later known as Wondoamiseno) of SI (Sarekat Islam) and vice chairman of the CRC. Wahab Hasbullah. The aim is to discuss the congressional invitation caliphate in Cairo. This meeting was followed up with Al-Islam organizing the Indian Congress III in Surabaya on 24 to 27 December 1924, which followed 68 Islamic organizations representing the central leadership (hoofdbestuur) and branch (section), as well as the written support of 10 branches of other organizations. The congress was also attended by many scholars from all over the East Indies. Important decisions of this congress is involved in the Khilafat movement and sent a messenger to be considered as representative of the Muslims of Indonesia to the congress of the Islamic world. The Congress decided to send a delegation to Cairo consisting of Suryopranoto (SI), Haji Fakhruddin (Muhammadiyah) and CRC. Wahab of the tradition.

Despite Ataturk doesn't caused the major, global Islamic movements, he does influenced Islamic political movements, and, all Islamist terrorists demand the return of Caliphate. I, honestly, also would like to see a Caliphate stand once again, but not the concept of "totalitarian Caliphate", just like current Saudi Arabia.

Or going back to historical antecedents, the Ottoman "Caliph" (a title which Mehmed II simply just gave himself incidentally...I don't think he was even descended from either the Quraish or directly from the prophet, so theologically it's a bit iffy his claim) was around when Muhammad Ibn Wahhab started his little movement.

Someone doesn't need to be a Quraish to be a Caliph.

Not all Islamist terrorists demand the return of the Caliphate. Al-Qaeda, comprised of various cells, actually seems to incorporate some nihlist terrorism in their ideologies.

1) Islamic political movements are upset that there is no Caliph. That does not mean that the fall of the Caliphate is responsible for reactionary Islamic political movements (which you agree with ...so your long response to me wasn't really a rebuttal).

2) It's a disputed point admittedly, but a significant amount of Sunnis believe that the Caliph should be descended from the Quraishi tribe. The Ottoman dynasty just simply started calling themselves Caliphs starting with Mehmed the Conqueror. Though that's alright I suppose, after all when it boils down to it, the Umayyads and Abbasids simply did just seize power as well.

Anyway, granting that the Sultan's claim to Caliph was totally valid at the time...then Ibn Wahhab's puritanical movement, which is still incredibly influential within Islamist milieus, coincided with the existence of a Caliphate.

My sociology of terrorism professor, who happens to teach Islamic history at the main campus, had said that the Arabs did not recognize the Sultan's claim to Caliphhood simply because he wasn't Arab.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Very plausible. I didn't know that but I can believe it; that would make sense.

[Kemalist]

Caliphate was not really that effective under the Ottoman Empire at all, at least not upon the conquered Arab territories. Ottomans declared Jihad against the Allied power in WW1, but Arabs chose to fight them instead, collaborating with their enemies (Lawrence comes to mind)

It was also the biggest reason why Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, as it was obvious that it had no significant influence anymore. And it's not like that the Islamic world, except some marginal groups reacted harshly to this decision, considering that Turkey under Ataturk's rule kept having good relations with the Islamic world, for instance being the first country to recognize Saudi Arabia. Ibn Saud also visited Ataturk, as well as other sheikh rulers and kings in the Muslim world, say Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

So, most of those movements with a pro-caliphate agenda emerged either in this age, or during the Cold War, whose disciples have no knowledge about the atmosphere of that time.

There is no point in establishing a Caliphate today, which would only serve the interests of the imperialist powers. Besides it's so hard to establish a perfectly fair institution that would represent the whole Muslim world, not just Sunnis, considering that there is a significant number of Sunnis who do not even recognize Shi'ites as Muslim anyway.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Caliphate was not really that effective under the Ottoman Empire at all, at least not upon the conquered Arab territories. Ottomans declared Jihad against the Allied power in WW1, but Arabs chose to fight them instead, collaborating with their enemies (Lawrence comes to mind)

It was also the biggest reason why Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, as it was obvious that it had no significant influence anymore. And it's not like that the Islamic world, except some marginal groups reacted harshly to this decision, considering that Turkey under Ataturk's rule kept having good relations with the Islamic world, for instance being the first country to recognize Saudi Arabia. Saudi king Faisal also visited Ataturk, as well as other sheikh rulers and kings in the Muslim world, say Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

So, most of those movements with a pro-caliphate agenda emerged either in this age, or during the Cold War, whose disciples have no knowledge about the atmosphere of that time.

Yeah, the Caliph only held symbolic value to Non-Arab Sunni Muslims under colonial rule by the time World War One rolled around. The Arabs were much more keen on divesting themselves of Ottoman rule.

A lot of South Asian Islamist types who think Ataturk destroyed the Caliphate and whine about 1924 tend to forget, or simply not know (which is more often the case), that Abdulhamed II was the last Caliph that held any real power and that, as an institution it was largely powerless even before Ataturk.

[Kemalist]

Caliphate was not really that effective under the Ottoman Empire at all, at least not upon the conquered Arab territories. Ottomans declared Jihad against the Allied power in WW1, but Arabs chose to fight them instead, collaborating with their enemies (Lawrence comes to mind)

It was also the biggest reason why Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, as it was obvious that it had no significant influence anymore. And it's not like that the Islamic world, except some marginal groups reacted harshly to this decision, considering that Turkey under Ataturk's rule kept having good relations with the Islamic world, for instance being the first country to recognize Saudi Arabia. Saudi king Faisal also visited Ataturk, as well as other sheikh rulers and kings in the Muslim world, say Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

So, most of those movements with a pro-caliphate agenda emerged either in this age, or during the Cold War, whose disciples have no knowledge about the atmosphere of that time.

Yeah, the Caliph only held symbolic value to Non-Arab Sunni Muslims under colonial rule the time World War One rolled around; the Arabs were much more keen on divesting themselves of Ottoman rule.

A lot of South Asian Islamist types who think Ataturk destroyed the Caliphate and whine about 1924 tend to forget or simply not know (which is more often the case) that Abdulhamed II was the last Caliph that held any real power and as an institution it was largely powerless even before Ataturk.

Still, even he could not withstand the Young Turk revolution. The existence of the Caliphate was invalid from the beginning anyway, because Ali was supposed to be the successor to Muhammad as he himself supported him, but after Muhammad's death his wish was betrayed. I'm sure if Mohammad was alive he would thank Ataturk for doing that.

[Kalmarium]

I wonder is Western Virginia will return with more of his/her popoganda. Im just curious as to what he has to say, or if hes fail trolling. Gets me wondering...

[Menassa]

I wonder is Western Virginia will return with more of his/her popoganda. Im just curious as to what he has to say, or if hes fail trolling. Gets me wondering...

Let's hope they don't.

[Kalmarium]

I wonder is Western Virginia will return with more of his/her popoganda. Im just curious as to what he has to say, or if hes fail trolling. Gets me wondering...

Let's hope they don't.

I suppose he was a bit offensive, and entirely one-sided in his claims. So yes, lets hope not.