Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Napkiraly]

Here's an honest question.

How can any of you still be practicing moslems when so much shit happens in its name?

You can say the same for many political and religious groups. Nationality as well.

[Napkiraly]

But dominion theology isn't popular anymore, and hasn't been for a while now.

Of course not, Christianity has a good 600+ years on Islam. Religions seem to have stages of development. Islam is still in it's mid stages, but there is some question as to whether it will enter late stages.

If you're talking about extremism, then not really. Religions ebb and flow in religious fervor and extremism. This is not the first time for Islam, just like how the Crusades were not so for Christianity and certainly not the last time for Christianity either.

[Baltenstein]

If there really is such a thing as a progressive timeline development for religions, then India should have already secularized to the point of Hinduism's disappearence, having come into existence several thousands of years before the big monotheistic faiths. Obviously, that's not the case.

[Napkiraly]

If there really is such a thing as a progressive timeline development for religions, then India should have already secularized to the point of Hinduism's disappearence, having come into existence several thousands of years before the big monotheistic faiths. Obviously, that's not the case.

Precisely, I don't understand why people keep on using this line of argument. Christianity became far less extreme over time due to reasons other than "just enough time had passed". It was more to alternative moral philosophies being developed and influencing society and aggressive secularisation attempts by various states over time.

Not to mention, the whole "We need an Islamic Reformation!" which seems to indicate that the person in question knows absolutely nothing about the Reformation. Primarily that Martin Luther and early protestants were very fundamentalist.

[The Alma Mater]

If there really is such a thing as a progressive timeline development for religions, then India should have already secularized to the point of Hinduism's disappearence, having come into existence several thousands of years before the big monotheistic faiths. Obviously, that's not the case.

Then again, 1000s of others did vanish. One exception to the rule ?

[Alsheb]

If there really is such a thing as a progressive timeline development for religions, then India should have already secularized to the point of Hinduism's disappearence, having come into existence several thousands of years before the big monotheistic faiths. Obviously, that's not the case.

Precisely, I don't understand why people keep on using this line of argument. Christianity became far less extreme over time due to reasons other than "just enough time had passed". It was more to alternative moral philosophies being developed and influencing society and aggressive secularisation attempts by various states over time.

Not to mention, the whole "We need an Islamic Reformation!" which seems to indicate that the person in question knows absolutely nothing about the Reformation. Primarily that Martin Luther and early protestants were very fundamentalist.

If anything, Islam needs less reformation and more return to the sources. It's precisely groups such as the Salafists and Wahhabis that are attempting to 'reform' Islam into something completely deviated from the Qur'anic message.

[Alsheb]

There is no reform for Islam the reformers are apostates.

Have fun with your disease, poverty and violence I guess, us Westerners will enjoy our high living standards and civil rights.

> disease and poverty
> somehow linked to which religion people follow
> implying that Western society is apparently free from disease, poverty and violence

Great argumentation there, buddy.

[Acarn]

Have fun with your disease, poverty and violence I guess, us Westerners will enjoy our high living standards and civil rights.

> disease and poverty
> somehow linked to which religion people follow
> implying that Western society is apparently free from disease, poverty and violence

Great argumentation there, buddy.

he could link violence and problems with civil rights to islam. But thats more because of Wahhabist and salafists with their violent and discriminatory policies

[Alsheb]

> disease and poverty
> somehow linked to which religion people follow
> implying that Western society is apparently free from disease, poverty and violence

Great argumentation there, buddy.

he could link violence and problems with civil rights to islam. But thats more because of Wahhabist and salafists with their violent and discriminatory policies

I doubt guys like that have the intellectual honesty to make such a distinction and put the blame where it rightly needs to be - with the salafists and wahhabis. It's funny really. When someone blames all Jews for the actions of zionism, than that person will be widely ridiculed and shunned (and rightly so.) But when someone purposefully blames Islam or all Muslims for the actions of the Salafist terrorists, than it's suddenly okay.

[Acarn]

he could link violence and problems with civil rights to islam. But thats more because of Wahhabist and salafists with their violent and discriminatory policies

I doubt guys like that have the intellectual honesty to make such a distinction and put the blame where it rightly needs to be - with the salafists and wahhabis. It's funny really. When someone blames all Jews for the actions of zionism, than that person will be widely ridiculed and shunned (and rightly so.) But when someone purposefully blames Islam or all Muslims for the actions of the Salafist terrorists, than it's suddenly okay.

Its not okay in the slightest, but if someone was intellectually capable of making the distinction he would be correct in that particular regard. But unfortunately most people dont understand how many moderate muslims have given their lives to fight these extremists

[Napkiraly]

he could link violence and problems with civil rights to islam. But thats more because of Wahhabist and salafists with their violent and discriminatory policies

I doubt guys like that have the intellectual honesty to make such a distinction and put the blame where it rightly needs to be - with the salafists and wahhabis. It's funny really. When someone blames all Jews for the actions of zionism, than that person will be widely ridiculed and shunned (and rightly so.) But when someone purposefully blames Islam or all Muslims for the actions of the Salafist terrorists, than it's suddenly okay.

Tbf the protection clause does not extend to Christianity. Really I can only think of Judaism and Buddhism that get it.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I've decided to undertake an in-depth reading of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's more notable or essential published works; to see if he can persuade me to revert.

[Alsheb]

I doubt guys like that have the intellectual honesty to make such a distinction and put the blame where it rightly needs to be - with the salafists and wahhabis. It's funny really. When someone blames all Jews for the actions of zionism, than that person will be widely ridiculed and shunned (and rightly so.) But when someone purposefully blames Islam or all Muslims for the actions of the Salafist terrorists, than it's suddenly okay.

Tbf the protection clause does not extend to Christianity. Really I can only think of Judaism and Buddhism that get it.

Buddhism doesn't even have to justify anything, as it is for some reason seen as necessarily and inherently non-violent, which is complete nonsense of course. But you're right, Judaism does get some sort of overprotection clause when it comes to criticism, to that extent that anti-zionist activity is often just immediately named "antisemitism" without any scrutiny whatsoever.

Which isn't just negative for an intellectually honest debates about the crimes of zionism, but is also plain discriminatory towards the many Jews who are not zionists and don't feel represented by zionist policy at all, such as the True Torah Jews and much of the Hasidic and Haredi communities as well as many secular Jews who don't feel for zionism at all.

[Alsheb]

I've decided to undertake an in-depth reading of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's more notable or essential published works; to see if he can persuade me to revert.

Yeah, about that post you made earlier. You do seem like having an interesting backstory there
Care to explain further what made you leave the faith and what exactly you mean when you said you were deeply dissatisfied?

[Salus Maior]

Here's an honest question.

How can any of you still be practicing moslems when so much shit happens in its name?

Same way I can be a Christian when so much shit happens and has happened in its name. Because the people who commit the atrocities are doing so in spite of my religion's principles and have twisted them to their own ends. In short, because what they're doing is not true Christianity.

Same thing with Muslims and Islam.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Not to mention, the whole "We need an Islamic Reformation!" which seems to indicate that the person in question knows absolutely nothing about the Reformation. Primarily that Martin Luther and early protestants were very fundamentalist.

The muslim world does not need a Reformation because unlike christianity way back when, there is no struggle between nations and doctrinal organizations. It needs an Age of Enlightenment. It needs people willing to question and disregard the old dogma they chafe under, needs a willingness to branch out into new ways of doing and understanding things instead of assuming stuffy old religious beliefs will fix everything. It needs a greater understanding of tolerance and mutual benefit. Perhaps even a greater national identity, as opposed to tribal and sectarian ones.

[Napkiraly]

Tbf the protection clause does not extend to Christianity. Really I can only think of Judaism and Buddhism that get it.

Buddhism doesn't even have to justify anything, as it is for some reason seen as necessarily and inherently non-violent, which is complete nonsense of course. But you're right, Judaism does get some sort of overprotection clause when it comes to criticism, to that extent that anti-zionist activity is often just immediately named "antisemitism" without any scrutiny whatsoever.

Which isn't just negative for an intellectually honest debates about the crimes of zionism, but is also plain discriminatory towards the many Jews who are not zionists and don't feel represented by zionist policy at all, such as the True Torah Jews and much of the Hasidic and Haredi communities as well as many secular Jews who don't feel for zionism at all.

Tbf that's also because anti-Zionism often does get close to it, especially in rhetoric. Not to mention focusing so much on Israel and many people going "I'm against it because I'm against nationalism!" yet in favour of Palestinian nationalism and other nationalist causes.

Because that's pretty much what Zionism is, Jewish nationalism. It's basically saying you don't think Jews deserve a nation-state of their own. I'm sure you can understand why this may cause alarm bells to ring for some people.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Have fun with your disease, poverty and violence I guess, us Westerners will enjoy our high living standards and civil rights.

> disease and poverty
> somehow linked to which religion people follow
> implying that Western society is apparently free from disease, poverty and violence

Great argumentation there, buddy.

>"no reform ever"
>"anyone who questions the dogma is an apostate"
>"let's pretend that it's still the eighth century and never move past it or try to adapt"
>"b-but why are we so poor and backwards"

Great argument dude. Stay mad.

[Great Feng]

I hate both Israel and Palestine.
Cuz I'm sick of them both doing bullshit and accusing the other of being worse.
Also, we should split up Iraq and the rest of the middle east and rearrange it and maybe africa through ethnic and religious boundaries.
There, that lessens the violence somewhat.

[Napkiraly]

Believe it or not but the AU considers the current borders in Africa as quite sacrosanct.

[Alsheb]

One thing that is particularly fascinating to me about Islam is that the Qur'an specifically mentions that Allah has sent a multitude of Messengers and Prophets amongst all peoples on Earth to spread the message of the oneness of God, peace and truth. Obviously, this includes the Prophets of the Israelites and Isa, all of whom are mentioned also by Jews and Christians.
But the most fascinating out of all is that the Qur'an literally states that there have been more, that they have visited all peoples and races of Earth, and that many of them are unknown and unrevealed to the contemporary world.

"We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee...." Qur'an 40:78

"For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, ..." Qur'an 16:36

This raised a most interesting thinking exercise: there have been messengers and prophets of Islam (at least in the literal meaning of the word Islam) for perhaps thousands of years, and amongst every people on this planet. I know it's probably a form of speculation to try and examine history in search of who could have been a prophet of Allah, but it is a fascinating thing to bear in mind.

[Napkiraly]

One thing that is particularly fascinating to me about Islam is that the Qur'an specifically mentions that Allah has sent a multitude of Messengers and Prophets amongst all peoples on Earth to spread the message of the oneness of God, peace and truth. Obviously, this includes the Prophets of the Israelites and Isa, all of whom are mentioned also by Jews and Christians.
But the most fascinating out of all is that the Qur'an literally states that there have been more, that they have visited all peoples and races of Earth, and that many of them are unknown and unrevealed to the contemporary world.

"We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee...." Qur'an 40:78

"For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, ..." Qur'an 16:36

This raised a most interesting thinking exercise: there have been messengers and prophets of Islam (at least in the literal meaning of the word Islam) for perhaps thousands of years, and amongst every people on this planet. I know it's probably a form of speculation to try and examine history in search of who could have been a prophet of Allah, but it is a fascinating thing to bear in mind.

I know some scholars consider Zoroaster to have been one of them, I think a small number include the Buddha as well.

[Salus Maior]

But dominion theology isn't popular anymore, and hasn't been for a while now.

Of course not, Christianity has a good 600+ years on Islam. Religions seem to have stages of development. Islam is still in it's mid stages, but there is some question as to whether it will enter late stages.

Is this the "Christianity had a Dark Ages so Islam must in be in its 'Dark Ages' now cause it's younger" argument? Because that's incredibly stupid to be frank.

Islam isn't in a "dark age" because they're somehow fated to be so. There are real and practical reasons for the turbulence in modern Islam: One being the West's support for Saudi Arabia, who is supporting and propagating more literalist and extremist Islam throughout the Islamic World through its influence, Secondly, I would argue that the lack of an Islamic leader in the form of a Caliph is causing some issues, and thirdly, because of civil instability in Middle Eastern states allowing extremists like ISIS and others to rapidly gain power.

Christianity's issues in the "dark ages" were completely different (although, most Professors and Religious historians I've heard from reject the term "dark ages" for that period).

[Napkiraly]

Of course not, Christianity has a good 600+ years on Islam. Religions seem to have stages of development. Islam is still in it's mid stages, but there is some question as to whether it will enter late stages.

Is this the "Christianity had a Dark Ages so Islam must in be in its 'Dark Ages' now cause it's younger" argument? Because that's incredibly stupid to be frank.

Islam isn't in a "dark age" because they're somehow fated to be so. There are real and practical reasons for the turbulence in modern Islam: One being the West's support for Saudi Arabia, who is supporting and propagating more literalist and extremist Islam throughout the Islamic World through its influence, Secondly, I would argue that the lack of an Islamic leader in the form of a Caliph is causing some issues, and thirdly, because of civil instability in Middle Eastern states allowing extremists like ISIS and others to rapidly gain power.

Christianity's issues in the "dark ages" were completely different (although, most Professors and Religious historians I've heard from reject the term "dark ages" for that period).

I don't think the issue of there being a Caliph is as big, and definitely there shouldn't be another unless he's like the Pope and doesn't rule of a Caliphate that encompasses a fair chunk of the Earth.

I mean the Ottomans tried pulling the card during WW1 and was met with a fart.

[Alsheb]

Tbf that's also because anti-Zionism often does get close to it, especially in rhetoric. Not to mention focusing so much on Israel and many people going "I'm against it because I'm against nationalism!" yet in favour of Palestinian nationalism and other nationalist causes.

Because that's pretty much what Zionism is, Jewish nationalism. It's basically saying you don't think Jews deserve a nation-state of their own. I'm sure you can understand why this may cause alarm bells to ring for some people.

Fair enough, and in a way I get the entire "Jews deserve a nation-state" argument.
But then again, I fail to see how nationstates necessarily should be founded upon religion rather than national identity. As much as some Jews love to mention time and again, Judaism is not a national identity, an ethnicity or a race. Even in Israel itself you have racial division in political parties, with Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews often sticking to their own. And that's not even mentioning the Ethiopian Jews and other ethnic minorities.
Even most so-called islamic republics aren't founded solely on the premise of religion in the way Israel attempts to. Pretty much all countries in the world nowadays are founded upon a idea of common national identity, be it civic or ethnic.

Be that as it may, even if one would accept the idea that a commun Jewish religion would be an acceptable basis for the foundation of a nation-state, which I could actually still go along with, than we are still faced with the biggest problem of the establishment of Israel: the fact that is was founded in a territory inhabited almost exclusively by a population that ethnically and religiously had nothing to do with Judaism, and was alsot nearly completely blameless for the reasons that led to the zionist demand for a Jewish state (namely centuries of antisemitic persecution in Europe that ultimately resulted in the Shoah). And of course the fact that Israel was only able to exist through a policy of ethnic cleansing, displacement of an entire race of people and the use of terrorism and mass murder (Haganah and Irgun being most notable examples).