Page 372 of 499

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:44 am
by Saranidia
New haven america wrote:
Saranidia wrote:What is wrong with Allah being the supreme law giver?

He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.

Islam is actually growing in the 21st century and that’s a core Islamic belief.
Although I admit I am quite old school in some ways.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:47 am
by New haven america
Saranidia wrote:
New haven america wrote:He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.

Islam is actually growing in the 21st century and that’s a core Islamic belief.
Although I admit I am quite old school in some ways.

Maybe because the human population is growing exponentially...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:53 am
by Saranidia
New haven america wrote:
Saranidia wrote:Islam is actually growing in the 21st century and that’s a core Islamic belief.
Although I admit I am quite old school in some ways.

Maybe because the human population is growing exponentially...

Clever girl, however
Other religions are shrinking though and Islam is the fastest growing.
Whatever reasons for that(Muslims more likely to have 4 wives so might have 4 times the kids etc.) it does show that Islam is becoming more not less relevant in this century.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:55 am
by New haven america
Saranidia wrote:
New haven america wrote:Maybe because the human population is growing exponentially...

Clever girl, however
Other religions are shrinking though and Islam is the fastest growing.
Whatever reasons for that(Muslims more likely to have 4 wives so might have 4 times the kids etc.) it does show that Islam is becoming more not less relevant in this century.

*Boy, I'm a male and can confirm that fact

They're really only growing in historically Islamic areas though, which are also known for historically having large populations (Remember, most Islamic areas are in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing continents).

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:59 am
by Gutulia
New haven america wrote:
Saranidia wrote:Clever girl, however
Other religions are shrinking though and Islam is the fastest growing.
Whatever reasons for that(Muslims more likely to have 4 wives so might have 4 times the kids etc.) it does show that Islam is becoming more not less relevant in this century.

*Boy, I'm a male and can confirm that fact

They're really only growing in historically Islamic areas though, which are also known for historically having large populations (Remember, most Islamic areas are in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing continents).

UK maybe in future :rofl:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5130617/amp/Study-Europes-Muslim-population-grow-migration-not.html&ved=2ahUKEwjtgOOc2urfAhWHRY8KHexsAGEQFjASegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2lKNNHiv7gBes11AqFoZdO&ampcf=1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:04 am
by New haven america
Gutulia wrote:
New haven america wrote:*Boy, I'm a male and can confirm that fact

They're really only growing in historically Islamic areas though, which are also known for historically having large populations (Remember, most Islamic areas are in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing continents).

UK maybe in future :rofl:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5130617/amp/Study-Europes-Muslim-population-grow-migration-not.html&ved=2ahUKEwjtgOOc2urfAhWHRY8KHexsAGEQFjASegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2lKNNHiv7gBes11AqFoZdO&ampcf=1

You're new here, so a bit of advice: Take anything Dailymail says with a pinch of salt.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:07 am
by Gutulia

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:07 am
by New haven america
Gutulia wrote:
New haven america wrote:You're new here, so a bit of advice: Take anything Dailymail says with a pinch of salt.

Only joke don't angry to me

I'm never angry.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:08 am
by The Knockout Gun Gals
Saranidia wrote:
Seraven wrote:
Secularism never really translates well in Indonesia post-New Order period.

What is wrong with Allah being the supreme law giver?


Nothing is wrong it. I'm not rejecting it. But I am most worried with the people who will be at the leadership positions. They may interpret the law according to their wish. After all, it is also going to give justifications for those who like to do intolerance that the government is supporting their intolerance actions.

Indonesia has never truly fights the intolerance problem seriously.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:10 am
by The Knockout Gun Gals
New haven america wrote:
Saranidia wrote:What is wrong with Allah being the supreme law giver?

He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.


Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:13 am
by New haven america
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
New haven america wrote:He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.


Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

I'm aware on what Islam thinks about this subject, I just so happen to disagree with Islam's opinion on said subject.

Same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism~

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:15 am
by Saranidia
New haven america wrote:
Saranidia wrote:Clever girl, however
Other religions are shrinking though and Islam is the fastest growing.
Whatever reasons for that(Muslims more likely to have 4 wives so might have 4 times the kids etc.) it does show that Islam is becoming more not less relevant in this century.

*Boy, I'm a male and can confirm that fact

They're really only growing in historically Islamic areas though, which are also known for historically having large populations (Remember, most Islamic areas are in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing continents).

I think it is growing in the west although largely due to immigration.
Although 8% of British Muslims are white.

Also most converts are women so it's a bit patronising to say islam oppresses them.
Besides islam protects women from misogynist stereotyping and internet abuse: slanderers of girls get 80 lashes and in my interpretations rapists are executed for "hirabah(basically aggression, banditry, terrorism) of the private parts" or imprisoned on a ship after chemical castration.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:25 am
by The Knockout Gun Gals
New haven america wrote:
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

I'm aware on what Islam thinks about this subject, I just so happen to disagree with Islam's opinion on said subject.

Same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism~


Everyone to their own opinions.

Saranidia wrote:
New haven america wrote:*Boy, I'm a male and can confirm that fact

They're really only growing in historically Islamic areas though, which are also known for historically having large populations (Remember, most Islamic areas are in Asia and Africa, the fastest growing continents).

I think it is growing in the west although largely due to immigration.
Although 8% of British Muslims are white.

Also most converts are women so it's a bit patronising to say islam oppresses them.
Besides islam protects women from misogynist stereotyping and internet abuse: slanderers of girls get 80 lashes and in my interpretations rapists are executed for "hirabah(basically aggression, banditry, terrorism) of the private parts" or imprisoned on a ship after chemical castration.


It's a bit blurry on the "protects women" in modern era as the Islamic leaders are mostly men and there are not a lot of women leaders. Protection of women are woman's issues, and it's more acceptable for women to be placed in the leadership positions and to take care of the affairs accordingly and according to their views. For men to take care of protection against women in modern era? Hardly fair and sometimes can be even unfair and downright offensive, for some.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:10 am
by Saranidia
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
New haven america wrote:I'm aware on what Islam thinks about this subject, I just so happen to disagree with Islam's opinion on said subject.

Same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism~


Everyone to their own opinions.

Saranidia wrote:I think it is growing in the west although largely due to immigration.
Although 8% of British Muslims are white.

Also most converts are women so it's a bit patronising to say islam oppresses them.
Besides islam protects women from misogynist stereotyping and internet abuse: slanderers of girls get 80 lashes and in my interpretations rapists are executed for "hirabah(basically aggression, banditry, terrorism) of the private parts" or imprisoned on a ship after chemical castration.


It's a bit blurry on the "protects women" in modern era as the Islamic leaders are mostly men and there are not a lot of women leaders. Protection of women are woman's issues, and it's more acceptable for women to be placed in the leadership positions and to take care of the affairs accordingly and according to their views. For men to take care of protection against women in modern era? Hardly fair and sometimes can be even unfair and downright offensive, for some.

Why is it offensive for men to protect women?
Women can be leaders too in my interpretation.
And Allah knows best

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 am
by The Alma Mater
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
New haven america wrote:He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.


Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.


Is there any evidence for the implied claim that Islam would make life better ? What are the contributions of Islam to the wellbeing of humanity of the past 500 years ? And are they so much better to the contributions of other people.

My personal answer to that is obviously 'no'. But perhaps there is a stash of contributions I missed or was not told about.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:40 am
by The Eternal Aulus
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
Saranidia wrote:What is wrong with Allah being the supreme law giver?


Nothing is wrong it. I'm not rejecting it. But I am most worried with the people who will be at the leadership positions. They may interpret the law according to their wish. After all, it is also going to give justifications for those who like to do intolerance that the government is supporting their intolerance actions.

Indonesia has never truly fights the intolerance problem seriously.

That's why seperation of the state (ie political power) and religion (ie the religious institutions) is so damn important. Especially in the contemporary time where more and more political institutions are formalized and centralized.

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
New haven america wrote:He hasn't advanced to the 21st century yet.


Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

I disagree with that. I do think that Islam covers anything one has to do to life a good religious life, but it does not cover anything on how to organize a modern contemporary nation state. One can look at how Muhammed saws organized his city-state but that's it (and look at Islamic political history).

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 12:57 pm
by El-Amin Caliphate
The Eternal Aulus wrote:
The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
Nothing is wrong it. I'm not rejecting it. But I am most worried with the people who will be at the leadership positions. They may interpret the law according to their wish. After all, it is also going to give justifications for those who like to do intolerance that the government is supporting their intolerance actions.

Indonesia has never truly fights the intolerance problem seriously.

That's why seperation of the state (ie political power) and religion (ie the religious institutions) is so damn important. Especially in the contemporary time where more and more political institutions are formalized and centralized.

The Knockout Gun Gals wrote:
Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

I disagree with that. I do think that Islam covers anything one has to do to life a good religious life, but it does not cover anything on how to organize a modern contemporary nation state. One can look at how Muhammed saws organized his city-state but that's it (and look at Islamic political history).

Yeah, that's the example we should follow. Separation of masjid and state doesn't exist in Al-Islam.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:15 pm
by The Eternal Aulus
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
The Eternal Aulus wrote:That's why seperation of the state (ie political power) and religion (ie the religious institutions) is so damn important. Especially in the contemporary time where more and more political institutions are formalized and centralized.


I disagree with that. I do think that Islam covers anything one has to do to life a good religious life, but it does not cover anything on how to organize a modern contemporary nation state. One can look at how Muhammed saws organized his city-state but that's it (and look at Islamic political history).

Yeah, that's the example we should follow. Separation of masjid and state doesn't exist in Al-Islam.

The whole concept of a state, in its modern context, did not exist as in the times of Islam or the times of the Salaf for that matter. Even if you do say that the contemporary state is equal to the political institutions of said time (which would be a huge overstretch) Islam would have to ''adapt'' (and with this I mean its philosophers, scholars, activists and so forth need to brainstorm). Because simply put, the modern political context is vastly different than the one in the time of the Prophet. And then you have the situation of Muslims where they are a minority and so forth.

Does this mean that things that are fard are suddenly not fard? No, I do not think so. The tenents of arkaan al-islam and arkaan al-islam (the articles of faith and pillars of Islam respectively) will be unchanged. However, the concept of financial transactions in the digital world, the interaction of humans with new technology and its implications thereof and especially Islam in a multifaith context is very interesting.

Personally, as a person coming from Western Europe, I think the state should help in centralizing the Islamic community and ''force'' them to cut the ties to foreign governments. Because secularism means that the institutions should not only be free of the domestic state, but also foreign. This would imply that the Turkish Diyanet, the Moroccan State Mosques etc would be prohibited based on the premise of secularism. With this the Muslim community in the Netherlands can build on an own, centralized, Dutch Islamic identity and closely cooperate/negotiate with the Dutch state for eventual rights and other bargains.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:45 pm
by Hindia Belanda
Samudera Darussalam wrote:
Hindia Belanda wrote:I mean, Muhammadiyah nowadays aren't as puritan as they used to be, but they're still more conservative compared to the NU. They were shaped by Wahhabi Salafism in their formative years after all.

I agree. I used to study in Muhammadiyah schools for nine years and compared to the NU, they are relatively more conservative in their religious beliefs. It's founder, K.H. Ahmad Dahlan, was educated in Mecca, so it's not really weird.

Historically, Muhammadiyah played a remarkable role for education in Indonesia as they are the first, if not one of the first, to establish native schools that combine formal western education with Islamic studies. If I remember correctly, the first Muhammadiyah school is established to provide formal 'western' education combined with Islamic studies to the Bumiputera communities and as a response to Christianization, that they believe occured in Dutch schools.

Tbqh Ahmad Dahlan wasn’t a full on Salafi and had little to do with the way his organisation was turning into a quasi-Wahhabi movement after his death. Dahlan (Muhammadiyah) and Hashim Ashari (leading founder of the NU) both studied in Mecca, but the latter's organisation ended up being against Wahhabi Salafism.

It was really the vacuum that Ahmad Dahlan left after his death that allowed Wahhabi ideas to seep into the Muhammadiyah through the creation of the conservative Salafi Tarjih Council (in the late 1920s, iirc).

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:53 pm
by El-Amin Caliphate
The Eternal Aulus wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Yeah, that's the example we should follow. Separation of masjid and state doesn't exist in Al-Islam.

The whole concept of a state, in its modern context, did not exist as in the times of Islam or the times of the Salaf for that matter. Even if you do say that the contemporary state is equal to the political institutions of said time (which would be a huge overstretch) Islam would have to ''adapt'' (and with this I mean its philosophers, scholars, activists and so forth need to brainstorm). Because simply put, the modern political context is vastly different than the one in the time of the Prophet. And then you have the situation of Muslims where they are a minority and so forth.

Does this mean that things that are fard are suddenly not fard? No, I do not think so. The tenents of arkaan al-islam and arkaan al-islam (the articles of faith and pillars of Islam respectively) will be unchanged. However, the concept of financial transactions in the digital world, the interaction of humans with new technology and its implications thereof and especially Islam in a multifaith context is very interesting.

That doesn't negate enforcing Shari'ah.
The Eternal Aulus wrote:Personally, as a person coming from Western Europe, I think the state should help in centralizing the Islamic community and ''force'' them to cut the ties to foreign governments. Because secularism means that the institutions should not only be free of the domestic state, but also foreign. This would imply that the Turkish Diyanet, the Moroccan State Mosques etc would be prohibited based on the premise of secularism. With this the Muslim community in the Netherlands can build on an own, centralized, Dutch Islamic identity and closely cooperate/negotiate with the Dutch state for eventual rights and other bargains.

There's no need of a "Dutch" Islamic identity. Only an Islamic identity is needed. But I do agree with you that foreign govs shouldn't influence masajid in foreign countries.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:57 pm
by The Eternal Aulus
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:There's no need of a "Dutch" Islamic identity. Only an Islamic identity is needed. But I do agree with you that foreign govs shouldn't influence masajid in foreign countries.

There is definitely a need of a Dutch Islamic identity in order for the Muslims in the Netherlands to feel at home. One can never be 100% Islamic by identity ie the culture, or urf, one grows up with is also of great importance. Other than this there are different inputs per culture in terms of emotions, male-female roles and so forth. The cultural difference between Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey is big.

I think a lot of Dutch Muslims feel conflicted because they grow up in a country where the Dutch culture and Islamic religion feels separate, or sometimes even opposite, of each other. Saying that ''there is only an Islamic identity'' practically boils down to foreign influences, especially Saudi, becoming bigger and bigger in the Islamic community here. That'll only polarize the Muslims and non-Muslims more and more.

There is Islam, the religion. But in practice there are hundreds if not millions of institutions, traditions, cultures and so forth intertwined with it. The Netherlands will become a product of it as well but it needs to be materialized, ie a Dutch Islamic institution where the Dutch culture and Islamic religion can intertwine.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:01 pm
by The Eternal Aulus
I'm also highly critical of enforcing sharia. Sharia needs a personal commitment of a person, which is a vital component. Enforcing it would simply cause hypocrisy, which is worse than disbelief.

I think the bold part is essentially important as it's a warning from Allah ta3la for us to not enforce sharia.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:17 pm
by El-Amin Caliphate
The Eternal Aulus wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:There's no need of a "Dutch" Islamic identity. Only an Islamic identity is needed. But I do agree with you that foreign govs shouldn't influence masajid in foreign countries.

There is definitely a need of a Dutch Islamic identity in order for the Muslims in the Netherlands to feel at home. One can never be 100% Islamic by identity ie the culture, or urf, one grows up with is also of great importance. Other than this there are different inputs per culture in terms of emotions, male-female roles and so forth. The cultural difference between Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey is big.

I think a lot of Dutch Muslims feel conflicted because they grow up in a country where the Dutch culture and Islamic religion feels separate, or sometimes even opposite, of each other. Saying that ''there is only an Islamic identity'' practically boils down to foreign influences, especially Saudi, becoming bigger and bigger in the Islamic community here. That'll only polarize the Muslims and non-Muslims more and more.

There is Islam, the religion. But in practice there are hundreds if not millions of institutions, traditions, cultures and so forth intertwined with it. The Netherlands will become a product of it as well but it needs to be materialized, ie a Dutch Islamic institution where the Dutch culture and Islamic religion can intertwine.

Point made.
The Eternal Aulus wrote:I'm also highly critical of enforcing sharia. Sharia needs a personal commitment of a person, which is a vital component. Enforcing it would simply cause hypocrisy, which is worse than disbelief.

That's still not a reason to enforce it. No law enforcement in human history has ever been 100% perfect. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws?
The Eternal Aulus wrote:I think the bold part is essentially important as it's a warning from Allah ta3la for us to not enforce sharia.

He didn't say that.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:38 pm
by Jolthig
The Eternal Aulus wrote:I'm also highly critical of enforcing sharia. Sharia needs a personal commitment of a person, which is a vital component. Enforcing it would simply cause hypocrisy, which is worse than disbelief.

I think the bold part is essentially important as it's a warning from Allah ta3la for us to not enforce sharia.

I have to agree with Aulus, Amin. To enforce physical Sharia when I have told you in the past that the Muslims are too stubborn for it and no one in the West wants it, is impossible.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:15 pm
by El-Amin Caliphate
Jolthig wrote:
The Eternal Aulus wrote:I'm also highly critical of enforcing sharia. Sharia needs a personal commitment of a person, which is a vital component. Enforcing it would simply cause hypocrisy, which is worse than disbelief.

I think the bold part is essentially important as it's a warning from Allah ta3la for us to not enforce sharia.

I have to agree with Aulus, Amin. To enforce physical Sharia when I have told you in the past that the Muslims are too stubborn for it

Not liking a law doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce it. Not liking a law only becomes a problem if the police don't like it.
Jolthig wrote:and no one in the West wants it, is impossible.

Idc about someone opinions on something that won't even affect them positively nor negatively.