Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,912 comments
  • 251,505 views
''Burmese officials say Rohingya are setting fire to their own houses in northern Rakhine state. The BBC cannot visit the area to verify what is occurring there, as journalists and aid workers have been barred.''

Oh yes I'm totally believing what the Burmese Government are saying.
 
mustafur
''Burmese officials say Rohingya are setting fire to their own houses in northern Rakhine state. The BBC cannot visit the area to verify what is occurring there, as journalists and aid workers have been barred.''

Oh yes I'm totally believing what the Burmese Government are saying.
Click to expand...

Sounds legit to me, a clear case of self-arson and suicide. Quite right to ban journalists for their own safety from the insane masses.
 
Really going to be intresting times for Indonesia, known as a Moderate Islamic country is having one of it's toughest tests in maintaining that status as Fundementalists rein in.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...ahead-of-jakarta-protests/8077000?pfmredir=sm

This is pure nutjobbery:

Ulama Council (MUI)

Indonesia's peak Muslim clerical body says the Koran states that Muslims cannot vote for non-Muslims.

The group also confirmed in a fatwa that in its view Ahok had been blasphemous when he cited verse 51 of the Koran when criticising his opponents. The group demanded the allegations be handled in accordance with the law and police be allowed to handle the case.
 
mustafur
Really going to be intresting times for Indonesia, known as a Moderate Islamic country is having one of it's toughest tests in maintaining that status as Fundementalists rein in.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...ahead-of-jakarta-protests/8077000?pfmredir=sm

This is pure nutjobbery:

Ulama Council (MUI)

Indonesia's peak Muslim clerical body says the Koran states that Muslims cannot vote for non-Muslims.

The group also confirmed in a fatwa that in its view Ahok had been blasphemous when he cited verse 51 of the Koran when criticising his opponents. The group demanded the allegations be handled in accordance with the law and police be allowed to handle the case.
Click to expand...
I seriously do with that the religious would treat belief in sky fairies the same way they treat their junk, and not wave it around in public or think with it.

Even the UK is not immune with our PM saying that her brexit choices are being guided by god!
 
mustafur
Really going to be intresting times for Indonesia, known as a Moderate Islamic country is having one of it's toughest tests in maintaining that status as Fundementalists rein in.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...ahead-of-jakarta-protests/8077000?pfmredir=sm

This is pure nutjobbery:

Ulama Council (MUI)

Indonesia's peak Muslim clerical body says the Koran states that Muslims cannot vote for non-Muslims.

The group also confirmed in a fatwa that in its view Ahok had been blasphemous when he cited verse 51 of the Koran when criticising his opponents. The group demanded the allegations be handled in accordance with the law and police be allowed to handle the case.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, rather stupid, wholly shady, and kinda sad.

First off, we have two big Islamic bodies, NU and MUI. Former are much more progressive than the latter. MUI also got rather bad rep for controlling some of government decisions despite not being linked to gov body, halal certificate bribery, and not remotely consistent (three years ago, they say its okay to vote for non moslems).

Secondly, MUI isnt exactly the biggest offender, but the Islamic Front (FPI). Don't let the fundamental banner fools you, they're actually playing politics. There are many proof that links them to one of big party (a rather corrupt one), monetary mostly, just to throw off one of Governor (I explain next). They're punks basically. I recall my family got the (rather threatening) "fee" for their security monthly.

These kind of politics with religious face is dangerous, to put shortly. The pure fundamentals will eat this up because their religion worth more than humanity, while the progressive ones are pretty much pissed off. Those who generally not in these two more open to despise the religion altogether (conjunction to middle east mish mash). Two latter are silent majority though.

And lastly, the kind of governor they try to convict are currently incumbent one that has curb many of shady crap (including the aforementioned) as well as make the govs finance data more open, reconstruct basically mist of the city, etc. Downside is he's Chinese descendant and a Christian so......

See guys, religion prioritized more than humanity......Wait, the fact that FPI's shady ways to bring money in was curbed by incumbent Governor didnt count? Thank god theyre vocal minority, so they call their adherents from other cities just to looks as its many people protest to one governor from one city.

Seriously, f- these guys. Religion and Politics really should stay away. They're claim to be peaceful but so does Westboro Baptist Church.
 
You know what? I take it back.

You know whats going on my my country? Just replace Christianity in America with Islam and its pretty much the same.
 
So our Prince's "thought of the day" was interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-says-rise-populist-groups-echoes-1930s.html

Basically, think about Christianity being wiped out in the ME, and remember the persecuted Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha'is....

Then, (with no hint of irony at all) at Christmas think about how the Nativity is about fleeing violent persecution and don't forget about how Muhammad had to do this when going to Medina....

💡

Is this guy completely out of touch?
 
Not that there won't be goodness knows how many of these around the world over the next few days and on, but a couple of things caught my eye.

First, I laughed because it looks like one of the suspects is wearing a bikini top in the photo. The women in the other photos? A long way off. Second, I noted the idiotic rhetoric that came from Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews' mouth.... "Not acts of religious observance, not acts of faith ... they’re anything but that". They are absolutely both of those things. Whether or not they are representative of true Islam is another discussion - but he's effectively gone all golden shower on us, and told us it's raining, by my reckoning. It succeeds in encouraging the notion that the protection of Muslims is born of brainless political correctness. It actually encourages a divide.

The first step is recognising that you have a problem.
 
This may be mildly relative to the current discussion. @LeMansAid I think you will like this one.

So, sermon today by the Imam of a local mosque. Unfortunately it was not in English and as such I had a tough time decrypting it, but it was easy enough to follow once I realised what he was talking about and referring to.

There is a lot of talk about true Islam, or radical Islam, or moderate Islam, or [insert some adjective] Islam. So here is a relation of a couple of incidents with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and at the end I will talk about how they relate to today.

1) As all Muslims know, the first caller to prayer was not an arab, nor was he fair in complexion but was a former black slave to one of the arab bigwigs. His name was Bilal, and this incident relates to him before he was a Muslim. One night the Prophet was walking through the streets of Makkah and could hear crying coming from nearby, as well as the sound of grinding. Confused, he started to look for the source of this and realised it was coming from a house. So he knocked on the door and this black slave opened it. Now take into account this horrible era of status where arab and fair was top and black meant slave and lowly. So for an Arab, and one of the Quraish (the tribe of the Prophet, also one of the top arab tribes), to even knock on a slaves door in concern was unheard of. Bilal invited the Prophet in, which he did so and then when the Prophet enquired as to why he was crying and also grinding at this time of the night he explained that his master made him work all day and at night he had to grind to make flour before morning. So he was not able to sleep and his body was in so much pain, and this is why he was crying. So the Prophet told Bilal that is is okay, he can sleep and the Prophet would make the flour for him. After finishing, he quietly slipped out without waking Bilal. He did this for three nights, until Bilal asked him who he was. Because he was not sure why somebody of the Quraish would help a black slave. Muhammad explained who he was and that this was how a Muslim should act, with no status differences, and fairness and helping.

2) There was a tribe that used to reside on the border of Yeman/Arabia, who had a pact with the Quraish to offer assistance and food and water to the desert etc. One day the Prophet sent two of his companions over as diplomatic envoys from Madinah. Now, since the people of Makkah and Madinah were enemies, these two were caught and brought before one of the chiefs of this tribe, whose name escapes me. The man ordered them to be killed immediately, without hearing why they were there.
Some time later, he was travelling to Makkah when he came across a few companions of the Prophet. When they found out who he was, they captured him and brought him to Madinah to see what his punishment for ordering the execution without cause would be. The Prophet decided that he would be held prisoner in the Mosque, where two people would watch over him. He instructed them to make sure that when he needs the bathroom he is to be taken, when he is hungry he is to be fed to his fill, when he is sleepy he is to be allowed to sleep in comfort etc. On the first day the Prophet went up to him and asked him what he thinks he should do. The chief replied that there were three options: 1) The Prophet could kill him and be done with it, as a fair punishment. 2) He would reemburse them in some way for his crime. 3) He could be let go and he would not attack another of the Prophets followers again.
The Prophet listened and then walked away. The second day he asked again, and the reply was the same. As it was on the third day. The Prophet gathered the companions and told them that he was letting this man go, and that was it. The companions were stunned but accepted what the Prophet said. So the man was free to leave and go home, despite his crime.

This man left the city and then cleaned himself up completely, got new clothes and then went back to the Mosque. Again the companions were stunned because this man was just freed and now he was essentially walking back into a volatile place. When the prophet asked why he was back, he explained that he was here to become a Muslim because in the three days he was treated with respect, despite being a prisoner, and during that time he never heard anything in the Mosque about politics or killing or fighting, but only about being better human beings. And then he was set free when he expected to be killed. He asked the Prophet what he could do. The Prophet told him to go to Makkah as he intended originally and then go back home where he belonged and be a better person and show that tribe what being a Muslim was. So the man went to Makkah where he was greeted by the leaders with honour, until they saw him pray as a Muslim does. Then they went to kick him out. The man threatened them by saying that if he was not allowed to finish his prayer in his way then all the help that the tribe gave Makkah with food and supplies would stop, and they would be left to suffer. So the people of Makkah let him be.

He then went back to Madinah and told the Prophet what had happened and that if the Prophet said so, he would stop the supply anyway. The Prophet explained to him that this was wrong, because even if they are your enemies, they are human beings and stopping their sustainance and causing them suffering was not the way of a Muslim, so he was to go back to his tribe and continue helping the people of Makkah just as he did before.



Fast forward to present day. We have Muslims killing Muslims. We have Muslims killing Non Muslims. We have Muslims arguing with everybody over nothing. We have Muslims being arrogant, acting superior, inciting hated and what not. As the Imam said, what kind of Muslims do we have in the world now? It is important now more than ever to be the Muslims that the Prophet instructed us to be, peaceful, caring, kind and the kind of person that when somebody sees you in the street they do not fear that you are going to hurt them because you show the best of humanity at all times, no matter what. That is what Islam is. People want to argue what is 'true' Islam, Muslims included, but in reality a Muslim is somebody who makes people feel safe around them. That has been said over and over.

Do we have a problem in Islam? No. Do we have a problem with Muslims? Yes. Very much so. The same problems that every other religion has with its people. You have these radical fanatical looney-bin people who think they can make up what they want and their way is the only way so anybody who thinks different is going to be killed. And the rest of the world suffers for it, as a whole. You, Me, Everybody.
 
I can't agree on the Poverty part, alot of them are from Western countries and oil rich gulf states.

I also think there is problems when it comes to unclear rhetoric in the gospels, and you get a situation where suicide is forbidden but matyrdom isn't and when mixed they say Well the later overides the former and the Suicide bomber is doing gods work.

Of course the majority wouldn't see it this way, but this view point has grown strength in the middle east since the 80s and is probably a big contributor to what we have today.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istishhad
 
sems4arsenal
Ignorance, poverty and more powerful people/countries exploiting that are all to blame.
Click to expand...
Nope. The problem is that many religions (Islam and Christianity both most certainly included) insist on acting counter to human logic. By basic human logic they need to change their damn text books already!! If a government were to write up a Constitution whereby some were rationalising the killing of innocent people by anything other than a massive and insane stretch of the texts, the government would simply re-word and clarify the texts. Why wouldn't they?

It cannot be expected that people that do not subscribe to the supposed mystical values of The Bible, Qur'an, etc. will allow for that mysticism. "Love all humankind" interpreted as "Kill unbelievers" would be ridiculous, and logic would suggest fault entirely with the interpreter - but too much of the hate and violence, is not too much of a stretch, with Islam. It's not fair to expect us to show faith in something we have no faith in - and faith is required, even as an outsider, because the teachings account for something external to our basic logic. That stuff wouldn't last a second under the scrutiny of the secular world, so I fail to see why one would expect the secular world to be convinced by it.
 
Last edited:
@LeMansAid That's the thing, the teachings don't in anyway allow the killings of innocent people. That's my issue with "Radical Islam" because their action contradict the second word, If I shouted praise jesus and blew myself up that wouldn't make a Christian now would it?

These terrorist groups existence goes beyond that and their creation has alot to do with politics.
 
sems4arsenal
@LeMansAid That's the thing, the teachings don't in anyway allow the killings of innocent people. That's my issue with "Radical Islam" because their action contradict the second word, If I shouted praise jesus and blew myself up that wouldn't make a Christian now would it?

These terrorist groups existence goes beyond that and their creation has alot to do with politics.
Click to expand...
I maintain that it's level of clarity would not come anywhere near to standing up to secular scrutiny. I'm not talking about a strictly allow/not allow question here, but rather what standards should be expected by general human logic.
 
LeMansAid
I maintain that it's level of clarity would not come anywhere near to standing up to secular scrutiny. I'm not talking about a strictly allow/not allow question here, but rather what standards should be expected by general human logic.
Click to expand...

Abiding the law is all that is required.
 
sems4arsenal
Ignorance, poverty and more powerful people/countries exploiting that are all to blame.
Click to expand...
So, in the week Dec 10-16 when there were at least 44 attacks in which 449 people lost their lives in a total of 12 countries, you want the victims to believe that it was all "ignorance, poverty and more powerful people/countries exploitation" and nothing to do with the "true" religion?
 
I felt not comfortable saying happy Christmas to people in name of sympathy and solidarity who celebrate when quite lot of them hates our guts.

Cough Trump cough.

I wish I can trust you more. Though in here its not much different with Islam rather than Christianity.
 
@DLR_Mysterion how would I know that, and that question kind of falls flat when in the past 100 years there were world wars that were caused by people that aren't muslim but hey let's paint a generalizing brush on that one religion.
 
xyloscissor
Abiding the law is all that is required.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. See below.
ECGadget
Do we have a problem in Islam? No. Do we have a problem with Muslims? Yes. Very much so.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of this, but I don't agree with it. If one wants to live an insular Islamic existence, fine - but if there's the want to be part of a not homogeneously Islamic world, there are standards, not just for behaviour, but for clarity of instruction.

Surely if you didn't believe that the Qur'an should be left untouched for supernatural reasons, you would argue that clarifications should be made? Surely you would ask that barbarism be seen as all the more distant from the faith you hold, by asking that the teachings of Islam be more clearly represented? What if it would literally save lives?

Outsiders can't be expected to consider that supernatural aspect in their assessments, so to them it's quite simply instructional words that are all too readily usable as inspiration or justification for a variety of human rights abuses, up to and including acts as heinous as torture and murder. By secular reckoning I think it makes absolutely no sense at all not to change and clarify the teachings to unmitigatedly represent the "religion of peace" we hear about so much. It's not anyone else's fault that there's a figurative roadblock to Islam properly representing "proper" Islam.

Do we have a problem with Islam? Yes - it refuses to explain itself properly by real world standards.
 

Similar threads

Chrisssss
What's your go-to car?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Force-Feedback
Force-Feedback
CTznOfTime
  • Poll
Your Racing Cam/View with PSVR2
Replies
20
Views
4K
todally_lit
todally_lit
I
Project cars three stuck in rear view
Replies
3
Views
1K
IfAndOr
IfAndOr
Nakean
gt7 VR2 time split view
Replies
11
Views
5K
sonnyboychris
sonnyboychris
ploopsy
Centered cockpit view idea
Replies
10
Views
3K
stonelejo
S

Latest Posts

Back