Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,912 comments
  • 252,189 views
Who's not oppressed in Russia? :/
:lol:
My opinion is - everyone is oppressed equally. Nobody is oppressed more or less than others. :)
But... except for rich and authoritative people. Including rich and authoritative Muslims as well.
 
I come from a country that has the greatest population of Muslims. I was raised as a Catholic. They have no issues with me and I have no issues with them.

Sure, sometimes there are so-called Muslim groups trying to impose their values on the society as a whole. That doesn't happen so often though.

But remember there are also pressure groups not classifying themselves as religious entities who like to impose their values and ideals on others. Such issues aren't necessarily rooted in religion. It's ultimately just mindset.


EDIT: Oh wait, that discussion was pages before.
 
I don´t like the terms radical or extremist in connection to Islam and terrorism. Having studied the Qur´an quite a bit myself, I tend to see those muslims that live a hard-knock sharia life and try to establish sharia in any muslim country as fundamentalists. The extremist is actually the moderate or liberal muslim.

The teaching of dāru ʾl-ḥarb and dāru ʾl-islam is, IMO, a fundamental teaching. If you´d ask me: "Is Islam a religion that teaches peace?" I´d answer: "Yes, as soon as there will be no more dāru ʾl-ḥarb!"

Which countries are daru l-harb/ daru l-islam?

Saudi-Arabia = daru l-islam
Syria = daru l-islam
United Kingdom = daru l-harb
Southern Spain; Andalusia (Al-Andalus) = daru l-islam
Israel/Palestine = daru l-islam

When western politicians talk about peace in Israel/Palestine, it shows that they have no idea about Islam. It is not about how much land is there controled by non-muslims, it is about no square-centimeter may be ruled on daru l-islam by non-muslims.

I come from a country that has the greatest population of Muslims. I was raised as a Catholic. They have no issues with me and I have no issues with them.

Sure, sometimes there are so-called Muslim groups trying to impose their values on the society as a whole. That doesn't happen so often though.

Because it´s daru l-islam, there is no problem for them if you as christian live there. But would fundamentalists appreciate it if you became President? I don´t think so.
 
No they probably won't like it. So far, the presidents of my country have always been Muslims.

But whether they'll begin to start performing Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks on people's faces if a non-Muslim president comes to power is another story. It depends on their mindset. It's not a Muslim country, after all, and there is no law that states that the ruler must be Muslim. There was actually an organization called Darul Islam that tried to make Indonesia a Muslim country, but they failed.

If there happens to be a written law among a certain sect of Muslims that you must perform Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks if a non-Muslim ruler comes to power...well, that's just unfortunate. If there are people so hardheaded in feeling the need to follow it, then...too bad. Some things do need to be reconsidered.


P.S. - no, I don't associate bicycle kicks with Muslims. It's 5:41 a.m. when I was typing this and I was feeling sleepily drunk despite not consuming alcohol, and I was trying to be funny.
 
http://drleonardcoldwell.com/2014/02/06/muslim-brotherhood-leader-meets-obama-in-white-house/

A senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood was recently hosted at the White House for a meeting with President Barack Obama, prompting an outcry from critics of the global Islamist organization.
Anas Altikriti, a top British lobbyist for the Muslim Brotherhood whose father heads Iraq’s Muslim Brotherhood party, recently met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden as part of a delegation discussing problems in Iraq.

Altikriti’s presence in the White House was surprising to many who said the U.K. organization he heads, the Cordoba Foundation, has been singled out by British Prime Minister David Cameron as the “political front for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Paul Stott, an U.K. academic and expert in British jihadism at the University of East Anglia, said Altikriti’s presence in the meetings represents “part of the long term U.S.-U.K. engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, a strategy which hit choppy waters when it became clear people in Egypt were far from ready to let the [Muslim Brotherhood] run the country the way they wanted.”

His Cordoba Foundation has been criticized for working “closely with other British extremist groups which seek the creation of an Islamic dictatorship, or caliphate, in Europe,” according to the British Telegraph newspaper.
 
No they probably won't like it. So far, the presidents of my country have always been Muslims.

But whether they'll begin to start performing Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks on people's faces if a non-Muslim president comes to power is another story. It depends on their mindset. It's not a Muslim country, after all, and there is no law that states that the ruler must be Muslim. There was actually an organization called Darul Islam that tried to make Indonesia a Muslim country, but they failed.

If there happens to be a written law among a certain sect of Muslims that you must perform Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks if a non-Muslim ruler comes to power...well, that's just unfortunate. If there are people so hardheaded in feeling the need to follow it, then...too bad. Some things do need to be reconsidered.


P.S. - no, I don't associate bicycle kicks with Muslims. It's 5:41 a.m. when I was typing this and I was feeling sleepily drunk despite not consuming alcohol, and I was trying to be funny.

The fact that organization calles itself Darul Islam points out to what I said, it might not be a muslim country (sharia is not established) but to them Indonesia is daru l-islam, so their main goal must be the establishment of sharia. With a non-muslim ruler in the country, they might not start random Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks on peoples faces, unless their fundamentalist-Imam at a local mosque calls out a jihad on the unacceptable "kufar-president".

edit: And that would include anybody who supports him. (Look at Syria)
 
So, what direction are you heading into now, discussing a potential nationwide unrest in my country because there are people following that organization's ideals still around, or Islam in general?

Anyway, I'm going out of here.
 
http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/07/3250547/thousands-of-muslims-flee-c-african.html

In the Central African Republic, majority Christians are vigorously killing and deporting Muslims. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have apparently been displaced. The UN is looking into the matter.
That is disgusting, those people should please tell me what exactly is "christian" in their actings? I only see the total opposite of it, that´s hipocrisy and that is even worse than fundamentalism in Islam.
 
That is disgusting, those people should please tell me what exactly is "christian" in their actings? I only see the total opposite of it, that´s hipocrisy and that is even worse than fundamentalism in Islam.
Apparently the Muslims entered as armed rebels, attempting to overthrow the government. They got their heads handed back to them, and then some. Oh well. Some folks are tougher nuts to crack than others.
 
Apparently the Muslims entered as armed rebels, attempting to overthrow the government. They got their heads handed back to them, and then some. Oh well. Some folks are tougher nuts to crack than others.
So what has the word "christian" to do in all that? Isn´t it simply a Rebel vs. Government thing in the end? If these rebels were comunists the media wouldn´t call the opposite side "christian" ... they would use another term like, say, democrats or whatever.
 
So what has the word "christian" to do in all that? Isn´t it simply a Rebel vs. Government thing in the end? If these rebels were comunists the media wouldn´t call the opposite side "christian" ... they would use another term like, say, democrats or whatever.
Try reading the article I posted.

"Although their grievances were political and economic — not religious — fighting has taken on an increasingly sectarian tone since then.

The rebels, known as Seleka, were aided by Chadian and Sudanese mercenaries. They quickly became despised by Christians in the capital after the fighters went on looting sprees, raping and killing civilians at random. An armed Christian movement known as the anti-Balaka, aided by loyalists of ousted President Francois Bozize, began retaliating several months later."
 
Try reading the article I posted.

"Although their grievances were political and economic — not religious — fighting has taken on an increasingly sectarian tone since then.

The rebels, known as Seleka, were aided by Chadian and Sudanese mercenaries. They quickly became despised by Christians in the capital after the fighters went on looting sprees, raping and killing civilians at random. An armed Christian movement known as the anti-Balaka, aided by loyalists of ousted President Francois Bozize, began retaliating several months later."
I did read the article. But "An armed Christian movement" is a contradiction in itself, there´s no such thing. You are either christian, or armed. And if you are armed and still claim to be christian, you are a hipocrite.
 
Islam is a lie.

All religions are lies.

Lies are of two basic kinds. One by deluded madmen secure in the belief they have spoken to God. Another by cynical charlatans out for profit.

Some lies are more beautiful and puissant than others. The best lies are those best tailored to the population targeted.

Religions and lies are necessary and useful because often the truth is just too brutal and ugly.
 
I did read the article. But "An armed Christian movement" is a contradiction in itself, there´s no such thing. You are either christian, or armed. And if you are armed and still claim to be christian, you are a hipocrite.
Uh...Matthew 10:34, anyone?
 
DK
Uh...Matthew 10:34, anyone?
See, if anyone (mis-)uses this to justify violence would be a total hipocrite. What is the context? Who speeks and about who and which situation is spoken? If you don´t read the whole chapter at least read from verse 32 ongoing. And especially verse 39. By no means could anybody say that this is to be taken as a call for any man to kill another.
 
See, if anyone (mis-)uses this to justify violence would be a total hipocrite. What is the context? Who speeks and about who and which situation is spoken? If you don´t read the whole chapter at least read from verse 32 ongoing. And especially verse 39. By no means could anybody say that this is to be taken as a call for any man to kill another.
Yes, its about putting religion above your family.

What a great message!
 
Yes, its about putting religion God above your family.

What a great message!
It is actually, yes it´s meaningless for people without believe, I understand that, but it is a great thing for a believing couple. Sorry had to fix that for you. :)
 
It is actually, yes it´s meaningless for people without believe, I understand that, but it is a great thing for a believing couple. Sorry had to fix that for you. :)
Fix all you like, it makes it even more ridiculous that people would put an artificial construct above one and other and consider it to be a good thing.

Start doing that and you start to devalue each other over your 'god', any wonder why some then make violence a progression from that.
 
Fix all you like, it makes it even more ridiculous that people would put an artificial construct above one and other and consider it to be a good thing.
Okay, understood.

Start doing that and you start to devalue each other over your 'god', any wonder why some then make violence a progression from that.

Domestic violence is unbiblical and absolutely hipocritical.
 
Last edited:
No they probably won't like it. So far, the presidents of my country have always been Muslims.

But whether they'll begin to start performing Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks on people's faces if a non-Muslim president comes to power is another story. It depends on their mindset. It's not a Muslim country, after all, and there is no law that states that the ruler must be Muslim. There was actually an organization called Darul Islam that tried to make Indonesia a Muslim country, but they failed.

If there happens to be a written law among a certain sect of Muslims that you must perform Mortal Kombat-style bicycle kicks if a non-Muslim ruler comes to power...well, that's just unfortunate. If there are people so hardheaded in feeling the need to follow it, then...too bad. Some things do need to be reconsidered.


P.S. - no, I don't associate bicycle kicks with Muslims. It's 5:41 a.m. when I was typing this and I was feeling sleepily drunk despite not consuming alcohol, and I was trying to be funny.

I personally think every presidential/political campaign should involve Mortal-Kombat style bicycle kicks.
 
I've heard that some people in the West think that Muslims are discriminated and oppressed in Russia. :D
Anyone here thinks so?

It's Russia. Everyone is oppressed or discriminated according to our media. Then again, anybody not American is considered oppressed and discriminated.:indiff:
 
It's Russia. Everyone is oppressed or discriminated according to our media. Then again, anybody not American is considered oppressed and discriminated.:indiff:
Hehe, if everyone is oppressed (equally), this is not a discrimination, don't you think? It just means that the government twitches all of its citizens by balls when it wants to.
I'll state my question in other way:

Have you heard (and do you believe) about people in RF being discriminated/oppressed for being Muslim?

Because I hope you know that nobody there discriminates people for being Orthodox.
BTW, a few days ago, I was watching a YouTube video about a counter-terrorist operation of Spetsnaz in Caucasus. And there were some English comments like "How can you kill people for their religion? 🤬 you communists!".
Could they really think so or they were probably just trolling? :ouch:
 
"An armed Christian movement" is a contradiction in itself, there´s no such thing. You are either christian, or armed. And if you are armed and still claim to be christian, you are a hipocrite.
Ever hear of these dudes from a while back, called Crusaders? They had the blessing of the Pope and everything.
 
Ever hear of these dudes from a while back, called Crusaders? They had the blessing of the Pope and everything.
Exactly the same thing. Who is the Pope to demand that? He is just a man, nothing special or "holy" about him. There´s very few things in catholic doctrine that is actually biblical.

But this thread is about Islam, btw.
 
Back