Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,688 comments
  • 236,926 views
When the bible speaks, the demons shatter and flee, and please, I'm not calling ANYONE demons here.

@Famine

That's exactly what happens when you make something so simple, so technical, and you actually do lean on your own understanding...:) You're freely welcome to do so though.
 
Great verse for eliminating critical thinking.

If you cherry pick it, yes. That part of the proverb is more or less saying to always use good conscience. Or be jesus-like if your conscience is rotten.
 
DCP
When the bible speaks, the demons shatter and flee, and please, I'm not calling ANYONE demons here.

@Famine

That's exactly what happens when you make something so simple, so technical, and you actually do lean on your own understanding...:)
Nope. It's what happens when a document is translated from three languages into one and then retranslated 450 times by people with different agendas.

The link you gave exactly shows what the different agendas are. Your "preferred" translation is one promotes ignorance for better obeyance, the second promotes confession, the third suggests that God is your safety net and the last is probably the most sensible, promoting the acquisition of knowledge while retaining belief.


Which one did God mean? You'll say the first one, but other people who believe more-or-less exactly the same things as you will say one of the others.

Why? Because that's how you want to interpret it. Interpretation shouldn't be necessary with such a perfect being...
 
From another thread:

Considering the evidence regarding the two constituencies in Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford West and Tower Hamlets, what do you say is the reason for such misconduct?


http://www.may2015.com/ideas/what-a...ewish-hindu-buddhist-and-sikh-constituencies/

Bradford West

Tower Hamlets

Birmingham Hodge Hill and scene of Trojan Horse

Birmingham Hall East

Blackburn


The council was shaken in 2004 when six Labour councillors quit the ruling group one month after an election and became independent representatives, and the council temporarily fell into no overall control.[2][3] The councillors, who eventually re-joined the party, left over an internal row reportedly sparked by the demotion of particular councillors in a post-election reshuffle.[2] Allegations of vote-rigging and corruption have dogged the council, with members of the Muslim community reportedly being "strong-armed by mosque leaders and councillors to vote Labour" during elections.[4] The possibility of corruption has been eased by reforms to postal voting which have made electoral fraud "childishly simple" in the UK according to a European watchdog.[5] The number of postal votes registered in Blackburn in 2005 was 20,000, compared to 7,600 in 2001.[4] In April 2005, local councillor Mohammed Hussain was jailed for three years for rigging the 2002 town hall election by stealing at least 230 postal vote ballots in his ward.[6]
 
Nope. It's what happens when a document is translated from three languages into one and then retranslated 450 times by people with different agendas.

The link you gave exactly shows what the different agendas are. Your "preferred" translation is one promotes ignorance for better obeyance, the second promotes confession, the third suggests that God is your safety net and the last is probably the most sensible, promoting the acquisition of knowledge while retaining belief.


Which one did God mean? You'll say the first one, but other people who believe more-or-less exactly the same things as you will say one of the others.

Why? Because that's how you want to interpret it. Interpretation shouldn't be necessary with such a perfect being...

I would have figured that any power with the ability to create everything out of nothing might have had better writing skills. Plus, such a power couldn't possibly care which version of D&D I'm playing, right? What if I actually like 4.0? Famine, am I damned?

If God gave Moses the whole of the Torah at the top of Sinai, what about all the bad stuff happening afterwards? And the end where it reads "And Moses died." Doesn't add up.

In any event, though, once Muhammad was in the Medina stage, the messages he was supposed to have been receiving became much, much more severe. I am not saying that the other books that Lah is supposed to have written aren't. It is interesting to see the difference in suwar and haditha from different parts of Muhammad's ascendency.
 
IN THE ANDAMAN SEA OFF THAILAND — A wooden fishing boat carrying several hundred desperate migrants from Myanmar was spotted adrift in the Andaman Sea between Thailand and Malaysia on Thursday, part of an exodus in which thousands of people have taken to the sea in recent weeks with no country willing to take them in.

Cries of “Please help us! I have no water!” rose from the boat as a vessel carrying journalists approached. “Please give me water!”

The green and red fishing boat, packed with men, women and children squatting on the deck with only plastic tarps to protect them from the sun, had been turned away by the Malaysian authorities on Wednesday, passengers said.

They said that they had been on the boat for three months and that the boat’s captain and crew abandoned them six days ago. Ten passengers died during the voyage, and their bodies were thrown overboard, the passengers said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/w...ya-bangladeshi-migrants-andaman-sea.html?_r=0

You'd think Indonesia or Malaysia would take up the chance of saving fellow Muslims stranded at sea.
 
You'd think Indonesia or Malaysia would take up the chance of saving fellow Muslims stranded at sea.

You'd think any country would take up the chance of saving fellow human beings stranded at sea.

Would be my personal view on it, and strictly speaking would be the one required under international law (the shipping laws over vessels in distress are very clear).
 
You'd think any country would take up the chance of saving fellow human beings stranded at sea.

Would be my personal view on it, and strictly speaking would be the one required under international law (the shipping laws over vessels in distress are very clear).
Not to mention the immigrants just go straight to Australia. Which usually take the route outside Indonesian border.

There are quite rare instances where they get here. Several months before some Iranians caught up here.
 
Not to mention the immigrants just go straight to Australia. Which usually take the route outside Indonesian border.

There are quite rare instances where they get here. Several months before some Iranians caught up here.
Huh, I don't get it. Why would any Muslim pass up on the opportunity to move to a perfect Islamic society, and instead take a longer way to a land of the unbelievers?
 
Huh, I don't get it. Why would any Muslim pass up on the opportunity to move to a perfect Islamic society, and instead take a longer way to a land of the unbelievers?
Easy.

Australia has more economic power than South East Asian countries. Not to mention the "western" freedom and clean environment, I guess. So in their mind they will live in Australia happily ever after.

So they said
 
Easy.

Australia has more economic power than South East Asian countries. Not to mention the "western" freedom and clean environment, I guess. So in their mind they will live in Australia happily ever after.

So they said
So how come the same kind of freedom is enjoyed nowhere in the Islamic world? Why has the formerly strongly Christian West managed to secularize, while the Islamic world continues down the path of oppression, censorship and corruption? Several Muslim countries have a large supply of oil as well, so for those, lack of money to build a stable society isn't an excuse.
 
So how come the same kind of freedom is enjoyed nowhere in the Islamic world? Why has the formerly strongly Christian West managed to secularize, while the Islamic world continues down the path of oppression, censorship and corruption? Several Muslim countries have a large supply of oil as well, so for those, lack of money to build a stable society isn't an excuse.
Which is a very different point and question to the one you first raised.

Distinction first needs to between different sects, between different degrees of faith (I often wonder why its seen as perfectly normal that you get Christians, Jews, etc that are moderate to the extreme in terms of faith; but people seem to thing that same is not true of Muslims - I've plenty of experience to know that this is also true of Muslims).

You don't have to go back that far in time to a Europe that had many nations that had the exact same issues that much of the Middle East, etc have now. Just as with that the fall or rise of dictatorships, abuse of power, abuse of religion, was, natural disaster, outside influence all play a part. Why do you expect every country around the globe to be on the same timeline?

In short its not any one single factor but a complex and interwoven number of factors, which includes (but is not limited to) Islam, in particular its more radical forms, which unfortunately have been the ones that have manged to secure power in a lot of countries.
 
Last edited:
So how come the same kind of freedom is enjoyed nowhere in the Islamic world? Why has the formerly strongly Christian West managed to secularize, while the Islamic world continues down the path of oppression, censorship and corruption? Several Muslim countries have a large supply of oil as well, so for those, lack of money to build a stable society isn't an excuse.
Actually, in here, its almost like in America. There are some hate groups to be expected. But majority is fine, no real oppression. In fact its the most tolerant muslim countries ive ever encountered. The reason why its more amplified is because in America, they have their own territory. In here, its just lumps together in one place.

But even when they got into those three, its mostly the government problem, not because of the religion.
 
As they have done with Muslims from the 'wrong' bit of Islam.
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6...-indonesia-worlds-most-populous-muslim-nation

It's wrong on both counts.
Well, they have a problem with regonizing religion other than what has been stated in law. Which does have an effect when those minorities appeal to justice.

Itll be considered to be revoked. But it wouldnt take in a short time sadly. Also note that only the "conservative fundamentalist" who actually bother with this thing. The more contemporary majority didnt even bother. Sadly those govs on some parties would like to listen to the former, which i noted as one of weaknesses.
 
Well, they have a problem with regonizing religion other than what has been stated in law. Which does have an effect when those minorities appeal to justice.
A list of 'approved' religions shouldn't exist in an society, people should be free to believe or not believe, as long as they don't impact on the rights of anyone else its got nothing to do with the state.


Itll be considered to be revoked. But it wouldnt take in a short time sadly. Also note that only the "conservative fundamentalist" who actually bother with this thing. The more contemporary majority didnt even bother. Sadly those govs on some parties would like to listen to the former, which i noted as one of weaknesses.
The problem is from the two articles above not only is it still being used, but its also being used against one religion that is on the approved list.
 
You'd think Indonesia or Malaysia would take up the chance of saving fellow Muslims stranded at sea.
Oh, they're just following the policies that western nations have put in place. You have argued that the West should not be obligated to take asylum seekers elsewhere - you may consider this a forerunner to the inevitable result of rejecting refugees: under-equipped nations refusing to take in refugees. Because if the West won't do it, why should they? Apparently you seem to think that they owe the refugees something because of a shared faith.

Where do you think Indonesia and Malaysia learned this hardline stance from? They learned it from us - we have the harshest stance on asylum seekers in the western world, the same stance that the political right applaud as a necessary evil.
 
I know you have a problem with your government's policy but it saves lives. If you throw out the welcome mat you will have every economic chancer, terrorist and genuine asylum seeker risking their and their families lives trying to reach Australia. In effect you would have the European tragedies.

Now the reason this is in the Islam thread is because there can be a surprising lack of compassion from Islamic states towards fellow Muslims. This is known throughout the world, from the Palestinians to the stateless Bedouin. Only it's not so surprising when you look at the politics behind it. Basically their suffering is beamed around the world on Arab-sponsored TV as a "look at what the West/Israel do to your brothers" without acknowledging the fact that when the "help" from Islamic states is given it isn't really in the populations interests (Kuwaiti Bedouins or arming Palestinians). It's all a "clever" ploy to keep certain sections of the Muslim community in a perpetual state of hopelessness so that when there is a slip up by Western nations in their treatment of them they can cry foul and accuse the West of mistreating Muslims, stirring up the fervour of Muslims globally. This is the reason parties pseudo-representing Palestine can get elected in the North of England, and why the Palestinian flag can fly over British town halls. It's also the reason you see Scaff's post that highlights Indonesia shutting down Mosques as well as Churches.
 
I know you have a problem with your government's policy but it saves lives.
There's eight hundred asylum seekers abandoned off the coast of Indonesia who proves otherwise.

Our government has tried the "it saves lives" line before, and it hasn't worked. For one, the whole thing has been done under the cover of national security, which means they won't discuss it. We have no way of independently providing whether or not it has saved lives; instead, we just have to take the government's word for it, and they gave happily abused that to score political points elsewhere. And secondly, all the boats that get turned back have to go somewhere - but once they're out of our waters, it stops being our problem. Because the boats haven't stopped leaving other countries. They've just stopped arriving here. So where do you think they are going?
 
IN THE ANDAMAN SEA OFF THAILAND — A wooden fishing boat carrying several hundred desperate migrants from Myanmar was spotted adrift in the Andaman Sea between Thailand and Malaysia on Thursday, part of an exodus in which thousands of people have taken to the sea in recent weeks with no country willing to take them in.

Cries of “Please help us! I have no water!” rose from the boat as a vessel carrying journalists approached. “Please give me water!”

The green and red fishing boat, packed with men, women and children squatting on the deck with only plastic tarps to protect them from the sun, had been turned away by the Malaysian authorities on Wednesday, passengers said.

They said that they had been on the boat for three months and that the boat’s captain and crew abandoned them six days ago. Ten passengers died during the voyage, and their bodies were thrown overboard, the passengers said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/w...ya-bangladeshi-migrants-andaman-sea.html?_r=0

You'd think Indonesia or Malaysia would take up the chance of saving fellow Muslims stranded at sea.
How does a wooden fishing boat carry enough food and fresh water to feed hundreds of people for 3 months. At even 1 litre/day for 500 people that's 45,000 litres or 45 metric tons of water.
 
I feel that somewhere in the quran there is the peace that many moderate and many other muslims subscibe to as well as the jihadist to get their point of view.It's down to one's interpretation of the texts,what those texts mean to the individual who reads them just as christians who read and believe what's written the bible.One religion isn't better than the other,both have a monotheistic theme and architecture to them.It's like one's outlook on life,if you see non-believers of your religion and you think "god/allah will sort them out" and do nothing but leave it to the god you worship or you just be like Bin Laden and use the religion to justify a cause.

Just as one in america has free speech,he/she has the freedom to practice whatever religion he or she wishes and should be respected for exercising that right and conversely that person shouldn't force that religion on others
 
Blackburn

The council was shaken in 2004 when six Labour councillors quit the ruling group one month after an election and became independent representatives, and the council temporarily fell into no overall control.[2][3] The councillors, who eventually re-joined the party, left over an internal row reportedly sparked by the demotion of particular councillors in a post-election reshuffle.[2] Allegations of vote-rigging and corruption have dogged the council, with members of the Muslim community reportedly being "strong-armed by mosque leaders and councillors to vote Labour" during elections.[4] The possibility of corruption has been eased by reforms to postal voting which have made electoral fraud "childishly simple" in the UK according to a European watchdog.[5] The number of postal votes registered in Blackburn in 2005 was 20,000, compared to 7,600 in 2001.[4] In April 2005, local councillor Mohammed Hussain was jailed for three years for rigging the 2002 town hall election by stealing at least 230 postal vote ballots in his ward.[6]

I don't see anything especially Islam-related in this. Or relevant. And I should know, I live here.
 
I don't see anything especially Islam-related in this.
It's all a matter of perspective. The allegation that people were "strong-armed by mosque leaders and councillors to vote Labour" could just as easily be interpreted as mosque leaders and councillors advocating for community members to vote for the party that they felt best represented their interests. So is it bullying or is it campaigning?

The article is clearly trying to position us to see it as political corruption when they're really pushing another agenda - the corruption of community leaders. If the leaders are corrupt, then the community is being corrupted by them; therefore, people can either reasonably disregard the desires of the community because they are founded on a lie, or they can point to this as evidence that the community as a whole does not fit in with the democratic ideal, and again, can be disregarded.

Either way, the Muslim community is marginalised, and Muslim influence in society is quashed, which is exactly what the author wants.
 
Either way, the Muslim community is marginalised, and Muslim influence in society is quashed, which is exactly what the author wants.

If it was a white guy who fixed it, wouldn't be issue. If its muslim it's time to start a bandwagon and get on it.

And in the General Election this year there have been allegations of issues with voting in South Thanet where Nigel Farage of UKIP lost his seat. No muslim connection there yet, but i'm sure someone will dig up a conspiracy theory to do with it and place it here soon.
 
If it was a white guy who fixed it, wouldn't be issue. If its muslim it's time to start a bandwagon and get on it.

Errrrrm

The allegation is that it's not native to Blackburn, but strongly linked with constituencies with a large Muslim demographic (Tower Hamlets, Bradford West etc)

Thanet South was an accusation. It was investigated and found to be clean.

The way I see it is that Islam as it has been practiced in Britain since its importation has been rumbled. Take a look at this story and the comments underneath:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...emism-british-muslims-tolerance-sayeeda-warsi

This is a left leaning paper, and you'll find a fair few unsavory comments by posters, mixed in with the home truths. Telegraph and Express comments can be unreadable (you'd think the moderators would be impartial).

Now my fear, as I stated before is that something big will happen in the UK that will set the mood decisively against the Muslim community, and there will need to be a response from British Islam more developed than "We are a religion of peace..." How that comes about is up to British Muslims and those with trusted connections to the community. One thing that has to change is the freedom to leave Islam:

“Oh yeah, I’m scared,” agrees Nasreen (not her real name) a feisty 29-year-old asset manager from east London who has been a semi-closeted apostate for nine years. “I’m not so worried about the loonies because it’s almost normal now to get threats. What worries me is that they go back to my parents and damage them, because that’s not unheard of.”


The danger is confirmed by Imtiaz Shams, an energetic 26-year-old who runs a group called Faith to Faithless, which aims to help Muslim nonbelievers speak out about their difficult situations. Shams has a visible presence on YouTube and has organised several events at universities. “I am at physical risk because I do videos,” says Shams. “I don’t like putting myself in the firing line, but I had to because no one else is willing to do it.”


http://www.theguardian.com/global/2...-ex-muslims-non-believers-hidden-crisis-faith

How does a wooden fishing boat carry enough food and fresh water to feed hundreds of people for 3 months. At even 1 litre/day for 500 people that's 45,000 litres or 45 metric tons of water.
They don't unfortunately. 10 died on the voyage, although it's debatable how accurate "3 months" is as a timeline.
 
Last edited:
Huh, I don't get it. Why would any Muslim pass up on the opportunity to move to a perfect Islamic society, and instead take a longer way to a land of the unbelievers?

Perhaps for the same reason that you don't see a lot of Christian immigrants moving to Liberia?

So how come the same kind of freedom is enjoyed nowhere in the Islamic world? Why has the formerly strongly Christian West managed to secularize, while the Islamic world continues down the path of oppression, censorship and corruption? Several Muslim countries have a large supply of oil as well, so for those, lack of money to build a stable society isn't an excuse.

Funnily enough, it was the abundance of resourced that stopped two successful cases of secularization in Islamic countries - Iran and Afghanistan - dead on their tracks. But I'm sure you know all about the rise and fall of Mossadeq in the former and the proxy war US ans USSR fought in the latter?

Generally speaking, I'd say the main problem of the islamic world is that it is a world composed of countries that for the most part emerged from colonialism only in the last sixty or so years. No post-colonial nation (bar few exceptions) fared well, regardless of predominant religion or ethnicity.
 
Generally speaking, I'd say the main problem of the islamic world is that it is a world composed of countries that for the most part emerged from colonialism only in the last sixty or so years. No post-colonial nation (bar few exceptions) fared well, regardless of predominant religion or ethnicity.
Going to have to explain Pakistan and Bangladesh vs India and Sri Lanka for this theory to hold water.
 
Generally speaking, I'd say the main problem of the islamic world is that it is a world composed of countries that for the most part emerged from colonialism only in the last sixty or so years. No post-colonial nation (bar few exceptions) fared well, regardless of predominant religion or ethnicity.

Going to have to explain Pakistan and Bangladesh vs India and Sri Lanka for this theory to hold water.

Which they all did, Ceylon in the early 70s (as you should well know), and India begat Pakistan begat Bangladesh in recent history. Why do you put them in contrast to each other?
 
Back