User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 17 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Is this a common tactic of yours? compare muslims with non Muslims in order to make a point and then claim innocence when people take offence to what such a comparison really involves?
"I am not calling anyone an athiest/hindu. I am JUST COMPARING the two to show how the persons views are corrupted in a similar way..."
I think the haraam police video is pretty accurate here though. You are far too quick to label things "kufr ideology" as if it is a catch all answer to everything.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
stuff that are going through my brain right now...
why do people say "i must love you and leave you" just go..and shutup, and why must you love me. no one's forcing you...
"dear lily are you being so silly"
do pigeon have spit?
my brain needs to throw up...
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Thought of the day: Go with your gut instincts.
Giving people a second chance, (or in this a first one) and showing manners and ettiquette is just asking to be stamped on.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What is to be discouraged abouit here? Islam is not alien to relaxation - Chillaxing like the Prophet
It is only a problem when it is taken to excess.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
How exactly will Cameron going to go and talk with Obama about the Oil leak enhance the situation any better exactly?
No it's a common tactic of your to ignore the point in the analogy and focus on the irrelevant part - by definition an analogy is something similar, not the same - there will be differences. The point of an analogy is to highlight a similar point using a different example!
Except that your examples rarely have a similar point. Try sticking to the actual cases - or would then your points be seen as not valid?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
They generally do - just you choose not to accept the point but sidetrack onto irrelevant points which are not being made with the example - I only recall one example where you raised a genuine point with an example.
Except what you consider side issues are part of the example and the example would be incomplete without them.
That is why its better to actually discuss the issues at hand instead of diverting to strawmen you create in order to knock them down.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No side issues are what their name suggests - irrelevant to the discussion.
Citing the hindu identity when considering logic pertaining to what is a national identity, is relevant - raising the question, are you calling me a hindu? is a side issue.
However the question is pertinent when logic condones a Hindu identity and the proponent asks can I call you a British Hindu Muslim?
Notice the difference between the two examples!
Hindu identity is one of religion. National identity is not. Totally different thing.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
For the one who was conflating national identity with identities to do with lineage, arabs, regions etc it is most amusing that you now suddently have discovered the argument that identities can be different, and some identities could possibly be haram.
At least a step in the right direction. Looks like you are going to have to be taken kicking and screaming to a conclusion you don't want to go to... but I have the patience... ia...
If Hinduism is a different identity, which you are labelling "religious" identity, firstly, this is arguable as most Hindus would say its a cultural identity and not solely a religious indentity. Hinduism has a religious component.
Secondly, what is wrong with such an identity? Why can't you fuse it with Islam? Spell out the problems. Just saying it is a religious identity does not make it a problem - one can say the same about national identities or democracies, these are modern age religions and thus religious identities. Are they too haram for that reason? I suspect not...
Not knowing the rest of the compontents, I assume that this is the main component we disagree with?
I still think you are being sbsurd to even pretend that the rest of your point is valid.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
LOL For someone who does not know the subject matter he is arguing against it is interesting you make so many assertions against it!!!
Even so, your logic dictates when looking at foreign thought systems, bits that you don't like ignore, bits that you like adopt - so why don't you adopt Hinduism and be consistent with your logic?
Or is the logic employ double standards - one rule for one thought system and another for a different one?
Except that Hinduism - the religion - demands specific things which are counter to islam. Tauheed, risalah and more.
If hindus want to remove such parts from hinduism but allow all the parts that are not counter to islam, I doubt there would be much argument. That is how it was always done. When the Kuffaar acepted Islam, only the parts that were counter to Islam were purged.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
According to your logic, where there is a contradiction, you simply don't have to follow it, thus allowing you to adopt the Hindu identity - don't you think hinduism isn't fluid??? Have you ever studied it and its variation across India? It is in fact more fluid than the kufr democractic "religion" and national identity "religion" which you submit to which also demand specific things which are counter to Islam - you just choose not to follow them, believe in them or ignore them!
For example, since when is man made law supreme for a Muslim? It is a common value for the british identity and to achieve something common across society - you'd simply say we don't have to believe it and still can be british - so what's you problem with hinduism? don't beleive in many idols and still be hindu... Am I missing something in your argument or are you applying double standards?
If Hindus do not follow the places where their religion counters Islam, then yes I have no problem with that. It would be the same as accepting Islam. It would be accepting Islam.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I REST MY CASE - YOUR LOGIC LEADS TO HINDUISM = ISLAM.
If you are sincere you will realise your argument is problematic - as even the most simple of Muslims know this is not the case - if you are not you will keep repeating your mantras.
My logic does not lead to hinduism = Islam - quite the opposite, I am simply stating what the Prophet
preached. He asked people to submit to the will of God and to stop unislamic practices. He required nothing more than that.
And when the people did that, they were acccepted as Muslims.
Now if someone folliwing hinduism does that, I will accept the person. Just like all the people before me have and the majority of people now do too.
However it seems you require people to do more than the Prophet (saw), the sahabah, and all subsequent generations of Muslims required.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Why is it that everytime i decide to say something that shows my emotions the person doesnt get it?
(and why ask ME to explain?..)
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
cuz ur the only one that can explain
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Hello off-putting member.
Do you ever know what you're talking about?
How dare you suggest that Hinduism and Islam are the same! What on EARTH?!
Be serious (Yes, really): what are your intentions on this forum?
1) To annoy people?
OR
2) Act dumb to wind people up?
OR
3) Trying to make friends?
And peace be upon you my Muslim brother (sister?)
A little more than you - I know how to greet someone in Islam - didn't your parents teach you that when you were 5? Not to worry, I'm sure we can put you right...
Maybe you should point the finger at Ed and You who seem to be arguing we can adopt foreign ideologies by simply:
- matching aspects that are similar to Islam
- ignoring the bits that contradict
- and believing in the bits they don't believe in
Thus kufr systems like democracy or nationalistic identities become Islamic - I've extended their logic to a few other systems like Hinduism, Sikhism, Communism, Devil Worship... and what do you know? According to their logic you can be quite a decent Devil Worshipping Secular Democractic British Hindu Muslim! No conflict after that!
To contribute some ideas - to critique weak ideas...
Hi.
Who is 'we'?
I don't think I want to be put right by you, if that is okay?
My parents taught me a lot of fine things, thank you for your question.
Er.....right.
I think you interpreted things all wrong.
LOL.
Now please can you in your own words compare this to what the prophet
did when introducing and spreading Islam. I want to see what you see as the differences.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
-Isnt that what everyone do to call people to Islam, show the similarities between what they believe in and what Islam teaches so that they can see that after all, maybe they were muslims all along (very rare case where people never heard of Islam but through life experiences have ended being pretty "islamic" sometimes even more than most Muslims)
-I dont think its "ignoring the bits that contradict" it's more like, we live in this country as foreigners so we shouldnt ask for too much before we get booted out. Let's lie low and do our best inshaAllah.
-and what's wrong with the last point? of course not all the non-believers's are going to have ideologies similar to Islam (or else they would just be Muslims) so I can only mention Surah Kaafiroon here.
Say (O Muhammad (SAW) to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar)!
2. "I worship not that which you worship,
3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.
4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.
6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)."
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
i know i sometimes talk abstract or the verge of un-understandable, especially when talking about feelings... BUT STILL! that is just too embarassing, eg: "ohh that means that i care so much about you i would do this" >.>
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
No problem but be consistent - if you don't want to be corrected by someone don't correct them - keep your opinion to yourself - otherwise people will accuse you of double standards!
Thanks for the advice.
Oh and where did I try and correct you btw? I don't think i bothered with you.
Allah revealed to the Prophet(saw) his way of life, directly via Quran and via Sunnah.
- Whatever the Prophet(saw) did or approved was the new way of life.
- Whatever Allah revealed was the new way of life, whether obligation/prohibition/recommendation/disrecommendation etc
- At the end of 23 years we have a complete way of life that can answer all answers to all issues - labelled Islam.
- It is a unique system that contains a creed, rituals and worships, morality, sociopolitical transactions, culture and institutions
The characteristics of the Meccan system had:
- some characteristics overlapping with Islam (marriage, rituals, morals, treaties etc) and
- many that did not (infanticide, idolatry, tribal warfare, concentration of wealth, plural leadership, sociopolitical bonds of tribalism etc)
These characteristics defined the Meccan system.
The difference in the permutation of key characteristics distinguishes the two systems - Islam and the Meccan system.
However one can reconcile the two systems applying your logic and say the Meccan system is Islamic by:
- Maintaining similarities of marriage, morals, rituals, trade etc
- Dumping differences and contradictions
- Adding the innovations of Islam (eg azan, jummah, eid, zakat, kharaj, jizya etc)
- Concluding that we can accept the Meccan system and it is the same as Islam
The process simply recreates Islam out of the old system! You've ditched those characteristics that are problematic and added those bits missing and kept the overlap - so the resulting system is called Islam - it is no longer the Meccan system.
Doing the same with democracy:
- Similarities include some rights, administration systems, accountability etc
- Differences include popular sovereignty, majority legislation, plurality in leadership, transfer of seovereignty to representatives etc
- These characteristics define the democratic system.
you simply ignore the differences, legislate according to Quran and Sunnah and state Allah is sovereign and introduce zakat etc and we have a system compatible with Islam - you don't! You have Islam and not democracy. Why claim the result is democracy??? It is not! You don't really agree with democracy - it is a system that is different to the system of Islam.
Likewise, national identities are identities constructed to bind society together by identifying commonalities across all peoples who live together - British national identity contains:
- a homeland being the british isles
- a history or collective memories being that of its kings and queens, enlightenment, victorian period and modernity with figures like Chaucer, Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Churchill, Chaplin, Newton, Einstein, Beckham etc
- culture being the pub, skirts, bowler hats, union jack, english, egg and bacon, christmas, bank holidays, easter etc
- political authority being with parliament, laws being man made, courts enforcing man made laws, troops fighting for queen and country, loyalty to the country and its laws etc
It is very difficult to do a similarity/difference analysis - as the differences are so major...
I have yet to meet a Muslim who accepts that this is his social identity. Ask him what his nationality is - British as he has a passport (no probs!) or ask him where he's born - Britain (no probs!) - but his identity is not British.
Let's compare this with the Islamic socio-political identity:
- homeland - dar al-Islam (that used to stretch from Andalus to China - divided by the colonialists!)
- history being that of Adam(as) to the Prophet(saw), Khulafah Rashida, Ummawiyyah Khilafah, Abassiyya Khilafah, Uthmani Khilafah with figures like Umar(ra), Abu Hanifa, Bukhari, Ghazali, Salahadin, Tariq bin Ziyad, Suleiman etc
- culture being halal/haram food, hijab/jilbab, white flag with shahadah in black, arabic language, the mosque, Eid, Ramadhan etc
- political authority being sovereignty with Allah, authority with people, unitary leadership with one Caliph, shariah laws, qadi based judiciary enforcing sharia, troops fighting jihad for Allah's sake, one ummah, loyalty to Allah etc
- beliefs - Allah, day of judgement, angels, heaven/hell etc
The two identities are different - Islam orders us to bond together as a community according to the Islamic creed and not according to foreign man made identities - to say one adopts the British identity as there are some areas of overlap (eg fish and chips being halal) is absurd! Our identity is Islam as is our way of life.
No amount of mental gymnastics will make the british identity Islamic - and if you do chop and change it, it becomes changed to such a degree that it is no longer the British identity - but an Islamic identity that you are dealing with!
Pages