Islam is not a religion

probably would have been better to just keep off our radar?

reply to post by FlyersFan



To be fair you do have a point there that has a sweeping relevance.

The different sects in all religions shows again that these things have more to do with cultural development than religion.

In some Muslim sects they paint pictures of Muhamed on the sides of their houses, whilst in others that would be a sin.
In some countries Christian doctrine is used to support draconian witch hunts (as it has been in western countries too), in others the Christians would claim it absurd.

In some Muslim countries I am welcomed with open arms (I have been to Palestine, Somaliland, Morocco and Mali), and in others it would be dangerous for me to enter certain areas.
I live in harmony with Muslims, and others don't.

SisyphusRide

probably would have been better to just keep off our radar?

What on earth do these pictures have to do with the debate as to whether in this world there are Muslim countries that have democracy and capitalism?

First you start blithereing on about irrelevant subjects such as Republicans and slavery and now this?

You are mental


The fact that many Muslims have fought for in wars in the American army for over a hundred years, including the ISAF only makes it stranger and irrelevant that you have posted these pictures.

reply to post by b14warrior


Sir... you already have my answer.

reply to post by Octoneo


All religion is, is a vehicle to practice one's faith.

Some religions twist and manipulate the people's faith, true.

But one's faith should never be questioned or cast in doubt.

Just my humble opinion.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by b14warrior

 

Sir... you already have my answer.

So, your answer to the question of whether Islamic communities can co exist with capitalism and democracy is, as far as I can gather this:

'Look at these pictures of an occupying military force that also contains Muslims within its ranks in a palatable and tiny tiny weeny snippet of time, at a time when they are there relating to an event (which many on here believe was a FF) that happened ten years ago by members of a country that is allied with my country and was supposedly hatched in the small pocket of the world that these pictures were taken in.
And of course this is representative of 1.6 billion people that have very wide ranges of beliefs and live in almost every place in the world, many in peace, democracy and capitalism (which of course Jesus would support fully).'


So in short, you fail to see outside of your own world. Fail to research. Fail to experience. Fail to see the bigger picture. Fail to take in to account the many other factors involved in this debate. Fail to look at history.
And even failed to read my evidence in my first post, which proves that despite the fact that they know I dislike their religion, the Muslims I live as neighbours with are peaceful and fully co exist with me.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I have just looked through your thread and have decided it's best to not respond and debate with you anymore.

I was kinda kidding that you were mental, but it turns out you may actually be unstable.

You clearly hate anybody that isn't Christian.
You seem to think that only atheists and Muslims can do evil deeds.
You use Jeffery Dahmer as an example on numerous occasions when I could use millions of examples throughout history of Christians commiting evil deeds (including stoning women to death), and they still do, just like the rest of the human race.

I can fully see you enjoying condemning to death non-Christians and just ignoring 'thou shalt not kill'.

Seek help.

Love, light and peace.

reply to post by b14warrior


deluded? I should just keep just keep hitting the alert button on you eh?

you can't offend me... I do not obey

and I've learned to spot systems of control.

stoning a woman to death because she doesn't love you no more is beyond delusional... specially when you have 7 wives.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You cant call yourself a Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu etc without subscribing to certain doctrines or following a certain diet / ritual practice / legal system.

A Christian is simply someone who professes the beliefs of the Nicene Creed.

It has nothing to do with "a certain diet / ritual practice / legal system", and you fully know that.

Shiloh7
reply to post by Octoneo

 

Isn't this why the Shia and Sunni fight each other - to the death. For me its why Islam is such a dangerous concept and explains the thinking behind the extremists.

I hope that my government will ensure that no man who has gone from this country to fight abroad for Islamic beliefs is allowed back here, no matter what family he has left behind, simply because it is not morally or legally right for a man to slaughter, rape, main and destroy the infrastructure and homes in another country because he doesn't like their beliefs and genuinely believes they deserve every bit of visciousness he can force upon them because they don't share his religion.

I believe it was a Rabbi, a while ago, that said it would be a good idea to rewrite religion for today's world - I remember him stirring all sorts of hissy fits, but I believe he was absolutely correct - for those who need a specific religion or way of life to follow.

Most Sunni and Shia do not hate one another. Only a small minority do and they fight due to being uneducated about Islam or simply being hypocrites. Islam forbids such things.

Islam forbids going to war for such reasons. There are two types of jihad, offensive and defensive. Defensive is, for example, something like is what is going on in Syria right now where Muslims are forced to fight an oppressive regime. Offensive Jihad can only be undergone by an Islamic state, of which none exist today. And in war rape is forbidden as is everything else you mentioned.

If you believe a system of life comes from a perfect Creator, changing that is the same as saying that you think you know better than someone you say is omnipotent. It's completely illogical. If you believe religion needs to be rewritten you shouldn't be following it at all.

b14warrior
Whilst I respect your opinion and at no point do I think it has been born out of a racist notion (I just wanted to throw that in there as I am anticipating somebody bringing that up against you) I think you are confused.

I feel you have confused culture and religion.

Until recent history Islam has been no worse at co-exisiting than any other religion. Some would argue that the recent closure of Islam is due to factors that have sod all to do with religion or even culture but outside influences.

Islam has a long history with capitalism, and a small amount of research shows this, they have been merchants and traders for thousands of years, and there are modern capitalist Muslim countries too.

Many Muslim countries have democracy too, take Somaliland, an amazing, peaceful, open and democratic capitalist country that is also majority Muslim that I visited last year.

You may not hear about peaceful co existence and/or Muslim communities that tie in with your view of how a good western democratic society acts but those stories just don't sell.


There are many countries that don't fit in to those constraints that don't have a democracy, that don't have any kind of strong modern capitalist system that AREN'T Muslim, and this is proof that it is down to culture.
In many cases I would also argue that it is down to how 'developed' the country is.

I would like to point out that I live in a city where Muslims and non Muslims both take part in the community, both eat and socialise in the same places, do business together and get along very well. We are all Brummy bretheren whilst each keeping our own traditions and ability to worship how we do or don't want.

We are not the only place where this happens, it has happened in the past too.


And all this from a person (me) that would like to see a world without religion!

edit on 17-12-2013 by b14warrior because: (no reason given)

Hello.

It seems you have not been properly educated about Islam. The fact that you cite modern 'Muslim' countries tells me you do not have a proper understanding of Islam. There is currently no Islamic or Muslim country in the world. None. To qualify as such a government would need to establish the Caliphate and rule according to Islamic law. The last Caliphate (The Ottomans) was abolished close to a century ago and current Muslim majority countries are run by dogs who implement part of Islam at best and only when it suits them.

While it's true Islam allows an even encourages trading, never has an Islamic state adopted capitalism as it's economic system. Capitalism is, in the end, greed. the Islamic economic system may share a few similarities, but ultimately it is not the same. For example, in Islam the use of fiat currency is forbidden. Currency needs to be backed by gold. Interest is forbidden, which can even include something like intentionally cheating a customer.

Democracy as a system is not compatible with Islam. Democracy gives the people or ruling officials the power to change laws. In an Islamic system laws are from God or based on what God has forbidden and allowed. Therefore man does not have the power to change a law that God has sent down. There is mutual consultation is Islam (Shura) but it is not the basis of the system, like in democracy.

Also, I would like to mention that it is only Islam that guarantees religious freedom to the people living in it. No other system does. In an Islamic state non-Muslims may judge according to the laws of their own religion/system or they can choose to be judged according to Islamic law. If you read through history, you'll see that Islam had guaranteed a level of freedom of religion no other system every has including democracy. That is why, for example, when the Crusaders tried to take the holy lands the Christians living there actually helped the Muslims.

reply to post by Octoneo

Octoneo
An entire governmental system like Communism or Capitalism.

Perhaps it is a confusion in the sense of assuming Communism or Capitalism as a government system (they are not, they are economic systems), but I'm not quite sure what you mean. As far as I can tell, if you were to apply Islamic law on an economic level, aside from the removal of usury (which I'm sure most people would support, at least on an individual level if not on a corporate level), it would be a socialist welfare state (like many of the Nordic countries): with taxes enforced (zakat for muslims, jizya for non-muslims), to then be used for the less fortunate.
Do you disagree?

As far as the Caliphate being the go-to islamic system of government, I have to disagree. There was no caliphate during Muhammad's time, and while he was the political as well as religious leader for his people (a necessity, considering the danger muslims were in during the infancy of their religion), he never advocated the political leadership role as the religious one.
I've seen many muslims who talk about the the Caliphate that was destroyed in 1924, and what a wonderful day when it returns and so on, but the Caliphate hasn't been religiously relevant for almost 1400 years (since the rashidun)- what had limped on until it died a well deserved death in 1924 was a corrupted, hereditary title the sultan taped on to the end of his name as an afterthought.

Apologies for the double-post. Seem to be doing a lot of those nowadays...

babloyi
reply to post by Octoneo

 

Octoneo
An entire governmental system like Communism or Capitalism.

Perhaps it is a confusion in the sense of assuming Communism or Capitalism as a government system (they are not, they are economic systems), but I'm not quite sure what you mean. As far as I can tell, if you were to apply Islamic law on an economic level, aside from the removal of usury (which I'm sure most people would support, at least on an individual level if not on a corporate level), it would be a socialist welfare state (like many of the Nordic countries): with taxes enforced (zakat for muslims, jizya for non-muslims), to then be used for the less fortunate.
Do you disagree?

As far as the Caliphate being the go-to islamic system of government, I have to disagree. There was no caliphate during Muhammad's time, and while he was the political as well as religious leader for his people (a necessity, considering the danger muslims were in during the infancy of their religion), he never advocated the political leadership role as the religious one.
I've seen many muslims who talk about the the Caliphate that was destroyed in 1924, and what a wonderful day when it returns and so on, but the Caliphate hasn't been religiously relevant for almost 1400 years (since the rashidun)- what had limped on until it died a well deserved death in 1924 was a corrupted, hereditary title the sultan taped on to the end of his name as an afterthought.

edit on 18-12-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Thank you for your reply.

While it is true that Capitalism is technically an economic system and not a governmental one, the sad reality is that it has permeated into modern governments so deeply that the economic system of Capitalism is pretty much synonymous with many modern democracies. Therefore I often refer to Capitalism as as governmental system to get the point across even if technically it is not. And while the Islamic economic system may have many things in common with what you describe, the point I'm making is that Islam consists of an actual economic system as well as a governmental structure, system of war etc. Democracy and dictatorship cannot coexist and in the same way the currently employed systems cannot coexist with the Islamic system. The desire to establish Islam on the state comes from the fact that without a truly Islamic government Muslims cannot practice Islam to the fullest.

That is a common argument that is often refereed to by those who defend democracy, both Muslim and non-Muslim. However, it has no basis in fact. There was no official title of Caliph during the Prophet's life because as the Prophet he was the political and religious leader by default, for all extensive purposes he was the Caliph. The Prophet also made it clear that after his passing there will be Caliphs to rule over the people, as recorded in Hadith books. The title of Caliph has always been a religious and political one, that is because in Islamic religion and politics (as well as economics, family life, war etc) are tied to one another. That is why Abu Bakr was elected as the Caliph so soon after the death of the Prophet. The urgency was so much that the burial of the Prophet was delayed so that the Caliph could be elected. As for your assertion that the system of Caliphate ceased after the fall of Uthman, that is false. While it is true that later Caliphs made the Caliphate a hereditary position when it should have not have been (either intentionally or otherwise) and that some of them did indeed fall into corruption, that does not change that they did employ Islamic as the political system. Meaning that the office of the Caliph was there as was the governmental roles in Islam. Contrary to what you say, the truth is that Islamic had been practiced as a political system for the better part of 1400 years. And under this system mankind made huge leaps forward.