/* */

PDA

View Full Version : "Most Islamic" Nation



bartdanr
11-17-2008, 06:09 AM
Peace to Everyone, :)

I hope this is the right place to inquire: what nation, in your opinion, most closely follows Islamic law, government and economics? Alternately, what nation has the best hope of becoming more Islamic?

I appreciate all responses in advance.

Daniel
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Saadet
11-18-2008, 01:09 AM
Malaysia.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-18-2008, 02:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
Malaysia.
LOL.........:D

If Muslim Knight read this... he'll laugh too...

I'm not being negative...

But seriously, the current Prime Minister would be replaced by the Deputy Prime Minister March next year.

He said that he's Islamic...but all opposition supporters dont believe him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najib_Tun_Razak
Reply

Saadet
11-19-2008, 12:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
LOL.........:D

If Muslim Knight read this... he'll laugh too...

I'm not being negative...

But seriously, the current Prime Minister would be replaced by the Deputy Prime Minister March next year.

He said that he's Islamic...but all opposition supporters dont believe him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najib_Tun_Razak
I never said that I supported Abdullah Badawi or Razak. I would say that I love Mahathir, but I can't get past what he did to Anwar Ibrahim.

I just think that Malay Muslims are some of the best people in the Muslim world. Plus, the whole 'bumiputra' thing which discriminates against Chinese is absolutely hilarious. What god****ed right do they have to come to Malaysia and monopolize the economy?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
kwolney01
11-19-2008, 12:53 AM
I don't know which country is the most Islamic...but InshAllah America will become more Islamic!!! :D as well as all other countries!! :giggling:
Reply

north_malaysian
11-19-2008, 02:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
I never said that I supported Abdullah Badawi or Razak. I would say that I love Mahathir, but I can't get past what he did to Anwar Ibrahim.

I just think that Malay Muslims are some of the best people in the Muslim world. Plus, the whole 'bumiputra' thing which discriminates against Chinese is absolutely hilarious. What god****ed right do they have to come to Malaysia and monopolize the economy?
When it comes to Mahathir, everybody both from pro-government and opposition would agree that he's great in managing economy and administration of the country... but at the last 10 years of his premiership, he's getting more dictatorship, authoritarian, controlling media etc.

Abdullah Badawi, the country has been in auto-pilot mode since day one... he damaged lots of things...

Najib Razak..... I prefer Badawi or Mahathir than him.... he's scandalous...

I'm officially registered as a "Malay" and have a "bumiputra" status... but as other younger Malay generation, we just want this country to change... many dont care about Malayness thingy.... for those who are Islamists they just want to be known as Malaysian Muslims rather than as Malays... many younger generation of Malays are sick with "Malay Supremacy" because in reality it's "UMNO supremacy"... only UMNO members benefited mostly whatsoever "Malay special rights" available...

The first people settled in Malaysia are the aborigines locally known as Orang Asli... then came more advanced people from Yunnan province and pushing the aborigines to the jungle and dominated Malayan peninsula..

because it's situated between india and china.... the peoples living here are mixed people of Chinese and Indians. Hinduism and Buddhism were the religions of the people... the Sultanate of Kedah (the oldest Sultanate in Malaysia) claims that they're descendant of Alexander the Great...

then the whole peninsula was under Siamese rule... until a rebel Malay prince from Sumatra came here and established a kingdom which Malayanised the people here....

then the people here are known as the Malays....
Reply

Faisal Pervaiz
11-20-2008, 06:43 PM
No country is islamic at this pint, i dont think someone correct me if i am wrong.

The closest one right now is probbaly iran

inshaalh other countries will also become more islamic
Reply

Olive
11-20-2008, 09:00 PM
:sl:

Allahu A'lam...

Only Allah knows, tbh...

:w:
Reply

Saadet
11-20-2008, 09:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Faisal Pervaiz
No country is islamic at this pint, i dont think someone correct me if i am wrong.

The closest one right now is probbaly iran

inshaalh other countries will also become more islamic
Iran's criminal and civil law systems are based in the fiqh of Jafaari Shi'ism, which makes Iran one of the least Islamic nations. According to Iranian law, sex change operations are halal.
Reply

Ansariyah
11-20-2008, 09:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
Iran's criminal and civil law systems are based in the fiqh of Jafaari Shi'ism, which makes Iran one of the least Islamic nations. According to Iranian law, sex change operations are halal.
:muddlehea
Reply

chacha_jalebi
11-20-2008, 11:14 PM
dare i say it ....

pakistan

please be gentle with your attacks :p
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-20-2008, 11:15 PM
i was thinking afghanistan ^ its close to pakistan though :P
Reply

chacha_jalebi
11-20-2008, 11:16 PM
mmmmm

i personally think saudi arabia, even though its not 100% sharia followin, some of the rules there are near sharia more then any other country that i know off :D

like their al muwatta police
Reply

Saadet
11-21-2008, 12:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chacha_jalebi
dare i say it ....

pakistan

please be gentle with your attacks :p
Frankly, I don't know where to begin..

At the risk of offending the Pakistanis on this board, I'd rate Pakistan's Islamic credentials on the same level as Iran. The same goes for Afghanistan.
Reply

Saadet
11-21-2008, 12:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by chacha_jalebi
mmmmm

i personally think saudi arabia, even though its not 100% sharia followin, some of the rules there are near sharia more then any other country that i know off :D

like their al muwatta police
There are some aspects of the Sharia in place in Saudi Arabia, but there's also alot of customery law which has no basis in Islam (no female drivers, for instance).

On top of that, no nation can be considered Islamic if it tolerates a despotic regime such as the al-Saud monarchy.
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-21-2008, 06:47 AM
From the replies so far in this thread, it is clear that no one sees an ideal Islamic country anywhere. With about 56 countries worldwide controlled by Muslims, not one is seen to be satisfactorily running on Islamic lines. Is it the failure of Islam or the Muslims? That is, has Islam a blueprint for a perfect society or are Muslims unwilling/incapable of implementing Islamic blueprint for a perfect society? Or, is it that Islam is incapable of producing ideal Muslims in sufficient numbers to bring about an ideal Islamic society?
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-21-2008, 07:03 AM
I may also add that Muslims' fancy of an ideal Islamic society is misplaced because religions are essentially teachings meant to unravel man's potential. Islam, most among all religions, has sought to model societies, nay the whole world, on its vision without realizing that no individual would fall in line to any external order unless he, of his own volition, chooses to. Therefore no religions have ever in the past or in future would succeed in creating a perfect society. No religion’s ambition should be beyond creating spiritual individuals.
Reply

Fishman
11-21-2008, 10:44 AM
:sl:
I think Malaysia as well. They do have some silly things, but it's better than all the other tin pot dictatorships, terror states and Saudis who run the rest of the Islamic world...
:w:
Reply

aamirsaab
11-21-2008, 11:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
From the replies so far in this thread, it is clear that no one sees an ideal Islamic country anywhere. With about 56 countries worldwide controlled by Muslims, not one is seen to be satisfactorily running on Islamic lines. Is it the failure of Islam or the Muslims? That is, has Islam a blueprint for a perfect society or are Muslims unwilling/incapable of implementing Islamic blueprint for a perfect society? Or, is it that Islam is incapable of producing ideal Muslims in sufficient numbers to bring about an ideal Islamic society?
1) It's the fault of muslims because the one's who are in charge of the countries are not following Islam properly.
One needs only to look at the teachings of Islam as a whole - they all aim to keep justice and order in a society.

2) Sharia (or Islamic law) is so similar to any other form of law out here (examples: theives, murderers and rapists are all categorised as criminals in all law systems) - the only real difference is in maximum punishments which the BNP and its ilk (or anyone who took extreme pleasure in Saddam being HANGED) seem to have a problem with (rather ironic don't ya think!)

3) There is no such thing as a blueprint for a perfect society; perfect societies do not exist and have not existed. Sharia does not aim for perfection, rather it aims for justice and order amongst society.
In that regard, it is holistically the perfect blueprint.

4) Sharia is not supposed to be dogmatic - it should be thought of as a spine; there is room for some flexibility but not too much, else it'd snap and not too little, else it would be too restrictive. It is a balancing act and that is one of the main reasons why a CALIPHATE is needed (they're essentially moderators for Islamic law but this is too brief a summary of what they actually do)

5) Most if not all muslim countries currently practice a pseudo-Islamic law. It is a hybrid of sharia and whatever else is common to them - because of this, it is prone to many silly laws or interpretations. Again, with a caliphate, this problem would be minimised.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-21-2008, 12:43 PM
How about Brunei Darussalam? It's more Islamic than Malaysia, more conservative than Malaysia and less controversial than Malaysia.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
11-21-2008, 12:55 PM
None.
Reply

bartdanr
11-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
1) It's the fault of muslims because the one's who are in charge of the countries are not following Islam properly.
One needs only to look at the teachings of Islam as a whole - they all aim to keep justice and order in a society.

2) Sharia (or Islamic law) is so similar to any other form of law out here (examples: theives, murderers and rapists are all categorised as criminals in all law systems) - the only real difference is in maximum punishments which the BNP and its ilk (or anyone who took extreme pleasure in Saddam being HANGED) seem to have a problem with (rather ironic don't ya think!)

3) There is no such thing as a blueprint for a perfect society; perfect societies do not exist and have not existed. Sharia does not aim for perfection, rather it aims for justice and order amongst society.
In that regard, it is holistically the perfect blueprint.

4) Sharia is not supposed to be dogmatic - it should be thought of as a spine; there is room for some flexibility but not too much, else it'd snap and not too little, else it would be too restrictive. It is a balancing act and that is one of the main reasons why a CALIPHATE is needed (they're essentially moderators for Islamic law but this is too brief a summary of what they actually do)

5) Most if not all muslim countries currently practice a pseudo-Islamic law. It is a hybrid of sharia and whatever else is common to them - because of this, it is prone to many silly laws or interpretations. Again, with a caliphate, this problem would be minimised.
Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
Reply

Danah
11-21-2008, 02:17 PM
its hard to find a perfect Islamic country
each country might be better than the other in something, but worse in something else
Reply

Fishman
11-21-2008, 03:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bartdanr
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:



Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
:sl:
I think there would be too many disputes inside it. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are key Islamic countries, but they would all end up in disputes with the system. Iran are Shia, so they wouldn't really accept a Sunni Caliphate. Saudi and Pakistan wouldn't get along either, and at least one of them would reject the system as heretical. Turkey is strongly secularist, so that might also cause problems.
:w:
Reply

islamirama
11-21-2008, 03:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bartdanr
This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
The Caliphate won't be established until the people are ready for it. The leader represents its' people and is chosen from among them. If the people are good then the chosen one is best among them (like the Prophet and the companions were), and if the people are corrupt and evil then the chosen one is worst among them (like zadari, bush, etc). So the very first and foremost thing that needs to happen before any process can take place is the re-education of the masses about their religion and returning to fundamentals and basics of it. This will in return raise religiously oriented and devoted people not the immoral, corrupt, secular, westenr imitators. When you have the public as educated as the imaams then the whole public themselves will demand a Caliphate. Caliphate is chosen based on his character, islamic knowledge and most suitable for position. No one claims he wants to be the leader, it is a position one is nominated for by others and whoever majority find more fit is given pledge of allegiance to. But we don't find anything of that sort today. No caliphate is coming except the Madi, he's the last one that will come after this era for tyrannical rulers come to it's end, which inshallah is not too far off.
Reply

Saadet
11-21-2008, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
How about Brunei Darussalam? It's more Islamic than Malaysia, more conservative than Malaysia and less controversial than Malaysia.
The Sultan of Brunei is a zalim and probably a queer.

I remember when he spent some $500,000 to get Michael Jackson to sing at his birthday party.

He's no better than the Saudi scum..
Reply

S_87
11-21-2008, 05:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
The Sultan of Brunei is a zalim and probably a queer.
I remember when he spent some $500,000 to get Michael Jackson to sing at his birthday party.

He's no better than the Saudi scum..
what right have you got in assuming he is a queer and spreading it?

I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
Reply

aamirsaab
11-21-2008, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by bartdanr
Peace, aamirsaab :wave:



Thanks for your post.

This might be a little tangental (well, maybe not), but by what process do you think the Caliphate could be re-established?

Daniel
Howdy.

Fishman and Islamirama have really said it all in regards to caliphate. Only thing I could is that if a caliphate is made, it should be made up of the best sheiks and scholars we have today (shabir ally would definately be my personal choice) but it really would be difficult to create a caliphate. Especially given the sunni/shi divide and various other ones. And like Islamirama pointed out, first thing is first: we, as muslims, have to perfect our religion. Only after this can we start thinking about implimenting a caliphate because that is the actual root of the problem.

p.s; I say this to myself more than anyone else, so don't take this is preaching :p
Reply

Saadet
11-22-2008, 03:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
what right have you got in assuming he is a queer and spreading it?

I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
Hello??? Paying Michael Jackson to hold a personal concert for him?
Reply

_PakistaN_
11-22-2008, 04:07 AM
most islamic right now is saudi arabia...
Reply

Olive
11-23-2008, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
I agree with ya. :)
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-23-2008, 12:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
Do you think the climax of Afghanistan's Taliban rule was its destroying the Bamiyan statues?
Reply

S_87
11-23-2008, 02:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
Hello??? Paying Michael Jackson to hold a personal concert for him?
that makes him queer?

K.Venugopal.... it was a very important part of their rule but i dont think they have finished ruling afghanistan....
Reply

DCseeker71
11-23-2008, 02:23 PM
If we are talking lack of local corruption and bribery than the United Sates or Canada could be the most Islamic nation! Sound crazy? How many of you have been to India, or UAE or Saudi Arabia and had to deal with the insane amount of bureaucratic corruption and bribery and even the smallest level (police, mail service).

Imam Zaid Shakir (I think) lectured about this. It was quite interesting. He talked about people focusing on where they live now and to try to not romanticize "the old country."
In many ways I agree with him that the United States is perfect for Islam, and that it may just end up being the new and exciting place for Islam in the next century.
Reply

Olive
11-23-2008, 02:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by DCseeker71
In many ways I agree with him that the United States is perfect for Islam, and that it may just end up being the new and exciting place for Islam in the next century.
Insha'Allah! :p
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-23-2008, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
K.Venugopal.... it was a very important part of their rule but i dont think they have finished ruling afghanistan....
Do you think Taliban's destroying the Bamiyan statutes was a good act?
Reply

islamirama
11-23-2008, 07:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Do you think Taliban's destroying the Bamiyan statutes was a good act?
Do you know the real story behind that?
Reply

DCseeker71
11-23-2008, 08:52 PM
From an archaeological point of view this it was a horrible thing, to destroy those statues.
This, to me, is the militant actions of a few local tribal leaders in a very isolated area. Most Muslims I have spoken with about this agree that Islam allows one to explore history, to explore the past of others people. No dangers exist in letting people know that another religion exists or existed.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
11-23-2008, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Do you know the real story behind that?
No, can you tell me please. :)
Reply

islamirama
11-23-2008, 10:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
No, can you tell me please. :)
There were some western organizations that wanted to spend millions of dollars on restoring the statues. The Taliban requested that money be donated to Afghan civilians who were dieing of starvation and what not. The western organizations didn't care one bit about suffering of the humans and wanted only to waste the money on a statue. The statue had stayed there without Talibans or anyone else destroying it. But when it became a western issue of "saving" the statue over the human lives, the owners of the land decided to do what they thought was best for their nation.

format_quote Originally Posted by DCseeker71
From an archaeological point of view this it was a horrible thing, to destroy those statues.
This, to me, is the militant actions of a few local tribal leaders in a very isolated area.
From an humanitarian point of view, that was the best thing to do in the world. Please educate yourself before you go on about archeology and "militant tribal leaders" and other western media parroting.
Reply

S_87
11-23-2008, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Do you think Taliban's destroying the Bamiyan statutes was a good act?
i think it was a great act
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-24-2008, 02:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Do you know the real story behind that?
No. Please unfold the story.
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-24-2008, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
i think it was a great act
Would you like to tell me why you think it was a great act?
Reply

جوري
11-24-2008, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
No. Please unfold the story.
He already has, if you'll bother scroll back?...
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-24-2008, 11:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
There were some western organizations that wanted to spend millions of dollars on restoring the statues. The Taliban requested that money be donated to Afghan civilians who were dieing of starvation and what not. The western organizations didn't care one bit about suffering of the humans and wanted only to waste the money on a statue. The statue had stayed there without Talibans or anyone else destroying it. But when it became a western issue of "saving" the statue over the human lives, the owners of the land decided to do what they thought was best for their nation.



From an humanitarian point of view, that was the best thing to do in the world. Please educate yourself before you go on about archeology and "militant tribal leaders" and other western media parroting.
What you are conceding is that Taliban rule brought to pass "civilians who were dieing of starvation and what not" and in such a situation, they expected Western organizations to feed them. Would they have destroyed mosques if Western organizations had offered money to restore mosques?
Reply

aamirsaab
11-24-2008, 11:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
What you are conceding is that Taliban rule brought to pass "civilians who were dieing of starvation and what not" and in such a situation, they expected Western organizations to feed them. Would they have destroyed mosques if Western organizations had offered money to restore mosques?
You have missed the point; instead of the money being spent on civilians dieing of starvation, the money was spent on some idols. It's a matter of human priority that is at stake here: Feed a starving child or erect a statue? I know what I'd choose!
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-24-2008, 05:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
You have missed the point; instead of the money being spent on civilians dieing of starvation, the money was spent on some idols. It's a matter of human priority that is at stake here: Feed a starving child or erect a statue? I know what I'd choose!
You also appear to have missed the point. The point is it was not Taliban's money that was sought to be used for restoring the Bamiyan. If Taliban was not agreeable to it, they should have simply rejected the offer. Instead, Taliban wanted to decide how Western organizations' money was to be used and when they were unable to, they destroyed the Bamiyan statues in a fit of anger. That spoke of the level of culture of the Taliban.
Reply

جوري
11-24-2008, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
You also appear to have missed the point. The point is it was not Taliban's money that was sought to be used for restoring the Bamiyan. If Taliban was not agreeable to it, they should have simply rejected the offer. Instead, Taliban wanted to decide how Western organizations' money was to be used and when they were unable to, they destroyed the Bamiyan statues in a fit of anger. That spoke of the level of culture of the Taliban.
Taliban is setting the standard in their own turf...
this isn't about culture, it is about control.. if the west thinks it can squander money on paganism to make a moot point of who is running things, the taliabn are defining the limits.. It is as simple as that!

whomever originally is funding this project, has no decent intent..
1- either promoting paganism on Muslim land
2-wanting to highlight how the west allegedly likes to help when it actually squanders on needless projects
3-missed the point entirely, for starters should look for the looted treasures of Sumaria which they were the cause behind its destruction and smuggling from Iraq
4-wants to play up how the taliban is oh so bad and they are oh so good..


there is no culture in a buddha statue.. apparently they erect one every year of butter and eat him after the festival is over.. perhaps you can go to one of those countries and join in the festivities there?


cheers
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-24-2008, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
there is no culture in a buddha statue..

cheers
How would you see culture in a Buddha statue or any statue for that matter. Mohammad did not see them in the idols he destroyed in Mecca. Like Prophet, like followers!
Reply

جوري
11-24-2008, 06:18 PM
I don't expect people who consecrate cows and bathe in dung to understand the difference between effigies, and cultures.. under early Islamic states which spanned regions like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Iran etc, all their pre-Islamic monuments are still standing erect, and in fact if any -'non-cultural' acts occured it was under the occupation of the so-called recoverers of ancient cultures.

If it were an Islamic practice to destroy cultures it would have happened when the world was under actual Islamic rule, instead we saw the age of reason!

so take your sanctimonious crap to your hindu forum!

cheers
Reply

aamirsaab
11-24-2008, 06:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
....That spoke of the level of culture of the Taliban.
You really need to sort your priorities out; the lives of human beings could have been saved with that money but no it's used to refurbish some idols. Do you know how unbelievably stupid that sounds? Shall I examplify it for you?

You see a hungry kid. He asks you for some money so he and his family can LIVE. What you do is say: ''well you know what kid, here have a poster. I'll pay for it.'' And then you have the nerve to speak about culture when that kid's family rip that poster in half.

What those afghans did was send a clear-cut message: ''Don't insult us. We asked for food, not a bloody idol!''
Reply

Amadeus85
11-24-2008, 10:32 PM
I understand that we go offtopic, but did the destruction of the Buddha statues feed the poor Afghani people?
BTW its hard to name a most islamic country nowadays i think. For example Malaysia has too many non muslims to be named like that. Calling taleban Somalia or Afghanistan as most islamic states should be a offence for muslim civilization which once was so innovative in Andalusia. Since the wave of islamization got to almost all muslim countries, I dont see the differences in level of devotion in muslim world.
Reply

Amadeus85
11-24-2008, 10:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

What those afghans did was send a clear-cut message: ''Don't insult us. We asked for food, not a bloody idol!''
Its interesting to know what would You say if it was an ancient mosque destroyed by lets say hindus in similar situation.
Reply

islamirama
11-24-2008, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Its interesting to know what would You say if it was an ancient mosque destroyed by lets say hindus in similar situation.
Destroying centuries old mosque and a religious house of worship was an act of terrorism. The hindus that did this belonged it hindu extremist party. It is very poor taste of you to compare the two, but then again not much can be expected by your kind.
Reply

Amadeus85
11-24-2008, 11:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Destroying centuries old mosque and a religious house of worship was an act of terrorism. The hindus that did this belonged it hindu extremist party. It is very poor taste of you to compare the two, but then again not much can be expected by your kind.
I wasnt talking about the Babri mosque in India.
But again the question is, did the destruction of that Buddha statues feed the poor Afhanis?
Reply

Muezzin
11-24-2008, 11:50 PM
What has this to do with the thread's subject?
Reply

Chuck
11-25-2008, 01:18 AM
It is really difficult to point out which is the most Islamic country, because some are good at some things but worse in other things. But overall I think Qatar, UAE, and Malaysia.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-25-2008, 01:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
Mohammad did not see them in the idols he destroyed in Mecca. Like Prophet, like followers!
This is so insulting...:enough!:

Prophet Muhammad destroyed the idols because some idiots put it in a monotheistic worship place.... it has nothing to do with cultural values... go to Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, Turkey ... many ancient civilisation statues are still preserved.... for the sake of history and reminder for Muslims to thank Allah for not worshipping idols..
Reply

islamirama
11-25-2008, 01:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
I wasnt talking about the Babri mosque in India.
But again the question is, did the destruction of that Buddha statues feed the poor Afhanis?
It sure didn't feed the budha belly or let the westerner's have their way. You are off topic, I suggest you go open another thread if you want babble about this any further.
Reply

north_malaysian
11-25-2008, 02:13 AM
how about Yemen?
Reply

Saadet
11-25-2008, 03:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
This is so insulting...:enough!:
I agree. I'm wondering why the moderators allow a Hindu who insults Islam the Prophet to post on here. Hell, I was banned from ummah.com for insulting the Tabligh Jamaat..
Reply

Saadet
11-25-2008, 03:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by amani
I think Afghanistan under the taliban is an islamic nation and if we are talking shariah only and not foreign policy then saudi arabia
I really must disagree on that.

Saudi-occupied Arabia has one of the least Islamically oriented foreign policies. They sit on the world's largest petroleum reserves and instead of using the money to further the cause of Islam and the support Muslims living under occupation, they ship the oil westward and use the money to build more palaces.
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-25-2008, 05:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
I really must disagree on that.

Saudi-occupied Arabia has one of the least Islamically oriented foreign policies. They sit on the world's largest petroleum reserves and instead of using the money to further the cause of Islam and the support Muslims living under occupation, they ship the oil westward and use the money to build more palaces.
In the name of Islam, they should have supported the Taliban. But you can't expect that from an American client state, can you? Shariat is strictly imposed in Saudi Arabia, no doubt. But many of its royal family members and other moneyed citizens escape to USA, particularly during summer, and go on a Las Vegas binge that would do casino veterans proud.
Reply

K.Venugopal
11-25-2008, 06:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
I agree. I'm wondering why the moderators allow a Hindu who insults Islam the Prophet to post on here. Hell, I was banned from ummah.com for insulting the Tabligh Jamaat..
By speaking of Mohammad destroying idols or his marriage to underaged Ayesha, no one is insulting Mohammad, Islam or the Muslims. These are all issues in public discourse. Remember, non-Muslims cannot be expected to tow the religious line of Muslims. If you want to keep your forum out of reach of non-Muslims, that is another matter. Or if you want to brow beat non-Muslim writers to writing with great deference to Islam, that is more like sponsored writing and not many writers would be willing to go in for it. It is better to have honest critics than dishonest appeasers. Difference of view points should not be construed as insult. Suggesting banning of the irreverent is only a type of "Off with his head" response of The Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Reply

جوري
11-25-2008, 06:17 AM
There is such a thing as libel--with the purpose of defaming a person ( in your case either out of ignorance or deliberations-- Perhaps a little of both), and I have come to expect so much from some paganists, be that as it may if only what you wrote were accurate, you might not enkindle and inflammed response out of everyone...

I think the number of members on this forum whether passive or active is a testament to its accessibility and the fact that your ilk remains here unbanned to its tolerance!
Reply

north_malaysian
11-25-2008, 06:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
By speaking of Mohammad destroying idols or his marriage to underaged Ayesha, no one is insulting Mohammad, Islam or the Muslims. These are all issues in public discourse. Remember, non-Muslims cannot be expected to tow the religious line of Muslims. If you want to keep your forum out of reach of non-Muslims, that is another matter. Or if you want to brow beat non-Muslim writers to writing with great deference to Islam, that is more like sponsored writing and not many writers would be willing to go in for it. It is better to have honest critics than dishonest appeasers. Difference of view points should not be construed as insult. Suggesting banning of the irreverent is only a type of "Off with his head" response of The Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
During, Diwali celebrations... I visited my Hindu neighbours and BEHAVE ... I dont go there and ask for beef...

When Hindu neighbours and friends come to my home for Eid .. we will put away any meal that contains beef....

So, when you are in a Muslim forum, please behave yourself....
Reply

doorster
11-25-2008, 06:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I don't expect people who consecrate cows and bathe in dung to understand the difference between effigies, and cultures.. under early Islamic states which spanned regions like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Iran etc, all their pre-Islamic monuments are still standing erect, and in fact if any -'non-cultural' acts occured it was under the occupation of the so-called recoverers of ancient cultures.

If it were an Islamic practice to destroy cultures it would have happened when the world was under actual Islamic rule, instead we saw the age of reason!

so take your sanctimonious crap to your hindu forum!

cheers
:sl:

what I do not understand is this:
Hindus and most non-khalsa (some khalsa too) say that Muslims did this that and the other to them

but how the hell were their numbers higher at the end of the Muslim Empire than at the start?

how can someone be so dumb to believe their lies? mind boggles!
format_quote Originally Posted by Saadet
I agree. I'm wondering why the moderators allow a Hindu who insults Islam the Prophet to post on here. Hell, I was banned from ummah.com for insulting the Tabligh Jamaat..
I knew a member who was banned asking this very question one too many times (he passed away during a ban).
Reply

doorster
11-25-2008, 06:50 AM
....
Reply

Saadet
11-25-2008, 06:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
By speaking of Mohammad destroying idols or his marriage to underaged Ayesha, no one is insulting Mohammad, Islam or the Muslims. These are all issues in public discourse. Remember, non-Muslims cannot be expected to tow the religious line of Muslims. If you want to keep your forum out of reach of non-Muslims, that is another matter. Or if you want to brow beat non-Muslim writers to writing with great deference to Islam, that is more like sponsored writing and not many writers would be willing to go in for it. It is better to have honest critics than dishonest appeasers. Difference of view points should not be construed as insult. Suggesting banning of the irreverent is only a type of "Off with his head" response of The Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
If I say that Hindus burn widows on their husbands funeral pyres, is that an insult?

Afterall, it's public discourse, it happens.

Or if I say that Hindus practice a form of religiously-sanctioned discrimination which encourages rape and murder as a punishment against those who step outside caste lines, is that an insult?

It happens.

Of course, not all Hindus burn widows, and not all Hindus commit rape and murder to enforce the caste system.

But there are different ways of saying things. I can the aggressive road and paint your faith as the most scientifically ridiculous, most primitive, racist, sexist and degenerate faith to ever be conjured up by man.

Afterall, those are my personal feelings towards Hinduism. But I also feel that I'm not authorized to dictate what people should believe.

So, seeing as how you're posting on a muslim forum and not hindutva.org, show a little respect.
Reply

جوري
11-25-2008, 07:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
:sl:

what I do not understand is this:
Hindus and most non-khalsa (some khalsa too) say that Muslims did this that and the other to them

but how the hell were their numbers higher at the end of the Muslim Empire than at the start?

how can someone be so dumb to believe their lies? mind boggles!
:sl:

writing fiction is a favorite amongst some non-Muslims who enjoy aspersing under one of numerous guises. 'honesty, as they understand it, free speech' etc etc. otherwise we appear to collectively live in a bubble..

:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 08:56 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 09:16 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 04:22 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!