PDA

View Full Version : Muslims VS Muslims



Vigno
08-23-2010, 07:29 PM
Asalamu Alekum

We have previously spoken much about the hatred, mistreatment and ignorance that many westerns or non muslims have towards muslims, but what about the hatred that muslims have for muslims?

Plainly speaking, Muslims these days have lost their unity, lost love for one another, lost care and feelings that were present at the time of Prophet Muhammed PBUH. How at that time Muslims were one and the bad that happened to one of them, happened to all.

Now when you look at muslims, it is really a pity and I ll give some examples although I know it is clear enough what am aiming at for am sure all do see the same.

In the mosque, you find people praying, you find them sitting in the mosque most of the time and seeking refuge in Allah swt, but they can't even afford to smile, or talk politely to their brothers in the Mosque or outside unless its their friends or so.
Really I have seen this myself, some just don't smile and when I look at their face, I feel like its the end of time.

That is not what Islam is about, real Muslims should have a smile shone on their faces when meeting their brothers and when you look at their faces, you should see the light of Iman in them.
Again, really sad...I leave the mosque and see people wearing their slippers and kicking other slippers off their way carelessly, Subhanah Allah, what would the Prophet PBUH do when he sees this from his Ummah.

Last example, a complaint from the women side of the mosque, women praying Taraweeh are fighting with each other and insulting each other for a place in the mosque since there is hardly any space.

If this is how Muslims are going to keep acting then those who insult Islam are just going to keep doing so and they ll say, "hey look how Muslims act". Lets first change ourselves, and then look forward to changing how people think about us.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Salahudeen
08-24-2010, 08:00 PM
There is too much division in everything, Muslims' are too busy fighting and arguing with each other about fiqh/aqeedah/ who is on the right path/who is devient and misguided. We'll never accompolish anything if we're not united. We're not even a cause for worry to the non Muslims' because they're mentality is "The Muslims are too busy arguing with themselves to do anything that will harm us" When the Muslims' unite then they will be worried.

I know what you mean about the masjid, people are to shy to give salaam to strangers :(
Reply

'Abd Al-Maajid
08-24-2010, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by Vigno
...
Again, really sad...I leave the mosque and see people wearing their slippers and kicking other slippers off their way carelessly...
LOL this happens a lot in my mosque also...ummm I must say in every mosque...
Reply

Vigno
08-26-2010, 07:44 AM
Originally Posted by abdulmājid

LOL this happens a lot in my mosque also...ummm I must say in every mosque...
Sad enough...So brother do as I do, put the slippers together as much as you can, you will get hasanat for this inshallah.
Jazaka Allah khiir
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
Vigno
08-26-2010, 07:51 AM
Originally Posted by squiggle

I know what you mean about the masjid, people are to shy to give salaam to strangers :(
It's not just about being shy, even am shy to do that at times or feel the person will eat me if I do, but its about carelessness, people have no feelings for one another, no smile, no salaam, nothing! Not all of of course, mashallah some people are very nice alhamdulilah, but its just sad when you see the people living in their own world.
Many have the thought that when they come to the mosque, then its time to be on your own and not talk to anyone, that's totally wrong and on no basis.
Believe or not, when I raise my hand to some people, they are so happily surprised that I am offering to shake hands with them, like its something new, subhanah Allah.
But am happy when I see them smile, that's enough for me alhamdulilah.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by squiggle
There is too much division in everything, Muslims' are too busy fighting and arguing with each other about fiqh/aqeedah/ who is on the right path/who is devient and misguided. We'll never accompolish anything if we're not united. We're not even a cause for worry to the non Muslims' because they're mentality is "The Muslims are too busy arguing with themselves to do anything that will harm us" When the Muslims' unite then they will be worried.

I know what you mean about the masjid, people are to shy to give salaam to strangers :(
Even as a non-Muslim I find it sad to see Muslims (or any other group of people) fighting with each other. But why should non-Muslims be worried about Muslims being united? You seem to imply we have something to fear from a united Ummah.
Reply

aadil77
08-27-2010, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Even as a non-Muslim I find it sad to see Muslims (or any other group of people) fighting with each other. But why should non-Muslims be worried about Muslims being united? You seem to imply we have something to fear from a united Ummah.
If you think about it in the case of muslim nations and governments, if we were all united like previously in the khilafate, then we'd not have others wagings wars in every other muslim land.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
If you think about it in the case of muslim nations and governments, if we were all united like previously in the khilafate, then we'd not have others wagings wars in every other muslim land.
That's not something I would fear, but something I would welcome. In a world where the Ummah was united, I presume (I hope not falsely) that the views of Islamic Society of North America or Free Muslims Coalition and not those of al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be dominate. Surely Anwar El Sadat is a better model for an Islamic political leader than Osama bin Laden. I can see the world being a much better place for Muslims and non-Muslims alike in such circumstances.
Reply

أحمد
08-27-2010, 06:02 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That's not something I would fear, but something I would welcome. In a world where the Ummah was united, I presume (I hope not falsely) that the views of Islamic Society of North America or Free Muslims Coalition and not those of al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be dominate. Surely Anwar El Sadat is a better model for an Islamic political leader than Osama bin Laden. I can see the world being a much better place for Muslims and non-Muslims alike in such circumstances.
You may welcome it, but not everyone would.

Islam forbids making, buying, selling or being part of a business associated with Khamr (Alcohol); the same applies for anything Haram. Crimes are dealt with very strictly with the judgement of each person by his own religious law.

A Jewish man and woman who had been brought to be judged for adultery at the time of Rasoolullah :saws1: were stoned to death as was written in their religious scripture.

Riba (Interest) is Haram, and would be non-existent in an Islamic State. This wouldn't demolish the banking system, but would revert it to how it was when started centuries ago by Muslims. Those who live on money made through interest, would have to find honest means of earning instead. This isn't welcome by the capitalist world we live in.

:wa:
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 06:24 PM
But as there is no complusion in religion, why would even a united Ummah try to impose Islamic values and Islamic law on non-Muslims? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with Islam itself? If a united Ummah means that Muslims are going to attempt to impose their way of life on everyone else as well as themselves, then that would be something for non-Muslims to be afraid of, and understandably so.
Reply

أحمد
08-27-2010, 06:39 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But as there is no complusion in religion, why would even a united Ummah try to impose Islamic values and Islamic law on non-Muslims? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with Islam itself? If a united Ummah means that Muslims are going to attempt to impose their way of life on everyone else as well as themselves, then that would be something for non-Muslims to be afraid of, and understandably so.
Nowhere did I write about imposing Islamic law or values upon non-Muslims. Islam has a system for life in any situation; for individuals and government. If someone is a Jew; he will be judged by Jewish law, not by Islamic law. If someone is a Christian; he will be judged by Christian law. This is not only justice, but it ensures one doesn't impose their law above the law of the individual being judged.

The problem is; people fail to distinguish between being given freedom, and being restricted to follow a system of law, which allows crimes and evils under the tag of "moderate practice". A poor person takes a bank loan to be put into a position of paying back the loan AND a large sum of Interest, which only keeps accumulating. Where Islam gives freedom from such evil practices; there are people who see this as "imposing Islamic values" and "restricting freedom".

Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:

You may welcome it, but not everyone would.

Islam forbids making, buying, selling or being part of a business associated with Khamr (Alcohol); the same applies for anything Haram. Crimes are dealt with very strictly with the judgement of each person by his own religious law.

A Jewish man and woman who had been brought to be judged for adultery at the time of Rasoolullah :saws1: were stoned to death as was written in their religious scripture.

Riba (Interest) is Haram, and would be non-existent in an Islamic State. This wouldn't demolish the banking system, but would revert it to how it was when started centuries ago by Muslims. Those who live on money made through interest, would have to find honest means of earning instead. This isn't welcome by the capitalist world we live in.

:wa:
:wa:
Reply

Vigno
08-27-2010, 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But as there is no complusion in religion, why would even a united Ummah try to impose Islamic values and Islamic law on non-Muslims? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with Islam itself? If a united Ummah means that Muslims are going to attempt to impose their way of life on everyone else as well as themselves, then that would be something for non-Muslims to be afraid of, and understandably so.
Islam does not force anything on anyone, that's how it was and that is how it should always remain. But if one is to live amongst a muslim community then he or she should abide by the rules. At the time of the khilafah, there was peace between muslims and non muslims, fewer poor people coz everyone gave money to the poor, like Ahmed said no interest (makes the rich more rich and the poor more poor and this is forbidden by Islam coz it's not good for us).
In general, anything that is bad for us has been forbidden and so its sad and silly enough that people seek what's bad for them.

A united Ummah would make the rules that are good for mankind available and those that are bad forbidden. So what is to be feared in that? Unless people want to be bad, there is absolutely no fault in that.
Reply

أحمد
08-27-2010, 06:44 PM
:sl:



You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (3:110)

:wa:
Reply

aadil77
08-27-2010, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That's not something I would fear, but something I would welcome. In a world where the Ummah was united, I presume (I hope not falsely) that the views of Islamic Society of North America or Free Muslims Coalition and not those of al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be dominate. Surely Anwar El Sadat is a better model for an Islamic political leader than Osama bin Laden. I can see the world being a much better place for Muslims and non-Muslims alike in such circumstances.
what I meant is war-mongering nations such the US would think twice before dropping bombs in our lands - if we were united like in the past
Reply

Soulja Girl
08-27-2010, 06:58 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by squiggle
people are to shy to give salaam to strangers :(
^It's not cuz they're shy.. It's cuz they just don't want to.. Sometimes you say salam so loudly but you still won't get a reply, maybe just a dirty/weird look.. Meh.

:wa:
Reply

Vigno
08-27-2010, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Crazy_Lady
:sl:



^It's not cuz they're shy.. It's cuz they just don't want to.. Sometimes you say salam so loudly but you still won't get a reply, maybe just a dirty/weird look.. Meh.

:wa:
EXACTLY!!! That's what I wanted to say.
Jazaki Allah khiir
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:
Nowhere did I write about imposing Islamic law or values upon non-Muslims.
Pardon me, but the very next statement sounds like imposing an Islamic system of jurisprudence on non-Muslims.
Islam has a system for life in any situation; for individuals and government. If someone is a Jew; he will be judged by Jewish law, not by Islamic law. If someone is a Christian; he will be judged by Christian law. This is not only justice, but it ensures one doesn't impose their law above the law of the individual being judged.
It may be that Islam holds this to the way the world should run. It might even make a good logical argument. But why should Isalm have any say whatsoever, even if it makes perfect sense within an Islamic system of thought, with regard to laws for non-Muslims? A united Ummah does not have to automatically mean Sharia law.


I'm not arguing as to whether Islamic law is better or worse than other laws. I'm simply saying that I have no fear of a united Ummah unless it is the position of that Ummah to impose their values on people outside of it. What I saw you suggesting was that
Crimes are dealt with very strictly with the judgement of each person by his own religious law.
The way I read this statement, it seemed to me you were implying that somehow when Muslims unite that this will be the way that all crimes are dealt with. And I do call that a decision to impose someone else's religious values on me.


Just as no Muslim would accept the interpretation of the Islamic jurisprudence by a non-Muslim over that of Muslim scholars, nor should any member of the Ummah deem themselves capable of interpreting another religions text sufficiently to impose law or consequence of law derived from those text on them.


But beyond that, let us say that Muslims unite and quit fighting among themselves. And let us say that in those countries where Muslims significantly outnumber non-Muslims they decide to implement Sharia law as the law of the land. Again, why should this be something that non-Muslims (at least in other countries) are afraid of? Surely your statements above, such as,
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
Riba (Interest) is Haram, and would be non-existent in an Islamic State. This wouldn't demolish the banking system, but would revert it to how it was when started centuries ago by Muslims. Those who live on money made through interest, would have to find honest means of earning instead. This isn't welcome by the capitalist world we live in.
are not intended to imply that the Ummah would seek to impose those same laws in non-Islamic states.


Couldn't the Ummah be satisfied with a situation in which there existed a world in which there were different laws in different countries as determined by those who actually lived within those countries? Then if Mulsims were united and were of the character of those I cited above, in those countries in which they represented the majority they may indeed establish laws in accord with Islamic values, but their rule would still protect the minority populations who lived among them. Of that I don't have any fear. I only fear when it seems you suggest that a united Ummah would push for more than that, and try to make it the same law which they themselves practice be the law of the land everywhere. That is going beyond Muslims being united; to me that does imply complusion.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
what I meant is war-mongering nations such the US would think twice before dropping bombs in our lands - if we were united like in the past
Ah, so you meant politically and militarily united, not united in the sense of being of one mind about the way to practice Islam? You're probably right. No nation goes against another (even if they think they are right to do so) without first consider the consequences and whether they have the strength to do so. A more united Islam in the sense you describe would give those who were going to act pause to consider those actions twice before proceeding, lest they incur wrath in response.

My hope would be that a united Islam would return to following the genuine teachings of Islam, of that I have no fears. I believe that a true return by all Muslims to the genuine teachings of Islam would also mean divesting itself and the repudiation of those who claim to act "in defense of Islam" but in fact seem to hold mis-shapen views and values that are not truly Islamic. I'm here specifically thinking of those groups within the Taliban who now threaten to attack aid workers helping to bring relief to those affected by the flooding in Pakistan.
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
08-27-2010, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:



You may welcome it, but not everyone would.

Islam forbids making, buying, selling or being part of a business associated with Khamr (Alcohol); the same applies for anything Haram. Crimes are dealt with very strictly with the judgement of each person by his own religious law.

A Jewish man and woman who had been brought to be judged for adultery at the time of Rasoolullah :saws1: were stoned to death as was written in their religious scripture.

Riba (Interest) is Haram, and would be non-existent in an Islamic State. This wouldn't demolish the banking system, but would revert it to how it was when started centuries ago by Muslims. Those who live on money made through interest, would have to find honest means of earning instead. This isn't welcome by the capitalist world we live in.

:wa:
:sl:

I thought they would judge themselves and Muslims would have no involvement with non Muslims. Basically a non Muslims deals with a non Muslims. And Muslims deal with Muslims?

How would one deal with an atheist then? Or other religions that don’t have a set of their own rules?

I thought non Muslims would be given the chance to have their own little state. Otherwise it could seem complicated to deal all types of non Muslims which some do not have their own rulings (Atheism etc).

Btw Jews are different and there are different types so even they wouldn’t have one rule. So Islamic state (according to you and have little knowledge on) would put them on same category even though they are different and practice their religion differently.

Allah (swt) knows best
Reply

aadil77
08-27-2010, 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Ah, so you meant politically and militarily united, not united in the sense of being of one mind about the way to practice Islam? You're probably right. No nation goes against another (even if they think they are right to do so) without first consider the consequences and whether they have the strength to do so. A more united Islam in the sense you describe would give those who were going to act pause to consider those actions twice before proceeding, lest they incur wrath in response.

My hope would be that a united Islam would return to following the genuine teachings of Islam, of that I have no fears. I believe that a true return by all Muslims to the genuine teachings of Islam would also mean divesting itself and the repudiation of those who claim to act "in defense of Islam" but in fact seem to hold mis-shapen views and values that are not truly Islamic. I'm here specifically thinking of those groups within the Taliban who now threaten to attack aid workers helping to bring relief to those affected by the flooding in Pakistan.
Yep it would become one nation, same economy, same miltary, same one ruler - but unfortunately nationalism, greed, weak faith and disobeying the Al-Mighty will never allow that to happen again

no one should be attacking foreign aid workers, but if any are caught proselytising the decision to deport or execute them lies with ruler
Reply

أحمد
08-27-2010, 08:30 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by sweet106
:sl:

I thought they would judge themselves and Muslims would have no involvement with non Muslims. Basically a non Muslims deals with a non Muslims. And Muslims deal with Muslims?

How would one deal with an atheist then? Or other religions that don’t have a set of their own rules?

I thought non Muslims would be given the chance to have their own little state. Otherwise it could seem complicated to deal all types of non Muslims which some do not have their own rulings (Atheism etc).

Btw Jews are different and there are different types so even they wouldn’t have one rule. So Islamic state (according to you and have little knowledge on) would put them on same category even though they are different and practice their religion differently.

Allah (swt) knows best
The answer is given in the Quran; as quoted below. Muslims are an Ummah for the whole of humanity; not only restricted to Muslims.

Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:



You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (3:110)

:wa:
:wa:
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-27-2010, 08:40 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
Yep it would become one nation, same economy, same miltary, same one ruler
As Muslims live scattered in every country of the globe, how do you propose this happening? I mean even if all Muslims were of one mind and desired the same thing that you espouse would Muslims who live where they are not the majority be expected to move to countries where an Islamic state could be established? Would Muslims try to force countries that were not predominately Muslim to become part of this one nation you speak about? Why do all Muslims have to be part of one nation for the Ummah to be understood as united?

Originally Posted by aadil77
no one should be attacking foreign aid workers, but if any are caught proselytising the decision to deport or execute them lies with ruler
Would you find it fair that the reverse of such a practice become the law in non-Islamic states? Would it be reasonable to deport or execute members of Muslim Aid or the Red Crescent who proselytize non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries?

And what exactly constitutes proselytizing? Should someone who works at a food pantry operated by a London mosque be executed for offering dawah to someone who comes there in search of assistance?
Reply

aadil77
08-27-2010, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As Muslims live scattered in every country of the globe, how do you propose this happening? I mean even if all Muslims were of one mind and desired the same thing that you espouse would Muslims who live where they are not the majority be expected to move to countries where an Islamic state could be established? Would Muslims try to force countries that were not predominately Muslim to become part of this one nation you speak about? Why do all Muslims have to be part of one nation for the Ummah to be understood as united?
I don't know, all I know is that it worked a hundred years ago and by the will of Allah it can work again

as far as I know muslims have to be part of one nation because in islam theres no such thing as nationalism or boundries between muslim lands, theres only meant to be one nation and one main ruler of the muslims

I doubt a predominately non-muslim nation is meant to be part of the khilafa

Would you find it fair that the reverse of such a practice become the law in non-Islamic states? Would it be reasonable to deport or execute members of Muslim Aid or the Red Crescent who proselytize non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries?

And what exactly constitutes proselytizing? Should someone who works at a food pantry operated by a London mosque be executed for offering dawah to someone who comes there in search of assistance?
I don't think muslims would mind dying for preaching their religion, it would make them martyrs. Besides if you know the law then you should act accordingly.

About your given instance - the decision of such matters is with shariah courts, they will deal with it justly. If a non-muslim is given work at a masjid then the person who gave them that job should have known of the possibility that the worker may at some point give dawah to muslims - so I don't think it would be fair to deport them or execute them. Back in the khilafah shariah courts used to be the most Just, many jews would prefer to get matters settled at islamic courts rather than jewish ones.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-28-2010, 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by aadil77
About your given instance - the decision of such matters is with shariah courts, they will deal with it justly. If a non-muslim is given work at a masjid then the person who gave them that job should have known of the possibility that the worker may at some point give dawah to muslims - so I don't think it would be fair to deport them or execute them. Back in the khilafah shariah courts used to be the most Just, many jews would prefer to get matters settled at islamic courts rather than jewish ones.
Actually I was asking a different question, more one of the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" variety. Given the principle
Originally Posted by aadil77
if any are caught proselytising the decision to deport or execute them lies with ruler
I'm asking how you would like to see the reverse of sharia law applied in non-Islamic countries. You seem to except the possibility of it being reasonable for the Taliban to execute foreign aid workers for sharing their faith with the people they are helping. But would you consider it equally reasonable and just for a ruler/government to execute a Muslim for sharing his/her faith with someone they might be helping in a non-Islamic culture?
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-28-2010, 01:47 AM
Originally Posted by aadil77
I don't know, all I know is that it worked a hundred years ago and by the will of Allah it can work again
By the will of Allah, anything is possible. But as far as a 100+ years ago, though there was a khilafa, I'm not sure that it worked even then as you describe. Even then there were Muslims who lived outside of the khilafa. A Muslim was even a member of the US House of Representatives in the 1820s. Is it your opinion that this individual was not a citizen of the United States but instead of this one Islamic nation you speak of and accountable not to his oath that he took to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but rather accountable to the khilafa?
Reply

Karl
08-28-2010, 01:52 AM
@ Grace seeker.I suppose the maxim "might makes it right" applies here. If Islam rules the world shariah law would be in place everywhere. If the atheists rule the world a constant fluxing politically correct law with no real logical basis will be in place. If the Christians rule the world Christian law would be put in place. If the Jews rule the world, Jewish law would be in place. If the Hindus rule the world no law would be in place because order would be impossible with such a complicated religion. Thugees would like murder legalized while the Jains would want everyone to wear a mask so they did not kill a bug by accidently breathing one in.
But these one world orders will never happen, didn't ever happen in the past so what are the odds of it happening in the future? So being paranoid about Islam or whatever religion or political force is not worth it. No one knows whom God is backing at any given time. Empires rise and fall.
Humility and tolrance is the key, try to live the best you can without the delusions of granduer, except for me LOL.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-28-2010, 02:12 AM
Karl, that is just my point. I don't believe we have to live by the principle of "might makes right", nor even should we try. I believe that majority governments should, as a moral imperative, rule in such a way as to respect the rights of the minorities whom they govern. Anything less than that means that there will always be war as those not in power seek to gain power so that they can have their way, at least until they lose power as well. This is why I said that I am not afraid of Muslims uniting, if (and after reading the views of some I guess that is a bigger IF than I originally thought), if it thinks along the lines of leaders like Anwar El Sadat or Abdullah II bin al-Hussein. On the other hand, if the unified Islamic thought is similar to that of the Taliban, then I would definitely see that as something to rightly be feared, for they do not practice what I understand to be the genuine teachings of Islam, but a perversion of it that they seek to force on all others as well.

However, what I now understand aadil to be talking about is not the idea of their being no more fighting amoung Muslims and the reading a consensus state of mind being reached within the Ummah, but a political entity such as the khalifa being re-established. Whether that is something to be feared or not would depend largely on the means by which they were to form and hold power. The Hizbut Tahrir movement officially seems to try to walk a very fine line of being pro-Islamic reunification without espousing violence. But I'm not convinced that all of those who flock to it care to actually make, and certainly don't practice, that distinction.
Reply

Karl
08-28-2010, 03:56 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Karl, that is just my point. I don't believe we have to live by the principle of "might makes right", nor even should we try. I believe that majority governments should, as a moral imperative, rule in such a way as to respect the rights of the minorities whom they govern. Anything less than that means that there will always be war as those not in power seek to gain power so that they can have their way, at least until they lose power as well. This is why I said that I am not afraid of Muslims uniting, if (and after reading the views of some I guess that is a bigger IF than I originally thought), if it thinks along the lines of leaders like Anwar El Sadat or Abdullah II bin al-Hussein. On the other hand, if the unified Islamic thought is similar to that of the Taliban, then I would definitely see that as something to rightly be feared, for they do not practice what I understand to be the genuine teachings of Islam, but a perversion of it that they seek to force on all others as well.

However, what I now understand aadil to be talking about is not the idea of their being no more fighting amoung Muslims and the reading a consensus state of mind being reached within the Ummah, but a political entity such as the khalifa being re-established. Whether that is something to be feared or not would depend largely on the means by which they were to form and hold power. The Hizbut Tahrir movement officially seems to try to walk a very fine line of being pro-Islamic reunification without espousing violence. But I'm not convinced that all of those who flock to it care to actually make, and certainly don't practice, that distinction.
"Might makes right" is a universal maxim not just a political one eg the stars hold the planets on their courses as they have the might and power and the lion eats the impala etc.
But as a rule things get ugly when people get in large numbers as they are a preditory animal at the top of the food chain and they can turn on each other like wild dogs. That is the problem with humanism and all that touchy feely righteous stuff, humans are the most malevolent life form on the planet.
Minorities rights are usually crushed by the majority as the law favours the masses.
Sadat was seen as a traitor to Islam for selling out to the Zionist Isrealis and machine gunned by his own soldier.
I think the main reason for the focus and paranoia of Islam is because the great world powers have such powerful nuclear arsenals that they are too scared to have world war three in fear of total obliteration. They are not safe in their ivory towers anymore and they are not prepared to live underground yet. So Islam makes for a scapegoat for them to play war with these little skirmishes and stubborn insurgents. And war makes the money go round.
Btw the Taliban can't be as bad as you think, they do have a growing support in Afghanistan, I think they are severe but fair and that works in that land.
Reply

Salahudeen
08-28-2010, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Even as a non-Muslim I find it sad to see Muslims (or any other group of people) fighting with each other. But why should non-Muslims be worried about Muslims being united? You seem to imply we have something to fear from a united Ummah.
Well it's easier to attack a lone sheep and steal his precious belongings and dominate/control him, as opposed to a sheep who's in a herd.
Reply

Vigno
08-28-2010, 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by squiggle
Well it's easier to attack a lone sheep and steal his precious belongings and dominate/control him, as opposed to a sheep who's in a herd.
Good point.

I think the time all muslims will make an effort to wipe a tear off another muslim, that's maybe the time we ll start being one Ummah. But for now, they are mostly careless about one another. I placed a thread before about love for country more than Islam. Muslims these days fall in this category coz they would support someone from their country but not someone from their religion.

Sad really, but we need to make an effort to change that and not just stand and watch or take part in this loss.
And Allah knows best.
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
08-28-2010, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:



The answer is given in the Quran; as quoted below. Muslims are an Ummah for the whole of humanity; not only restricted to Muslims.



:wa:
:sl:


So when EDL came near my road shouting their heads off how "shariah law" would affect them. Basically there are some truth to that. When non Muslims say we intend to enforce a particular belief on them, there are some truth in that too. When they say we are trying to take over the world, again there is some truth to that?

So why do we respond to them that Shariah law would not affect them but only us when in actual fact it does affect them.

And you haven't answered my questions. Christian law is for Christians?

where does an atheist came into this. Would we force a particular religious law on them? And what about those Christians or Jews that want to live in secular state?

The Quran also says there is no compulsion in Islam. Forcing them to live in certain way, does not live up to that statement.

Christians should be able to deal with each other unless their crimes crossover to us. They would govern each other. And Atheist would do the same. That is how I understood it.

So when we say shariah law doesn't no way affect them, is actually false. Because not all Christians follow the same laws but under Islamic state or "ummah" we would force them to follow that law.

Why do muslims say we are not trying to take over the world and we are not trying to force belief or law on them? When according to you, we are. :hmm:

Their paranoia is somewhat justified?
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
08-28-2010, 08:14 PM
:sl:

And if Muslims were to live under one set of Islamic law then how would all four school of thought would be sorted out?

And before anyone jumps on me and say there is little differences. The differences are there especially in enforcing punishments and family law. Just a thought...
Reply

أحمد
08-28-2010, 08:25 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by sweet106
:sl:


So when EDL came near my road shouting their heads off how "shariah law" would affect them. Basically there are some truth to that. When non Muslims say we intend to enforce a particular belief on them, there are some truth in that too. When they say we are trying to take over the world, again there is some truth to that?

So why do we respond to them that Shariah law would not affect them but only us when in actual fact it does affect them.

And you haven't answered my questions. Christian law is for Christians?

where does an atheist came into this. Would we force a particular religious law on them? And what about those Christians or Jews that want to live in secular state?

The Quran also says there is no compulsion in Islam. Forcing them to live in certain way, does not live up to that statement.

Christians should be able to deal with each other unless their crimes crossover to us. They would govern each other. And Atheist would do the same. That is how I understood it.

So when we say shariah law doesn't no way affect them, is actually false. Because not all Christians follow the same laws but under Islamic state or "ummah" we would force them to follow that law.

Why do muslims say we are not trying to take over the world and we are not trying to force belief or law on them? When according to you, we are. :hmm:

Their paranoia is somewhat justified?
There's a difference between "taking over the world" and "implementing laws in a state run by your government"; don't jump to taking over the world and attribute it to "according to" anyone, especially if its nothing in comparison to the point being discussed in the referenced post.

Before discussing this matter any further; kindly show me where I said anything about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
08-28-2010, 08:33 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:



There's a difference between "taking over the world" and "implementing laws in a state run by your government"; don't jump to taking over the world and attribute it to "according to" anyone, especially if its nothing in comparison to the point being discussed in the referenced post.

Before discussing this matter any further; kindly show me where I said anything about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:

Why are you so angry? I am not going to write back if you continue to write back in that manner. Frankly I don't want to sin and it is Ramadan.

Humanity refers to the whole world. Or do you think a particular country is humanity huh?

And you haven't answered my other questions.
Reply

أحمد
08-28-2010, 08:44 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by sweet106
Why you so angry? I am not going to write back if you continue to write back in that manner. Frankly I don't want to sin and it is Ramadan.

Humanity refers to the whole world. Or do you think a particular country is humanity huh?

And you haven't answered my other questions.
I'm not angry; I merely suggested you don't make any false accusations. You'll find the answers in earlier posts, I have no objection whether or not you chose to continue this discussion. If you wish to continue; try to do so without the need to deviate anything said in my posts. I was talking on the topic of law in Islamic State, NOT about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
08-28-2010, 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by Ahmed Waheed
:sl:



I'm not angry; I merely suggested you don't make any false accusations. You'll find the answers in earlier posts, I have no objection whether or not you chose to continue this discussion. If you wish to continue; try to do so without the need to deviate anything said in my posts. I was talking on the topic of law in Islamic State, NOT about "trying to take over the world".

:wa:
Okay then. How would an Islamic state deal with an atheist then or Christian who believe in secular law rather than Christian law (who don't even see this as part of their religion)? Are we going to force them to follow a religious law? Are we going to ban them from drinking alcohol or are we going to let them create their own state? Or are you talking about those who choose to live amongst us or those who that are in the same country but are separate from us? Like Christians and atheist in Egypt? What would happen to them if they don't believe in religious law?

My comment on taking over the world is suggesting where the paranoia of some non Muslims came from.
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

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!