/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Christians should see Muslims as 'allies'



glo
09-15-2006, 03:10 PM
The Archbishop of York believes Christians should see Islam as an "ally" in the struggle against secularism.

Dr John Sentamu thinks Muslims aren't offended by Christianity and prefer it to a secular state.

In a wide-ranging speech at York Minster, he also spoke of the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon saying it cheapened human life.
from http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm...wn=1&pnid=2498

Unfortunately, this is just a news snippet and doesn't say any more. Perhaps I'll go searching ...

Peace. :)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Jayda
09-15-2006, 03:15 PM
i dont think we should define our relationship as something based on a temporary goal against something else... that is both negative and short sighted...
Reply

glo
09-15-2006, 03:24 PM
Interesting point, Jayda.
I suppose finding a 'common enemy' could bring the two faiths closer together - but (as you say) at what cost?
Reply

wilberhum
09-15-2006, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Interesting point, Jayda.
I suppose finding a 'common enemy' could bring the two faiths closer together - but (as you say) at what cost?
Do you think secularism is an enemy?
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
Jayda
09-15-2006, 04:53 PM
No...
Reply

glo
09-15-2006, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Do you think secularism is an enemy?
Hi Wilberhum

Give me some time to ponder that question carefully. :)

Thanks.
Reply

Fishman
09-15-2006, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Do you think secularism is an enemy?
:sl:
Believing man's laws are superior to God (swt)'s laws is extreme arrogance, and nobody who followed a theist religion would support it.
:w:
Reply

lavikor201
09-15-2006, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Believing man's laws are superior to God (swt)'s laws is extreme arrogance, and nobody who followed a theist religion would support it.
:w:
Is Secularism about being anti-G-d or is it about creating an envirement where one belief of what G-d wants is not forced on people with another belief.
Reply

wilberhum
09-15-2006, 08:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Believing man's laws are superior to God (swt)'s laws is extreme arrogance, and nobody who followed a theist religion would support it.
:w:
That just tickle pink cute and wonderful. :giggling: You could never get a concusses on what “god’s laws” are. :playing: So that kind of leaves us with man’s laws. "Nobody who followed a theist religion would support it". What? The majority of the people in the West are theists and the majority support secular laws and want separation of church and state.
Reply

KAding
09-15-2006, 08:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Believing man's laws are superior to God (swt)'s laws is extreme arrogance, and nobody who followed a theist religion would support it.
:w:
Yet, the UK as a secular country allows you to be a practising Muslim. Secularism does not mean state-sponsored atheism. Neither does it mean the politicians are supposed to be atheist. It means that no religion should be deemed superior to another at the level of the state and in the law. It guarantees freedom of religion, rather than suppresses it. "Extreme arrogance" would be to say something like: "I'm right and therefor my belief must be law for everyone".

You are wrong btw. Many theists support it, thats why a deeply religious country like the US is also secular.
Reply

lavikor201
09-15-2006, 08:32 PM
I wonder if the UK became a "Christian Country", if Muslims would be allowed to practice. Or would they have to accept Jesus no matter what?

Secularism is very well allowing Muslims to practice easily in the UK, and Jews in America.
Reply

Ghazi
09-15-2006, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Yet, the UK as a secular country allows you to be a practising Muslim. Secularism does not mean state-sponsored atheism. Neither does it mean the politicians are supposed to be atheist. It means that no religion should be deemed superior to another at the level of the state and in the law. It guarantees freedom of religion, rather than suppresses it. "Extreme arrogance" would be to say something like: "I'm right and therefor my belief must be law for everyone".

You are wrong btw. Many theists support it, thats why a deeply religious country like the US is also secular.
:sl:

deeply religious country like the US
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Reply

Fishman
09-15-2006, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
I wonder if the UK became a "Christian Country", if Muslims would be allowed to practice. Or would they have to accept Jesus no matter what?

Secularism is very well allowing Muslims to practice easily in the UK, and Jews in America.
:sl:
If the UK became a 'Christian country', I would probably just leave, probably with the rest of the British Muslims.
:w:
Reply

KAding
09-15-2006, 08:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:
deeply religious country like the US
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What are you laughing at? The overwhelming majority of Americans are clearly practising and openly religious. Church attendancy is quite high, much higher than mosque attendance among Muslims in Europe for example. Who are you to call them insincere? :?
Reply

Woodrow
09-15-2006, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Is Secularism about being anti-G-d or is it about creating an envirement where one belief of what G-d wants is not forced on people with another belief.
Secularism can become whatever anybody desires it to become. It is secular because it has no "fixed" point of reference. As a populations concept of law changes, the source for the law will change.

In a secular society it can be said that the source for the codes will be the Law books as defined by the majority.

I really doubt if there are any truly secular Governments. Each government seems to base it's laws on the religious laws of the majority population.

Dictionary
Directory > Words > Dictionary sec·u·lar·ism (sĕk'yə-lə-rĭz'əm)
n.
Religious skepticism or indifference.
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
secularist sec'u·lar·ist n.
secularistic sec'u·lar·is'tic adj.



WordNet
Directory > Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
The noun secularism has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a doctrine that rejects religion and religious
Reply

lavikor201
09-15-2006, 08:55 PM
The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
Alright. So are there not Muslims in Turkey who embrace Islam, yet believe it does not have a place in the Government?
Reply

KAding
09-15-2006, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Secularism can become whatever anybody desires it to become. It is secular because it has no "fixed" point of reference. As a populations concept of law changes, the source for the law will change.

In a secular society it can be said that the source for the codes will be the Law books as defined by the majority.

I really doubt if there are any truly secular Governments. Each government seems to base it's laws on the religious laws of the majority population.
The 'secular' identity of Western governments is not really defined in ordinary law, but rather in the constitutions. So although many laws may be inspired by religious opinion, none can make it so that the state becomes 'religious', because would be in violation of that same constitution.
Reply

~Stranger~
09-15-2006, 08:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
G-d
why do u type G-d not god?? :?
Reply

Keltoi
09-15-2006, 09:03 PM
Jews, Christians, and Muslims should be allies. We all pray to the same God. It is man that dictates allies, not religion.
Reply

Fishman
09-15-2006, 09:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Alright. So are there not Muslims in Turkey who embrace Islam, yet believe it does not have a place in the Government?
:sl:
Most Muslims here don't like the Turkish governement, who take away the religious freedom of their own people.
:w:
Reply

Keltoi
09-15-2006, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Most Muslims here don't like the Turkish governement, who take away the religious freedom of their own people.
:w:
religious freedom? So to you the concept of a religion free government is denying you freedom of religion? You must realize that a secular government is exactly why people in the U.S. have freedom of religion. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc can all worship as they see fit in a secular society. That is freedom of religion, not a government sponsored institution.
Reply

wilberhum
09-15-2006, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Most Muslims here don't like the Turkish governement, who take away the religious freedom of their own people.
:w:
When did the Turkish government take away religious freedom?
Reply

Jayda
09-15-2006, 09:28 PM
I HATE politics but i would just like to say i dont see anything wrong with secularism as long as it is not the same as public atheism... like "we all know there is a God but since we dont all agree about that lets make sure no one religion controls the country" rather than "we will not have religious made laws because there is no God and that is the end of that"

like leave it with a question mark not a period...

because we are all so radically different there is no way one group could rule everybody else fairly, we know that from history too, so secularism provides us a nice way to live together without the need to dominate each other...
Reply

starfortress
09-16-2006, 12:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
religious freedom? So to you the concept of a religion free government is denying you freedom of religion? You must realize that a secular government is exactly why people in the U.S. have freedom of religion. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc can all worship as they see fit in a secular society. That is freedom of religion, not a government sponsored institution.

Greetings

Thats one of many aspects that secularism can affect,maybe the positive one.who knows?how about the negative,It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion at the same time?,

Yes no relegious group would have any privileges under the secular law which mean all are equal,but that was a socio-political aspect,hows about your lifestyle,family environmental,society, can you give the consequence?of course you'll get pornography,gay,lesbian,prostitution,gambling and other materialistic disease in the name of secular or human free will.

We as a muslim realise that secular provide our freedom of relegion we also realise secularism also could distruct our faith and moral,plus man made law are imperfect,easily could be change through time also altered by man as a desire fulfillness.

I wonder how many fruit of adultery in secular society,being born without father,abortion everywhere,btw the secular would love to see religion removed from western society, because with God out of the way, everything would be permissible,is that right...peace
Reply

starfortress
09-16-2006, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by starfortress
Greetings

Thats one of many aspects that secularism can affect,maybe the positive one.who knows?how about the negative,It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion at the same time?,

Yes no relegious group would have any privileges under the secular law which mean all are equal,but that was a socio-political aspect,hows about your lifestyle,family environmental,society, can you give the consequence?of course you'll get pornography,gay,lesbian,prostitution,gambling and other materialistic disease in the name of secular or human free will.

We as a muslim realise that secular provide our freedom of relegion we also realise secularism also could distruct our faith and moral,plus man made law are imperfect,easily could be change through time also altered by man as a desire fulfillness.

I wonder how many fruit of adultery in secular society,being born without father,abortion everywhere,btw the secular would love to see religion removed from western society, because with God out of the way, everything would be permissible,is that right...peace

I am also realise i just got off topic,sorry
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 01:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
When did the Turkish government take away religious freedom?
The fact that Turkey is becoming secular and wants to be a part of the EU.
Muslim women are being denied the right to wear the Hijab. They don't let the students into the school unless they take it off. How sad...
Reply

Quruxbadaan
09-16-2006, 01:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
That just tickle pink cute and wonderful. :giggling: You could never get a concusses on what “god’s laws” are. :playing: So that kind of leaves us with man’s laws. "Nobody who followed a theist religion would support it". What? The majority of the people in the West are theists and the majority support secular laws and want separation of church and state.

Allah swt guides those he chooses for if he willed he would guide the world a right

this a prime example of that

how about we start by defining these pretty words we are using shall we lets start with Theism

"Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities" according to websters dictionary

now the majority of people who live in the west are theists you tell me what sence it makes for somebody who believes in a supreme being to overthrow the laws set out by that supreme being with man made laws???? i dont know about you but thats simply absurd

okay moving along lets define the word concusses shall we

etymology from latin concutere, or concussum

generally means to shake severly or to cause injury (in line with violence)


now that said, i personaly dont see your point all im seeing is that you feel special by using pretty words

Allah swts laws are set in stone and will remain until the day of judgment when each and every last one of us will face him and stand before him

they are clear and no man can overthrow them we can come up our own laws until the cows come home however they do not and will not ever over power the laws set forth by Allah our master the creator of the heavens and the earth because in the end we will be punished severly for our actions not on the basis of our own laws but on the basis of the creator's laws

again like i said

the most merciful guides who he chooses and whom soever is guided no body no combination of people can misguide and whom so ever allah allows to be lead astray no one and no combination of people can guide them aright he is Omniscient
we can not harm him we are harming nobody but ourselfs by disobeying him. he is our master.We can not Fool allah. Surely it is ourselfs who we are fooling if we believe so.
Reply

KAding
09-16-2006, 06:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba
The fact that Turkey is becoming secular and wants to be a part of the EU.
Muslim women are being denied the right to wear the Hijab. They don't let the students into the school unless they take it off. How sad...
If I may ask? What does that have to do with the EU? That Turkish law has been in place long before WW2. No EU country is as strict about it as Turkey and it certainly isn't a requirement to join the EU.
Reply

KAding
09-16-2006, 06:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by starfortress
Greetings

Thats one of many aspects that secularism can affect,maybe the positive one.who knows?how about the negative,It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion at the same time?,

Yes no relegious group would have any privileges under the secular law which mean all are equal,but that was a socio-political aspect,hows about your lifestyle,family environmental,society, can you give the consequence?of course you'll get pornography,gay,lesbian,prostitution,gambling and other materialistic disease in the name of secular or human free will.

We as a muslim realise that secular provide our freedom of relegion we also realise secularism also could distruct our faith and moral,plus man made law are imperfect,easily could be change through time also altered by man as a desire fulfillness.

I wonder how many fruit of adultery in secular society,being born without father,abortion everywhere,btw the secular would love to see religion removed from western society, because with God out of the way, everything would be permissible,is that right...peace
But what is the alternative? Islamic rule over all?
Reply

glo
09-16-2006, 10:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Do you think secularism is an enemy?
Hi wilberhum

It's 16 hours since you asked me this question, and the thread has moved on since then - but I would still like to give a my answer.

Given that it was me who used the term 'common enemy'( although the article refers to 'allies', which kind of implies a struggle against a common enemy), I thought I would need to ponder my opinion carefully, before posting it.

You see, I wish I could have answered your question with a heart-felt 'no', as Jayda did, but somehow I wasn't sure that could! :?

To be clear about the meaning of the word 'secular', I have checked the definition. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as
  1. concerned with the affairs of this world; not spiritual or sacred
  2. not concerned with religion or religious belief
  3. not bound be any religious rule


Now back to your question:

Do I think non-believers are my enemies?
No! (If i did, I would have to consider most of my family members, friends, neighbours and work colleagues as my enemies. :uuh: :(

Do I consider our secular government, secular organisations and secular laws as my enemies?
No! I have two reasons for this:

Firstly, I believe that power corrupts. Countless governments and political systems have demonstrated this. And religious men in power have not fared any better in human history ...
I feel it is wiser to keep religion and politics separate - and I agree that a secular government on the whole gives different religions within a multi-cultural and multi-religious society greater rights and freedom than a single-religion-government would do.

Secondly, Jesus was very clear in his teachings that we should obey our governments and authorities. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (Mark 12:17)
In fact, it was this which frustrated some Jews, who had hoped Jesus had come to overturn the Roman rule, and it contributed to him being criticised and eventually killed.
Paul picks up this theme in his letter to the church in Ephesus: "Slaves (replace with employer, citizen etc.), obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

Paul goes on to stress that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood",but he also talks about a spiritual struggle "against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms"

You see, this spiritual struggle seems important to me, and I read the article to mean a spiritual struggle against the secular lifestyle of our modern society!

Try to understand this from a religious point of view.
I think I can speak for all three monotheistic religions when I say that we believe that God desires or even demands our
  • time and attention
  • love, worship and devotion
  • obedience


If you look at it like that, then yes, secularism undermines and erodes God's way!
By definition secularism is not concerned with God or religion.

Instead of spending time praying to and worshipping God and fulfilling his will, people devote their time to other things, such as materialistic desires, fashion, an obsession with media and celebrities, promiscuous behaviour, drugs ... (Hear me right - I am not saying that all non-believers engage in these activities. Forgive me the stereotyping, I am just trying to demonstrate how secularism distracts from God)

Goodness, can somebody just shut me up ...!!! :rollseyes

(I'll stop rambling, wilberhum. Don't ever let me ponder one of your questions for 16 hours again!!! ;D But perhapsyou know my answer now ...)

peace :)
Reply

sonz
09-16-2006, 10:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
What are you laughing at? The overwhelming majority of Americans are clearly practising and openly religious. Church attendancy is quite high, much higher than mosque attendance among Muslims in Europe for example. Who are you to call them insincere? :?
ru sure???

The percentage of Catholics who say they attend Mass every week is steadily declining.
1987 44%
1993 41%
1999 37%
2005 * 33%
* projected

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...rch-main_x.htm


New Study Finds Mosque Goers to Double Church Attendance
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...ndance/457.htm

masalama
Reply

ManchesterFolk
09-16-2006, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Stranger~
why do u type G-d not god?? :?
Jews type it like that for respect, because lavi explained that if the site as deleted then the name "God" would be to, and therefore it would be breaking a law of erasing Gods name. Therefore, they write it "G-d" unless it is in a prayer book, or Torah ect.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 05:09 PM
That makes sense. Like if i was to write Allah on my book then i wouldnt be able to throw it out. I did that once when I was little. I jus cut out the word and kept it, then threw my notebook out lol. Still have it. Sorry off topic =P
Reply

KAding
09-16-2006, 07:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sonz
ru sure???

The percentage of Catholics who say they attend Mass every week is steadily declining.
1987 44%
1993 41%
1999 37%
2005 * 33%
* projected

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...rch-main_x.htm


New Study Finds Mosque Goers to Double Church Attendance
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...ndance/457.htm

masalama
You seem to be more or less correct on the church attendance.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

Nevertheless, that does not change the point that the United States, compared to other developed countries, is highly religious, with only 15% saying they are not religious. Yet at the level of the state the country is still secular, which is the context in which I made the remark.
Reply

blunderbus
09-16-2006, 07:26 PM
It will be difficult or impossible for Christians to ally themselves with Muslims as long as Muslims call for the execution of any Muslim who voluntarily wishes to convert to Christianity. Especially when they are actively trying to convert Christians to Islam.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 07:42 PM
Muslims dont "try" to convert people to Islam. This isn't Christianity during the crusades. I think you mean to say Christian missionaries going around and getting people to accept Jesus(pbuh) as their lord and savior. Especially in places like Africa, mostly in poor areas.
Allah(swt) tells us to invite people with wisdom and beautiful preaching. There are many reverts to Islam, especially on here.. are we making them accept? umm no. Our job is to tell people what Islam is about. The rest is up to them. So stop with ur ingnorant remarks.
Reply

KAding
09-16-2006, 08:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Muslims dont "try" to convert people to Islam. This isn't Christianity during the crusades. I think you mean to say Christian missionaries going around and getting people to accept Jesus(pbuh) as their lord and savior. Especially in places like Africa, mostly in poor areas.
Allah(swt) tells us to invite people with wisdom and beautiful preaching. There are many reverts to Islam, especially on here.. are we making them accept? umm no. Our job is to tell people what Islam is about. The rest is up to them. So stop with ur ingnorant remarks.
I agree. But nevertheless, Muslims conquered many Christian lands. So while they did not spread Islam by the sword, IMHO they did spread Islamic rule by the sword.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 08:23 PM
When you conquer a land r u gunna fight the people wit ur fist or a weapon?
When Islam was spreading, the Prophet (saw) and the Muslims fought only when they were attacked.
Reply

glo
09-16-2006, 08:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Muslims dont "try" to convert people to Islam. This isn't Christianity during the crusades. I think you mean to say Christian missionaries going around and getting people to accept Jesus(pbuh) as their lord and savior.
<sighs>
Do you not like Christians, Tayyaba?
Do you have any idea how comments such as this make me feel? :(

Do you judge us all by the actions of a few?
How do you feel when he world judges you by the actions of a few madmen?
Do you like it???
Cause I feel the ame when you make such sweeping comments about people who follow Christ ... :cry:

I give up ...
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 09:03 PM
Glo, my intention isn't to hurt anyone, honest to God. I dont hate Christians. I hate the ignorant ones. I have mostly non muslim friends. Atheist, Jewish, and Christian friends. I respect them because they dont make such remarks. Why? because I dont behave like the rest. But do not expect me to sit and not saying anything, while someone is being ignorant. I am stating a fact, not a lie. It makes you upset right, doesnt it make me upset when someone does the same? Im surprised your askin me how "I" feel when someone does judges me. I assure you we Muslims feel it a lot. If these people were true followers of Jesus(pbuh) they wouldnt behave that way. They would be more like you. Same for the so called Muslims. When you have people like Blunderbus, I see no reason why I shouldnt say anything. I have as much of a right as the rest of you all. I only answered back after he made false remarks.
When you push someone into the corner, what do u expect them to do? When a person bites, they bite. You should expect a reaction.
Peace..
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-16-2006, 09:16 PM
Is it obvious that religion should not have any influence in power?
Why should one support secularism. I’d say that a strict secular democracy isn’t a democracy at all. What if the majority of voters hold religious ideals? Not allowing certain groups to be elected because their viewpoint happens to be a religiously based is undemocratic. The secular states of the west dont garuantee religious neutrality; they are anti-religious.

Would it be dangerous when an single institution holds both religious control and governmental control?

Well first of all Islam isn’t an institution. You can’t compare it with the church who places rules as it sees fit. Secondly, power is dangerous regardless of its origin. Every potential can be used both negatively and positively. A secular governing might just as well be corrupt. Degenerate people in a struggle for power will always use any means necessary. Religion is a strong leverage indeed to manipulate a community. The question you need to ask is not why religion allows this deviation. Lies are always easy and quick. The question that should really bother you is: “Why is religion so strong as leverage, even if it’s only a manipulated form of it?”

Conclusion: Secular democracy is a contradiction in terms. Secularism is an open enemy both for religions due to it's antireligious nature as well for democracy for it's undemocratic position.
Reply

lavikor201
09-16-2006, 09:25 PM
Why should one support secularism. I’d say that a strict secular democracy isn’t a democracy at all. What if the majority of voters hold religious ideals? Not allowing certain groups to be elected because their viewpoint happens to be a religiously based is undemocratic. The secular states of the west dont garuantee religious neutrality; they are anti-religious.
Secular and Religious Democracy's are not real democracys. However, senators in the USA and many secular nations can change laws witha certain percentage of the vote, and this can include religious laws. Therefore, if a huge majority of a population is religious, then these types of laws can be intorduced. Yet about 1/2 of America is liberal therefore, those laws will never come into existance. Now for Religious countries, well most religious countries refuse to allow change to religious law and rulings, even if the majority does not want them. Therefore, a Secular Democracy is possible, but is a Religious one since it is found on supposidly "Allahs" laws? Secularism in a sense is all about change, while Religion is staying consistant and not changing a word of the laws. Therefore, I would have to say your theory is incorrect.
Reply

snakelegs
09-16-2006, 09:41 PM
well i am very thankful that i live in a secular (tho flawed!) country. i could not live in a theocracy of any kind.
i don't see how muslims and christian could see each other as allies. wouldn't conflict be inevitiable since both religions believe that they are The One True Religion. (which automaticly makes the other one false.
so i think us non-christians and non-muslims are safe for awhile.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-16-2006, 09:45 PM
Yea it is unavoidable. It's not impossible but there will be a few losers who dont want that. Even the minority can screw everything up for those who want to be able to live together.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-16-2006, 10:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Secular and Religious Democracy's are not real democracys. However, senators in the USA and many secular nations can change laws witha certain percentage of the vote, and this can include religious laws. Therefore, if a huge majority of a population is religious, then these types of laws can be intorduced. Yet about 1/2 of America is liberal therefore, those laws will never come into existance.
then by defenition it is not really secular, as it leaves room for religious laws. The only reason that it apears to be secular is because the majority does not want religious laws. That's an entirely difrrent thing from the secular idea, where it is suggested all religious involvement should activly be banned out of goverment and laws.

Now for Religious countries, well most religious countries refuse to allow change to religious law and rulings, even if the majority does not want them.
Give me one example :)

Therefore, a Secular Democracy is possible
How does the existance of the afore mentioned country -assuming there actually is one that fits the bill for the sake of argument- bring you to the conclusion that a secular democracy is "possible". The two are contradicting by nature. Secularism states that certain groups with certain ideals should be kept from leadership, whereas democracy says that anybody elected by a majority is entiteled reign over the country regardless of their ideals.

but is a Religious one since it is found on supposidly "Allahs" laws? Secularism in a sense is all about change, while Religion is staying consistant and not changing a word of the laws. Therefore, I would have to say your theory is incorrect.
You conclude my theory -which isn't actually a theory but more simpeler nothing more then a combination of two defenitons- is incorrect because you believe the shariah is not a good system since it leaves no room for change, right? Well first off all, wheter or not religious law is possible and or desirable, doesn't change the fact that secularism is undemocratic.
Second of all, the absence of an ability to change does not undermine the possibility of aplicability.

If we for a second assume that Let’s for a second assume the guidance of Allah (s.w.t.) is perfect. According to you it would still be automatically imperfect because it doesn’t allow change. But if you change something perfect -that by definition cannot be improved- is that change for the better; or does that change make it less perfect? Now obviously I didn’t mean perfect in a utopian sense. But rather like: “as good as it gets”. I believe Shariah to be the best possible set of rules to benefit mankind. Even if you disagree, you still have to acknowledge that theoretically speaking there is such a thing as the best way out of a given situation. So its perfection is established by the benefits it has over other options rather then being perfect in the strict utopian meaning. Now after all this being said, I take it you 're inclined to answer that my premisse: "Let’s for a second assume the guidance of Allah (s.w.t.) is perfect." Gives you enough ammunition to bring my reasoning down. Which is understandable since you hold difrent ideas. But then again. That's the whole problem here. Noramally in a democracy if a person is elected by majority he is to implement the ideals for which he was elected. Wheter it is based on a false or an accurate premisse or not. Your only reason to object would be your personal opinion: "you don't believe in the devine nature of the shariah" But if you 'd live in a hypotetical democratic country of wich the majority is Muslim, such a personal believe would be insuficient to reject to shariah being implemented in the goverment. Unless of course that is in violation with that country's constitution, which makes that country undemocratic.

What we have stumbled upon here is the democratic paradox, a pure democracy should open the posibility for an undemocratic party to come to power.
Reply

blunderbus
09-17-2006, 12:44 AM
"So stop with ur ingnorant remarks."

"Reversion" instead of "conversion" Oh yes, it makes perfect sense now.

The thread is about Christians and Muslims working together. Could you work with a non-muslim who thought that anyone who "reverted" from their religion to your's should be killed? Or would you find that difficult?
Reply

Ghazi
09-17-2006, 12:47 AM
:sl:

After watching a documentry today entitled "End Times" on channel 4 I really don't think this is likely. Seems the comming of the 'Rapture' will ensue a great war, is this the believe of mainstream Christians or is this some sort of sect?
Reply

Jayda
09-17-2006, 01:06 AM
the rapture is something evangelical protestants made up... its not part of christianity...
Reply

Jayda
09-17-2006, 01:17 AM
Why is there so much anger toward secularism... it brings peace between people who seem naturally antagonistic toward each other... what is wrong with that?
Reply

starfortress
09-17-2006, 01:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
But what is the alternative? Islamic rule over all?
First thing i want you to know this is only my own opinion,could be wrong or right to you,also your question are too general and covering a variety of topics and answers.

I guess we are talking about secular and relegion implementation in laws of human life.The secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities.With the the focus everything could be archieve as long it based on logic and fact,which mean to drive human desire without limit.Money and profit come first to them,they grab any opportunity that lead to profit.

All humanbeing are born with a freewill as a skill from god.And the relegion as a guideline or perfection for life and afterlife,without it people will turn to Hippies and facing cultural fall.Like others Abrahams relegion we belief in the Day of Judgement (qiyama) and in the Resurrection.To me its a mistake to divide relegion from life,everything going to blur,human wont be able to recognise which good or bad,state of goodness cannot be archieve without relegion.

If we apply the rule with Islamic value it should be no problem,Islam should match easily to archieve the state of goodness in modern day.The problem occurs when relegion are not properly practised by it followers.Honestly I dont know how about others relegions if their doing the same thing.It is not about Islam and Christian only,but its matter of a good value that carrying and promoted by any relegion.Under the secular environment many parasitic elite will born among us then lead to the fall of civilization and morality.
Btw this is my view,maybe you have your own thinking.

:sl:
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-17-2006, 02:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by blunderbus
"So stop with ur ingnorant remarks."

"Reversion" instead of "conversion" Oh yes, it makes perfect sense now.

The thread is about Christians and Muslims working together. Could you work with a non-muslim who thought that anyone who "reverted" from their religion to your's should be killed? Or would you find that difficult?
The view that apostates should be killed is unislamic. In depth explenation of that specific rule in green:

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in
disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance". (4:137)
I think that it would immediately be obvious that if a person were to be put to death for apostasy,
i.e. for disbelieving, it would not be possible to "believe, then disbelieve, then again believe,
then disbelieve..."

A basic tenet in Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. Death for apostasy therefore does not make
any sense, unless such apostasy was accompanied by a betrayal of or treason or enmity/fighting against
the Islamic state/community.

Perhaps it may be useful to look into the context and circumstances of the hadiths decreeing the death penalty
so that this controversial (and to me unnecessary) subject is laid to rest.

My opinion is close to that in the following article:

"Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?" by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D.
President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.

Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or
for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate.
Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam.
Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected
the religion.

Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages,
and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of
effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken
their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism,
a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword.

And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other
than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing
in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to
tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion.
Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a
person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam.

No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the
misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama.

The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis
of rulings is open to many interpretations.

Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’”
It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling.

While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate
interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the
truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject.

This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the
crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani,
al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for
the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty)
offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a
sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by
the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites,
the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud
are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam.
He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the
greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day
of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jaza”).

If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars
accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set
a time limit for his repentance.

Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against
your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving,
a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering
(of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.”

Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time
to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji
and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for
“simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse
and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet.

Freedom to convert to or from Islam

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct
from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256.

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief
- Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137.

For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so."
(Al-Kahf: 29)

In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over
them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22)

The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are
possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy.

From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires
that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty.

Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy.

The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in
any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the
Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation
because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a
second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty.
The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy.

The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted
to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has
not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason.
(e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.).

There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced
anyone to death for apostasy.

The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles
and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another.

The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since
the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that
he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when
the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him,
let alone kill him.

This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high
treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed
in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses.

For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his
religion and fought against Muslims.

QUR'ANIC VIEWS

The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217,
Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does
the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention
that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at
any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader
that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the
punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept
completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the
Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected
to.

Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases.
One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of
creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society,
for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says:

Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, it is as though he
kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)

Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land".

Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has
been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could
not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not
to all apostates but to a particular and specific people.

Shaykh Subhani

Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither
Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes,
"Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out
for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar
mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then
says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people
who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or
any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for
apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was
prescribed.

Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the
problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance
for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of
Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion.
Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership
so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73).

To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order
lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate
time to explain before the punishment was carried out.

Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to
understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind.

He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the
time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of
apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government.

Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made
to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and
became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion.

A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi,
Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires
the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have
concurred.

In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the
Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue:
Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation.

(2) Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam (Book: Tabdili-e-Mazhab aur Islam) by Maulana Inayatullah
Asad Subhani)-published by Idara Ihya-e-Deen, Bilariya Ganj, Azamgarh (UP, India) Pages: 108, Price Rs 30.

REFERENCES
1. http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm

2. "Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/

3. S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986). Limited availability from Amazon.com online
bookstore).


@Jayda
Why is there so much anger toward secularism... it brings peace between people who seem naturally antagonistic toward each other... what is wrong with that?
I don't see how secularism is supposed to bring peace. To me it seems like a lame excuse for the atheists to surpress the religious ones. So I wouldn't see it as a tool for peace.
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 06:11 PM
Glo,
Excellent post! I have only one problem with what you state. That is “God's way”.
What is “God's way”? Some would say that listening to music is against “God's way”. Others have no problem with it. This is just one of many different definitions of things that are part of “God's way”. With the many different definitions, we will never come to an agreement. So the best way it for the state to stay out of it and allow people to follow there own version of “God's way”. It is not a perfect way, just the best way for all.
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 06:19 PM
Steve,
I don't see how secularism is supposed to bring peace. To me it seems like a lame excuse for the atheists to surpress the religious ones. So I wouldn't see it as a tool for peace.
Well we have proven that religion does not bring peace. Atheists suppress religious? I think the vast majority of atheists could care less what the religious do. They just don’t want it forced on them or to have to pay for it.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Its not the religion that breaks peace, its the people who are too stupid to understand it.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-18-2006, 08:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Steve,
Well we have proven that religion does not bring peace.
That's a matter of interpretation. I'd say warmongers abuse religion as a scapegoat.

Atheists suppress religious? I think the vast majority of atheists could care less what the religious do. They just don’t want it forced on them or to have to pay for it.
so how do you explain for all the surpressions in "secular" countrys? Take turkey for example. There's a hijab ban in govermental buildings and schools. The army has repeatedly stopped democratic elected parties because they were to "Islamic". There was even a time in the beginning of the secular state where people got arrested for wearing a beard, cause every turkish guy should have a mustach. All of this under the guise of "secularism". And we see it's catching on. France now also has a hijab ban. Belgium has followed immediatly after but luckely for the muslimah's here; in Belgium it's only public schools, private schools can do as they please. But in turkey, even the academys funded for 100% only by religious groups and hence costing absolutely nothing to the goverment can not permit to allow hijab for they would no longer be officially recognised if they do. You don't want to be forced? That's a lame excuse. How can you be supportive to the supression of one group only for the garuantee of your own. That's proposterous.
Reply

glo
09-18-2006, 08:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Glo,
Excellent post! I have only one problem with what you state. That is “God's way”.
What is “God's way”? Some would say that listening to music is against “God's way”. Others have no problem with it. This is just one of many different definitions of things that are part of “God's way”. With the many different definitions, we will never come to an agreement. So the best way it for the state to stay out of it and allow people to follow there own version of “God's way”. It is not a perfect way, just the best way for all.
Wilberhum, you will have to stop by more often!
It's been so long, I had to check which post you were referring to ... :giggling:
(I suppose it is #30?)

You are right 'God's way' was a poor choice of words ... I think by that time I was running out of steam! :rollseyes
What I mean by 'God's way', I suppose, is what each monotheistic group believes to be God's will for their lives. (Give and take a few details here and there, we don't actually differ all that much! ... I think! :rollseyes )

Peace :)
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 09:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
That's a matter of interpretation. I'd say warmongers abuse religion as a scapegoat.


so how do you explain for all the surpressions in "secular" countrys? Take turkey for example. There's a hijab ban in govermental buildings and schools. The army has repeatedly stopped democratic elected parties because they were to "Islamic". There was even a time in the beginning of the secular state where people got arrested for wearing a beard, cause every turkish guy should have a mustach. All of this under the guise of "secularism". And we see it's catching on. France now also has a hijab ban. Belgium has followed immediatly after but luckely for the muslimah's here; in Belgium it's only public schools, private schools can do as they please. But in turkey, even the academys funded for 100% only by religious groups and hence costing absolutely nothing to the goverment can not permit to allow hijab for they would no longer be officially recognised if they do. You don't want to be forced? That's a lame excuse. How can you be supportive to the supression of one group only for the garuantee of your own. That's proposterous.
Isn't it amazing what those atheists will do? All problems are caused by atheists. I'm glad to know that. I though the US was responsible for all problems. :rant:
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-18-2006, 09:02 PM
omg looool...someones gunna hate u for that comment...
i have a feeling!! lol
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-18-2006, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Isn't it amazing what those atheists will do? All problems are caused by atheists. I'm glad to know that. I though the US was responsible for all problems. :rant:
I didn't bring up US, Us isn't the only place that has to cope with atheists you know.

Nice try, but doesn't cut the mustard.
Do try again...
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 10:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Wilberhum, you will have to stop by more often!
It's been so long, I had to check which post you were referring to ... :giggling:
(I suppose it is #30?)

You are right 'God's way' was a poor choice of words ... I think by that time I was running out of steam! :rollseyes
What I mean by 'God's way', I suppose, is what each monotheistic group believes to be God's will for their lives. (Give and take a few details here and there, we don't actually differ all that much! ... I think! :rollseyes )

Peace :)
But you still have the same problem. There are a thousand different versions of what is "God's will for their lives". How do you make them into laws. Do you have different laws for each religion? Well that won't work because each religion has different sects with different rules. Combining church and state an only be done if you select a state religion. Any place that has a state religion, in my openion, would be horrable for anyone not belonging to the state religion. I want a place that is good for everyone.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-18-2006, 10:16 PM
Is it just me or this thread off topic now..:?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-18-2006, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
But you still have the same problem. There are a thousand different versions of what is "God's will for their lives". How do you make them into laws. Do you have different laws for each religion? Well that won't work because each religion has different sects with different rules. Combining church and state an only be done if you select a state religion. Any place that has a state religion, in my openion, would be horrable for anyone not belonging to the state religion. I want a place that is good for everyone.
But how can you see the secular state as good for everyone when it doesn't alow a religious party to be elected by a majority of the people? Don't you see that that goes against the principles of democracy?
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 10:35 PM
What country "doesn't alow a religious party to be elected"?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-18-2006, 10:41 PM
Well in the secular country Turkey for example, there the army has stepped in several times to stop a democratic elected party because it was to religious. I brought this up several posts ago.
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Well in the secular country Turkey for example, there the army has stepped in several times to stop a democratic elected party because it was to religious. I brought this up several posts ago.
What! Are you going to tell me that all secular countries are not perfect? You have to be kidding me. You can't be serious.
We should all instute a wonderfull government like Iran. :giggling: :giggling:
Reply

InToTheRain
09-18-2006, 11:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What! Are you going to tell me that all secular countries are not perfect? You have to be kidding me. You can't be serious.
We should all instute a wonderfull government like Iran. :giggling: :giggling:
:uuh: I don't know what your idea of perfect is but I know we got a long way to go before any country becomes perfect
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
09-18-2006, 11:08 PM
yeaaa thats true.
Reply

wilberhum
09-18-2006, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
:uuh: I don't know what your idea of perfect is but I know we got a long way to go before any country becomes perfect
That is the irony in my statement. As long as people are running a government, perfection will not be obtained. The concept of a perfect government is just that, a concept. Has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen.
Reply

InToTheRain
09-18-2006, 11:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
That is the irony in my statement. As long as people are running a government, perfection will not be obtained.
I agree completely
Reply

glo
09-19-2006, 05:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
But you still have the same problem. There are a thousand different versions of what is "God's will for their lives". How do you make them into laws. Do you have different laws for each religion? Well that won't work because each religion has different sects with different rules. Combining church and state an only be done if you select a state religion. Any place that has a state religion, in my openion, would be horrable for anyone not belonging to the state religion. I want a place that is good for everyone.
I never advocated combining state and religion. Neither do I think that's what my originally posted article is trying to advocate.
My entire post (#30) was about demonstrating that.

I want a place that's good for everyone too.

peace :)
Reply

north_malaysian
09-19-2006, 08:51 AM
Jews should see Muslims as 'allies'
Reply

wilberhum
09-19-2006, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I never advocated combining state and religion. Neither do I think that's what my originally posted article is trying to advocate.
My entire post (#30) was about demonstrating that.

I want a place that's good for everyone too.

peace :)
Glo,
I guess a lot of what I said is based on a statement in #30.
secularism undermines and erodes God's way
I guess that bagges the question. Is this a problem that we just have to live with or is it a problem we need to solve?
Reply

Skillganon
09-19-2006, 07:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
from http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm...wn=1&pnid=2498

Unfortunately, this is just a news snippet and doesn't say any more. Perhaps I'll go searching ...

Peace. :)
Interesting, since Christianity and Islam share the simlary moral ground, (maybe not on the method.) and share so much similiar except the obviouse dogma, it is prudent that Islam and Christianity, if you really follow what you preach, has a footing to combat the thing that effects our society.

Christianity needs Islam, and Islam can co-exist with christianity.

The reason being, Just compare what christianity was more than 50 years ago, and what it is now, another 100 years or more, it is going to be further in the deep hole that has been dug.

I am sure christianity has more to offer, I am going to share with you something I read about early history of followers of Jesus bin maryam.(in the comparitive section).
It reminds the similarity between Islam (you might nor agree on it), the sheer force of the teaching of Jesus(pbuh). If you wan't to hear it, let me know, and I will open a thread.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-21-2006, 11:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
That is the irony in my statement. As long as people are running a government, perfection will not be obtained. The concept of a perfect government is just that, a concept. Has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen.
Well quite right. Any form of power has the potential to be abused. But that doesn' mean a certain system is bad by default. Your argument works as good for secularism as it works against it. You might say that deviding powers will give the powerfull less opportunity to oppres. I could say that not allowing religious power alows the non-religious to opress the religious ones. And if you look at the west, all those antireligious laws are done in the name of secularism! So this isn't just a theory, the idea of secularism alows the people in power to opress the religious people.

Wether or not Iran is a good country is completely irrelevant. Just because there are bad alternatives doesn't make secularism good by default. I wouldn't even say that secularism is good by comparison, since there have been non-secular goverùments who were far better.
Reply

Muezzin
09-21-2006, 02:50 PM
Question: How do Iran and non-secular Governments factor into the topic title, and should I delete all posts I deem to be off-topic? Discuss.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-21-2006, 03:34 PM
Answer: the origenal question was about wheter christians and muslims should cooperate to fight secularism. So wheter or not not secularism is something that should be fought back seems relevant to me. But then again I'm not a mod. ;)
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: 1008
    Last Post: 07-10-2007, 03:01 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-16-2006, 12:49 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 03:22 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 11:52 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!