Is it allowed to question our religious belief?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Wa-Alaikum-Salaam brother,

Thank you for your kind explanation. I find this easy to understand :statisfie
I would like to stay in this forum but I am afraid I will be in trouble later. I broke one of the rules here too. I felt really bad about it. So... I guess I have to quit.

We all make mistakes sister but it does not mean that you cannot learn from it and continue as a member. That way at least you can continue to ask questions etc. Up to you sister. But whatever you decide then make sure you keep good sisters as company. Join your local Masjid sisters circle or group and keep good company. Not those who free mix, or have relations with other men etc. As their influence can rub off on us.

Knowledge is also very important. Join your local Masjid or Islamic centre short course or online courses. Or read good books/e books on Islam. Get involved with volunteering with good sisters on dawah, helping needy and the ill etc.

Most of all make intense Dua during the next few days and nights for Allah to enable you to get closer to him and to increase your imaan so that you do everything to obey and please him. And also help increase your knowledge and keep good company.

If there are just two things to maintain during and after Ramadan then it is to pray Tahajjud which can be prayed just before Fajr prayer and make an intense Dua after that as this prayer will enable one to get closer to Allah and make Dua at the best time possible. Secondly to maintain a connection with the Qur'an and to learn the meanings. Even if it is a page a day. This way one will remember Allah and lean and reflect on the beautiful words and lessons the Almighty wants to teach us so that we may implement it into our lives and be successful in this world and the next.

:wa:

 

[talibilm]

As-salāmu ʿalaykum everyone,
I hope you are all in the best of health and iman.

First, please do not get mad at me for the title of the topic. It has been bugging me since last night and I just want to ask someone. I tried to read articles for the answer. The answers were varied and I still feel unsure.

Sometimes I wonder if I really believe in Islam. Not that I completely not believe it, more like I just cannot comprehend some parts. I am a practicing Muslim. I find peace when I pray and read Quran. I am thankful and happy being born a Muslim.
However, when I look around, I feel like there is something wrong with Islam, or maybe the Muslims. I am not really sure myself.
Why does it seem like Islam or maybe Muslims cannot be at peace with others? What is wrong with us? Or is there something wrong with non-Muslim people? :?
There are these clashes too between Islam and culture, as well as Islam and modernization. Is it possible for Islam to adapt?

Everything looked fine when I was at school. I went to public, co-ed school where everyone regardless of religions and genders got along. (I know some of you may be so strict about the mixing but here it is just normal. Even some schools with Islamic curriculum have their female and male students in the same class)
Then when I went to university, I felt like things were changing. Or perhaps I just became aware of this thing.
Here there is a group of people who wants to change the system of our country to be an Islamic system (is this term right?).
It somehow causes conflicts with other religions and among Muslims. It used to be just fine, people just coexist peacefully. Why do some Muslims want to change that? Does that mean implementing Islamic system is better? Or is it because they think it is the best? But what we think is best does not mean it is the best for others too right?

I still have so many questions actually but it is just hard for me to put it into words. I am also afraid people will misunderstand my intention.
So yeah, back to the purpose of this thread. Is it allowed to question our religious beliefs? Are asking questions like above allowed? Are they allowed to exist in my brain sometimes? Or should I refrain from doing so? If it is allowed what is the limit of this kind of questioning?

I hope you can share your opinion here. I suppose this will be my last thread before asking the moderators to delete my account (since I cannot find the option in the settings) so I really appreciate if you can somehow enlighten me. Thank you!

I think I understand your concern . This hadith also fairly depicts your doubts

Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 271

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar ('Abdullah b. 'Umar) that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole. ''

When I was a Lad though i was born in an orthodox muslim family but i did my own research till Allah made My heart steadfast on Islam, Alhamdulilah, Mashallah, and i am sure nothing is so sweet as Islam but its the MOST MISQUOTED MIS REPRESENTED , PRESENTED RELIGION ON THE GLOBE because of Satan the enemy of Humans .

one of My threads like this would clears the air about misconceptions in islam a bit

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthre...ay-So&highlight=kill+all+polytheist+did+quran



but I am Sure 100 % with reasoning all commands of the THE ALL WISE, Allah, is the best of best but like Bro Abdul Aziz says from most Muslims (even so called pious) the ilm- knowledge has been taken away and the above hadith reiterates it. So you should do further studies or clear your doubts by asking it politely like say, What is the Hikmah behind so & so commandment of Allah ? etc etc which Only Allah knows the best but still we will be some ideas on them, inshallah.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You will also notice how they report news stories attributing "Muslims" with terrorism and terrorist acts, but they will use other words for non Muslim terrorists. Like for example the other day a Chinese "terrorist" set off a bomb but not once did they refer to it as a "act of terror". Instead they stated he had mental issues. So we must be aware of the many deceptions used by the media. They use fear and deception consistently in the way they convey news to the masses. This is why Muslims end up being attacked in the aftermath of a attack. The media will jump on such news and use it to cause fear amongst the masses of a "terrorist problem" in the Muslim community.

You need to be far more critical before accepting erroneous arguments like this. ^

I assume the Chinese bomber you mention is the one who attacked a kindergarten last Thursday? In his case, there was apparently no political or ideological motive, so it would not fall under the common definition of terrorism.

On the other hand, the attack at Finsbury Park Mosque that happened this morning, and which was directed against Muslims, is being treated by police as a terrorist attack, and is being widely reported in the UK media as such.

For example:

BBC: Finsbury Park attack: Theresa May condemns 'sickening' terror attack

ITV News: London mosque terror attack: What we know so far

The Guardian: Finsbury Park terror attack

Evening Standard: Finsbury Park Mosque terror

Peace

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

I assume the Chinese bomber you mention is the one who attacked a kindergarten last Thursday? In his case, there was apparently no political or ideological motive, so it would not fall under the common definition of terrorism.

So a Muslim who commit an act of "terror" will always called a "terrorists" because of their religion but if a Buddhist, Christian or atheist commits an act of "terror" then most likely he had mental issues. Utter nonsense.

Terrorism has no religion. All terrorist have some sort of mental issue. We do not know why this Chinese man did what he did but regardless of his "mental issues", but clearly he did them for some ideological reason known to him and the Chinese state, which the Chinese dictatorship state will never reveal otherwise they will have to call it a "terrorist" attack.

If we used your definition of "terrorism" to apply to anyone killing out of ideological intentions then there are many terror acts which were not called "terrorist". One that springs to mind is the recent killing of Jo Cox because merely because she was a firm "Remainer" in the Brexit camp and was killed by someone who detested her for her beliefs and values as they went against his own. Why was that killing not "terrorist"?

Yesterday morning they had to call the van driver who hit into pedestrians outside a London Mosque that killed one and injured many as "terrorist" because it was virtually identical to the attack that happened on London bridge.

But what about the killing of an innocent Muslim teenage girl in Virginia who at the time was going for something to eat with friends before starting her next fast and was fully dressed in Islamic attire. She was killed by a random attack by someone who did not like her for her religion and the way she was dressed. But it was never called a "hate" crime or attack.

Even Trump the president of the "free world" never acknowledged the London Mosque attack or the killing of the teenage Muslim girl. Surprising? Of course not:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lim-girl-virginia-mosque-deaths-a7798206.html

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Thank you for the interesting response. (I would like to be able to address the topic of the thread more directly, but I don't think my contributions would be tolerated. In any event, I believe the present discussion does address some of the substance of the original post.)

So a Muslim who commit an act of "terror" will always called a "terrorists" because of their religion but if a Buddhist, Christian or atheist commits an act of "terror" then most likely he had mental issues.

Not necessarily. Of course it very much depends on the particulars of the case, and what the terrorists themselves say their motives are.

Terrorism has no religion. All terrorist have some sort of mental issue. We do not know why this Chinese man did what he did but regardless of his "mental issues", but clearly he did them for some ideological reason known to him and the Chinese state, which the Chinese dictatorship state will never reveal otherwise they will have to call it a "terrorist" attack.

This is little more than paranoia masquerading as evidence. The Chinese bomber's motive is at this point unclear. Can't we just accept the fact that there is a mystery, instead of postulating a cover-up for which we have no evidence?

If we used your definition of "terrorism" to apply to anyone killing out of ideological intentions then there are many terror acts which were not called "terrorist". One that springs to mind is the recent killing of Jo Cox because merely because she was a firm "Remainer" in the Brexit camp and was killed by someone who detested her for her beliefs and values as they went against his own. Why was that killing not "terrorist"?

I agree that that murder did deserve the name of terrorism, and this is an opinion that has been widely shared in the media:

BBC: Jo Cox: Man jailed for 'terrorist' murder of MP

Guardian: Was Jo Cox's killer tried as a terrorist?

Telegraph: It’s time to call the killing of Jo Cox what it is: 'an act of far-Right terrorism'

Yesterday morning they had to call the van driver who hit into pedestrians outside a London Mosque that killed one and injured many as "terrorist" because it was virtually identical to the attack that happened on London bridge.

Well, that may be true, but it is a coincidence. Really, the main reason the attack was called a terrorist attack was because it fits the description of a terrorist attack.

But what about the killing of an innocent Muslim teenage girl in Virginia who at the time was going for something to eat with friends before starting her next fast and was fully dressed in Islamic attire. She was killed by a random attack by someone who did not like her for her religion and the way she was dressed. But it was never called a "hate" crime or attack.

That case seems to centre around road rage. But, again, the motive is unclear. I do agree that if it turns out that the attack was motivated by someone's hatred of Muslims (like the Finsbury Park van driver) then it should be prosecuted as a terrorist incident.

I have now given you several pieces of evidence that counter your initial argument, viz.:

You will also notice how they report news stories attributing "Muslims" with terrorism and terrorist acts, but they will use other words for non Muslim terrorists. Like for example the other day a Chinese "terrorist" set off a bomb but not once did they refer to it as a "act of terror". Instead they stated he had mental issues. So we must be aware of the many deceptions used by the media. They use fear and deception consistently in the way they convey news to the masses. This is why Muslims end up being attacked in the aftermath of a attack. The media will jump on such news and use it to cause fear amongst the masses of a "terrorist problem" in the Muslim community.

Do you now accept that this argument is worth revising?

Even Trump the president of the "free world" never acknowledged the London Mosque attack or the killing of the teenage Muslim girl. Surprising? Of course not

What else would you expect from the worst US President in modern history?

Peace

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Greetings,

Thank you for the interesting response. (I would like to be able to address the topic of the thread more directly, but I don't think my contributions would be tolerated. In any event, I believe the present discussion does address some of the substance of the original post.)



Not necessarily. Of course it very much depends on the particulars of the case, and what the terrorists themselves say their motives are.



This is little more than paranoia masquerading as evidence. The Chinese bomber's motive is at this point unclear. Can't we just accept the fact that there is a mystery, instead of postulating a cover-up for which we have no evidence?



I agree that that murder did deserve the name of terrorism, and this is an opinion that has been widely shared in the media:

BBC: Jo Cox: Man jailed for 'terrorist' murder of MP

Guardian: Was Jo Cox's killer tried as a terrorist?

Telegraph: It’s time to call the killing of Jo Cox what it is: 'an act of far-Right terrorism'



Well, that may be true, but it is a coincidence. Really, the main reason the attack was called a terrorist attack was because it fits the description of a terrorist attack.



That case seems to centre around road rage. But, again, the motive is unclear. I do agree that if it turns out that the attack was motivated by someone's hatred of Muslims (like the Finsbury Park van driver) then it should be prosecuted as a terrorist incident.

I have now given you several pieces of evidence that counter your initial argument, viz.:



Do you now accept that this argument is worth revising?



What else would you expect from the worst US President in modern history?

Peace

If you choose to believe "everything" the mainstream media portrays as "truth and fact" then that is your prerogative.

Although we disagree on a few things, the most important thing is that we agree on a few things too.

This thread has run its course as the OP is satisfied with the responses given to her so it is now locked

Peace