Or should I have asked: What's wrong with Muslims? or What's wrong with people living in Muslim Countries?
Let me explain.
I've been reading a lot of Islamic culture and history and things don't add up.Islam is a religion that also provides a set of rules on how to live your entire life. Everything is instructed by god (Allah) and your prophet so you should have the perfect instructions on how to succeed, live in harmony and peacefully.
Instead, I cannot find a single fully developed Muslim country in the world. Why?
The more I read about specific countries the more I start to discover all the problems that affect them.
Some common culprits are: Intolerance with other religions or cultures (hate, dislike, confrontations, wars). Underdevelopment (poverty is usually very high on most Muslim countries) Peace is not the best quality of most Muslim countries (confrontations with other Muslims as well as with others)
Can anyone explain it to me?
Money and resources are not the only problem since Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey and others seem to have the resources but somehow cannot fully develop.
I'd like to see how a perfect and peaceful (secure and tolerant) Muslim Country would look like.
The whole point of being here is to have serious and honest discussions.
You are most welcome to bring your point of view and I can assure you I let you know mine, whether you like it or not it's up to you.
If you want a serious and honest discussion, you will not set up the discussion in such a way that it leads to a predetermined conclusion. Which you do when you ask such a massively loaded question as "What's wrong with Muslims?", implying that the cause of the relative underdevelopment* of Islamic countries is something inherently wrong with Muslims, rather than something else. As it happens, I don't agree with that premise in the first place.
(*Assuming that Islamic countries are relatively underdeveloped as a group to begin with by global standards, which is a dubious assertion to begin with.)
If you want a serious and honest discussion, you will not set up the discussion in such a way that it leads to a predetermined conclusion. Which you do when you ask such a massively loaded question as "What's wrong with Muslims?", implying that the cause of the relative underdevelopment* of Islamic countries is something inherently wrong with Muslims, rather than something else. As it happens, I don't agree with that premise in the first place.
If you went ahead to the next sentence I asked:
Or "What's wrong with people living in Muslim Countries?"
Obviously I don't know why the failure in Muslim Countries. My assumption is that people in the countries are the responsible for it.
Since they are "Muslim Countries" I assume it could be Muslims and this could mean the religion is responsible unless Muslims don't practice the religion as they should.
The option "people in Islamic Countries", takes away the responsibility on the religion and blame the people, no matter the religion they practice.
Does it make sense now?
I'm not myself putting the blame on anyone, I just asked the question.
If you went ahead to the next sentence I asked:
Or "What's wrong with people living in Muslim Countries?"
Obviously I don't know why the failure in Muslim Countries. My assumption is that people in the countries are the responsible for it.
Since they are "Muslim Countries" I assume it could be Muslims and this could mean the religion is responsible unless Muslims don't practice the religion as they should.
The option "people in Islamic Countries", takes away the responsibility on the religion and blame the people, no matter the religion they practice.
Does it make sense now?
I'm not myself putting the blame on anyone, I just asked the question.
Same thing, you're assuming something is wrong with the people themselves. That is an unwarranted assumption, and none of the several options you offer on how to spin it (as being because of, despite of, or irrespective of Islam) change that.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter
Actually, I don't see how it's possible to follow the rules set forth by the Quran and Sharia and not wind up with a society like IS. For every gay man they threw off the top of a building, for every person they beheaded, for every sex slave they took - they can and did draw a straight line from their actions to supporting verses and rules in Islamic scripture. Add to that the validation for the treatment of women as inferior, death for apostasy, death for adultery, death for homosexuality, death for witchcraft, .. and the list goes on.
Some of you here I can see are just about as much against this as I am. This means to me that your own moral values are in conflict with what's commanded by the books - something I find encouraging. But unless you choose to ignore or reinterpret the words in the book (something which the Quran warns against), you have to admit that those rules make for a pretty appalling place to live.
No, they are not. Scriptural literalism isn't an Islamic extremist position. It's an Islamic mainstream position. Those of us who reject ISIS (i.e. almost every Muslim) don't do it because we are less literalist than ISIS, but because we don't believe such a literalist premise leads to what ISIS is doing. Your assertion that we are "reinterpreting", while presumably ISIS isn't, is an entirely arbitrary distinction.
Your comment illustrates all that is wrong with some Muslims today.
You are an Islamist, a xenophobe, a racist, an ignorant and a liar, all wrapped into one.
Where do I start?
You say that women have a lower degree, I guess that means a lower I.Q.
WRONG https://www.livescience.com/21647-me...iq-scores.html
There are many articles and studies about it if you care doing some reading and catching up.
format_quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead
You are the one to talk when you atheist, christian, Jewish people breed the highest crime in the world.
Funny you included atheist in the group,
BIG MISTAKE
Atheist have always rate the lowest in any serious studies about crime rate.
Do some research if you don't want to show your ignorance to the world.
format_quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead
You breed single motherhood raising children without fathers around, you breed anti-male society and worshiping the female sex, you breed gays, lesbianism, gender equality thus removing the difference between the sexes, female empowerment thus breeding family break ups in societies and confusion in gender roles, you breed greed, you breed self gratification, breed violence, anti-family, feminists, instead of pointing blames on us why don't you go ahead and help your boys who are in crisis right now..whose screams for help are ignored and muffled by the screams and shouts of girls and women rights and feminist. Why don't you help your men out there who committee the highest suicide rate in the world. Why don't you stop having your girls and women sexualising themselves and walking in the streets like bunch of ----s and prostitute? Your world is infested with self gratifications at the expense of everyone and pornography that fills the world.
Where do you live? In a jungle?
Have you ever had any human relation with a westerner?
Where do you get all that nonsense?
You've been brainwashed with some extremist ideologies that don't apply to the real world.
You need help, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, well, too late for you.
format_quote Originally Posted by xboxisdead
Please..do me a favor...keep that LIBERATION..AND MODERNIZATION AND CIVILIZATION to yourself. I don't want it. If that makes me a sexist, women hating bigoted jerk then I take this label with a pride in my face. I obey Allah and his prophets, I don't obey you or any non-Muslim out there.
So you're saying that you obey Allah and his prophets, does that mean that Allah instructed you to be a sexist, women hating bigoted jerk ?
Well, I'm not so sure that Allah is so proud of you wearing that label with so much pride in your face.
And the OP is right in assuming there must be something wrong with Muslims for not having the true Islamic systems in their countries. Who can be more responsible of the condition of a country other than it's people? If the muslim people of that country are not following and applying the true teachings of Islam to rule but following and applying a corrupt version of the religion that is dictated by some group who hld the power what would you expect other than corruption?
Same thing, you're assuming something is wrong with the people themselves. That is an unwarranted assumption, and none of the several options you offer on how to spin it (as being because of, despite of, or irrespective of Islam) change that.
Yes, I'm assuming something is wrong.The question is, what is wrong?
Can you answer the question and stop policing my grammar.
Rephrase the question to your own liking.
Let me help you with some options.
How come Muslims Countries do so bad when they get the privilege to have Allah as their guide?
or, can you name the problems that impede Muslims countries from fully develop?
Can you now answer the question?
1. We don't practice Islam properly anymore (e.g nobody rules by Sharia in it's entirety)
2. General 3rd world problems (e.g corruption, brain drain and poverty).
3. Everyone considers it okay to invade/attack our countries (e.g Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq).
Give it a rest with your 'white mans burden' rhetoric. Don't like the answers your getting? Leave.
And do try to be more original with the questions you ask. Your little different to previous atheists that infest this forum from time to time, but like I said earlier, internet atheists are predictable, you've met one you've met them all.
..
No, they are not. Scriptural literalism isn't an Islamic extremist position. It's an Islamic mainstream position. Those of us who reject ISIS (i.e. almost every Muslim) don't do it because we are less literalist than ISIS, but because we don't believe such a literalist premise leads to what ISIS is doing. Your assertion that we are "reinterpreting", while presumably ISIS isn't, is an entirely arbitrary distinction.
I'm not meaning to argue, Futuwwa, but this part I don't understand - and it's not the first time I've heard this. Between the Quran,the Hadiths, and the compilation of Sharia rulings in "The Reliance of the Traveller", it looked to me that there is no mistaking that killing people for adultery, blasphemy, apostasy, and even witchcraft is justified by scripture. As appalling as cutting the heads of of people on TV by ISIS was, their actions seem to draw from verses in the Quran directly if read literally. And let's not even get started with the captured sex slaves.
Are you suggesting that these things are not okayed by scripture, or are you saying that they should be interpreted without taking them quite so literally?
Give it a rest with your 'white mans burden' rhetoric. Don't like the answers your getting? Leave.
And do try to be more original with the questions you ask. Your little different to previous atheists that infest this forum from time to time, but like I said earlier, internet atheists are predictable, you've met one you've met them all.
I specifically answered the same message that you pointed out and accepted that answer as the most popular one.
I guess you didn't pay attention
I'll leave when I feel like it not when you decide it's time.
Who made you the police of the forum by the way ?
My questions are not meant to be original but to satisfy a PERSONAL INTRIGUE.
So you hate atheists that question your beliefs ?
What are you afraid of ?
If it make you feel more comfortable I'm not here to question your religion or any other.
Unlike you I don't prejudge people or groups ("you've met one you've met them all").
The reason I'm here is not to question your religion but the actions of the people that practice the religion when those actions affect the world that I live.
Don't take personal, is not your fault that 19 hijackers destroyed two buildings in the city that I live.
It's not your fault that every building of relative importance is surrounded by protection pillars to protect them from Islamists terrorists.
You don't have to feel ashamed if sometimes I ask a question that involves the religion you practice.
No need to be defensive, you don't have to answer my questions nor reading my threads.
Yes, I'm assuming something is wrong.The question is, what is wrong?
Can you answer the question and stop policing my grammar.
Rephrase the question to your own liking.
Let me help you with some options.
How come Muslims Countries do so bad when they get the privilege to have Allah as their guide?
or, can you name the problems that impede Muslims countries from fully develop?
Can you now answer the question?
Alrighty then.
First of all, as you said, there are 50-something countries in the world with a Muslim majority. Countries in a band stretching from West Africa to Indonesia. Countries that are vastly different and have no common denominator apart from Islam. Countries that are vastly different in development level, and rate of development, disproving any notion of universal Islamic backwardness. No, I don't have any watertight grand unified Theory of Everything on why some societies manage to develop faster and farther than others. Neither do you, for if you did, you'd be the greatest sociologist of all time.
Some specific causes though.
Some are postcolonial states that suffer from all the usual problems of postcolonial states of any religious demographic composition: Artificial states, inherited colonial-era institutions created to serve the colonial overlord.
Those that have developed (and there are many) have often suffered from the growth pains of doing so. The socioeconomic changes brought by developing from pre-industrial to industrial cause all kinds of social tension. Just try to count how many Middle Eastern monarchies fell during last century! Europe went through much the same process during the 1800s, and the carnage was immense. The social tension caused by labour-capital relations in European indusrial society gave rise to Communism, which set the world on fire. Europe, though, went through that process at a time when it was already at the height of its relative power, and could relieve the social tension by letting its poor and destitute colonize the rest of the world. Currently developing countries don't have that advantage, but must instead often contend with simultaneously being the playgrounds of the geopolitical games of the powerful. Thus, development is fragile and always risks bringing about its own end.
Just two things from the top of my head, it's getting late over here.
For that matter, what does "fully developed" mean? How is that even a relevant concept? Development is a constant process, there is no end goal to it, no end of history. Two hundred years from now, every single country that exists today will look abysmally backwards to the denizens of whatever countries are the most developed then.
Who cares about some degree or fact women can outbeat men in education, if it was based on that all prophets peace be upon them would have being female. All leaderships since the creation of humans would have being female and Allah (Subhanahuu Wa Talaa) would have said women are the protectors and maintainers of men and that the husband must obey his wife and had he commanded any creation to prostrate to anyone he would have commanded the husband to prostrate to his wife. Allah (Subhanahuu Wa Talaa) would have easily said that. He would also say that the wife pays mahir to the husband and the husband can decide how much money he wants for marriage and Allah would have said the husband have full custody of the children and that the paradise is underneath the feet of the father. Allah would have also said that the wife must be good to her husband (which by the way applies regardless of the gender role switch ) and and and..and also the husband must protect his wife's wealth and the husband does not have to pay any means to the wife and the husband cannot leave the house without the permission of his wife and and.....
But Allah did not. Did he? Show me anywhere that he did. Proof that he did. Having a good degree does not negate that the leader belongs to the man, he is the head of the household and that the wife obeys her husband. If you are going to use the logic of education based on how good you do in university and highschool..let me assure you that children can outsmart their parents....and some children are smarter, more articulate than their parents and they have better education than their parents and they EVEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN SMARTER THAN THEIR PARENTS..does that mean the parents must obey the children and the children are the head of the household? Your argument and your scientific study proves nothing and in fact it shows why your country is going to flames.
Atheist are also the lower level of hellfire.
The above sentence completely removes any credibility to whatever you are going to say next. You are like that ostrich who wish to hide her head inside the whole of a ground. I do not care what you say at that point from going on..you lost in my opinion value to what you are going to say. Unless your word is shahada and you entered Islam and you are studying Islam..anything that comes out of your mouth to me is hot hair and I do not care period what you say next.
As for calling me sexist or whatever...I assure you that Allah have zero tolerance to sexism, racism, etc. But what I said above and you being the ultra troll that you are, is because my point of view toward gender role and gender difference goes against your inner nature all together , is why you will put me under your eyes as sexist pig. I do not care what some disbeliever calls me or labels me. My faith is in Allah (Subhanahu Wa Talaa) and it is strong and I know that Allah (Subhanahu Wa Talaa) have already told us that there is gender roles and there are differences in them and I believe in Allah and I obey him and I don't believe IN YOU OR OBEY YOU. So I said you can call me sexist as much as you want, but it will not change reality or change the ruling. There is gender difference and whether you love it or hate or whether you think women are superior over men because of her education level it makes no difference to me. I have proof that men have higher degree over women and that proof is sufficient by the fact that Allah have send all prophets to be males and not females and Allah himself said so in Qura'an. I ASSURE YOU THAT THERE COULD BE ONE OF THE SMARTEST HUMANS ON EARTH TO BE A a woman...it still makes no difference.....she could be so smart that she could bend metal by her mental power and she could talk 80,000 words a minute when she was 5 month old...in Islam she still have to obey her husband and he have a higher degree over her. That is it! Discussion closed.
Anything else you wish to discuss?
Hate it! Bite on your finger! BITE IT HARD! MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT AND IN THE END MEN PLAY IMPORTANT ROLE THAT ONLY THEY CAN PLAY IT! As much as you hate the fact we need men to play that role..but we need men to play that role (only he can play that role) ...you know why we need MEN to play that role..BECAUSE Allah (Subhanahu Wa talaa) himself will make it that you need men to play that role and women will fail in playing that role. Even if you insult Allah and you put your middle finger on him and you hit your head on the frying pan but Allah will make sure humanity will need men to play that role. And whether you like it or not...society will need men as leaders..hate it..pull your eyes from your socket..do whatever you want....men will always lead.
By the way....IN AMERICA THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE DONALD TRUMP LEAD OVER HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE SHE IS A FEMALE!!! AHAHAHAHAH EVEN YOU GUYS...NON-MUSLIM PICK AND CHOOSE a male to lead a country and you even mock your female sex to say she is not fit to lead.
In Islam we do not mock the sexes we respect their roles and we understand the difference between them and give them their roles based on their nature. The non-Muslims who work had to pervert the ying and the yang is in my opinion a fool and deserve what they get.
Instead of coming here wasting your time and our time..why don't you form a rally and help your men and boys who are in deep crisis. A nation that disrespect masculinity and the role it gives is a nation that I have no respect to or care to listen to what it says.
Last edited by xboxisdead; 08-31-2018 at 02:21 AM.
And the OP is right in assuming there must be something wrong with Muslims for not having the true Islamic systems in their countries. Who can be more responsible of the condition of a country other than it's people? If the muslim people of that country are not following and applying the true teachings of Islam to rule but following and applying a corrupt version of the religion that is dictated by some group who hld the power what would you expect other than corruption?
But you must admit that even though the people are not in a finiancially better position due to the corruption of their shill leaders who are hostages to usurers (despite their countries bringing forth abundant resources which are depleted via usury, corruption, and conutinuous patching up due to wars which feed america's military business and the rothschilds' usury business) the Muslims are generally in a much better position in terms of decency and uprightness, and bringing their children up to be just and upright in contrast to their non-Muslim counterparts who are mostly dupes of the satanic media machine who are almost (sometimes even more) corrupt than their leaders.
I mean - that Donald Trump was elected by Americans is a testimony to the corruption and stupidity of America - which is usually held up as an example of progress by capitalist money worshippers.
In terms of maturity in biological evolution - future Muslims are set to take up the human banner whilst the corrupt non-Muslims devolve into serpents - as long as we hold fast to the guidance of the Most Wise Creator of the heavens and of the earth Who knows the past, the present, and the future - and as we leave this earth (as everybody inevitably does ) we leave with our souls in tact - not facing the retribution for the evil that kufr earns against itself.
As appalling as cutting the heads of of people on TV by ISIS
Maybe they got that from Abu Gharib.
So your basically saying that your going to reinterpret something and that is going to stop ISIS? Just like re reading of Marxism was going to stop the violence of the Bolsheviks, or the french revolutionaries were just waiting for someone to tell them that didn't need to guillotine so many people - Or the Iraq war could have easily been stopped if the TV stopped lying - what planet do you live on????? pure robotic reductionist at its best.
Dont forget the Muslims living all Over the world that are not ISIS like the 2 billion Christians who are not alt righter or KKK members or the atheists that are not murderous Bolsheviks.
Heres a better alternative - 1 - dont invade foreign countries 2 - Dont make things worse by selling weapons to every Tom, dick and Abdul 3 - not everything can be reduced one switch just maybe there are on the ground factors and contextual realities that makes things like KKK members and Isis and your favorite murderous secular atheists like political, economic and social problems and people look for quick fixes and demagogues are happy to help and presto you have Isis, Bolsheviks and KKK members. Maybe Trump fits with these guys as well.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
I posted to Helpdesk 4 days ago and have not yet gotten a response. Another example of what is wrong with Muslims.
I’d like you to take a chill pill and relax. I haven’t yet looked at the issue at the help desk because I’ve been a bit occupied. I’ve said I’ll respond to you and I will.
And verily for everything that a slave loses there is a substitute, but the one who loses Allah will never find anything to replace Him.” [Related by Ibn al-Qayyim in ad-Dâ' wad-Dawâ Fasl 49]
For that matter, what does "fully developed" mean? How is that even a relevant concept? Development is a constant process, there is no end goal to it, no end of history. Two hundred years from now, every single country that exists today will look abysmally backwards to the denizens of whatever countries are the most developed then.
We don't need to be too precise here. In general I would consider a country fully developed when certain achievements have been met:
The infrastructure covers most of the country. That means most ot the country is covered with paved roads. Most houses are constructed to a certain standard. Most houses have access to water, electricity and sewer system.
Education is available to most people.
There is an adequate coverage of health insurance for the population.
Most people earn enough money to stay above the poverty line.
The poverty line is one of the most telling indicators that a country has achieved full development.
Qatar is a very rich country but 60 % of the population are poor immigrant workers, that is not a fully developed country to me.
On the other hand most European countries are fully developed, you won't find shanty towns easily on them.
As you said, the standard of living can change and in the near future the indicators to determine what is a fully developed country might change but we deal with the future when the future comes.
Development is a constant process, there is no end goal to it, no end of history. Two hundred years from now, every single country that exists today will look abysmally backwards to the denizens of whatever countries are the most developed then.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Consider the changes in Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire. I think this most closely matches what we should expect for the West in the next 200 years.
Yes, I'm assuming something is wrong.The question is, what is wrong?
Can you answer the question and stop policing my grammar.
Rephrase the question to your own liking.
Let me help you with some options.
How come Muslims Countries do so bad when they get the privilege to have Allah as their guide?
or, can you name the problems that impede Muslims countries from fully develop?
Can you now answer the question?
oops i like your post by accident, for the record, i didnt much like your post...
but while i am here....there are no 'Muslim' countries...Allaha is at war with all countries as we speak, All Muslims are prohibited for consuming usury, and the Quran clearly states He will wage war against all that consume usury, Muslims included...
You have to look at the world in general to understand this problem with 'Muslims'
Not with you, not unless you learn the meaning of "discussion".
Not unless you learn IQ is not a measure of your education but a measure of your "INTELLIGENCE"
Not unless you admit that you're wrong and women and men have pretty much the same IQ level.
Men are physically stronger, no doubt about that but that doesn't make them more intelligent.
Are you strong enough to admit when you're wrong ?
Why don't you show us then.
This means to me that your own moral values are in conflict with what's commanded by the books - something I find encouraging.
Get ready to become discouraged, because we agree with every single law in the Quran and Sunnah.
format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter
Oh from the religious books .. I thought you were referring to history books.
They are history books you idiot.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Who is everyone? America?, the Western countries? or the whole non-Islamic world?
"It's up to you guys": Again, I had nothing to do with it.
Let me understand, attacking any Muslim Country is like attacking your own country? Is that what you're saying?
Using the same logic, when members of the Muslim Countries (ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, etc), attack non-Muslims or other countries then you should stand up and take responsibility for the atrocities committed by your own people.
Do not tell me they are not real Muslims just because they don't act like you would.
They pray 5 times a day, memorize the Quran and follow it even more in depth than you'll ever do.
I truly believe that most Muslims don't think like you do (hopefully) and I don't blame them for the actions of a few extremists but you cannot use double standards and accuse others for the very same think that you do yourself.
Islam originated around Mecca and expanded around the world by invading other countries and not by sharing religious flyers.
The allies went after Van Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and they left after they finished their mission, they didn't attempt to conquer those countries. I'm not saying that I agree with their actions but those are the facts.
Palestine was never a country by the way and Israel could have easily kept all the territory gained after the 6 day war but they didn't, they just want to have a piece of land for themselves and I understand it.
Everyone is just as it sounds, everyone. Even so called "Muslim" countries consider it okay to attack people just for being religious. It's not right.
You guys are the ones who vote for your leaders, so it has everything to do with you. The solution to point number 3 is simple, vote for leaders who don't want to wage war against us.
Yes, you attack one of us you have attacked all of us. Have you learnt anything from history?
We have spoken out against what those groups do dozens of times, but many of you are deaf, dumb and blind so no matter what we do, you won't notice it.
Many of them aren't religious, this myth has been disproved numerous times. Stop barking without knowing the facts. I'll recommend this playlist to get you started on your journey of getting an education:
For well over a decade the early Muslims did not engage in warfare. Do you know what happened? We were oppressed by, so Allah Azza Wa Jal gave us permission to fight our enemies, and we defeated them. Ever since then, we engaged in empire tactics as was the standard of that time. Many times our enemies had attacked us first, but other times we had attacked them first. That was the way things were back then, if you didn't conquer, you got conquered. You cannot compare that time to our time, because now we have organisations like the UN, and the default state of all nations is to be at peace, not war.
Who supported Bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in the first place? It was the US and her allies. You're only proving my point. Not only that, but when you fought against them, you massacred our people.
Country or not, Israel has no right to exist because most of it's people are not native to the area, and it actively oppresses the native population (the Palestinians). If you want the Jews to have their own country, allot them some land from your own territory, not ours.
Israel gave back most of the land they took after the Six Day War because they knew they couldn't hold onto it. The military pressure applied in 1973 is what made them cave in and hand over what was at the time more than half of Israel's land mass.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks