Islam will dominate!

[*Anne*]

*hugs Lava*

Hopefully none of my "Westerness" will rub off on you.

 

[Moonstone]

Would a world dominated by Islam make the world a better place? Would it make people any better? The only thing the dominance of one group/religion can lead to is tyranny and dictatorship. I think that imposing a theocratic system upon people will only make things worse. Instead we should live in harmony, harmony, ohhh love

amen.

 

[dogsgod]

Islam and Christianity is free from this oppression and mischief. Secularisim oppression and mischief is in-shrined in its morden constitutions.

Secular means religiously neutral, as in secular laws that apply to all regardless of religion, or ethnicity. A secular Constitution is one that by being religiously neutral allows for all religions to thrive equally without discrimination. Secular is the best thing that ever happened to the religious, and judging by your post, you don't even understand this.

 

[dust1n]

Islam and Christianity is free from this oppression and mischief. Secularisim oppression and mischief is in-shrined in its morden constitutions.

:biglaugh:

Seriously though, there isn't a emoticon to capture how hard I just laughed reading that.

 

[ThirdEyeOpen]

So the spreading of other religions is threating? Really? You really have to take a look at religion from all sides, not just from your religions perspective. Now i know this might take some critical thinking and yes maybe some questioning of your own religion. Why is the spread of Islam or secularism so threating when to them you are just as threating? Are you afraid of losing your religions popularity to another? If so than isnt that a little arogant on your behalf?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Secularisim oppression and mischief is in-shrined in its morden constitutions.

How would a secular system be mischievous and oppressive? Obviously if America were to become Christian or Islam, many people would be oppressed as Christian/Islam laws were established. This would even cause problems for followers of that faith as the laws of another denomination are passed. If America became a Catholic nation, many other denominations would very upset as the nation would begin to pray to Mary. But because America is secular, we are all able to freely practice religion without government interference. Even violent radical groups are here and broadcasting.

 

[xkatz]

Islam and Christianity is free from this oppression and mischief. Secularisim oppression and mischief is in-shrined in its morden constitutions.

What about the other religions...?

 

[Fatihah]

Va Alaykum Salaam

nice explanation but it makes no sense to me. it is not practical. if you get married with a non-Muslim, i think first you should be friends. two persons have to know each other to make that decision.

i thought about something that Fatihah said earlier. if i am not mistaken it was like we are commanded to show respect to non-Muslims. i agree with that. but i find it extremely cold in practice. showing respect but being no friends. i certainly don't know how you or he define friendship. i have friends but not all of them stand at the same distance to me. some are closer. if we share same life style then it is of course easier. so there are different levels of friendship. i have friends who drink alcohol for instance but you could not see me with them when they do. i refuse to talk to people if they drank alcohol and i would not sit with them. so even if i have friends who do things that's against Islam that's not to say i would join them and do the same. generalizing all non-Muslims and Muslims is wrong IMO. but if some army invaded your nation like Iraq, of course you would not make any friends with them. i would not. i would not care if they were good or bad. because they all serve the same thing that ruins my nation. but in a peaceful place and in peaceful time, people should offer respect and love together. respect without love does not mean much. because what unites heart of people is love. if Muslims deny this unique connection with human being because they are not Muslims, i don't think they would be representing Islam as Sahaba did. because people of Sahaba loved their enemies and Qur'an says so. don't you know that?

.

Response: The issue you have is your definition of "friend". Most would regard a friend as someone very close to them. That they share a very intimate bond with that person and are very devoted to each other. But whatever the definition you use, the point is that muslims are not to build a very close and intimate relationship with non-muslims. Whether you call such a bond a friend or not is besides the point. Call such a relationship whatever you want. As long as you don't build such a relationship, for it is forbidden in islam. Show kindnees, compassion, consideration, and whatever synonymous word above which you can think of to non-muslims. But in islam, it is forbidden to build a very close and intimate relationship with a non-muslim.

 

[dust1n]

My favorite oppressive and mischievous secular actions were the nine Crusades that took place hundreds of years because secularism was even thought of.

Another crazy secular action is how it was punishable by death to claim you were an atheist in Europe well into the 1800s.


Crazy secularists led humankind into the Dark Ages for a couple of century.

Now.. the Christian/Muslim 'Enlightenment'.. but time all that religious dogma and fervor was able to overcome all the superstition of secularism at the time and establish science and constructive thinking.

 

[dust1n]

Here's my favorite!

Reverend Father: The following is in obedience to the orders I received from your reverence to lay before you the most effectual means for delivering Jesus and His company from their enemies.

I believe there may be remaining at the time in the kingdom not more than five hundred thousand Huguenots; some say a million, others a million and a half.; but let the number be what it will, the following is my advice, which, however, as in duty bound, I submit with all humility to your reverence's judgment.

In the first place, then, it will be very easy to seize in one day all the preachers, and to hang them all at one time and in one place, which will be not only a very edifying, but also a very entertaining exhibition to the people.

Secondly, I would have all the fathers and mothers who are heretics murdered in their beds, because the killing of them in the streets might occasion some little disturbance; besides, bu that means, several of them might escape, which is above all to be prevented. This execution is a necessary corollary of our principles; for if we ought to kill a heretic, as so many of our great divines have incontestably proved, it is evident that we ought to kill them all without exception.

Thirdly, I would, the very next day, marry all the daughters to good Catholics, inasmuch as it would not be politic to depopulate the state so much after the late war; but as for the boys of fourteen and fifteen years of age, who have already imbibed bad principles, which we cannot hope to root out, 'tis my opinion that they should all be castrated to prevent the race from ever being reproduced. As for the other younger lads, they may be brought up in our colleges, where they may be whipped till they have learned by heart the works of Sanchez and Molinos.

Fourthly, I think under correction, the same method ought to be taken with all the Lutherans of Alsace, for I remember, in the year 1704, to have seen two old women of that country laugh on the day of our defeat at Blenheim.

Fifthly, What relates to the Jansenists will perhaps appear a little more difficult. I believe their numbers may amount to about six millions, a little more or less; but this ought not to give any alarm to a person of your reverence's disposition. I reckon among the Jansenists all the parliaments who have so unworthily maintained the liberties of the Gallican church. I leave it to your reverence to weigh with your usual prudence the most effectual methods for reducing these turbulent spirits. The Gunpowder Plot failed of the desired success through the weakness of one of the conspirators, who wanted to save the life of his friend; but, as you reverence has no friend, the same inconvenience is not to be apprehended. You may very easily blow up all the parliaments in the kingdom with the composition called Pulvis Pyrius, invented by the monk Schwarz. By my calculation it will require upon an average thirty-six barrels of powder for each of the parliaments; now, if we multiple thirty-six, the number of barrels, by twelve, the numbers of parliaments, it will make four hundred and thirty-two barrels, which, at a hundred crowns per barrel, will amount to not quite a hundred and thirty thousand lives-- a mere trifle for the reverend father-general.

The parliaments thus disposed of, you may bestow their their places upon your congregationists, who are perfectly well versed in the laws of the realm.

Sixthly, It will be a very easy matter to poison the Cardinal de Noailles, who is a very simple, unsuspecting man.

...

After all, we shall have nothing to reproach ourselves with, since it is proved that the Reformed, as they call themselves, and the Jansenists, have all of them their portion in hell; therefore, we only put them in possession of their inheritance a little sooner.

It is as evident that heaven belongs of right to the Molinists; therefore by destroying them by mistake, and without any evil intention, we hasten their happiness; and are both cases the ministers of Providence.

As to those who may be a little shocked at the number to be thus made away with, your reverence may remark to them that from the first flourishing days of the church to the year 1707-- that is to say, in about fourteen hundred years-- religion has occasioned the massacre of upwards of fifty millions of persons; whereas by my proposal not above six millions and a half will be put to death by the halter, the dagger, or poison.

...

I am, with the most profound respect, reverend father, your reverence's most humble, most devout, and most humane

R--------,
Native of Angouleme,
Perfect of the Congregation.

Damn secularists always slaughtering their own sections of people by the millions!

 

[Octavia156]

[youtube]6LWTxAkkWSc[/youtube]
YouTube - Pat Condell - No Mosque at Ground Zero

 

[.lava]

Response: The issue you have is your definition of "friend". Most would regard a friend as someone very close to them. That they share a very intimate bond with that person and are very devoted to each other. But whatever the definition you use, the point is that muslims are not to build a very close and intimate relationship with non-muslims. Whether you call such a bond a friend or not is besides the point. Call such a relationship whatever you want. As long as you don't build such a relationship, for it is forbidden in islam. Show kindnees, compassion, consideration, and whatever synonymous word above which you can think of to non-muslims. But in islam, it is forbidden to build a very close and intimate relationship with a non-muslim.

i am trying to understand what you mean and what you understand from this word "friend". it is confusing to me because you say people would be devoted to each other. to me devotion is a different issue. if friendship required devotion, then i could make one friend only, not two or more. one could be devoted to his path, to his Rab, to his wife, to his best friend, to his teacher...etc. but being devoted to all of your friends, i really don't know what you mean by that. i also don't know how to show kindness, compassion...etc if i did not feel love for people. at least it is much more easier to show those manners when you love people. if not, you're pretending and people would know when you pretend and that kind of kindness is no better than kindness of sellsmen

.

 

[Fatihah]

i am trying to understand what you mean and what you understand from this word "friend". it is confusing to me because you say people would be devoted to each other. to me devotion is a different issue. if friendship required devotion, then i could make one friend only, not two or more. one could be devoted to his path, to his Rab, to his wife, to his best friend, to his teacher...etc. but being devoted to all of your friends, i really don't know what you mean by that. i also don't know how to show kindness, compassion...etc if i did not feel love for people. at least it is much more easier to show those manners when you love people. if not, you're pretending and people would know when you pretend and that kind of kindness is no better than kindness of sellsmen

.

Response: Again, the issue is not the word "friend". If you like to call non-muslims friends, that's fine. I do myself. The point is that in islam, it is not permissible to have a very close an intimate relationship with a non-muslim. In other words, you should not love a non-muslim in the manner a mother loves her child. Be kind. Be compassionate. Be considerate, etc., but not on the same level and devotion as a mother to a child, brother and sister, husband and wife, etc. Such a relationship in islam is not permissible, because one is showing a great deal of affection to a person who shows absolutely no love and appreciation to the one who created them, Allah (swt). Such a relationship is disrespectful to Allah. It would be as if my mother helped a woman when she was in need, provided and cared for her, yet this woman never shows love and appreciation to my mother, and I turn around and marry her. Surely, my mother would feel disrespected by me, and if I truly loved my mother dearly, I could not possibly love a woman who would not appreciate her. This is the case when creating a very close and intimate relationship with a non-muslim. Again, be loving, kind, considerare, etc. But to a ceratin degree, out of love and appreciation for Allah(swt).

 

[maro]

Originally Posted by maro
The masses were touched by the fire of tyranny and colonialism....not secularism

Secularism is not a problem as long as it's not forced on muslims..and islam is not a problem as long as it's not forced on non muslims....both ,secularism and the islamic regime should be a reflection of the people's will and free choice.
Hey Maro, Did you delete your post addressed to me in regards to the hatred and enmity displayed on muslims in the Quran?

Did you delete it because I am sure I read it. Why back peddling? Scared that I would discredit you? __________________

Hey Maro, Did you delete your post addressed to me in regards to the hatred and enmity displayed on muslims in the Quran?

Did you delete it because I am sure I read it. Why back peddling? Scared that I would discredit you?

I have deleted it because i remembered the verse ,alhamdulillah...and nothing scares me but Allah....so ,why don't you answer the part that was not deleted instead of addressing what i have deleted ?!!

I believe secularism is not a problem as long as it reflects people's will...do you agree ? and how do you think the the islamic shariah will dominate over non muslims who don't believe in islam ?

Will they convert or it will be forced on them or by some other mechanism ?

Ok. Now you can go back to your choclate factory.

I have no chocolate factory ,dude...why do you think i have one ?!!

 

[maro]

so the same sword should be taken against few muslim majority nations today, isnt it? in malaysia people are not allowed to change their faith, and almost same in pakistan non-muslims are made muslims after torturing severly. After the independence, 15 % of population of pakistan where hindus, now it is only 2%.... what is your opinion? would you mind if some non-islamic country invades these countries to make people free to chose new faith?

If people were truely forced into islam in those countries....and external interference was made for the sole purpose of liberating the oppressed....while abiding by the same rules and ethics that the muslims conquerers abided by during the conquest of north africa...I find this noble and appreciated

however , i have to say that the current colonial western mentality is anything but noble...and the last thing they really care about is who is oppressed and who is not....the truth is ,oppression and supporting it worldwide is their profession

 

[nameless]

If people were truely forced into islam in those countries....and external interference was made for the sole purpose of liberating the oppressed....while abiding by the same rules and ethics that the muslims conquerers abided by during the conquest of north africa...I find this noble and appreciated

yes people lack freedom to chose faiths in these nations. So can i conclude that any non-islamic secular nation has enough rights to conquer Saudi Arabia to free the people over there?

 

[301ouncer]

I know. They don't send me the memos either....

You forgot to scream like a girl when you see the horror of secularisim turning into athisim nightmare:

[youtube]Gqipy2XYUqU[/youtube]
YouTube - The simpsons Ned screams like a girl

Dudly didly dudly didly dudly didly secular.

 

[301ouncer]

Va Alaykum Salaam

nice explanation but it makes no sense to me. it is not practical. if you get married with a non-Muslim, i think first you should be friends. two persons have to know each other to make that decision.

Forget them secular friends. They do a 360 turn and flip and walk away from us. not like we do not want them to be our friends, it is more so them not becoming our friends.

Most secular friends that I ever had all wanted is my destruction. Woman, WMD sex, money, international criminal fraud, the list can go on till you are left to the streets and our homes in ruin.

Their friendships were and are still to this day is all about what benefit they can get out of you. How to use you, etc.

They made my brain numb with their 24/7 nonesense. And they all without exception did not believe in any creator.

So my beloved sister please go ahead and make as many secular and creator denying friends as you like. Just do not cry on my shoulder when things go wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

You sure claim that being secular is a bad thing. I wonder how that can have escaped my perception so utterly so far.

 

[maro]

So can i conclude that any non-islamic secular nation has enough rights to conquer Saudi Arabia to free the people over there?

I wasn't aware that people were forced to be muslims in saudi arabia.

what you can conclude is exactly what i said...which is again...external interference ,abided by ceratin ethics , for the sole purpose of liberating the oppressed is appreciated....even if it was done by a secular country in an islamic country....however ,it is a theoritical idea , because there is no secualr country ,particularly in the west ,that has her hands clean from colonialism and oppression...and thus any claims of liberating the oppressed can't be taken seriously

I think i am clear enough ,nameless....no ?