May you elaborate? I take it you do not mean mathematical regression?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will there ever be a 'Reformation' in Islam?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
That's a comparison you made, not me. I agree that Stalinism and Naziism were examples of totalitarian ideologies. And I would also say that totalitarian ideologies "tend" to work out badly. But we can also just give something like Islam that label without making a value judgment, just as a way to describe it more honestly.
When we - accurately - declare Islam to be a totalitarian ideology, then people can see it for what it is more clearly. It is a lie to dub Islam merely a "religion" - it is much more than that. (Yes I know, Islam has a religious component.) Whenever Islam is called a religion, a distortion of reality is being reinforced. How can anything good come of that?
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Reformation is a generic word.
ISIS is also claiming reformation. But this will be the personality of those who make corruption in the land "Yufsidhoona fil ardha"
Check the beginning of the Quran, Chapter 2:11. “Do not cause corruption in the land” (La thufsidhu fil ardha”. If you read the surrounding verses it goes like this
• There are people who claim to believe in God (Allah = Al-Ilah or The God)
• They seek to deceive God and those who believe
• They have a disease in their hearts
• When they told not to cause “corruption in the land” they say “Nope, we have come as REFORMERS”
• But actually they are the corruptors.
• When they meet a believer they say we believe, but inside their hearts they do not.
• Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/islam-–-religion-of-peace-or-tyranny.185823/#post-4685152
They have a corrupt ideology dictated by Baghdadi and his goons. Their thing is against the Quran, the holy book of the Quran.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/islam-–-religion-of-peace-or-tyranny.185823/#post-4684226
The only solid way to reform is to show not only them, but others too that "Islam" is defined in the Quran. It does not tell you to create doctrine from anything other than that book.
“Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you the Book fully detailed?” Those to whom we have given the Book know it is sent down from your Lord with the truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if you obey most of those on the earth they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess. – Quran 6:114 – 116
And if there are any other information, check it up against the Quran, thats why its called the Furqan, the criterion.
First thing is to establish that.
But if you keep with old fanatical beliefs of any religion, you will stay there. Thats what you are doing by calling it various names like we see in these forums and the internet at large very specially in hate sites.
Rather than doing that, why not try and explore the possibility of the Qurans defiance to the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram?
If you keep calling any religion by hate names, you will only get regression, not mathematical regression, a push to return to a former or less developed state.
You said "The name "Islam" does, after all, mean submission, and the doctrine does explicitly state that all people are expected to be Muslims or else have a good reason not to, so is it even an insult? ".
What many do generally is go online, search for keywords like "Islam Debunked", "Why islam is tyrannical" etc. Then you will get many cherry picked verses if individually quoted they would sound like what you would like to see. Its funny, everyone is happy to see stuff like that. They are happy when an opposing theology is slandered. Well, lets take that as human nature.
But there can be a few intelligent human beings who could make a true analysis in discussion with Muslims.
I was working for a global giant in internet based businesses a year ago. I was recruited as the Country head for their local operation. I did a good job, I mean I worked hard and the local chapter was thriving. We were the leading venture globally. It seems that they had not known I was a Muslim, I was asked to leave. My name is Persian, doesnt really sound Muslim.
My country has 10% Muslims. We dont have discrimination, we live in harmony. This kind of thing is not experienced here. My company was european. The company was later scrutinised and put down by the whole industry due to the incident. They suffered heavily and are still struggling due to boycotting. I didnt instigate any problems for them, the industry, full of all kinds of religions and races discriminated them as a whole. We dont know division like you do.
We are not thought the ideology that thrives in the middle east.
Do you still think that labeling Islam as a whole as cited in the post you spoke of it will have any value?
Rather, why dont you do a deep analysis as a progressive person and when encountered by a fanatical Muslim like the lkes of ISIS, tell the man or woman, 'you are going against your own scripture'!
Peace bro.
Augustus
…
The comparison is intrinsic to the word, which is infused with negative connotations.
Strangely enough, I live in a Muslim majority country and it doesn't seem particularly totalitarian to me. None of my friends seem to follow a totalitarian ideology either. Are you takfir-ing them?
If we look at the Umayyad or Abbasid Caliphates, we wouldn't describe them as being 'totalitarian' either. Were these not Islamic?
You can make a valid case that IS follow a totalitarian ideology, but to say "Islam" is totalitarian, without any form of qualification is simply wrong. There are many different ways to practice Islam after all.
Hey Augustus,
One way to look at totalitarianism is to see how it is in contrast to secularism. Would you agree that many Muslim majority countries would rate very low in terms of how secular they are? Another way is to look at a country's legal system. Any country that uses Sharia - to any degree - is practicing a form of totalitarianism, correct?
One way to look at totalitarianism is to see how it is in contrast to secularism. Would you agree that many Muslim majority countries would rate very low in terms of how secular they are? Another way is to look at a country's legal system. Any country that uses Sharia - to any degree - is practicing a form of totalitarianism, correct?
I guess that is true.
I am happy that you see no reason to agree, but I can't in good faith conclude that Islam is not totalitarian on the weight of your testimonial alone.
Augustus
…
It was my testimonial + 2 of the most important empires in the history of Islam to be fair.
What evidence would you put forward as towards why the Ummayad and Abbassid Caliphates were totalitarian (or alternatively not Islamic)?
What evidence would you put forward that your concept of "Islam" is a) totalitarian and b) is universal enough to justify an unqualified assertion that "Islam is totalitarian".
How do the existence of empires become evidence that their ideology is not totalitarian? Wouldn't it be something of a contradiction?
Do you want me to do some research on why they are called empires and whether they are somehow not totalitarian despite having earned that descriptor? Is that it?
It is really all there for the learning. The concept of dhimmitude, the insistence that all people should be assumed Muslims from birth, the very naming of it as "Submission (to God)".
I can go on about how even the proselitizers end up resorting to quotations from the Quran and other pieces of evidence if you really want, but I suspect you have seen enough of it already.
That said, Islam isn't always totalitarian in practice, obviously... but its core ideology as expressed by the Quran is.
Much like any other theistic religion, Islam is blessed by the results of the compassion and wisdom of its adherents, who often correct and compensate for the mistakes of its doctrine, even without necessarily realizing it or even while feeling guilty for doing it.
Georgia?
firedragon
Veteran Member
I don't believe he's lying. He may be mistaken, but he's being honest about his opinions.
What am I lying about then?
firedragon
Veteran Member
IF a person doesnt provide evidence, nor does he even look at evidence when provided, but keeps accusing with no evidence, he is lying.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...formation-in-islam.138899/page-6#post-4691854
I don't know if English is your first language (not that it isn't excellent!), but lying means knowing something to be false but claiming it as true. If he's saying things without any recourse to evidence one could certainly say it is wilfully blind prejudice, though.
Not that I'm saying it is in this case. I'm just here for the etymology.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah youre right. And English is my first language. I swear and think in English.
Ah, cool - I'd thought otherwise was a possibility as I'm not aware of any Anglophone countries that are 10% Muslim!
Augustus
…
If Islam is totalitarian then Islamic empires should be totalitarian. Or were they not Islamic?
You seem to be implying that there is an objective "true Islam" that exists independently of the practice of Muslims and the governance of Islamic polities.
I want you to offer some evidence as to why people should consider Islam totalitarian.
Which of these empires 'earned the descriptor' totalitarian btw?
I think you are just throwing around the label 'totalitarian' without recourse to its meaning and historical usage.
Given that the powers of an Islamic government would be clearly limited by a codified set of laws that even the leader must adhere to, given that Islam doesn't mandate a centralised economy, given that it doesn't mandate total government control over the mass media, given that it doesn't mandate a comprehensive system of secret police and domestic surveillance, given that it prohibits arbitrary detention and execution, I don't really get the label totalitarian.
There is no comprehensive "core ideology" independent of how people interpret it. Islam is as Muslims do and believe.
You seem to be claiming that you know the "Objective True Islam". If you were making a claim that some fundamentalist interpretations could be described as totalitarian then you might be able to make a reasonable argument in favour. When you don't qualify it though then it seems that you are saying people like Tariq Ramadan don't understand "core Islam", but people like you and IS do.
Islam has constantly evolved throughout its history and requires a large amount of subjective interpretation. There are countless varieties of Islam that are all "Islam".
Is it not a bit arrogant to tell the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not totalitarian that they are basically 'wrong' and don't really follow "core Islam"? I don't get why some people seem to want to insist that the extremists have it right, and the rest of them are not really 'proper' Muslims.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well, if you consider my mothers language, its not English Kirran. Just that many of us are educated in English and we speak English better than any other language. But I do speak 4 languages as fluently.
Nevertheless, mine could be much better if I have your vocabulary. I can really use it too.
And of course, a little bit of your mature humility.
Well, if you consider my mothers language, its not English Kirran. Just that many of us are educated in English and we speak English better than any other language. But I do speak 4 languages as fluently.
Nevertheless, mine could be much better if I have your vocabulary. I can really use it too.
Yeah, I know! My father was born in Argentina
4, impressive. Swaziland or somewhere?
Ha! I don't know if the last is sarcasm
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah, I know! My father was born in Argentina
Swaziland or somewhere?
Ha! I don't know if the last is sarcasm
No way, it was not sarcasm. Itr true mate. Many things to learn from you.