What's new

How do you reconcile the contradiction between liberal left principles and Islamic beliefs?

Slog

Senior Test Player
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Runs
28,984
Post of the Week
1
This is a question which does interest me especially in relation to Muslims living in the west as we have many here on PP.

It's common knowledge that most Pakistani descent westerners and Muslims in the west tend to flock towards the liberal left parties rather the western parties. For eg in the US it's the democrat party, in UK it tends to be the Labor Party and in Canada it's the party of Justin Trudeau (dunno the name). It's similar in most of Europe as well if you have a cursory look.

Now many Muslims in the west who do tend to be religious support these parties on the left. However liberal left parties stand for homosexual rights, lgbtq pride, abortion and many others all of which are against Islamic principles in varying degrees.

So how do you reconcile your support for these non Islamic principles but still identify as Muslim and funnily enough sometimes vote as a Muslim bloc?
 
[MENTION=138379]#GreenRoars[/MENTION], can you please change difference to 'contradicition' in the thread title
 
From my observations, Muslims would mainly vote for the Liberal/leftist parties solely due to the fact that they would endorse immigration, multi-culturalism and that they wouldn't scapegoat/vilify the Muslim population whereas the Conservative/right-wing parties would do the exact opposite.

Go figures why Muslims would vote for Liberals, because under their government they would be safer, protected, not vilified and picked-on and face lesser discrimination. But it is also true, that majority of these Muslims would be voting for a more conservative party if it was back home rather than a liberal one.
 
Pakistanis or any other muslims become secular when they live in west as it suits them but become islamists in their own country.
Have a poll in pakistan, ask everyone if pakistan should become a secular country or stay islamic country and most if not all will say it should stay islamic, but if you have poll among pakistanis living abroad if the western home country should stay secular or become christian then they will vote for secularism.
 
Pakistanis or any other muslims become secular when they live in west as it suits them but become islamists in their own country.
Have a poll in pakistan, ask everyone if pakistan should become a secular country or stay islamic country and most if not all will say it should stay islamic, but if you have poll among pakistanis living abroad if the western home country should stay secular or become christian then they will vote for secularism.

But religious Islamic parties never get more than 5% of the vote in Pakistan. I think 2002 was highest in history when they got 8-9% of total vote and formed govt in one provide
 
Now many Muslims in the west who do tend to be religious support these parties on the left. However liberal left parties stand for homosexual rights, lgbtq pride, abortion and many others all of which are against Islamic principles in varying degrees.

Muslims head West to economically better themselves at the expense of any religious beliefs they might have - as those aren't really compatible with modern Western society in any case. Still doesn't stop them from being outwardly religious, but that is simply a case of empty vessels doing their thing.

Take a look at [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] for instance. Seldom does a day pass when he doesn't foam at the mouth about atrocities occurring in Myanmar, Palestine, France or Gujarat but when push comes to shove he prefers to remain tightly tethered to his residence in the 'war-mongering' United Kingdom and all the benefits the state dishes out to him and others like him for little in return.

Currency is the biggest mover and shaker in their lives, but the faux-outrage and anguish is needed as a token gesture to appease society back home I suppose.

Besides - and I haven't lived in the UK - the Conservative Party seems to make some daft moves from time to time. Labour isn't much better, but perhaps they are less worse?
 
[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION], what is your opinion?
 
Ofcourse there are many Muslims who keep religion to themselves or are not very religious. My focus is on vast numbers esp in Uk and Canada, who are very religious, make it their mission to display their religiosity and base their every day decisions through lens of religion. But when time comes for voting they turn everything on its head and support liberal left entities which stand for many things against Islamic beliefs
 
But religious Islamic parties never get more than 5% of the vote in Pakistan. I think 2002 was highest in history when they got 8-9% of total vote and formed govt in one provide

Islamic parties not getting more than 5% votes is due to a different reason.

Its hard to break into a political game and secure majority votes. A vote to a party which can't win is like a vote to a party you oppose (cos you are essentially weakening its main competitor). So people won't vote for parties that have little chance to win.

Politics is a different beast.
 
Pakistanis or any other muslims become secular when they live in west as it suits them but become islamists in their own country.
Have a poll in pakistan, ask everyone if pakistan should become a secular country or stay islamic country and most if not all will say it should stay islamic, but if you have poll among pakistanis living abroad if the western home country should stay secular or become christian then they will vote for secularism.

2+2≠5:amla
 
But religious Islamic parties never get more than 5% of the vote in Pakistan. I think 2002 was highest in history when they got 8-9% of total vote and formed govt in one provide

True, but i am not talking about islamic parties like Maula Fazalur Rehman type peoples party. They are too far right. Every party in pakistan has islamic angle to it and no one way or another they all are islamic nationalist parties.

But still my argument was about the secular vs religious system instead of parties.

Ideology of republican party suits most of the people of conservative countries but their beliefs about religion , color and migrants like themselves pushes them away.
 
Its instinct, people will naturally go for the environment that best suits them or proves most advantageous for them given the circumstances. In this case one group of people will vote for the person that they see will be most advantageous for them even if it may or may not be at the cost of another group of people.

For example,majority of middle-class white folks that run/own business in the US usually vote for the Republicans because they will provide incentives, tax-cuts and any other laws that would be beneficial to them (also they all seem to think Republicans are good for the economy). But also at the same time, Republican candidates this past decade have always been hating on Muslims or never missing an opportunity to vilify them. Now are these business owners racist for voting for Republicans? Not exactly (some could be), they just don't care because it doesn't necessarily effect them, they would rather vote for the Republican because its good for the business and they think they will save/make more money. Whichever is most advantageous for them.
 
Ofcourse there are many Muslims who keep religion to themselves or are not very religious. My focus is on vast numbers esp in Uk and Canada, who are very religious, make it their mission to display their religiosity and base their every day decisions through lens of religion. But when time comes for voting they turn everything on its head and support liberal left entities which stand for many things against Islamic beliefs

Who do you suggest they vote for, if they do head to the ballot with a religious lens as well? Neither the Conservative or Republican party ties to their beliefs - so they're understandably stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 
problem with Pakistani ppl is
We don't know much about our religion other than offering prayers & reciting Quran once in a while (95% people don't know the meaning though of Quran or Prayers )
Religion is NOT part of our daily life in our homes (other than reciting Quran & offering Prayer)
BUT we want to act religious outside our homes infront of each other.
According to most Pakistanis, muslims of other countries don't have much knowledge of Islam
 
Who do you suggest they vote for, if they do head to the ballot with a religious lens as well? Neither the Conservative or Republican party ties to their beliefs - so they're understandably stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I would say the Republican Party ties in more to their beliefs if we just look at principles. Ofcourse the issue is that many republican officials tend to be a bit racist in this aspect and the party is not the most accepting of people of color.
 
I would say the Republican Party ties in more to their beliefs if we just look at principles. Ofcourse the issue is that many republican officials tend to be a bit racist in this aspect and the party is not the most accepting of people of color.

Absolutely. Muslims should vote for the Republican party en masse. If they are racist as is claimed, this will be a fantastic tactic to cause adequate confusion within their ranks and craft a votebank for them that they'll attempt to appease in future. A sloth like Trump wouldn't know what hit him.

If they act like sheep and vote for Hilary Clinton, they're only helping solidify the battle lines and are ripe for the taking, if you like.
 
Absolutely. Muslims should vote for the Republican party en masse. If they are racist as is claimed, this will be a fantastic tactic to cause adequate confusion within their ranks and craft a votebank for them that they'll attempt to appease in future. A sloth like Trump wouldn't know what hit him.

If they act like sheep and vote for Hilary Clinton, they're only helping solidify the battle lines and are ripe for the taking, if you like.
Yes for eg in Florida the Republican Party puts in a lot of effort to win Cuban Americans because they form an adequate vote bank and all their supposed racism reg Hispanics goes out of the window due to that.
 
Yes for eg in Florida the Republican Party puts in a lot of effort to win Cuban Americans because they form an adequate vote bank and all their supposed racism reg Hispanics goes out of the window due to that.

Yep. Besides, picking Hilary Clinton as premiere will be voting for Rahul Gandhi - scratch that - Sonia Gandhi as Primer Minister out here. There's nothing new she would bring to the table, and Trump ain't going nowhere - he'll win the next elections after yet another disappointing term by the establishment player.

Better vote for him sooner rather than later and see what he's got.
 
What are liberal left principles? I think these terms are thrown around too casually considering the politics involved.
 
Yep. Besides, picking Hilary Clinton as premiere will be voting for Rahul Gandhi - scratch that - Sonia Gandhi as Primer Minister out here. There's nothing new she would bring to the table, and Trump ain't going nowhere - he'll win the next elections after yet another disappointing term by the establishment player.

Better vote for him sooner rather than later and see what he's got.

Nah trump is a one election phenomenon.

Unless he wins I think this will be end of Republican Party as we know it
 
What are liberal left principles? I think these terms are thrown around too casually considering the politics involved.

Some principles such as welfare and healthcare provision are in line with Islamic beliefs

But liberal principles also support equality of same - sex marriage, lgbtq rights, right to abortion, right to euthanasia, seperation of church and state, belief in theory of evolution, embryonic and cell stem research, abolishment of death penalty. These are all beliefs which are in contradicition with Islamic
Teachings to varying extents
 
In my observations most don't vote especially the younger generation.
 
You respect the laws of the country that you are residing in and thus, even though we may not agree with all of their laws, you have ro respect them.

LGBTQ rights are a part of every party's platform, at least in Canada. Putting that aside, the Liberals have been very pro-Islam which is great to see, Alhamdulillah, and the reason that they get the Muslim vote.
 
I would say the Republican Party ties in more to their beliefs if we just look at principles. Ofcourse the issue is that many republican officials tend to be a bit racist in this aspect and the party is not the most accepting of people of color.

You would be wrong. The left-leaning parties are more in line with Islamic beliefs.

The right leaning ones want them deported from the country, SMH.
 
You would be wrong. The left-leaning parties are more in line with Islamic beliefs.

The right leaning ones want them deported from the country, SMH.

What islamic beliefs? care to elaborate
 
Firstly, I'm not as religious as some of my fellow British Muslims. Secondly, I think many of the scriptures are contradictory. Some parts preach tolerance, equality and peace. Those are the parts of religion I prefer to apply in my life. And whether religionists want to admit or not, there are parts that preach intolerance and violence that've no place in a modern society.

In Samuel 15:3, it mentions how the Amalekites must be killed - that the men, women, children and even the cattle must not be spared ! And in other parts of the Bible you read about how you should treat others like you want to be treated yourself, forgive your enemy etc. Same goes for the Quran whether Muslims want to admit it or not.

Therefore its unwise to base one's political views on centuries old scripts which were a product of their era, the writers of which could never envisage how society would change so dramatically in the future and that've been chopped and changed so much over time. I prefer to make my own mind up on issues, using logic and reason and analysing the FACTS which I believe religion also encourages.

For example, it has been proven enormous benefits can be derived from stem cell research and huge numbers of lives can be saved. By interpreting the positive parts of Islam and considering the flexibility that is allowed in Islam itself, then I see no contradiction between Islamic beliefs of Haqooq-e-Ibad (duty to humanity) and voting for something like stem cell research which can relieve the suffering of fellow human beings.
 
Firstly, I'm not as religious as some of my fellow British Muslims. Secondly, I think many of the scriptures are contradictory. Some parts preach tolerance, equality and peace. Those are the parts of religion I prefer to apply in my life. And whether religionists want to admit or not, there are parts that preach intolerance and violence that've no place in a modern society.

In Samuel 15:3, it mentions how the Amalekites must be killed - that the men, women, children and even the cattle must not be spared ! And in other parts of the Bible you read about how you should treat others like you want to be treated yourself, forgive your enemy etc. Same goes for the Quran whether Muslims want to admit it or not.

Therefore its unwise to base one's political views on centuries old scripts which were a product of their era, the writers of which could never envisage how society would change so dramatically in the future and that've been chopped and changed so much over time. I prefer to make my own mind up on issues, using logic and reason and analysing the FACTS which I believe religion also encourages.

For example, it has been proven enormous benefits can be derived from stem cell research and huge numbers of lives can be saved. By interpreting the positive parts of Islam and considering the flexibility that is allowed in Islam itself, then I see no contradiction between Islamic beliefs of Haqooq-e-Ibad (duty to humanity) and voting for something like stem cell research which can relieve the suffering of fellow human beings.

People in all religions quote good parts when confronted with tough questions and easily forget the parts which are total against reason and humanity.
It shows how man made all religious books are how unfair and insecure we are for not accepting the fallacies in the books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pakistanis or any other muslims become secular when they live in west as it suits them but become islamists in their own country.
Have a poll in pakistan, ask everyone if pakistan should become a secular country or stay islamic country and most if not all will say it should stay islamic, but if you have poll among pakistanis living abroad if the western home country should stay secular or become christian then they will vote for secularism.

This!

They want ladoos on both sides. Outside, they want a secular and liberal society where they can openly pray, show, build more mosques and convert others but back home, they want a Islamic society where non musli s can't build temple and churches, death for blasphemy, pray openly as a non Muslim and death for marrying a Muslim or converting someone out of Islam.
 
Firstly, I'm not as religious as some of my fellow British Muslims. Secondly, I think many of the scriptures are contradictory. Some parts preach tolerance, equality and peace. Those are the parts of religion I prefer to apply in my life. And whether religionists want to admit or not, there are parts that preach intolerance and violence that've no place in a modern society.

In Samuel 15:3, it mentions how the Amalekites must be killed - that the men, women, children and even the cattle must not be spared ! And in other parts of the Bible you read about how you should treat others like you want to be treated yourself, forgive your enemy etc. Same goes for the Quran whether Muslims want to admit it or not.

Therefore its unwise to base one's political views on centuries old scripts which were a product of their era, the writers of which could never envisage how society would change so dramatically in the future and that've been chopped and changed so much over time. I prefer to make my own mind up on issues, using logic and reason and analysing the FACTS which I believe religion also encourages.

For example, it has been proven enormous benefits can be derived from stem cell research and huge numbers of lives can be saved. By interpreting the positive parts of Islam and considering the flexibility that is allowed in Islam itself, then I see no contradiction between Islamic beliefs of Haqooq-e-Ibad (duty to humanity) and voting for something like stem cell research which can relieve the suffering of fellow human beings.

great post.

do u believe islam will ever evolve to a position where this is the view of the majority?
 
btw this is a problem with most third world immigrants in west who are religious.

even many hindus in the US i know (the first gen immigrants) do know agree with same sex marriage etc but they almost always gravitate towards democrats too!

so its a general phenomenon. but in PP my focus was on muslims
 
Some principles such as welfare and healthcare provision are in line with Islamic beliefs

But liberal principles also support equality of same - sex marriage, lgbtq rights, right to abortion, right to euthanasia, seperation of church and state, belief in theory of evolution, embryonic and cell stem research, abolishment of death penalty. These are all beliefs which are in contradicition with Islamic
Teachings to varying extents

These are just liberal principles in general, I don't think we need to attach left wing tag to them. You will get left and right wing opponents of some of these practices, and at the end of the day, even the most liberal of us will recognise that we can live these lives thanks to a stonking military machine which can bomb the crap out of our opponents around the globe.

I personally don't really have a problem with life in such a society as I am not religious, but I do see many very observant Muslims who seem to go about life in this country with no apparent conflict. Maybe they just aren't that bothered about what other people get up to as long as it doesn't impact them directly.
 
Muslims head West to economically better themselves at the expense of any religious beliefs they might have - as those aren't really compatible with modern Western society in any case. Still doesn't stop them from being outwardly religious, but that is simply a case of empty vessels doing their thing.

Take a look at [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] for instance. Seldom does a day pass when he doesn't foam at the mouth about atrocities occurring in Myanmar, Palestine, France or Gujarat but when push comes to shove he prefers to remain tightly tethered to his residence in the 'war-mongering' United Kingdom and all the benefits the state dishes out to him and others like him for little in return.

Currency is the biggest mover and shaker in their lives, but the faux-outrage and anguish is needed as a token gesture to appease society back home I suppose.

Besides - and I haven't lived in the UK - the Conservative Party seems to make some daft moves from time to time. Labour isn't much better, but perhaps they are less worse?

Nice that you read my posts , sorry I. Can't say the same for yours . But your understanding is poor , maybe because we you understand the UK. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn? He was elected the leader of the opposition by a huge mandate . His views are no different to mine & millions of other british people . This is not india where your country terrorises Kashmir but Indians won't speak up in fear of being labelled anti-patriotic .

In the UK it's patriotic to speak up against any crimes your country is doing . Which is why regardless of the foreign policy the people have the voice to change this , making UK a great nation . India is a third world country where people are intellectually bankrupt , which is why you're struggling to understand this.
 
Instead of long diatribes and discussions on why it happens, with people exchanging blows back and forth the truth is simple.

People want to live in best environment possible.

Religion is just a tool in most Muslims life because they believe they have been ordained for heaven and so no matter what they do, they will eventually enter Jannah or Heaven.

So voting for liberals or left wing and living around in Canada , UK or USA is not because they are utterly religious.

Most people just stay there because that's where they can live a comfortable life.

They associate with leftists or liberals because they are accepted more. Then when difficult topics like euthanasia, cloning and homosexuality arise, they chose to look the other way because it's simply easier to do so.

Why would someone earning 20000 dollar a month in USA or Canada complain about what gays are doing or what the party they supported is doing for gays when he is happy in this bliss.

To be honest, just looking at most people's replies on this forum, they have made it utterly obvious that UK, USA and Canada are great countries, NOT BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT MUSLIMS (Almost every other country probably to some extent will) but because they have a system.

Religion is primary only when you have to foam at atrocities or cruelty.

Religion becomes secondary when you have a tummy or family to feed.

If it was all about religion, Muslims would be living in Saudia, Middle East and Pakistan instead of running abroad and deciding their futures.

Since religion is secondary after tummy, it is just easier to look the other way with extreme liberal views like homosexuality or other hard topics.
 
Last edited:
Nice that you read my posts , sorry I. Can't say the same for yours . But your understanding is poor , maybe because we you understand the UK. Have you heard of Jeremy Corbyn? He was elected the leader of the opposition by a huge mandate . His views are no different to mine & millions of other british people . This is not india where your country terrorises Kashmir but Indians won't speak up in fear of being labelled anti-patriotic .

In the UK it's patriotic to speak up against any crimes your country is doing . Which is why regardless of the foreign policy the people have the voice to change this , making UK a great nation . India is a third world country where people are intellectually bankrupt , which is why you're struggling to understand this.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world where you would see something like the Chilcot Report, which could well result in the country's former long-term leader being brought to trial for war crimes, and this almost entirely because of public opinion / pressure only. One cannot deny the strength of democracy in the UK.
 
Firstly, I'm not as religious as some of my fellow British Muslims. Secondly, I think many of the scriptures are contradictory. Some parts preach tolerance, equality and peace. Those are the parts of religion I prefer to apply in my life. And whether religionists want to admit or not, there are parts that preach intolerance and violence that've no place in a modern society.

In Samuel 15:3, it mentions how the Amalekites must be killed - that the men, women, children and even the cattle must not be spared ! And in other parts of the Bible you read about how you should treat others like you want to be treated yourself, forgive your enemy etc. Same goes for the Quran whether Muslims want to admit it or not.

Therefore its unwise to base one's political views on centuries old scripts which were a product of their era, the writers of which could never envisage how society would change so dramatically in the future and that've been chopped and changed so much over time. I prefer to make my own mind up on issues, using logic and reason and analysing the FACTS which I believe religion also encourages.

For example, it has been proven enormous benefits can be derived from stem cell research and huge numbers of lives can be saved. By interpreting the positive parts of Islam and considering the flexibility that is allowed in Islam itself, then I see no contradiction between Islamic beliefs of Haqooq-e-Ibad (duty to humanity) and voting for something like stem cell research which can relieve the suffering of fellow human beings.

Islam doesn't preach intolerance and violence.
 
This!

They want ladoos on both sides. Outside, they want a secular and liberal society where they can openly pray, show, build more mosques and convert others but back home, they want a Islamic society where non musli s can't build temple and churches, death for blasphemy, pray openly as a non Muslim and death for marrying a Muslim or converting someone out of Islam.

It's not about wants, it is what is already established, Muslims didn't establish secular states in the west, they existed before any large scale Muslim migration.

On a side note I have read fatwas of prominant 20th century Muslim scholars who have written that Muslims migrating to non Muslim lands is only on the condition that they Propagate Islam otherwise they have no valid reason under the shariah to leave Muslim lands, obviously I don't expect the average layman to know this, but that is to give you an idea of what Islam advocates rather than what Muslims do.
 
It's not about wants, it is what is already established, Muslims didn't establish secular states in the west, they existed before any large scale Muslim do.

And This is the biggest hypocrital behaviour. They WANT these western countries to stay secular and give religious freedom BY VOTING for those left wing parties. However, when it comes to their own house, they give away no religious freedom and equality.

As they say.......Chitt Bhi Meri, Patt bhi meri
 
Islam doesn't preach intolerance and violence.

That may be well true, but how do you explain Prophet Muhammad sending letters to different Kings asking them to embrace Islam.

In the event that they refused, an army was sent to subjugate the infidels.
 
That may be well true, but how do you explain Prophet Muhammad sending letters to different Kings asking them to embrace Islam.

In the event that they refused, an army was sent to subjugate the infidels.

Brother, the Kings were also given an option to pay Jizya, in case they won't embrace Islam.
 
Brother, the Kings were also given an option to pay Jizya, in case they won't embrace Islam.

Yes.

But wars were fought to spread Islam.

And wars are never peaceful.

The only peaceful war ever was the bloodless conquer of Mecca which the Prophet did.

Unfortunately none of the Muslims that came thereafter, were able to avoid wars or bloodshed to promote Islam, and fought violently to promote Islam.

So we cannot safely say Islam is not violent when almost every Abrahamic religion spread by violence barring the conquest of Mecca done by the Holy Prophet (Which ideally should have been an example of how to win the hearts of people but unfortunately was not ).
 
War was essential for the spread of Islam no one can deny this, however forced conversions is a myth outside of select few individuals taimur lang and the early safavids are the only historical accounts that I know of.
 
Their version of Islam, which you also endorse, preach intolerance and violence. Not a day goes by when you hear of extremist Muslims killing innocent people and demanding Shariat everywhere they go.

What are these 'versions' of Islam you are talking about, have never heard of them. There is Sunni-Shia and that is it.
 
Yes.

But wars were fought to spread Islam.

And wars are never peaceful.

The only peaceful war ever was the bloodless conquer of Mecca which the Prophet did.

Unfortunately none of the Muslims that came thereafter, were able to avoid wars or bloodshed to promote Islam, and fought violently to promote Islam.

So we cannot safely say Islam is not violent when almost every Abrahamic religion spread by violence barring the conquest of Mecca done by the Holy Prophet (Which ideally should have been an example of how to win the hearts of people but unfortunately was not ).

Every single war that was fought by the true adherents of the faith was either a defensive one or one intended to end the tyranny of another regime. The people of Syria and Iraq welcomed the Muslim armies and were distraught when the Muslims had to leave, even though they returned the Jizya that they had taken from those people. After the Prophet (SAW) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, there have been rulers who followed their lead and there have been rulers who followed greed.

You get nowhere in this world by being passive. Islam is most definitely a peaceful religion but it doesn't teach its followers to sit on their bums and do nothing about injustice. Sometimes, wars have to be fought to attain peace.

Of course, there have been some pretty terrible Muslims over the last 1437 years but ever single group in this world has had their share of bad apples.

What islamic beliefs? care to elaborate

Welfare, tolerance of other religions, equality between the races, protecting the environment, making education and healthcare accessible for all, etc.

You are right but from where those terrorists and extremists get the ideology ?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Isn't it obvious? All of them have political goals and they distort Islamic teachings to achieve those goals.
 
This whole idea of Islam being spread with peace is just modern-day Mullah propaganda.

Those who claim that Muslims attacked other kingdoms because they were tyrannical should please list the tyrannies of all these kingdoms one by one.

It is a fact that the Caliphs conquered these kingdoms simply because they wanted Islam to spread; it was their ambition and desire, because that is what Allah SWT and the Holy Prophet PBUH wanted.

All conquerers have their reasons. Some do it for personal glory others do it for religious glory.

Caliphs of Islam were no different to these other conquerers, except for the fact that they were not interested in personal gains. Does that make them more noble? Perhaps yes, but they still used the power of the sword and it was not peaceful at all.

Since we are Muslims and we believe that Islam is the true religion, we find it acceptable and justified with the way Islam was spread across the globe, but if you look at it from a neutral perspective, it was anything but peaceful.
 
Every single war that was fought by the true adherents of the faith was either a defensive one or one intended to end the tyranny of another regime. The people of Syria and Iraq welcomed the Muslim armies and were distraught when the Muslims had to leave, even though they returned the Jizya that they had taken from those people. After the Prophet (SAW) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, there have been rulers who followed their lead and there have been rulers who followed greed.

You get nowhere in this world by being passive. Islam is most definitely a peaceful religion but it doesn't teach its followers to sit on their bums and do nothing about injustice. Sometimes, wars have to be fought to attain peace.

Of course, there have been some pretty terrible Muslims over the last 1437 years but ever single group in this world has had their share of bad apples.



Welfare, tolerance of other religions, equality between the races, protecting the environment, making education and healthcare accessible for all, etc.



Isn't it obvious? All of them have political goals and they distort Islamic teachings to achieve those goals.
Let me be blunt.

You have the right to disagree with me.


Wrong Interpretations of Quran & Hadees have resulted in Kalima Go muslims to spread extremism and do voilence and Terrorism. They get the ideology from wrong interpretation of Verses of Jehaad.


Whatever Talibaan, Al Qaeda, Boko Haraam and Daesh is doing has no justification. Neither it is Jehaad nor it is Islam and No criteria of Jehaad is being Fulfilled to exercise Jehaad of Sword/Weapons.


The invasion of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq was also unerhical and against principles of All the religions including Islam too.


The Kalima Go Muslim Terrorists who claim to be Muslims do this Terrorism by selling Oil and Drugs and by getting funding from Agencies of Muslim aswell Non muslim countries. So those Muslim or Non Muslim forces are also terrorists themselves by supporting them financially or arms wise. But Nobody forces Kalima Go Muslims to Put a Price over their belief system and sell themselves to Muslim or Non Muslim forces be it be Brothern muslim countries (so called) or be it be Israel, Russia, America, Britain or Other countries.


Today in all this Barbarism 90 % people who are suffering on the hands of Talibaan, Alqaeda, Daesh, Bokoharaam, Somalia groups who all claim to be muslim recite Kalima, worship Allah etc etc are Muslims. For instance if you see the terrorism attacks of last 20 years than 90 - 95 % of people killed were Muslims and none other.


If you see Syria and Iraq than if you ever met a genuine Suffer or talked with him than He she will tell you that Shia's attacked Sunni's in congregation attacking their villages. They picked up innocent girls who were Kalima Go sisters mothers daughters and rapes them killed some and many men were killed in attacks and than Sunni's in congrgation attacked Shia areas and did the same thing in Badla and called each other Enemy of Islam and Non muslims and both justified their actions all done after takbeer of Allah hoo Akbar, YaRasoolAllah, YaAli, YaHussain, Lailaha illah mohammad ur rasoolAllah. I dont want to get into details but one of these groups suffered more than other depending upon dominamce of one over other wrt their number.

This was inhumame, barbaric, unislamic and a huge shame for all those who raise slogans of One Ummat and Unity.


Who soever he is a real believer only on Kalima e Tayaaba will not dare to ever do this with any human being no matter any religion or any sect.


With 1500 years after Islam many teachings of Islam became adulterated and edited. And those tarnished twisted ideologies have harmed Islam, Muslims and the entire world.


With due Apology to West they have also played these bloody games. First they Supported Dictators in Countries and there agencies helped those people to come in power and rule for decades than the west and agencies themselves invaded those countries and toppled those people on false fabricated stories and thete was huge blood shed of innocent people.


But this isnt surprising for me though it hurts alot. But He Pbuh prophesized these events 1500 years ago but Alas and Shame on those who were and are part of all this Brutality and Injustice.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
Secularism is more about being free from boundaries, You think about life from different perspectives and ways for better living by removing restrictions and complications, Hence they grow and excel. Muslims are too busy discussing how terrible and pathetic people are homosexuals, How terrible are people who wear modern clothing, How pathetic are people who indulge in pre martial affairs/sex, How terrible and full of flaws the other systems in particularly western ones are and that all of them are excuse of beings who will be punished, Muslims are busy pointing out and creating tamasha of life and actions of other human beings, Particularly Pakistani ones which are well known to be welli awaam.
 
Instead of long diatribes and discussions on why it happens, with people exchanging blows back and forth the truth is simple.

People want to live in best environment possible.

Religion is just a tool in most Muslims life because they believe they have been ordained for heaven and so no matter what they do, they will eventually enter Jannah or Heaven.

So voting for liberals or left wing and living around in Canada , UK or USA is not because they are utterly religious.

Most people just stay there because that's where they can live a comfortable life.

They associate with leftists or liberals because they are accepted more. Then when difficult topics like euthanasia, cloning and homosexuality arise, they chose to look the other way because it's simply easier to do so.

Why would someone earning 20000 dollar a month in USA or Canada complain about what gays are doing or what the party they supported is doing for gays when he is happy in this bliss.

To be honest, just looking at most people's replies on this forum, they have made it utterly obvious that UK, USA and Canada are great countries, NOT BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT MUSLIMS (Almost every other country probably to some extent will) but because they have a system.

Religion is primary only when you have to foam at atrocities or cruelty.

Religion becomes secondary when you have a tummy or family to feed.

If it was all about religion, Muslims would be living in Saudia, Middle East and Pakistan instead of running abroad and deciding their futures.

Since religion is secondary after tummy, it is just easier to look the other way with extreme liberal views like homosexuality or other hard topics.

You are right, but of course that is the same wherever you live and whatever your faith for most emigrants. Mostly it is for a better life, for the minority it might be for missionary purposes.
 
Pertinent question these days with the global political atmosphere

I see a lot of liberals, including LGBTQs, coming to defense of Muslims in this time. However I wonder whether Muslims as a community would afford them the same courtesy if roles were reversed.
 
Maajid Nawaz appears to be a modern Liberal (big and small L) British Muslim. He notes that few Muslim women here wore the headscarf until the nineties. Since the Bosnia Genocide he claims that there has been an attempt by British Muslims, no doubt influenced by the Saudis, to assert a more conservative form of Islam here, with parents competing to dress younger and younger girl-children traditionally, even though this is not required in Islam.

Now what PP attack the messenger instead of considering the message ;-)
 
Maajid Nawaz appears to be a modern Liberal (big and small L) British Muslim. He notes that few Muslim women here wore the headscarf until the nineties. Since the Bosnia Genocide he claims that there has been an attempt by British Muslims, no doubt influenced by the Saudis, to assert a more conservative form of Islam here, with parents competing to dress younger and younger girl-children traditionally, even though this is not required in Islam.

Now what PP attack the messenger instead of considering the message ;-)

I listen to Maajid Nawaz on LBC and can relate to everything he says.
However he's also a self confessed "non practicing" Muslim.

I grew up in the 80's and in my circle of "muslim" family and friends I can remember just one or two ladies who wore a scarf. It's completely different now.
 
Maajid Nawaz appears to be a modern Liberal (big and small L) British Muslim. He notes that few Muslim women here wore the headscarf until the nineties. Since the Bosnia Genocide he claims that there has been an attempt by British Muslims, no doubt influenced by the Saudis, to assert a more conservative form of Islam here, with parents competing to dress younger and younger girl-children traditionally, even though this is not required in Islam.

Now what PP attack the messenger instead of considering the message ;-)

lol Majid Nawaz is an opportunist, who has no real knowledge of real Muslim life. He is the worst example to British Muslims and is rightly rejected as a hypocrite who really shouldnt be lecturing Muslims about anything. If you share the same views as Douglas Murray and the henry jackson society you are a hypocrite and deserve nothing but contempt from the Muslim community. His views are generally stupid and irrelevant.

And if you believe anything he says then you are ignorant of Muslim society in Britain.
 
What are liberal left principles? I think these terms are thrown around too casually considering the politics involved.

I identify as libertarian left - free-market capitalism with high taxation and strong public services; decentralised power to the regions, then the counties, then the parishes; mutuals and cooperatives to reduce inequality, thereby empowering more individuals rather than neoliberalism which concentrates money and influence a fewer and fewer hands.

Labour is authoritarian left - state power, union power, centralised control.
 
lol Majid Nawaz is an opportunist, who has no real knowledge of real Muslim life. He is the worst example to British Muslims and is rightly rejected as a hypocrite who really shouldnt be lecturing Muslims about anything. If you share the same views as Douglas Murray and the henry jackson society you are a hypocrite and deserve nothing but contempt from the Muslim community. His views are generally stupid and irrelevant.

And if you believe anything he says then you are ignorant of Muslim society in Britain.

You just did exactly as I predicted.
 
Pertinent question these days with the global political atmosphere

I see a lot of liberals, including LGBTQs, coming to defense of Muslims in this time. However I wonder whether Muslims as a community would afford them the same courtesy if roles were reversed.

That is the thing, Muslim as a culture are hostile/violent to ideas that are different or opposite to them. Where as liberals from left tends to fight for every minority's right...Before 9/11, Pakistanis in USA were voting overwhelming for republicans, now its completely opposite. Its not like they the liberal left policies, its matter of survival...

Other way to look at the issue, how much freedom liberals get in Muslim countries? - Its close to nothing, the very thing Muslim crave for in West, are not willing to give in the lands they rule, you cannot get more hypocrite than that :facepalm:
 
Pertinent question these days with the global political atmosphere

I see a lot of liberals, including LGBTQs, coming to defense of Muslims in this time. However I wonder whether Muslims as a community would afford them the same courtesy if roles were reversed.

if they were being persecuted then it is our duty to defend anybody being persecuted. What people misunderstand is that the Shariah doesnt apply to Non Muslims. It is their perogative to allow us to vote on their laws. They have set the system up in a way that ensures that their laws do affect us too hence have given us the right to vote representatives in who can challenge or change those laws. While at the same time allowing us to practice the shariah freely. If they stop us voting tomorrow but let us continue with our freedom to rpactice our deen, even that is acceptable. Whee you have problems is if you are stopped from practicing your deen. Then issues arise. Hence why muslims live in the west. Law and order and freedom to practice.

Now many can say well you can do that in Saudi, but Saudi do not have law and order e.g. workers rights. But many Muslims do migrate there and live perfectly comfortably as do many white non muslims.

As soon as the state intervenes to block the shariah thats when Muslims either revolt, or agitate or leave.
 
That is the thing, Muslim as a culture are hostile/violent to ideas that are different or opposite to them. Where as liberals from left tends to fight for every minority's right...Before 9/11, Pakistanis in USA were voting overwhelming for republicans, now its completely opposite. Its not like they the liberal left policies, its matter of survival...

Other way to look at the issue, how much freedom liberals get in Muslim countries? - Its close to nothing, the very thing Muslim crave for in West, are not willing to give in the lands they rule, you cannot get more hypocrite than that :facepalm:

you need to stop generalising Muslims in the west. Using words like hostile and violent betrays your ignorance.
 
You just did exactly as I predicted.

and your entirely predictable. Do you agree with him?

He is not a liberal. He is an opportunist and an extremist. If you had done your background research you would know that he talks out of where the sun doesnt shine.
 
you need to stop generalising Muslims in the west. Using words like hostile and violent betrays your ignorance.

White Supremacist can breath freely in conservative Christian culture, they are tolerated, almost welcome there...Similarly, conservative muslim culture(west or east) attracts extremist. Extremist can hide, nest and develop in those environment. Racism is not truly challenged in Bible Belt, similarly Extremist are never questioned in any conservative muslim culture...
 
White Supremacist can breath freely in conservative Christian culture, they are tolerated, almost welcome there...Similarly, conservative muslim culture(west or east) attracts extremist. Extremist can hide, nest and develop in those environment. Racism is not truly challenged in Bible Belt, similarly Extremist are never questioned in any conservative muslim culture...

It seems its even less challenged by the public in places like Australia who have been sending their little known army to all corners of the world to blow up people who dont even know it's location. You cannot always control people but a society should be able to control the extremist governments they put into place?

You're worrying about a few wildings when you are supporting a whole army of WW. :)
 
It seems its even less challenged by the public in places like Australia who have been sending their little known army to all corners of the world to blow up people who dont even know it's location. You cannot always control people but a society should be able to control the extremist governments they put into place?

You're worrying about a few wildings when you are supporting a whole army of WW. :)

Look at another way, Extremist and Racist are not recruiting Liberals and Atheist to carry out their mission...Evil, Super natural(God, Prophets, Chosen people or race etc) are not very scientific concepts, hard to be an Atheist and believing in that kind of BS. Its hard to convince and emotionally charge Atheist based on Evil/Super hypothesis, you got to come up with something better than that, I don't think those guys have intellectual muscle to recruit liberals for their dirty work, they go after soft targets, the conservatives, who are already half way down there ;-)
 
That is the thing, Muslim as a culture are hostile/violent to ideas that are different or opposite to them. Where as liberals from left tends to fight for every minority's right...Before 9/11, Pakistanis in USA were voting overwhelming for republicans, now its completely opposite. Its not like they the liberal left policies, its matter of survival...

Other way to look at the issue, how much freedom liberals get in Muslim countries? - Its close to nothing, the very thing Muslim crave for in West, are not willing to give in the lands they rule, you cannot get more hypocrite than that :facepalm:

There's no need to be hostile or violent towards ideas that are opposite, each nation or people usually lives by their own code. The clash tends to happen when one tries to impose it's beliefs or way of life on the other, that happens in east and west. Whether it's Marxism, Communism or Islamic Caliphates, you would expect the Western powers to be hostile and violent to those that oppose their own aims and values, and there's enough evidence that shows it to be the case. It's hardly a one way street.
 
Maajid Nawaz is like the "Imam of Peace" account on Twitter which is always worth following (and then promptly un-following) for a few laughs.

Maajid is indeed one of those "Islamic representatives" who says literally the exact opposite of what the Muslim community thinks, with his every breath. And as a former extremist he knows exactly what he is doing as well. His approach in turn appeals to the less aware and the numerous Westerners who wish to undermine Muslim cultural values because they dislike the current immigration levels. He is the archetypal wolf in sheep's clothing, a tanned and articulate friendly tonic to the Tommy Robinson ilk.

Anyone who knows Muslims knows that this notion of 'modern liberal secular Islam' is a load of nonsense. Islam is what it is. I work with a lot of moderate Muslims and not even a single one of them takes Maajid seriously.
 
and your entirely predictable. Do you agree with him?

He is not a liberal. He is an opportunist and an extremist. If you had done your background research you would know that he talks out of where the sun doesnt shine.

I know that he was founder of an Islamist group and spent five years in jail in Egypt. I know he renounced political Islam. I know he founded Quilliam with Ed Hussain who is now a Sufi. I know he stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat, suggesting that he is a liberal. I know he has a degree in Arabic, and a Masters in Political Theory from the LSE.

So you see I have done a bit of homework. All in all he strikes me as my kind of fella, I learn from him and broadly speaking I agree with him.

Now stop shooting the messenger and talk about his message. Tell me why I am wrong to trust him, without further character assassination if you please.
 
It's been a while since I heard Majid Nawaz's opinion on any subject, I just remember him going from being an Islamic extremist to someone who was basically writing articles blaming Muslims for most of the problems in the world today which put him in agreement with the general sentiment of the era we live in. That's not to say he's wrong necessarily, but I would have to take each statement he made to the press on it's merits and decide if there was anything constructive in it or is it being said because it's what people want to hear.
 
It's been a while since I heard Majid Nawaz's opinion on any subject, I just remember him going from being an Islamic extremist to someone who was basically writing articles blaming Muslims for most of the problems in the world today which put him in agreement with the general sentiment of the era we live in. That's not to say he's wrong necessarily, but I would have to take each statement he made to the press on it's merits and decide if there was anything constructive in it or is it being said because it's what people want to hear.

I would characterise him as a good man who is looking for meaning. He did not find it in Islamism. Maybe he will find it as a free-thinking liberal.
 
I know that he was founder of an Islamist group and spent five years in jail in Egypt. I know he renounced political Islam. I know he founded Quilliam with Ed Hussain who is now a Sufi. I know he stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat, suggesting that he is a liberal. I know he has a degree in Arabic, and a Masters in Political Theory from the LSE.

So you see I have done a bit of homework. All in all he strikes me as my kind of fella, I learn from him and broadly speaking I agree with him.

Now stop shooting the messenger and talk about his message. Tell me why I am wrong to trust him, without further character assassination if you please.

How can you take a man who divorced his wife, (he had an affair) and then is caught on camera feeling up a stripper in a strip club during Ramadhan during his bachelor night. Now you tell me why should I take anything he says about Islam seriously when he acts in such a hypocritical manner? he can have all the degrees in the world but his opinion is simply outdated.

What we need in Britain is more religious Islamic education not less. The right sort of religious Islamic education. What is known as normative Islam. We have a scholarly history of over 1400 years. These questions being asked aren't new. Why cant we encourage a more scholarly environment for Muslims? Criticise Islam by all means but dont resort to pavement politics.

As for Nawaz and Quilliam. they are funded by the same people who fund the henry jackson society and the gatestone institute. I suggest you look it up. Ed Hussein is from a similar generation to my own and I have met many of his ilk over the years. Every single one of them lack intellectual depth. He also works for the council on foreign relations in the US which in itself is dubious due to its links with Rockerfeller and others.

Nawaz has zero credibility in the Muslim community and is seen as another Mir Jaffer.

Just remember one thing about the Asian Muslim diaspora here in Britain. You ruled us for 250 years. we know every vein in your body (as the urdu slogan goes) Nawaz is just another uncle Tom. Who's statements mean nothing.

In conclusion even if what he says has merit, his lack of moral character, truthfulness and opportunism mean he has zero credibility. Like I said before anybody who shares a platform with Douglas Murray is not to be trusted and must be actively shunned.
 
Maajid Nawaz is like the "Imam of Peace" account on Twitter which is always worth following (and then promptly un-following) for a few laughs.

Maajid is indeed one of those "Islamic representatives" who says literally the exact opposite of what the Muslim community thinks, with his every breath. And as a former extremist he knows exactly what he is doing as well. His approach in turn appeals to the less aware and the numerous Westerners who wish to undermine Muslim cultural values because they dislike the current immigration levels. He is the archetypal wolf in sheep's clothing, a tanned and articulate friendly tonic to the Tommy Robinson ilk.

Anyone who knows Muslims knows that this notion of 'modern liberal secular Islam' is a load of nonsense. Islam is what it is. I work with a lot of moderate Muslims and not even a single one of them takes Maajid seriously.

this. you said it better than I could.
 
How can you take a man who divorced his wife, (he had an affair) and then is caught on camera feeling up a stripper in a strip club during Ramadhan during his bachelor night. Now you tell me why should I take anything he says about Islam seriously when he acts in such a hypocritical manner? he can have all the degrees in the world but his opinion is simply outdated.

What we need in Britain is more religious Islamic education not less. The right sort of religious Islamic education. What is known as normative Islam. We have a scholarly history of over 1400 years. These questions being asked aren't new. Why cant we encourage a more scholarly environment for Muslims? Criticise Islam by all means but dont resort to pavement politics.

As for Nawaz and Quilliam. they are funded by the same people who fund the henry jackson society and the gatestone institute. I suggest you look it up. Ed Hussein is from a similar generation to my own and I have met many of his ilk over the years. Every single one of them lack intellectual depth. He also works for the council on foreign relations in the US which in itself is dubious due to its links with Rockerfeller and others.

Nawaz has zero credibility in the Muslim community and is seen as another Mir Jaffer.

Just remember one thing about the Asian Muslim diaspora here in Britain. You ruled us for 250 years. we know every vein in your body (as the urdu slogan goes) Nawaz is just another uncle Tom. Who's statements mean nothing.

In conclusion even if what he says has merit, his lack of moral character, truthfulness and opportunism mean he has zero credibility. Like I said before anybody who shares a platform with Douglas Murray is not to be trusted and must be actively shunned.

More character assassination and messenger shooting then.

You don't seem able to debate this in a reasonable way, it's all anger-driven emotional stuff.

I didn't ask you why you should take him seriously - I asked you why I should not take him seriously. You say his ilk lack intellectual depth, while dismissing his strong evidence of intellectual depth. Yoyr argument contradicts itself.

You are giving me the impression you are irrational and unable to look inside, while Messrs Nawaz and Hussein tell me that self-awareness and reflection is possible by Muslims. I am siding with the latter at the moment because I am a rationalist.

Unless you have reason, not emotion to the contrary?
 
Maajid is indeed one of those "Islamic representatives" who says literally the exact opposite of what the Muslim community thinks, with his every breath. And as a former extremist he knows exactly what he is doing as well. His approach in turn appeals to the less aware and the numerous Westerners who wish to undermine Muslim cultural values because they dislike the current immigration levels. He is the archetypal wolf in sheep's clothing, a tanned and articulate friendly tonic to the Tommy Robinson ilk.

Anyone who knows Muslims knows that this notion of 'modern liberal secular Islam' is a load of nonsense. Islam is what it is. I work with a lot of moderate Muslims and not even a single one of them takes Maajid seriously.

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] :

To me his former extremism makes him an authority on extremists.

I think I am reasonably aware, and am not bothered by immigration levels. I am bothered by failure to integrate, and by Britons being recruited by terror groups.

Exactly what do you think he us doing, and what is this disguised wolf predating on?

What does undermining cultural Muslim values mean - do you include the lack of gay rights, women's rights? Because those should be undermined.
 
I would characterise him as a good man who is looking for meaning. He did not find it in Islamism. Maybe he will find it as a free-thinking liberal.

Maybe, but then all I have seen of him is in the sphere of Islam as a political movement, first on the side of Islamic terrorism, then as a political activist fighting the same fight but from the other side. Not so bad in itself, but his main target now seems to be the general Muslim population as a whole rather than the same extremists he was fighting for. He doesn't appear to have any other life which we could identify with as a normal British citizen so he just comes across as official spokesman for one side or the other.
 
More character assassination and messenger shooting then.

You don't seem able to debate this in a reasonable way, it's all anger-driven emotional stuff.

I didn't ask you why you should take him seriously - I asked you why I should not take him seriously. You say his ilk lack intellectual depth, while dismissing his strong evidence of intellectual depth. Yoyr argument contradicts itself.

You are giving me the impression you are irrational and unable to look inside, while Messrs Nawaz and Hussein tell me that self-awareness and reflection is possible by Muslims. I am siding with the latter at the moment because I am a rationalist.

Unless you have reason, not emotion to the contrary?


I dont think you get it. If you want to talk about Islam and lecture and ask Muslims to "introspect" then you had better be pretty much on the straight and narrow yourself. You see Islam isn't any old topic. its akin to a catholic priest being caught abusing children and then warning his congregation about sexual predators.

You are essentially critiquing peoples very state of being. Now if you a) commit adultery b) openly commit acts of hypocrisy and then have the nerve to "talk about introspection", well whatever you say doesn't matter at all. But for arguments sake how about you post something you agree with and then we'll discuss it. I stay well clear of him and his ilk so will not post anything from him. But do please post something you agree with and then we can talk about his "opinion".
 
[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] :

To me his former extremism makes him an authority on extremists.

I think I am reasonably aware, and am not bothered by immigration levels. I am bothered by failure to integrate, and by Britons being recruited by terror groups.

Exactly what do you think he us doing, and what is this disguised wolf predating on?

What does undermining cultural Muslim values mean - do you include the lack of gay rights, women's rights? Because those should be undermined.

can you also explain the above? what in your definition is integration? and how have "Muslims" failed to integrate?
 
There's no need to be hostile or violent towards ideas that are opposite, each nation or people usually lives by their own code. The clash tends to happen when one tries to impose it's beliefs or way of life on the other, that happens in east and west. Whether it's Marxism, Communism or Islamic Caliphates, you would expect the Western powers to be hostile and violent to those that oppose their own aims and values, and there's enough evidence that shows it to be the case. It's hardly a one way street.

Problem with Islam is that Imposing your views(that too forcefully) on others is central part of code of life ;-)

Doubling down on religiosity is hardly way forward, planet is getting smaller with every decade, thanks to technology. We have to live together rather than in our own silos. Culture that is open and willing to compete is going to survive better than a closed one...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Problem with Islam is that Imposing your views(that too forcefully) on others is central part of code of life ;-)

Doubling down on religiosity is hardly way forward, planet is getting smaller with every decade, thanks to technology. We have to live together rather than in our own silos. Culture that is open and willing to compete is going to survive better than a closed one...

Really? I was of the impression that non-Muslims were able to live as non-Muslims in Islamic countries, at least in private, isn't that how you get westerners going to work in Gulf countries to earn tax free money?
 
I dont think you get it. If you want to talk about Islam and lecture and ask Muslims to "introspect" then you had better be pretty much on the straight and narrow yourself. You see Islam isn't any old topic. its akin to a catholic priest being caught abusing children and then warning his congregation about sexual predators.

You are essentially critiquing peoples very state of being. Now if you a) commit adultery b) openly commit acts of hypocrisy and then have the nerve to "talk about introspection", well whatever you say doesn't matter at all. But for arguments sake how about you post something you agree with and then we'll discuss it. I stay well clear of him and his ilk so will not post anything from him. But do please post something you agree with and then we can talk about his "opinion".

If said priest had served his jail time, and was walking the path of redemption I would be happy to listen to him. He would have insight that I lack into how to tackle that societal disease. Christians are big on the idea of forgiveness, even agnostic cultural Christians like me.

Anyway I will take your advice about something Mr Nawaz said. Your priest example provides a segue. Is it ok to dress pre-pubescent girls in the headscarf? Is that sexualising children?
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Majid Nawaz set up Quillium in order to make money, nothing else. He was given a lot of money by the government as part of a deal which ensured he would parrot their propaganda. You're not the only one being fooled by him. He is NOT a pratcising Muslim, he doesn't give a damn about terrorism or Islamaphobia, he spends most of his time drinking and checking out strippers. 99% of Muslims in the UK see him as a joke, you should think why?
 
can you also explain the above? what in your definition is integration? and how have "Muslims" failed to integrate?

Be a Briton as much as be a Muslim. Contribute to British society. Learn the language, obey the laws, don't close yourself off in enclaves, don't join organisations which want to cause havoc on the streets and don't get into groups which predate sexually on kids. You must admit that the latter two things keep happening. To point them out is not Islamophobia.
 
Back
Top