Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I say attempt as no one can cause another to accept or leave Islam, it is their own choices that decides. But proselytizing is seen as an attempt to drag Muslims into Hellfire, that is why it is prohibited.
That is really wild, man! What if the person just wants to leave because they do not believe such will be their fate no matter how much some other Muslim might think so? Why should the "belief" of another person impede on the rights of another?
I also find non-Muslims do not comprehend when I try to explain I do not join a Mosque, because the Mosque is always where I am.
The best thing to do is to keep saying it again and again and sooner or later they will begin to understand.
In another forum, a few years ago, I raised an objection to the poliicians labeling terrorists/murders as "Islamic terrorists". At the time, Bush and Blair were churning out the term like well programmed robots. I made it clear what is meant by "Islamic" and that the term is being used in ignorance of its true meanings. They soon got the message and this term has almost disappeared from the media and the politicians. It was wrong to regard them "Islamic". Islamic simply means somethng that is according to the principles of Islam.
Yes, it is rather hard struggle (jihad) but something worth doing to educate people in the best interests of peace between the communities.
That is really wild, man! What if the person just wants to leave because they do not believe such will be their fate no matter how much some other Muslim might think so? Why should the "belief" of another person impede on the rights of another?
No one will or can stop him from not believing. What can be stopped is Proselytizing in an all Muslim country. By that I mean one in which the entire citizenship is Muslim. Which are very few nations. That does not mean I advocate preventing non-Muslims in Islamic nations from practicing their religion, I advocate they do not try to convert Muslims. I also advocate Muslims should not proselytize in non-Muslim nations..
Come to think of it I opppose all proseytizing by all religions in every nation. A person should lead their life as a good example of their religion and be willing to answer questions if asked. But no verbally shoving a religion upon anyone. No going door to door telling neighbors you know how to save them or trashing up public places with religious pamphlets.
Proselytizing should be illegal in every Nation. An exception being what takes place within the confines of a private residence or an identified religious building. (including cyber buildings such as religious forums.)
We believe that to try to get a Muslim to leave Islam is worse than attempted murer as murder results in only the death of the body, but leaving Islam results in eternal hell.
I say attempt as no one can cause another to accept or leave Islam, it is their own choices that decides. But proselytizing is seen as an attempt to drag Muslims into Hellfire, that is why it is prohibited.
You are one of the most patient people I have seen as far as explaining the tenants of Islam. However, it is statements such as that justifiably concern non-Muslims and establish negative opinions of Islam. To attempt to stifle free speech and discussions of any faith (or atheism) and to actually ban that freedom is against everything this country, our laws, our culture and our constitution stand for. Even worse is to promote actual punishment of those that would do so. It is the promotion of that kind of "group think" that so often leads those even remotely prone to violence to actually commit violent acts. Especially when they have this silly idea that those self righteous acts are somehow putting them in the fast lane to some sort of paradise.
Why is Islam so adamant against discussions of other faiths (or no faith)? Were the founders so fearful that their followers would leave the fold that they held them not just by promises of eternal pain and torture in some afterlife, but actually would promote violence against them?
Sulaiman Vali is a softly spoken 33-year-old software engineer. A natural introvert not drawn to controversy or given to making bold statements, he’s the kind of person who is happiest in the background. He lives alone in a modest house on a quiet street in a small town in East Northamptonshire. He doesn’t want to be any more specific than that about the location. “If someone found out where I lived,” he explains, “they could burn my house down.”
Why should such an understated figure, someone who describes himself as a “nobody”, speak as if he’s in a witness protection programme? The answer is that six years ago he decided to declare that he no longer accepted the fundamental tenets of Islam. He stopped being a believing Muslim and became instead an apostate. It sounds quaintly anachronistic, but it’s not a term to be lightly adopted.
Last week the hacking to death in Bangladesh of the blogger Ananta Bijoy Das was a brutal reminder of the risks atheists face in some Muslim-majority countries. And in an era in which British Islamic extremists travel thousands of miles to kill those they deem unbelievers, an apostate’s concern for his or her security at home is perhaps understandable.
“Oh yeah, I’m scared,” agrees Nasreen (not her real name) a feisty 29-year-old asset manager from east London who has been a semi-closeted apostate for nine years. “I’m not so worried about the loonies because it’s almost normal now to get threats. What worries me is that they go back to my parents and damage them, because that’s not unheard of.”
It is acts like those that these people fear that cause rational people to turn against Islam, not simply accept it's practice as they do other, more benign ones. It may happen, but I can't say that I know of any Christians that have slaughtered people simply because they quit going to church and became atheists, or for talking with those of another faith.
You are one of the most patient people I have seen as far as explaining the tenants of Islam. However, it is statements such as that justifiably concern non-Muslims and establish negative opinions of Islam. To attempt to stifle free speech and discussions of any faith (or atheism) and to actually ban that freedom is against everything this country, our laws, our culture and our constitution stand for. Even worse is to promote actual punishment of those that would do so. It is the promotion of that kind of "group think" that so often leads those even remotely prone to violence to actually commit violent acts. Especially when they have this silly idea that those self righteous acts are somehow putting them in the fast lane to some sort of paradise.
Why is Islam so adamant against discussions of other faiths (or no faith)? Were the founders so fearful that their followers would leave the fold that they held them not just by promises of eternal pain and torture in some afterlife, but actually would promote violence against them?
It is acts like those that these people fear that cause rational people to turn against Islam, not simply accept it's practice as they do other, more benign ones. It may happen, but I can't say that I know of any Christians that have slaughtered people simply because they quit going to church and became atheists, or for talking with those of another faith.
What I mean by proselytizing is the using of public areas as a means of overtly verbally abusing other religions and aggressively trying to force others to accept your religious beliefs.
I do not tolerate aggression no matter how slight to coerce others to accept their religion, there is no compulsion in religion, it requires personal choice and for each individual to verify all things. One should not threaten or coerce others to accept their own beliefs. Each person must seek and verify what they find to be true. Religion should not be imposed, it has to be sought for.
What I mean by proselytizing is the using of public areas as a means of overtly verbally abusing other religions and aggressively trying to force others to accept your religious beliefs.
I do not tolerate aggression no matter how slight to coerce others to accept their religion, there is no compulsion in religion, it requires personal choice and for each individual to verify all things. One should not threaten or coerce others to accept their own beliefs. Each person must seek and verify what they find to be true. Religion should not be imposed, it has to be sought for.
So would you ban things like amplified speaker systems blasting away in public areas several times a day when they are used to promote the advertising for a particular religion? I'll admit that I would (and this includes clanging bells too). Annoying as all hell, and they subject non-followers to a message they don't care to hear.
Still, if someone wants to hand out pamphlets on a street corner or something similar I see no reason to ban it. It's not loud and offensive. I'd make an exception if they are promoting hatred and violence...but even that runs into 1st amendment issues.
As an American it's hard to imagine entire countries who's government sanctions a specific religion, and even worse, attacks and suppresses others (or non-religious people). Terrifying scenario to any person that has any value for personal freedom. And one of the concerns about the rise of Islam in many countries.
Quote:
Religious disbelief is viewed with alarm in most Arab countries. Two government ministries in Egypt have been ordered to produce a national plan to “confront and eliminate” atheism. In Saudi Arabia, the most recent anti-terrorism law classifies “calling for atheist thought” as a terrorist offence.
This hounding of non-believers might seem especially strange at a time when concerns are high about those who kill in the name of religion, but Arab societies have a general aversion to nonconformity, and the regimes that rule them often promote an official version of Islam that suits their political needs. Thus both jihadism and atheism – though very different in character – are viewed as forms of social or political deviance, with fears raised in the Arab media that those who reject God and religion will bring chaos and immorality if their ideas gain a foothold.
In six Arab countries – Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen – apostasy is punishable by death. There have been no executions in recent years, but people deemed to have “insulted” religion, often in trivial ways, can face long prison sentences.
Why not? Should they not verify before blaming Islam in their thinking?
Truth will prevail each time Muslims and non-Muslims understand the Qur'an
If they verify, that would be better, BUT it is not the primary duty of non-Muslims to verify in this case. I am amongst some of the exceptional non-Muslim who do verify.
Don't you think it is the onus of the majority of Muslims to think and verify and do the right thing?
If the majority of Muslims do not do it wrongly, then the majority of non-Muslims will not get the wrong impression of Islam which is represented [as perceived] by the acts of the majority.
As an American it's hard to imagine entire countries who's government sanctions a specific religion, and even worse, attacks and suppresses others (or non-religious people). Terrifying scenario to any person that has any value for personal freedom. And one of the concerns about the rise of Islam in many countries.
Quote:
Religious disbelief is viewed with alarm in most Arab countries. Two government ministries in Egypt have been ordered to produce a national plan to “confront and eliminate” atheism. In Saudi Arabia, the most recent anti-terrorism law classifies “calling for atheist thought” as a terrorist offence.
This hounding of non-believers might seem especially strange at a time when concerns are high about those who kill in the name of religion, but Arab societies have a general aversion to nonconformity, and the regimes that rule them often promote an official version of Islam that suits their political needs. Thus both jihadism and atheism – though very different in character – are viewed as forms of social or political deviance, with fears raised in the Arab media that those who reject God and religion will bring chaos and immorality if their ideas gain a foothold.
In six Arab countries – Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen – apostasy is punishable by death. There have been no executions in recent years, but people deemed to have “insulted” religion, often in trivial ways, can face long prison sentences.
First keep in mind the Arab Nations are a small percentage of the World's Muslims, less than 20% of the World's Muslims are Arab. .
The 6 Nations you named with the exception of Sudan are Monarchies and basically owned by the Monarchy. Nearly every citizen is related to the royal family. Essentially what we have are family rules on private property. An analogy is they are more like very large Family farms than Nations. Outsiders have very little influence over them. The only way to be a citizen is to be related to the Monarchy either by Birth or Marriage. The advantages of being a Citizen is a rather hefty income from the oil wealth, no taxes and virtually all services from housing to transportation to medical care to education provided by the Monarchy. All labor is done by non-citizens who come in under a limited time contract. Qatar for instance has the highest individual income in the world each citizen receives an average of over $98,000 per year and does not work. All work is done by foreign Nationals that enter under very stern contracts. Oil wealth is much more a shackle on the population than religion.The greatest problem with monarchies is that they often reach the point were the non-Royal population gets fed up and overthrows the Monarchy. Dubai in which 90% of the population are non-citizens seem to have avoided this by granting the non-citizenmajority considerable rights along with outstanding salaries.
Sudan I do not know that much about it except that it does not seem to be a thing like it was in the 1960s.It seems to be in a state of Civil war between the Arab and non-Arab populations.
First keep in mind the Arab Nations are a small percentage of the World's Muslims, less than 20% of the World's Muslims are Arab. .
The 6 Nations you named with the exception of Sudan are Monarchies and basically owned by the Monarchy. Nearly every citizen is related to the royal family. Essentially what we have are family rules on private property. An analogy is they are more like very large Family farms than Nations. Outsiders have very little influence over them. The only way to be a citizen is to be related to the Monarchy either by Birth or Marriage. The advantages of being a Citizen is a rather hefty income from the oil wealth, no taxes and virtually all services from housing to transportation to medical care to education provided by the Monarchy. All labor is done by non-citizens who come in under a limited time contract. Qatar for instance has the highest individual income in the world each citizen receives an average of over $98,000 per year and does not work. All work is done by foreign Nationals that enter under very stern contracts. Oil wealth is much more a shackle on the population than religion.The greatest problem with monarchies is that they often reach the point were the non-Royal population gets fed up and overthrows the Monarchy. Dubai in which 90% of the population are non-citizens seem to have avoided this by granting the non-citizenmajority considerable rights along with outstanding salaries.
Sudan I do not know that much about it except that it does not seem to be a thing like it was in the 1960s.It seems to be in a state of Civil war between the Arab and non-Arab populations.
While the stated Arab Nations are small in term of populations, they have a great influenced on the majority of Muslims around the world in terms of religiosity and money. This is especially more so with Saudi Arabia.
The great leverage and bargaining power that Islam and Muslims get at present is because of oil.
When the world do not depend on oil some day, Islam will definitely waned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
