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 think that Woodrow believes in secular Islam, and will faithfully wait for Jesus' Caliphate instead of pretending that any other being can or will establish a legitimately Muslim society. This is the controversy between labeling Nations as "Christian" or "Islamic/Muslim".
As Woodrow wrote in post 65 --- "In an Islamic nation it is impossible to separate government from religion, as Islam does not recognize man made governments. In fact if Islam could be world wide, there would be no Nations. Each person would be obligated to simply follow the Qur'an." Shariah law is greatly misunderstood. true shariah can only exist under a Caliphate and none exists. We believe there will not be another Caliphate until the birth of the Mehdi and the return
Though Woodrow's ideal Islamic nation doesn't exist, we have real-life Islamic rulers, governments, as a guide to how less than ideal Islamic nations govern until Jesus returns and there's a Caliphate. "Secular Islam" is self-contradictory. I doubt Woodrow believes in 'secular Islam.'
As Woodrow wrote in post 65 --- "In an Islamic nation it is impossible to separate government from religion, as Islam does not recognize man made governments. In fact if Islam could be world wide, there would be no Nations. Each person would be obligated to simply follow the Qur'an." Shariah law is greatly misunderstood. true shariah can only exist under a Caliphate and none exists. We believe there will not be another Caliphate until the birth of the Mehdi and the return
Though Woodrow's ideal Islamic nation doesn't exist, we have real-life Islamic rulers, governments, as a guide to how less than ideal Islamic nations govern until Jesus returns and there's a Caliphate. "Secular Islam" is self-contradictory. I doubt Woodrow believes in 'secular Islam.'
I have respect for Wood and how he presents himself and his views . . . but based on the predominate worldwide stereotype . . . he is no Muslim. But even his ideal is unacceptable for civilized society. It is barbaric and anachronistic.
As Woodrow wrote in post 65 --- "In an Islamic nation it is impossible to separate government from religion, as Islam does not recognize man made governments. In fact if Islam could be world wide, there would be no Nations. Each person would be obligated to simply follow the Qur'an." Shariah law is greatly misunderstood. true shariah can only exist under a Caliphate and none exists. We believe there will not be another Caliphate until the birth of the Mehdi and the return
Though Woodrow's ideal Islamic nation doesn't exist, we have real-life Islamic rulers, governments, as a guide to how less than ideal Islamic nations govern until Jesus returns and there's a Caliphate. "Secular Islam" is self-contradictory. I doubt Woodrow believes in 'secular Islam.'
Yes, I understand that Muslims are inferior in this aspect: that they think following idol scripture will solve their problems. You are right, Woodrow was takling about an ideal Muslim Caliphate. Yet the fact is that no Caliphate has been ideal, ever. The Islamic republic of Iran is in fact an Islamic Nation built on top of a Persian one. however, since Islam does not understand or support Secularsim, they will change "Islam" to be more like the secularism of the better Countries. This is a double standard, because if Islam was true, then no one could reason anyone out of following its idol comandments. The need for anti-blasphemy and anti-proselytization laws shows that Islam is very easy to convert away from and its adherents don't have much faith in their ability to maintain themselves as Muslims, that of course, is their own problem...but for some reason they think that problem falls upon the entire Nations they colonize and reside, themselves proselytize, then they turn around and destroy the beautiful art and history of the previous residents, because of their fear that Islam can't prevail if it doesn't force the government to force muslims to be muslim. this, of course, shows the obvious weakness of Islam as a philosophy or religion, since it needs to be a political party, or state religion as well. This was also true of polytheism, where the governmnets mandated respect for the state religions.
Yes, I understand that Muslims are inferior in this aspect: that they think following idol scripture will solve their problems. You are right, Woodrow was takling about an ideal Muslim Caliphate. Yet the fact is that no Caliphate has been ideal, ever. The Islamic republic of Iran is in fact an Islamic Nation built on top of a Persian one. however, since Islam does not understand or support Secularsim, they will change "Islam" to be more like the secularism of the better Countries. This is a double standard, because if Islam was true, then no one could reason anyone out of following its idol comandments. The need for anti-blasphemy and anti-proselytization laws shows that Islam is very easy to convert away from and its adherents don't have much faith in their ability to maintain themselves as Muslims, that of course, is their own problem...but for some reason they think that problem falls upon the entire Nations they colonize and reside, themselves proselytize, then they turn around and destroy the beautiful art and history of the previous residents, because of their fear that Islam can't prevail if it doesn't force the government to force muslims to be muslim. this, of course, shows the obvious weakness of Islam as a philosophy or religion, since it needs to be a political party, or state religion as well. This was also true of polytheism, where the governmnets mandated respect for the state religions.
I think what you are going to see is a trend going similar the the way Turkey. Islamic for the Muslims in the country and secular for the Non-Muslims. There is no problem if everybody in a nation is 100% Muslim as the people's choice would be for Religious rule. there is no Problem if everybody is 100% any religious denomination, if they all believe the same denomination. There is no problem if everybody is secular.
The problems start occurring when either Muslim or non-Muslim start feeling threatened over loosing the majority. there is a bit of a quandry, Secularism while it tries to accommodate all religions, That is not always done what there is is some type of compromise. A purely religious state does interfere with secularism and a purely secular state does interfere with some religious beliefs of all religions.
The only solution I can see is a system where by there are basic laws applicable for all the people. Yet, at the same time provide for the implementation of civil laws to be under the control of religions, provided all involved are the same faith. This is the case for Jews in most of the states and it seems to work.
I have respect for Wood and how he presents himself and his views . . . but based on the predominate worldwide stereotype . . . he is no Muslim. But even his ideal is unacceptable for civilized society. It is barbaric and anachronistic.
It is essentially the same ideal state the Christians are looking for when Jesus(as)returns. Where we differ is they believe Christianity will be the one religion. We believe it is Islam.
Naturally non-Christians and non-Muslims believe we are both wrong.
I believe as far as beliefs go I am pretty much typical of any Sunni. But, I will admit There are some who do not agree with me on the methodology on what need to be done for all of us to live in Peace.
Does the Quran or Hadith give examples of a just war for Muslims ?
In a 2002 letter, Osama bin Laden asked this question: Why are we fighting and opposing you [America] ? He answered "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us"
1.You attacked us in Palestine
2. You supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
3. Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis; These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
4. The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.
5. Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
6. You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day.
These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
“Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory. [Quran 22:39]
Does the Quran or Hadith give examples of a just war for Muslims ?
In a 2002 letter, Osama bin Laden asked this question: Why are we fighting and opposing you [America] ? He answered "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us"
1.You attacked us in Palestine
2. You supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
3. Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis; These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
4. The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.
5. Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
6. You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day.
These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
“Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory. [Quran 22:39]
Here we can get into a long debate over what is self protection and what is aggression. In Islam the only way war can be declared is for self protection.
Who is the aggressor and who is acting out of self protection? I guess that depends on what side of the street you are walking on. the sad part in all wars it is usually the innocent that suffer the most.
Bin Laden saw it as Muslims being attacked and killed by America. America saw 9/11 as an attack by Islam and America is the one acting out of self protection.
The people living in Iraq and Afghanistan only know that for the past 10+ years the counties have been devastated by American bombs.
Where and what is the truth? Who is the aggressor, it seems all we know for certain is who is suffering.
Woodrow, what is your opinion of the contents of the drive by pastings done by your fellow Muslims, such as "Foam of the sea", the fall of Darwinism, etc. Do you accept evolution or do you, like other Muslims claim that god made humans from clay, or a "clot"?
Here we can get into a long debate over what is self protection and what is aggression. In Islam the only way war can be declared is for self protection.
This qualification is a typical misdirect because as long as Israel exists and is supported by the West . . . Islam IS in Dar al Harb (War of Defense). Pretending that the qualification somehow matters in today's real politik is disingenuous.
Woodrow, what is your opinion of the contents of the drive by pastings done by your fellow Muslims, such as "Foam of the sea", the fall of Darwinism, etc. Do you accept evolution or do you, like other Muslims claim that god made humans from clay, or a "clot"?
While I can understand the drive "by pasting" I believe they would be more suitable for an Islamic forum. The errors I see in them is TMI (Too Much Information) there is too much to digest at one sitting. the second problem is they are often cut and paste with no source given.
I think a better choice would be to start a thread, be available to answer and questions and keep all related material in the one thread. Bulk advertising works for selling shoes, but when trying to present an ideology, over exposure often results in a backlash.
When starting a thread I believe the op needs to be available to give feed back to any and all comments especially any questions or disagreements.
As for evolution, I accept micro and macro evolution for all species except man. I do accept micro evolution of man, but I believe man has always been man and came from a single line. Our ancestors probably had some differences from modern man, but man was always man. I still have a long way to go to see how much of what is considered evolution is or is not in conflict with the Qur'an. The big problem here is that most people who are knowledgeable in the qur'an, have limited background in the sciences and those knowledgeable in the sciences have little knowledge of the Qur'an. there is an understanding barrier that needs to be overcome. Until a person really has an understanding of what constitutes Evolution, I doubt if they can form a real opinion as to what parts are in conflict with Islam. The common concepts of evolution are in conflict with the Qur'an, but a lot of the common concepts are also in conflict with biology.
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.
