How often do you view the Islamic Society?

There is a shia poster who wants ISOC to recognise shia as being Muslim in the opening post on the thread but because there's like 1 shia on the forum that is not needed. The poll is to prove that.

Yeah, good. Getting a bit bored of these ridiculously long holidays though!

How do you know? How can we see what others selected?

It's nice to see pleasantries exchanged between a Muslim and a non-Muslim on a thread like this.

We have discussed this on another thread where this has been explained to you.

I've finished my degree, but I'm staying at the same Uni for a PhD that I'm starting in October. Are you still doing a degree?

I think regardless of how many times you answer or address this topic. It is always going to be tawheed’s bread and butter go to topic. It is a versatile topic for him. Sometimes as we can see here he will use it when talking about ''salafis’’ making sure to point out not all sunnis are ''salafi’’, using the topic as appoint of contention against them. Basically salafis accept tajsiim.
Then he will use it when talking about sunnis painting to be the accepted view of sunnis as seen in the other thread so as to paint the picture of we don't accept tajsiim but they do.

*I suspect there will be a 5000 word refutation of this plastered with sectarianism accusations, when simply I'm just pointing out to a trend I have seen.

There is a shia poster who wants ISOC to recognise shia as being Muslim in the opening post on the thread but because there's like 1 shia on the forum that is not needed. The poll is to prove that.

Not true bro. We simply oppose adding material to the OP which we believe may lead to wrong.

With your demands, you just want to corrupt Islam and pass usislamic beliefs as legitimate islam etc... You don't actually care for people yourself, it's just another way for you to oppose legitimate practicing Muslims .

My point has been proven once again. This is another blatant example of sectarianism...

Ah yes, lets resort to the usual victim card claiming you are being persecuted by me, ignoring the fact that I have had months of you insulting, abusing and trolling me through anonymous accounts and dupe accounts. Jump off your high-horse mate as you have no moral high ground to stand on. I'm merely asking for the I-Soc to actually address its issues regarding sectarianism and take a stand against it, which you and others continually fail to do.

My point has been proven once again. This is another blatant example of sectarianism...

Ah yes, lets resort to the usual victim card claiming you are being persecuted by me, ignoring the fact that I have had months of you insulting, abusing and trolling me through anonymous accounts and dupe accounts. Jump off your high-horse mate as you have no moral high ground to stand on. I'm merely asking for the I-Soc to actually address its issues regarding sectarianism and take a stand against it, which you and others continually fail to do.

I'm just pointing out there you're the former and you probably don't actually care much for non-Muslim groups like ahmaddiya

It wasn't done day in day out against you (as you're trying to make out)

If you disagree with Islam, thats fine, but don't expect Muslims to willingly compromise some of their beliefs with open arms.

Crying 'sectarianism' is just an emotional provocation to deligitimise genuine positions of argument. You are starting to use the word in the way you claim Muslims frequently denounce criticism as Islamaphobic.

More sectarianism...



Please indicate where I said it was done day in day out? I merely stated that it happened over months. I never said day in day out. Maybe you should reread over my post again.



I disagree with your interpretation of Islam. I don't hide that fact. I disagree with how your interpretation of Islam is the single and only interpretation of Islam. In fact, this is the root problem of the sectarianism in the I-Soc. It is no wonder that the I-Soc is awash with sectarian comments.

More sectarianism...



Please indicate where I said it was done day in day out? I merely stated that it happened over months. I never said day in day out. Maybe you should reread over my post again.



I disagree with your interpretation of Islam. I don't hide that fact. I disagree with how your interpretation of Islam is the single and only interpretation of Islam. In fact, this is the root problem of the sectarianism in the I-Soc. It is no wonder that the I-Soc is awash with sectarian comments.

Do you or do you not try to support 'reinterpretations' of mainstream Islamic belief?

Do you or do you not have an agenda generally to push 'liberal Islam' into the mainstream by trying to convince Muslims to change their beliefs to make Islam more palatable to your sensibilities?

The answer to both of those questions is: yes - it is thus understandable why Ideas would question your intentions; crying 'sectarianism' is just an emotional provocation to deligitimise genuine positions of argument. You are starting to use the word in the way you claim Muslims frequently denounce criticism as Islamaphobic.

I support that all religious texts are open to interpretation. Islam, much like Christianity, has a wide variety of interpretations. This is how a single religion can give rise to both peaceful and violent individuals. The same individuals the opposed slavery in America use the very same book to justify their arguments as the people who defended slavery in America (namely the Bible)



Ah, so my challenging of the issue of homophobia within the Muslim community, especially after a recent homophobic attack in a club in Orlando, is the problem? How dare I try to address homophobia?



It is humorous that I can talk on any other topic without getting so much hate. It only helps to emphasise the problem that we have on TSR. I can defend progressive interpretations of Christianity on TSR and nobody bats an eyelid. But God forbid I discuss progressive interpretations of Islam... On no other topic on TSR that I discuss do I receive such a paranoid backlash claiming that my intentions aren't real All I see is that usual avoidance of debating my point, and instead throwing out ad hominems and trying to denigrate my character.

The attack in Orlando by a mentally/emotionally challenged homosexual 'Muslim' has nothing to do with this other than as an emotive appeal by you to pander to the emotions of any audience reading this.

That is because Christianity has already had its period of liberalisation by the masses before you defended 'progressive' Christianity from a much weakened opponent (conservative Christians); here you are trying to force Islam through the liberalisation process.

It is somewhat rich that you do the exact same - everyone is sectarian, every point others make is sectarian and therefore an invalid argument; could you kindly provide the definition for 'sectarian'? Again, I will reiterate that you use it as an emotional appeal to stifle the counterargument against you.

Homophobic attitudes played an important role.

Quite so. All religious texts are open to interpretation, so Islam shouldn't be exempt from such liberalisation.

I've mostly been pointing out that posts are sectarian, which the moderation team has been in agreement with me. The fact is that sects do exist in Islam.

But if we look at the Oxford English Dictionary definitions (excluding the obsolete and rare definitions)

1) Pertaining to a sect or sects; confined to a particular sect; bigotedly attached to a particular sect.
2) A bigoted adherent of a sect; one whose views or sympathies are sectarian

Now as the I-Soc is meant to be a society open to all Muslims and not any particular sect, any denouncement of other sects or intolerant comments towards other sects would by definition be sectarian. That is why I either recommend the editting of the OP to address this issue, or the forming of a separate Sunni society where this issue wont exist. But in a non-sectarian society, an emphasis should be made on combating sectarianism (and the bigotry associated with it).

An ad hominem is an attack on a persons character to discredit their argument. I have not claimed anybodies argument is invalid because they are sectarian. I have merely stated that they are being sectarian. However, people are attacking my character to say that my arguments in this thread are invalid. That is an ad hominem.