Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

3 simple reasons why Islam isn't compatible with the West watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Your understanding of the Qur'an is wrong
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Times are changing. The current social climate is far more liberal than it was a thousand years ago, for better and for worse. Yet this change humanity is still undergoing is a process that is integral to its evolution and understanding of the world. I mean I don't think the Qu'uran can be singled out; I think most religious texts have something that is incompatible with society in the present day. Not many people I know think the world was created in 7 days.

    Imo religious books should be a moral guide rather than handbook that is followed letter for letter, and should be interpreted and applied in the context of today. Some parts simply may not be relevant, but the key moral ideas can still be adapted and used
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    Your understanding of the Qur'an is wrong
    A book full of vague ambiguity and contradiction, interpreted in many different ways over the centuries, the source of violent conflict between disagreeing sects over the last 1400 years, that no one can agree about - even learned "scholars".

    And you say that his "understanding in wrong"?
    Interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Think People)
    Who says muslims even want sharia in the west ? Btw saying the word "sharia law" is redundant , simply because the word "sharia" means law in arabic.

    If you've read some basic history you'll know that muslims are not planning to over take the world. Honestly speaking those who do plan to take over the world are ones that control around 40% of world reserves. :yy:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What like the Crusades, Conquest of Spain, Fall of the Byzantine Empire. They've been planning on taking over the world since day one, only stopped by being repelled at France and Vienna.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    Im talking about the laws of Islam, not what Muslims actually do in real life. Many of them do not follow the Quran properly. Muslims are not allowed to friends with non-Muslims according to the Quran:

    "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (The Noble Quran, 5:51)"
    "O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (The Noble Quran, 5:57)"
    "Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (The Noble Quran, 4:139)"
    This is such a desperate try.

    The first one the translation is completely incorrect but i dont expect an a'jmi to understand.
    The second one i see nothing wrong with it, if you mock my religion then go ahead, but don't expect me to be friends with you.
    And as for the 3rd thats another poor translation, it simply encourages muslims to not exclude themselves completely from muslims and only have non-muslim friends. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a prohibition of friendship with non-muslims.

    Take this L.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILikeMintTeaM8)
    The crusades? So the ones in the wrong are the middle easterns and not the invading European hordes?
    They were in response to muslims attacking christian lands.

    Get a history book as it may help you
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILikeMintTeaM8)
    This is such a desperate try.

    The first one the translation is completely incorrect but i dont expect an a'jmi to understand.
    The second one i see nothing wrong with it, if you mock my religion then go ahead, but don't expect me to be friends with you.
    And as for the 3rd thats another poor translation, it simply encourages muslims to not exclude themselves completely from muslims and only have non-muslim friends. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a prohibition of friendship with non-muslims.

    Take this L.
    I love the way student keyboard warriors claim to have greater knowledge of classical Arabic translation than dozens of experienced, fluently bilingual Muslim scholars.

    If, as you claim, that the majority of such translators over the last 100 years or more have got it wrong, why don't you provide your own translation of those verses, along with explanations as to why your version is superior.

    And while you're at it, explain how and why Ibn Kathir misunderstood those verses in his tafsir.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILikeMintTeaM8)
    The crusades? So the ones in the wrong are the middle easterns and not the invading European hordes?
    I agree with you the conquest of Al-Andalus was completely wrong in spain. Byzantium were the ones to provoke and start the wars and they suffered a humiliating defeat. And i agree with you that what the ottomans did in eastern europe was shameful.
    So, apart from 1000 years of violent expansionism, Islam never had an eye on the lands of others.

    Fair enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lowza)
    This is so silly, no one follows their religious book word for word. I'm pretty sure most muslims would love it if the people around them became muslim (just as christians, hindus and sikhs would feel too) but the vast majority won't use violence to get there. You could write this for any religion, including christianity which I'd consider to be the main christian religion. According to the bible, it is acceptable for anyone who works on a Saturday to be put to death. I'm not sure that entirely fits in with the West either...

    How about we judge people on who they are and not their religion? That sounds much nicer
    About that Saturday thing, it means that if you know that Saturday is the Sabbath and continue to work and treat is as just another day of the week you wont really be put to death in that sense. It means you will be condemned on judgement day because you know what you were doing was wrong and continues to do so. This goes for all the other commandments such as do not steal, do not kill as so on. Also, in response to your pint about violence, Christianity is different from Islam in the sense that we have two parts. When Jesus came a lot of things changed such as sacrificing a lamb and so on. Islam gives way to killing people who are not Muslim - even if it's a war. According to a strict Muslim at my school, she said things through out the Quran will always be taken as written no matter the time period. She is Soni as well. Some Christian denominations are against this because although there were stories about God giving commands to kill people in war, after the ten commandments were in place that was no longer aplliable today because one of the ten commandsments stated: 'do not kill'. Of course there are Muslims who have moral mentalities that killing people just over religion is wrong. Especially after meeting people of different faiths and walks of life. However, this isn't about the people but rather what the religion's law and guide - the Quaran states.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    "A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem,[1] relates to a person who follows or practises the religion of Islam"
    In this case they are not Muslims.
    Exactly, the Quran states what a muslim should do, and since most of them say the Quaran doesn't change and the context remains as is, they aren't muslims then.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazySkittles)
    When Jesus came a lot of things changed such as sacrificing a lamb and so on.
    What changed? 2000 years people comfortably kill each other.
    (Original post by CrazySkittles)
    Exactly, the Quran states what a muslim should do, and since most of them say the Quaran doesn't change and the context remains as is, they aren't muslims then.
    I hope that you understand what you have written.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    What changed? 2000 years people comfortably kill each other.

    I hope that you understand what you have written.
    The first quote is for Christians in terms of killing. If you claim to be Christian you should not under any circumstance condone the taking if another's life. The catholics have a history of killing people who they claim to be witches or sorcerers or people who "go against God's law". If you have yet to realise this they have their own bible that is different from the Holy Bible. I wouldn't class them as Christians and so, this point exactly is why there are denominations in Christianity. One person think they're right another thinks they are wrong.

    And for the second quote I understand what I have written.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Western society is slowly catching up to give them credit.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazySkittles)
    The first quote is for Christians in terms of killing. If you claim to be Christian you should not under any circumstance condone the taking if another's life. The catholics have a history of killing people who they claim to be witches or sorcerers or people who "go against God's law". If you have yet to realise this they have their own bible that is different from the Holy Bible. I wouldn't class them as Christians and so, this point exactly is why there are denominations in Christianity. One person think they're right another thinks they are wrong.
    Well, you claim that Catholics are not true Christians and Muslims claim that members of ISIS are not true Muslims. What is the difference?
    And for the second quote I understand what I have written.
    OK, at least one person understands it..
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShariYeah!)
    Western society is slowly catching up to give them credit.
    Bridge! Now!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    1) According to the Quran, Muslims cannot be friends with "unbelievers" so they cannot possibly integrate into British society as a group.

    2) Sharia law directly opposes Western values. The death of apostates, the ban info homosexuality, the jizya tax for non-Muslims all contradict our values of tolerance, equality and freedom.

    3) Muslms ultimately want the whole world to be Muslim and to live according to the rules of the Quran. They are allowed under the Quran to use violent methods to charge this.
    It's strange then, because I find the Muslims I work with to be very friendly. They also seem to be good Muslims who know their Quran, Hadith, etc.

    Sharia is something that traditionally was only required for Islamic states. The desire to impose it elsewhere is a form of extremism, probably unsupported by the texts, but even if it is now believed by many Muslims, it's unlikely to become a fact on the ground other than for things like marriage-related issues. Other religions also legislate and have their own courts in these kinds of things within the UK and other Western countries. Are we going to make one law for all the other religions and a different one for Muslims?

    On your third point, so do many Christians. That doesn't mean it's remotely likely to happen, or that most of the religious actually follow it in practise.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    OK, at least one person understands it..
    Although it is completely understandable, it does somewhat set up a paradox of sorts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's strange then, because I find the Muslims I work with to be very friendly. They also seem to be good Muslims who know their Quran, Hadith, etc.

    Sharia is something that traditionally was only required for Islamic states. The desire to impose it elsewhere is a form of extremism, probably unsupported by the texts, but even if it is now believed by many Muslims, it's unlikely to become a fact on the ground other than for things like marriage-related issues. Other religions also legislate and have their own courts in these kinds of things within the UK and other Western countries. Are we going to make one law for all the other religions and a different one for Muslims?

    On your third point, so do many Christians. That doesn't mean it's remotely likely to happen, or that most of the religious actually follow it in practise.
    The title of the thread is "Islam isn't compatible with the west" not "Muslims aren't compatible with the the west"- I was criticising the ideology, not the people.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Although it is completely understandable, it does somewhat set up a paradox of sorts.
    In such interpretation they still are Muslims, though the sinners.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    The title of the thread is "Islam isn't compatible with the west" not "Muslims aren't compatible with the the west"- I was criticising the ideology, not the people.
    If you criticize a religion, you automatically criticize people, who follow this religion and for whom this religion is sacred.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.