Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

How often do you view the Islamic Society? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: How often do you view the Islamic Society thread?
    I am Sunni - Frequently
    19.23%
    I am Sunni - Infrequently
    16.35%
    I am Sunni - Rarely/Never
    8.65%
    I am Shia - Frequently
    0
    0%
    I am Shia - Infrequently
    1.92%
    I am Shia - Rarely/Never
    0.96%
    I am Non-Muslim - Frequently
    4.81%
    I am Non-Muslim - Infrequently
    6.73%
    I am Non-Muslim - Rarely/Never
    41.35%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    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.
    This is not strictly true; I have correctly explained the situation to this user elsewhere.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Yeah, good. Getting a bit bored of these ridiculously long holidays though!
    Lol same. Will you still be attending university?

    (Original post by h333)
    How do you know? How can we see what others selected?
    Click on the number.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It's nice to see pleasantries exchanged between a Muslim and a non-Muslim on a thread like this.
    Lol just because I disagree on some points with him + others, it doesn't automatically assume I will not get along with them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    We have discussed this on another thread where this has been explained to you.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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?
    Yep, first year done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    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.
    Naughty Al-Farhoo-boo, you should be applying Huznuzon in this issue :naughty:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    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. We'd probably do the same with many sunni styled groups as well.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Not true bro. We simply oppose adding material to the OP which we believe may lead to wrong.
    Indeed, a message in the OP requesting users to refrain from sectarian and divisive comments towards Shia Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims etc... will somehow lead to wrong :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    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 (spaced out over a period of months), 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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    Islam isn't a religion where anyone can say anything and it will be accepted. There is nothing wrong with opposing unislamic beliefs. You don't care because you're an atheist but Muslims do care about enjoining good and forbidden wrong.

    I'm not complaining about 'persecution' here. I know people will always oppose Islam and Muslims. Some do it passively through their words to distort religion, others do it in more violent ways e.g. in Egypt etc... 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's just another chance for you to oppose legitimate Muslims. I can't really recall hardcore insulting or abusing, but yh I did troll you every now and then when you were trying to corrupt Islam. It wasn't done day in day out against you (as you're trying to make out), just on the odd days ,could be weeks or months when I didn't say anything. I'm not taking a moral high ground.

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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    I'm just pointing out there you're the former and you probably don't actually care much for non-Muslim groups like ahmaddiya
    More sectarianism...

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

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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    When you write that you had months of me trolling you, it makes it seems like I non-stop hounded you for months on end with trolls. Most people will read it that way. So I'm pointing out it wasn't like that (not that it justifies even 1 instance of trolling you though). Tawheed's been trying to spread a lie like that (you're not telling lies about being trolled ofc, I admit that), so just gto make certain things clear.

    You disagree with Islam. Isoc Muslims don't. That's the root of the problem
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    :rolleyes:
    Your thread has been bare time waste
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Do you or do you not try to support 'reinterpretations' of mainstream Islamic belief?
    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)

    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?
    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? :rolleyes:

    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.
    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 :rolleyes: All I see is that usual avoidance of debating my point, and instead throwing out ad hominems and trying to denigrate my character.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    When you write that you had months of me trolling you, it makes it seems like I non-stop hounded you for months on end with trolls. Most people will read it that way.
    I have edited the post and hopefully that shall clarify better so as to not mislead any individuals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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? :rolleyes:



    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 :rolleyes: All I see is that usual avoidance of debating my point, and instead throwing out ad hominems and trying to denigrate my character.
    The scope of interpretation has limits; you try to exercise ijtihad (independent reasoning) on matters where there is limited difference of opinion.

    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.
    We call out whichever argument you make when it's necessary - we don't just single out this topic; if it's the main or only topic where you will try to force a reinterpretation, then that isn't our fault.

    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    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.
    Homophobic attitudes played an important role.

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

    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Homophobic attitudes played an important role.
    Not as much as him being mentally/emotionally challenged did.


    Quite so. All religious texts are open to interpretation, so Islam shouldn't be exempt from such liberalisation.
    It is an invalid interpretation as it is not academically and accurately portraying their intended meaning. You are as intellectually disingenuous as terrorists; your only redeeming feature is that you have not killed any innocent people.

    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.
    And the moderation team listened to a report made by one of your colleagues on a video in the ISOC explaining the merits of hijab as being sexist and offensive - they try to do their best but their assessment is limited to the picture one paints for them.

    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
    It is not bigoted since we have firm justification for our views, therefore it fails to be sectarian other than to that part of the definition where it pertains to a matter of sect - in which case all of your posts and Tawheed's posts are equally as sectarian as ours; the only thing that can be faulted is perhaps the manner, tone and words used by some other members which could be construed rudely.

    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).
    Comments which are bigoted can be sectarian; not all denouncements are bigoted, and they may be justified, therefore they fail to be sectarian in the way you intend it to mean, instead only being sectarian as a matter pertaining to sect. An example is the refusual to accept Ahmadi belief as being Islamic which is due to accademic reasons accepted by consensus of Sunni and Shia alike, which is therefore not bigoted. The ISOC is against sectarian posts in the way you mean it (bigoted sectarianism), but sectarianism is the nature of every single Sunni and Shia post as they relate to their particular sect. In a non-sectarian society, the only thing that can be done is to combat the bigotry; justifiable differences and recognition of that does not equate to being bigoted.

    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.
    You are waving around the label 'sectarian' to validate your criticism of the ISOC with the implication that they are bigoted, so you are attacking our characters.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 21, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.