Why go to the west if you don't like it?

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

^ Lol. I've heard that attributed to natives, too. Never checked it out. Will have to now.

 

Now I have to go deal with the fact that SG, in his own small push-back against colonialism, is refusing to wear " western gear" to his wedding.

[Gaius I. Caesar 8,717]

10 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Now I have to go deal with the fact that SG, in his own small push-back against colonialism, is refusing to wear " western gear" to his wedding.

I'd say let him dress like a Shah and DD in the the traditional garb of your tribe. It's high time to push back.

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

Lol! His dad is sending out whatever glorified garb Arabs wear I guess. 

[Christianlady 753]

4 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Religion was a definite part of the conquest.

Salam LeftCoastMom,

It is strange to me though, cause Jesus Christ never told his followers to go steal other people's land. He did tell them to make disciples in all the nations, but that doesn't mean to conquer them. It just means to testify to them about Jesus and invite them to follow him too.

 I wish the European immigrants to "America" had truly obeyed Jesus Christ and truly loved their neighbors. I am sad and yes ashamed at how the Europeans took over the "New World" because they disobeyed Jesus Christ, even though they identified as Christian.

Quote

Looks like that project is failing, though. People going back to the old ways.

I am glad that people have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to follow Jesus Christ or not. That's very important.

Anyways, my Muslim friends who immigrated to the USA are here because of opportunities. I've never personally heard them say that they don't like the West, at least not in English lol!

While definitely there are things that happen here with which they disagree (like immodesty), they are busy enjoying life and taking care of their families. They seem very happy, in my opinion, and just like other families.

Peace and God bless you

Edited May 10, 2016 by Christianlady

[Christianlady 753]

On 4/21/2016 at 0:05 PM, notme said:

Wanting/wishing for something is not the same as trying to enforce it on others. I really wish runners and joggers would wear more clothing, but I don't have any illusion that it is going to become law. I have a right to complain, but not to do more than that.

Salam Notme,

100% agreed.

There are many things in any country to complain about or wish was different. I don't like billboards with scantily clad women. I have the right to complain, though it may or may not have any affect. 

My Dad and a group of men did complain about playboy type magazines in a store near our house when I was a kid. I remember that because my Dad was interviewed and because my family deliberately did not buy anything from that store. The result was that the store owner decided to no longer sell those magazines. And yep, we started to buy from that store again.

I'm really proud of my Dad! I have no idea if that store sells those magazines now, but at least it changed when my Dad and many men in the community decided to protest and boycott the store till those magazines were taken out. The store owner realized that he got more business when his store was family friendly and met the needs of the hard working parents who lived nearby. (Of course, many wives did not want their husbands looking at those kinds of magazines, but interestingly, when the men led the protest, the store owner listened..)

It is indeed a right to protest by not buying something. Some store owners listen. Others don't care.

Peace and God bless you

Edited May 10, 2016 by Christianlady

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

1 hour ago, Christianlady said:

Salam LeftCoastMom,

It is strange to me though, cause Jesus Christ never told his followers to go steal other people's land. He did tell them to make disciples in all the nations, but that doesn't mean to conquer them. It just means to testify to them about Jesus and invite them to follow him too.

 I wish the European immigrants to "America" had truly obeyed Jesus Christ and truly loved their neighbors. I am sad and yes ashamed at how the Europeans took over the "New World" because they disobeyed Jesus Christ, even though they identified as Christian.

I am glad that people have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to follow Jesus Christ or not. That's very important.

Anyways, my Muslim friends who immigrated to the USA are here because of opportunities. I've never personally heard them say that they don't like the West, at least not in English lol!

While definitely there are things that happen here with which they disagree (like immodesty), they are busy enjoying life and taking care of their families. They seem very happy, in my opinion, and just like other families.

Peace and God bless you

When SG registered to vote for the first time in his life a while back, he danced down the street because he was going to help pick a US President. We laughed at him ( and he laughed too) because it was sooo hokey...but it was refreshing to my old jaded soul.

[Sumerian 6,337]

Lol. They attack you when you complain about their socieities, nevermind the 100s of "human rights organisations" and "activists", sponsored by the West, that do nothing but bash Islamic countries and Islamic Laws. Don't come to our countries then. 

Oh and not to mention most of the complaining done in the West is by liberals who want to push further their agenda, and cry about freedoms and bla bla bla. They have an anti-society mindset together with an inferiority complex.

I am personally not a fan of complaining too much as well. I think that if someone is having trouble practicing their religion in a place full of sin they should move.

Edited May 10, 2016 by The Batman

[certainclarity 1,094]

4 hours ago, The Batman said:

 

I am personally not a fan of complaining too much as well. I think that if someone is having trouble practicing their religion in a place full of sin they should move.

Salam 

Well said. I still believe majority of people are in a habit of complaining.Whether Muslim or non Muslim .

We have plenty of Momin Muslims who complain in Muslim countries. These same people will complain in any place. Muslim country or non Muslim country.

In Muslim countries they will complain about joblessness, high prices, poverty corruption and say poverty is the cause of kufr, and when they go to west, they say these people do kufr.

The irony is these people are normally well off.

The issue is not in not complaining, but most who complain, do not take part in active change and just nag without any constructive action and responsibility themselves.

@IbnSinaThe last thing, if one is in a situation to move, they should make arrangements to do it asap, and not plan till one gets married or have kids...

How do you know you will live tomorrow, to even get married and have kids?

You live now You can die one sec after now.

So Save your religion as soon as you can.

If you feel you can thrive to be a better Muslim in west stay there . 

If you feel you can thrive to be a better Muslim in a Muslim country migrate.

Probably one can do so much more in a Muslim country, and give back to their poor Muslim brothers by working in villages, and gain more sawab than trying to do a dawah in the west which may only affect a few people.

Plus probably get to get married and have kids in a Muslim country.

Muslim countries need more Muslim expertise to be living in Muslim countries building Muslim countries not non Muslim countries.

My hats off to those Muslim expertise who have taken constructive action and left the comfort of the west to serve their poor Muslim brothers in remote villages in Muslim countries after their studies, and helped in the development of their own Muslim land.

Their is so much prayers and blessing of the poor after them.

Here is clip of a simple young teacher who has dedicated his life to help teach children of remote village in Iran:

http://www.aparat.com/v/xJNUH/معلم_نمونه_-_آوای_فرهنگی

Edited May 10, 2016 by certainclarity

[Christianlady 753]

8 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

When SG registered to vote for the first time in his life a while back, he danced down the street because he was going to help pick a US President. We laughed at him ( and he laughed too) because it was sooo hokey...

Lol! That's awesome! 

My hubby can't vote yet in the USA, though he has his green card now. I think he will do his happy dance too when he can vote!

Many legal residents are rushing to get their American citizenship processed in order to vote this election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/trumps-rise-spurs-latino-immigrants-to-naturalize-to-vote-against-him.html?_r=0

 

Quote

but it was refreshing to my old jaded soul.

 

That is poetic but we know that you are timeless and wise, and yet not proud. 

The USA still has a long ways to go, but every American who stands up for equality helps make the USA a better place for everybody! 

Peace and God bless you

[Sumayyeh 2,735]

1 hour ago, certainclarity said:

 

@IbnSinaThe last thing, if one is in a situation to move, they should make arrangements to do it asap, and not plan till one gets married or have kids...

How do you know you will live tomorrow, to even get married and have kids?

You live now You can die one sec after now.

So Save your religion as soon as you can.

 

If you feel you can thrive to be a better Muslim in a Muslim country migrate.

Probably one can do so much more in a Muslim country, and give back to their poor Muslim brothers by working in villages, and gain more sawab than trying to do a dawah in the west which may only affect a few people.

Plus probably get to get married and have kids in a Muslim country.

Muslim countries need more Muslim expertise to be living in Muslim countries building Muslim countries not non Muslim countries.

My hats off to those Muslim expertise who have taken constructive action and left the comfort of the west to serve their poor Muslim brothers in remote villages in Muslim countries after their studies, and helped in the development of their own Muslim land.

Their is so much prayers and blessing of the poor after them.

Here is clip of a simple young teacher who has dedicated his life to help teach children of remote village in Iran:

http://www.aparat.com/v/xJNUH/معلم_نمونه_-_آوای_فرهنگی

I second that...thank you.

@IbnSina That's some solid right there. Look into the easiest way you can transition yourself (I.e are there any work opportunities for you in Iran, etc...)

@LeftCoastMom Hi  

The premise of overlooking the flaws of secularism and the irony of what genocides it has done to natives, while defending it at the same time appears just really flawed if you know what I mean. And then saying it as if now someone owes secularism for the fact that they "convert" to a religion or "freely" practice their religion, unlike other "Muslim" countries is flawed. It's not right. 

------------------------

"the highest ranking priest for Armenians in Iran,  Mr Babkan charyan said, 

I have served in different parts of the world but my experaince in Iran (Isfihan)  was something else.

"I promise that wherever I go, I will act as an unofficial representative of Iran because I see it as my responsibility to show realities. 

Iranian people do not indescriminate against the followers of other religions, because we all worship one God and believe in one God.

During these years I never felt like a stranger. 

I consider Isfihan as my second home because I was among my friends and I felt their friendship and affection and I will always hold this affection and respect for them in my heart."
--------------------
tr.im/9v4ha

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

Actually,  I do not know what you mean.

Can you explain?

A coalition of both religious and state institutions did the damage to my family. They did it together with full knowledge of what they were doing. It's not a just a sociological theory to me. The secular aspect of how this country was supposed to be allowed the lawsuits to happen and the laws to be changed. Not sure that would have happened if the US would have been a " Christian' nation. I do not understand putting the blame for the genocide on secularism. Forcing the US to live up to its secular underpinnings has sure been a boon to my family. Being able to pick, change, or leave your religion according to what you are convinced of in your soul  is pretty nifty, you have  to admit.

Not  sure why you are using someone in Iran as an example. That,IMHO, is really "overlooking flaws". I'm willing to admit that Iran is head and shoulders above a lot of nations out that way with a history of continued pluralism. But:

 Iran jails people for proselytizing ( @Christianlady Can tell you about one) , 

 

forces women who want to marry an Iranian Muslim man and enter the country to convert ( why? Can't Muslim men marry Christians or Jews? why put that extra tidbit in there? I have a college friend who did it...her reasoning? " If those jerks can force me,then I can lie to them" A lot of Muslins would be offended by that, but then a lot of Muslims wouldn't force a conversion either. Last time I checked, you could worship polar bears or Flying Spaghetti Monsters and get into the US ,no problem. She's no more Muslim than one of my rabbits and actually  disdains the religion. However, not so much as her husband, who grew up with it ,has it on his papers, and says he isn't allowed to change it either. Can a "Muslim " who isn't really one openly stop being a Muslim in Iran? Like Abu Hadi could openly change his religion here? He'd like to be declared what he is...an atheist. He has to go there to help his equally atheist ( but also hiding it) dad in their business. Soon as dad is dead, no more Iran for him.) If Islam has no compulsion in religion, how do you explain  any of this? I personally think it's not enough to say " well, you can do what you want behind closed doors and nobody forces you to go to the mosque". He really does not believe in Islam and doesn't like being assigned a religion. He would like to have " no religion" on his documents. He says he can't do that. If he can be openly atheist in the US, to what is he to " owe" that  right to self-determine except to our secularism? There you have a direct comparison. 

 As well, Iran has religious groups unprotected by law (like the Baha'i ...can we hear from one of their religious leaders?) Discrimination happens everywhere,to be sure, but the issue is how the nation's laws deal with it. Do you think my pagan relatives would have been able to have their day in court in Iran?

But I am willing to be taught. Maybe I have things wrong. What is the process for redress of grievances for an unprotected religious group in Iran? What is the process for my friend's  husband to legally unbecome a Muslim there?

You can have any religion ...or none...in contemporary America. Yes, I think that's fantastic. 

So forgive me for not understanding your point. 

It appears strange to me on the face of it.

Edited May 10, 2016 by LeftCoastMom

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

4 hours ago, Christianlady said:

Lol! That's awesome! 

My hubby can't vote yet in the USA, though he has his green card now. I think he will do his happy dance too when he can vote!

Many legal residents are rushing to get their American citizenship processed in order to vote this election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/us/trumps-rise-spurs-latino-immigrants-to-naturalize-to-vote-against-him.html?_r=0

 

That is poetic but we know that you are timeless and wise, and yet not proud. 

The USA still has a long ways to go, but every American who stands up for equality helps make the USA a better place for everybody! 

Peace and God bless you

Lol. Thanks, but I often don't feel very wise ( opinionated maybe) and certainly not timeless. My body warns me of that. So be it. 

I'm glad your husband is now in the process. Fortunately for SG , he was born a citizen. He had just never accessed the voting  rights before. Now he will. I Don't think registering to vote was one of the requirements DD put on him, but I wouldn't be surprised. She was at the County Offices with her paperwork on her 18th birthday. Locally the ndn vote can be important around here...

Edited May 10, 2016 by LeftCoastMom

[baradar_jackson 8,075]

On 5/8/2016 at 6:57 PM, LeftCoastMom said:

I have problems with any imperialism and I'd honestly rather the Catholic faith have been brought here in a proper way intended by Jesus than the way it was. But everything carries its own punishment. Most of my relatives have left the Church due to the history and after us there will might not be another generation since my sons are likely to marry traditionals.

I never said there had to be one extreme or the other. You said that.

However, in a " religious" empire, the dominant religion has to deign to give rights to the subordinate faiths. That doesn't always work out so good...then or now.

Why can't SG convert to Catholicism in his own country if he wanted to? Why would he have to hide it if he did? ( No, he is not considering it, but he thinks he should be allowed to.)

 I like it when there is no dominant faith. 

And, excuse me, almost forgot this part...the imperialism and secularism comparison is silly. Secularism gives rights to people. Abu Hadi had a choice he could freely make under a secular system. Imperialism takes rights away. My family had no choice. 

The philosophies and institutions are completely different.

Its a bit like saying: It doesn't matter if we get our child  a sweet cocker spaniel puppy or a vicious rabid pit bull. They're both dogs. Give me a break.

 

 

OK, so you would rather the Catholic faith come to you through a better means.

 

Why can't Abu Hadi say the same about Islam? This is why the "point" about Abu Hadi (supposedly) never becoming a Muslim if not for secularism, is so silly (even if it were true, which it isn't).

 

Or take me, for example. My likelihood of becoming Shia is probably ten thousand percent more because of a man named Shah Ismail I. I don't really have any feelings toward this man. I don't think he's all that. I think he was just a typical king. There is nothing particularly special about him. And yet, because of him, my likelihood of turning out Shia was significantly greater. Am I obliged to like this man?

 

We could all say the same, with regard to anything. This is just a cheap way of trying to personalize a discussion that has nothing to do with us personally, as well as to stymie any discussion at all (because then: everyone's beliefs suddenly becomes based on some injustice they do not condone).

 

Regarding brother Abu Hadi: he does not agree with the tenets of secularism. He is not obliged to do so, even IF he would not have become Muslim if not for secularism. But that's not even true anyway. Islam spread like wildfire, into Central Asia, Western China, southeast Asia, south Asia, north Africa, and other places before secularism was even a thing. It's actually laughable to think that nobody could ever find their way to Islam without precious secularism.

 

Just as it is laughable to think that the only way religious freedoms can be ensured is through secularism. This simply, is not true. Tang China which was officially Buddhist, had Christian churches and Zoroastrian temples in their capital city. A lot of the Islamic architecture you see in Spain, was designed not only by Muslims but by Jews and Christians. (This was before the reconquista and the impurity of blood laws and all that). Muslims ruled the Indian subcontinent almost since the moment Islam arrived there (correct me if I'm wrong Pakis), and when was there any massacre or forced conversion of Hindus? Hindus remained the majority and do so until this very day.

 

The oldest Christian communities in the world are where? In Iraq and Syria. Before World War I, who ruled those countries? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Bernie Sanders. It was an Islamic caliphate. (Of course, we do not believe it was a legitimate caliphate but nonetheless: it was a political state which derived its supposedly legitimacy from Islam and claimed to rule in the name of Islam).

 

This idea that secularism is what instituted religious freedoms in the world is a Euro-centric idea based entirely on the experience of the European man. You are spewing Euro-centric ideas here, not universal ones.

Edited May 10, 2016 by baradar_jackson

[Soldiers and Saffron 6,800]

I never said I had any problems with my deen because of the place I live in.

I live no where and pretty much everything I own is in two luggage bags, do not tell me of this place and that place because going from this place to that place and living there is all I do, its what I do for a living.

At the end of the day what I am saying is this: If there is haram, I will complain.

To complain is to verbally express that you do not like something, I do not like haram.

Whenever applicable i will physically express my complain and whenever I can I will stop it. One way or the other I will express my discontent with haram, even if it wont change the situation I will still express my view as a way of making a clear statement.

If you see haram, if you live in haram and you do not complain and you do not condemn and you do not act when you can, then shame on you for calling yourself muslim and being fine with haram.

Haram is not limited to the west only, even if I move to Iran or any other place I will still complain and condemn when I see haram. Wherever you go you will always find haram somewhere and I will complain on this state that we live in until there is no haram left or until there is no more me left.

And no, I will not feel any thankfulness to the west for the claimed equality they give me, for the security, for the non polluted air, for my upbringing, for the education, for the health care, etc.

I only feel thankfulness to Allah(SWT), He gave me everything I have and He is the only one who can take away everything I have, so Alhamdulillah.

That is where people differ, in the realization of this.

Now go ahead, tell me I live a pathetic and sad life, tell me i should be happy with this, tell me I should be fine with it, tell me I should change, tell me I am unthankful.

Edited May 10, 2016 by IbnSina

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

Errrr.no, Baradar...I'm going to do something unfair ( because I don't know his story) and assume he encountered Islam in a free and open society in which it could be proselytized and shared and made a free choice which could be made public and shared with other folks. If he was in an America that ran itself like Iran runs itself, he would be forced to remain a Christian. Or hide his conversion to Islam. Only conversions allowed would be to Christianity. Bet his informative you-tubes wouldn't exist. This is due to a secular society. You're right, he is not obligated to like aspects of secularism. None of us are. But to say we do not benefit from basic aspects of  it is ludicrous. (Maybe you'd like to answer some of my questions in my former post. ) There is a reason SG wants to raise his children here. He thinks it's a great place. Not perfect,but what place is? He sees DD managed to make a good life for herself even with everything in her face. He spent a heck of a lot of time in the Middle East. He does NOT want to live or raise his family there,even though he acknowledges some good things about that place as well.

The reason the US part of the West is the way it is did not just " happen". This was designed by folks fed up with the mess that was Europe. So if it's Eurocentric ideas, it was from a Europe fed up with its mistakes. You really haven't studied history if you think things were peachy under dominant state religions in the past. It all depended on the mood of the dominant state religion at the time, what the ruler was like, etc. 

As it happens, I think  my ideas are not Eurocentric but mainly native because we didn't give a rats nether region what the tribe in the next valley believed. Everyone was presumed to have their own way. You respected that. How primitive.

now I have to go be nice to a bunch of Arabs.

[King 4,038]

6 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

Regarding brother Abu Hadi: he does not agree with the tenets of secularism. He is not obliged to do so, even IF he would not have become Muslim if not for secularism. But that's not even true anyway. Islam spread like wildfire, into Central Asia, Western China, southeast Asia, south Asia, north Africa, and other places before secularism was even a thing. It's actually laughable to think that nobody could ever find their way to Islam without precious secularism.

 

Just as it is laughable to think that the only way religious freedoms can be ensured is through secularism. This simply, is not true. Tang China which was officially Buddhist, had Christian churches and Zoroastrian temples in their capital city. A lot of the Islamic architecture you see in Spain, was designed not only by Muslims but by Jews and Christians. (This was before the reconquista and the impurity of blood laws and all that). Muslims ruled the Indian subcontinent almost since the moment Islam arrived there (correct me if I'm wrong Pakis), and when was there any massacre or forced conversion of Hindus? Hindus remained the majority and do so until this very day.

 

The oldest Christian communities in the world are where? In Iraq and Syria. Before World War I, who ruled those countries? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Bernie Sanders. It was an Islamic caliphate. (Of course, we do not believe it was a legitimate caliphate but nonetheless: it was a political state which derived its supposedly legitimacy from Islam and claimed to rule in the name of Islam).

 

This idea that secularism is what instituted religious freedoms in the world is a Euro-centric idea based entirely on the experience of the European man. You are spewing Euro-centric ideas here, not universal ones.

You as a muslim would obviously prefer to live in a functioning islamic state, this is natural.  How should we organize a society in which muslims are a minority? Would you prefer another religion to dominate policy? Or be accorded special privileges over your own?  Ensuring that this is prevented in some capacity is a sensible outlook, especially considering the wide range of beliefs out there, lots of them claiming divine guidance.   The US democracy has a lot of serious flaws, securalism is not one of them, at least not on the level people tend to groan on and on about here.  Religious freedoms and free speech in the US are protected beyond any other country in the west, all this while unusually large segments of the US population holds extremely fundamentalist beliefs.  If these people were to have their way and were able to influence secular policy in a meaningful fashion then what language would muslims revert to in order to fight for their rights? Now if some right leaning idiots call on women to take their hijabs off or ban minarets then this is completely against a truly secular democratic mindset, for very obvious reasons and should be opposed using the very same arguments.

I don't think anyone has claimed that religious freedoms were only ever instituted under secularism, many minorities have always had rights under Christian and Islamic rule, but again, if you were to poll most non-muslims/christians, they would prefer to live in a society where another religion does not dictate law/policy they are supposed to abide by. Even you wouldn't want the dominant faith in the US to gain supremacy, it would be a terrible idea.  The subcontinent was under muslim rule but you have to remember that people like Akbar were heavily criticized for their liberal mindset, and it wasn't much of a choice really, given the Hindu majority.

There is this tendency on this board to lump all western societies together, and there is this naive almost childishly simplistic conception of some secular ideology that is uniform and evil and applies to all.  I just don't get it, I mean I get the foreign policy criticisms, the wars, imperialism, neo-liberal program, but to sit there and exaggerate secular evils while ignoring the comforts the same rights have accorded shias in western societies is perplexing, especially if the best people can come up with is the sex-ed curriculum. 

[Christianlady 753]

9 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

 

A coalition of both religious and state institutions did the damage to my family. They did it together with full knowledge of what they were doing. It's not a just a sociological theory to me.

 

Salam LeftCoastMom,

I 100% agree with you and I am so sorry. I know an apology does not undo the damage, which makes it so much worse. I  really wish time travel was possible and history could be rewritten.

Thankfully, more and more Americans are receiving an education to the horrible crimes the colonists committed against the Natives. You help educate people, including me, and I appreciate learning from you, though it hurts sometimes. The Truth sometimes hurts. But the Truth is so important; it's worth the pain.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but what do you think about Elizabeth Warren's claims of having a Native ancestor?

In a way, I'm sorta like Elizabeth Warren (Warren is also a family name of mine which is interesting, though I don't think I'm related to Elizabeth Warren. There are a lot of Warrens, like bunny rabbit warrens lol.)

As you know, I have been told I have a Native American relative by my family. I don't mean to offend you by bringing that up again. If it does offend you, please forgive me and I will write it down so I remember not to bring it up anymore. (I don't remember if it is offensive that I claim to have a Cherokee relative; my memory is bad, so I tend to repeat myself.)

I need to remind Mom to send me her picture (a black and white one), the only pic we have of her. I wish I knew her name and knew more about her, and if she was happy with her husband, and if there had been a way to heal her. (She died young, and he married again).

I wish I knew her culture, and what she thought, and why. I wish she had taught my great, great grandma about her culture, and her language, and that had passed down for generations - to my sisters and me, to my nephews and nieces. (I'm not a Mom yet.)

You could say I wish I was Native, but I'm "white" - both in skin color and culture. I didn't have a choice in the matter. I wish I could be a part of a Native community, but I can't.

Some white people accuse me of self-hate, but I don't hate myself and I don't hate white people. I love people no matter their skin color and ethnicity, and I am so sad about what the colonists and early Americans did to the Native people. That's my rant, and I really hope I didn't offend you with it, cause it's not my intention.

If I remember correctly, you told me that some records were destroyed?

That reminds me of this article, which breaks my heart. It is so evil that white people discriminated against people of other skin colors, which understandably motivated some people to identify as white to avoid persecution.

Do you think in Elizabeth Warren's case, records could have been destroyed or her ancestor identified as "white" in order to escape persecution? The evil some Americans colonists and early European Americans did to the Natives is mind-boggling.  

"Not sure that would have happened if the US would have been a " Christian' nation. I do not understand putting the blame for the genocide on secularism. Forcing the US to live up to its secular underpinnings has sure been a boon to my family. Being able to pick, change, or leave your religion according to what you are convinced of in your soul  is pretty nifty, you have  to admit."

100% agreed. It is helpful to Muslims too, because Christians can choose to become Muslims if they so desire, and Muslims can believe Islam freely.

 Iran jails people for proselytizing ( @Christianlady Can tell you about one) , 

 

Yeah. 

Peace and God bless you

Edited May 11, 2016 by Christianlady

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

Well, I have to go in a minute , but here's the quick and dirty. 

I like Elizabeth Warren. 

I don't like her diving into the common white American mythology of being Cherokee. 

The Cherokee are one of the most carefully documented tribes in North America. Most of their documents are intact, according to the folks in that tribe I talk to. So you can usually find an ancestor if you have one. 

Elizabeth Warren can't scare up a native in her genealogy. One of her ancestors is rumored to have shot one though. ( Hopefully mythology as well.) As far as I know, she didn't claim native blood until she wanted minority law professor status, but I really don't know about that. She didn't fit the legal definition of one by the university's own rules,

Self-identification is great for lots of things, but when it comes to being native ( especially legally or for purposes of scholarships) , it's not just about  family lore, a few drops of mythological blood, or just about you. It's a communal thing. Here's how it usually works:

You get your tribal enrollment card ( or some equivalent) when your parents enroll you in your specific tribe and other documentation from the Feds proceeds from that. Unless you were adopted out to non-natives before the ICWA was passed, whether  you are on-Rez or not, if you have any significant degree of relationship, you will likely be part of a native community at least some of the time or at least know about them in a more specific manner than family legends.

Here's what my kids had to do to get scholarships:

Provide proof of tribal citizenship

Provide CDIB

Describe their involvement with their native community and level of cultural competence

Have at least two tribal elders vouch for said involvement and competence

 

 

So you can see why I might get testy if people get college money or tenure or whatever based only on "family lore'. If they want to be seen as native they should prove the connection and, if found, get involved with helping in their tribes if possible. As it is, it is likely they might take scholarship resources or a position away from an actual inculturated native who would genuinely  lend some real diversity and bring authentic insights into a program or institution. 

 

Does this mean people without cards, community, or knowledge never have any native blood? No. But they are not "native "in any way that counts to other natives,or should count if an institution is truly interested in helping the native communities and having genuine diversity.

Hope this helps.

PS...here is how most of the native sites I frequent took the news of Warren being " native".

[Christianlady 753]

45 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, I have to go in a minute , but here's the quick and dirty. 

I like Elizabeth Warren. I don't like her diving into the common white American mythology of being Cherokee. 

Salam LeftCoastMom,

Thanks for answering me. I appreciate it. 

I don't think Elizabeth Warren thinks her relative is a myth though, same as I don't. I don't know her, but why would she or her family make up having a Cherokee relative? Why would mine?

Quote

The Cherokee are one of the most carefully documented tribes in North America. Most of their documents are intact, according to the folks in that tribe I talk to. So you can usually find an ancestor if you have one. 

Ok.

Quote

Elizabeth Warren can't scare up a native in her genealogy. One of her ancestors is rumored to have shot one though. ( Hopefully mythology as well.)

I sure hope that's mythology.
 

Quote

 

As far as I know, she didn't claim native blood until she wanted minority law professor status, but I really don't know about that. She didn't fit the legal definition of one by the university's own rules,

Self-identification is great for lots of things, but when it comes to being native ( especially legally or for purposes of scholarships) , it's not just about  family lore, a few drops of mythological blood, or just about you. It's a communal thing. Here's how it usually works:

You get your tribal enrollment card ( or some equivalent) when your parents enroll you in your specific tribe and other documentation from the Feds proceeds from that. Unless you were adopted out to non-natives before the ICWA was passed, whether  you are on-Rez or not, if you have any significant degree of relationship, you will likely be part of a native community at least some of the time or at least know about them in a more specific manner than family legends.

Here's what my kids had to do to get scholarships:

Provide proof of tribal citizenship

Provide CDIB

Describe their involvement with their native community and level of cultural competence

Have at least two tribal elders vouch for said involvement and competence

 

 

So you can see why I might get testy if people get college money or tenure or whatever based only on "family lore'. If they want to be seen as native they should prove the connection and, if found, get involved with helping in their tribes if possible. As it is, it is likely they might take scholarship resources or a position away from an actual inculturated native who would genuinely  lend some real diversity and bring authentic insights into a program or institution. 

 

 

 

 

Understood. Thanks for explaining.
 

Quote

 

Does this mean people without cards, community, or knowledge never have any native blood? No. But they are not "native "in any way that counts to other natives,

 

 

 

 

This question and answer are very helpful to me personally. Thanks. So basically, being Native is much more than just having an ancestor who married into a "white" family, yeah? That makes sense.
 

Quote

 

or should count if an institution is truly interested in helping the native communities and having genuine diversity.

Hope this helps.

 

Understood and I agree.

So basically, Elizabeth Warren was wrong for calling herself Native and for taking the place of a Native American. That's what Trump has been attacking her for, yeah?

While I've never called myself native, it is wrong for me to claim a Cherokee relative without 100% proof, and a pic of my great... grandma is not proof, yeah?

Quote

PS...here is how most of the native sites I frequent took the news of Warren being " native".

Lol. I don't think Warren means to offend anybody; I don't. We just repeat what we've heard. Definitely Warren shouldn't have called herself a Native then. And, I will research more into my past, though I completely understand why I am not truly Native.

Thanks for explaining! It is very helpful and educational.

Peace and God bless you

Edited May 11, 2016 by Christianlady

[certainclarity 1,094]

10 hours ago, IbnSina said:

I never said I had any problems with my deen because of the place I live in.

I live no where and pretty much everything I own is in two luggage bags, do not tell me of this place and that place because going from this place to that place and living there is all I do, its what I do for a living.

At the end of the day what I am saying is this: If there is haram, I will complain.

To complain is to verbally express that you do not like something, I do not like haram.

Whenever applicable i will physically express my complain and whenever I can I will stop it. One way or the other I will express my discontent with haram, even if it wont change the situation I will still express my view as a way of making a clear statement.

If you see haram, if you live in haram and you do not complain and you do not condemn and you do not act when you can, then shame on you for calling yourself muslim and being fine with haram.

Haram is not limited to the west only, even if I move to Iran or any other place I will still complain and condemn when I see haram. Wherever you go you will always find haram somewhere and I will complain on this state that we live in until there is no haram left or until there is no more me left.

And no, I will not feel any thankfulness to the west for the claimed equality they give me, for the security, for the non polluted air, for my upbringing, for the education, for the health care, etc.

I only feel thankfulness to Allah(SWT), He gave me everything I have and He is the only one who can take away everything I have, so Alhamdulillah.

That is where people differ, in the realization of this.

Now go ahead, tell me I live a pathetic and sad life, tell me i should be happy with this, tell me I should be fine with it, tell me I should change, tell me I am unthankful.

Salam brother ,

What you said is fully agreeable, however No proper believer for whom Halal and Haram is important, will be fine with Haram.

As you mentioned there will be Haram every where you go in this world.

The haram is so much, that it has surpassed dawah. 

Real struggle and virtue is for believers who have no choice or means, or not in situation to move but to be in a society which makes him more uncomfortable in matters of his religion. He will be given double reward for his patience and struggle. But a person who has the condition to choose the lesser evil, that is something to think about.

 

Imam Ali said about the end of times to no go out much ***as a solution.***

Also if that is not possible, live in areas that the haram will be minimal.( in a Hadith it had mentioned a name of a place, refering to in remote places which is less subject to haram)

The people of the cave did not stay on with the people who were engrossed themselves in haram, so they moved to a cave.

As baradar Jackson said:

" People are people. If someone lingers in that environment for long enough, that's it. It's a done deal."

I left my job and the country I lived in because I knew, there will be no way out to shut out haram in the system I was in. I thought like your self maybe after I get married etc, but that was not happening, then it dawned on me one day, what if I don't get married etc, why build up on something which may or may not happen now, when I do have the opportunity now , to move back to an environment where I have more control over my circumstance and packed my two luggage like yours and moved.

Alhamudilalah I am a lot better now. I am not forced to be in an environment which makes me feel uncomfortable. 

Imam Sadiq mentioned an intelligent person is some one who can choose to the better over good , and chose bad over worse ( if he has no choice but to choose between two evils)

Currently villages are the best place for a educated Muslim and Momin male, to not only survive but thrive in spiritually. There is less haram, people are simple and more content then the cities, and there is so much to do, if one able to accept a low paying job but high paying reward to help some believing unprivileged brother in faith folks.

Plus you can give back to your Muslim brothers in faith.

There are even highly educated doctors who could be earning a lot in cities but are serving in the villages and are so happy, and talk about how beautiful and simple the people are in most villages, and have simple life's like the people of the village.Some even barter most times and don't ask for payment.

At least in an enviroment where there is less haram a normal person will complain less, and can do more to please Allah.

So you can decide which place or situation is the lesser evil for you, for not only to survive in spiritually but to thrive in spiritually.

You can answer this for yourself.

If you are in the position to move,

And had only six months to live where would you want to be and what would you want to be doing?

Edited May 11, 2016 by certainclarity

[Sumayyeh 2,735]

@LeftCoastMom umm..sorry for any misunderstandings or if I wasn't able to express my thoughts well. Basically what I meant was what Baradar Jackson said above, and Abu Hadi's, and hajji's responses earlier answered any contentions.

To say that a religion was responsible for the killing of indigenous people sounds ironic again because it doesn't seem likely that that religion would be something one would want to follow. 

The example of that priest that I posted was to exemplify that it's not right to paint a brush over Muslim countries and say no other religion has a right to practice. There are huge Churches in Iran, as well as Synagogues. 

@IbnSina hmmm...sorry for giving any suggestions/advice.

Like CertainClarity was saying, naturally as a Muslim, you'll have an aversion towards the Haraam--and that's good to keep one' Fitrah intact.

Also, keep in mind, Allah (swt) says in the following ayah:

For each one are successive [angels] before and behind him who protect him by the decree of Allah . Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah intends for a people ill, there is no repelling it. And there is not for them besides Him any patron. (surah 13, ayah 11)

 

Edited May 11, 2016 by Sumayyeh

[Christianlady 753]

20 minutes ago, Sumayyeh said:

To say that a religion was responsible for the killing of indigenous people sounds ironic again because it doesn't seem likely that that religion would be something one would want to follow.

Salam Sumayyeh,

People interpret religions differently, which is why the government being a religious one is so dangerous. That's why secularism works as a governmental system and has actually been a blessing to Western nations.

LeftCoastMom is right; religion hurt the Native population in "America" because Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) from European nations came to the West of the West and begin forcing Natives to convert to their interpretation of Christianity. 

Did Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity, tell his followers to invade and force convert people? NO.

However, many Christians through the ages have done this anyways. Why? Because they didn't care about what Jesus Christ said, which is indeed ironic.

As for why anyone would want to become a Christian after what many Christians through the ages have done, that's an awesome question.

Frederick Douglass, a man whose father was a white slave owner and whose mother a slave, has a lot to say on the subject. He noted, (I boldened some.)

"What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked.

To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land."

http://www.shmoop.com/life-of-frederick-douglass/religion-quotes-2.html

Peace and God bless you

 

 

[baradar_jackson 8,075]

On 5/10/2016 at 7:53 PM, King said:

You as a muslim would obviously prefer to live in a functioning islamic state, this is natural.  How should we organize a society in which muslims are a minority? Would you prefer another religion to dominate policy? Or be accorded special privileges over your own?  Ensuring that this is prevented in some capacity is a sensible outlook, especially considering the wide range of beliefs out there, lots of them claiming divine guidance.   The US democracy has a lot of serious flaws, securalism is not one of them, at least not on the level people tend to groan on and on about here.  Religious freedoms and free speech in the US are protected beyond any other country in the west, all this while unusually large segments of the US population holds extremely fundamentalist beliefs.  If these people were to have their way and were able to influence secular policy in a meaningful fashion then what language would muslims revert to in order to fight for their rights? Now if some right leaning idiots call on women to take their hijabs off or ban minarets then this is completely against a truly secular democratic mindset, for very obvious reasons and should be opposed using the very same arguments.

I don't think anyone has claimed that religious freedoms were only ever instituted under secularism, many minorities have always had rights under Christian and Islamic rule, but again, if you were to poll most non-muslims/christians, they would prefer to live in a society where another religion does not dictate law/policy they are supposed to abide by. Even you wouldn't want the dominant faith in the US to gain supremacy, it would be a terrible idea.  The subcontinent was under muslim rule but you have to remember that people like Akbar were heavily criticized for their liberal mindset, and it wasn't much of a choice really, given the Hindu majority.

There is this tendency on this board to lump all western societies together, and there is this naive almost childishly simplistic conception of some secular ideology that is uniform and evil and applies to all.  I just don't get it, I mean I get the foreign policy criticisms, the wars, imperialism, neo-liberal program, but to sit there and exaggerate secular evils while ignoring the comforts the same rights have accorded shias in western societies is perplexing, especially if the best people can come up with is the sex-ed curriculum. 

 

 

Firstly, bro, nobody here is talking about the necessity of setting up an Islamic system in the US. If it is not prudent in Lebanon, then it sure as heck isn't prudent in the US. (However, "not prudent in a given context" should not be confused with "not ideal in any context").

 

As you already know, we have fiqhi rulings on how a Muslim should act in the land of non-Muslims. One of them is to abide by the law (excepting any law which is a compulsion toward haraam). And as you can see, none of us are disobeying any laws here. We're just voicing our opinions. What is good about this society? What is bad about this society? What should we insulate (or vaccinate) our children from? And so on. This is not such a subversive discussion. The Christians - which constitute the majority in this country - are probably having the same sort of discussions amongst themselves.

 

Either way, regarding what "should" happen here. It's not really my country so it's not my place to opine. I don't participate in the sham political processes, I have not adopted the national identity of this country, and in keeping with the long-held tradition of US-based Muslims I try to be as cool and aloof as possible. So I can't really talk about specifics. However, in general, just because a large proportion of Christians are prejudiced towards us, and just because the secular-ness of the government prevents them from acting upon all of their whims, this is not a justification for the legitimacy of the secular system.

 

Firstly: because this is not a universal principle. It is not a universal principle that any time there is a minority religious group, the majority group will oppress and/or expel them unless there is a benevolent secular government to prevent them from doing so. This is not only not universal but we have countless examples of the opposite: although we remember Ataturk as that guy who banned hijab, he did a lot more than that. One of the things he did was forcibly bring Muslims who had been residing in Greece, to Turkey. Completely uprooted their lives. But why did he care, if he himself was an atheist? He cared because this was part of his project for a nation-state. (Overall, if we want to quantify bloodshed, any objective observer can see that the most bloodshed has been caused by this illegitimate project of the secular nation-state based on one language and one ethnicity)

 

Secondly: were Christians in the US always like this? I personally think that a lot of the Christians who have fallen for certain hateful rhetoric, probably could have avoided falling for that rhetoric if the political system were a bit different. By "a bit different" I simply mean: if it just paid a bit more lip service to their beliefs. The problem is that they feel that they are oppressed. Are they actually oppressed? Not in the conventional sense. But you have to ask yourself, why in a majority Christian country, is the political and cultural apparatus completely indifferent to Christianity?

 

Or in the case of the cultural apparatus: often quite hostile. They were interviewing Jim Caviezel about this. (the guy who played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ). He said that Hollywood people really don't like Jesus (most of them are atheist "Jews" so no surprise there). Look at all the movies and shows that insult Jesus; most of the time not directly, but making light of him by depicting him in ways that are demeaning for a prophet (like putting him in some stupid MAD TV or SNL skit). If such things happened in even in the most secular Muslim country, there would be uproar. There is no way any of us would have tolerated it. So although I am against irrational prejudice (which I think we all are), I also understand why Christians are so upset. Their most holy figure is not safe from such treatment in their country. Their beliefs in general are considered fringe even though they constitute a majority.

 

Third: let's assume, in some specific social circumstance, the presence of a secular government is the only way to ensure peace between different religious groups. Let's put aside the fact that secular nation-states have caused more bloodshed than anything else ever. Let's put aside the possibility that the secularism in this country indirectly led to the radicalization of a large swath of the Christian population. Even so, this does not justify a secular system as being the most ideal system, or the least unideal system. In many countries, the presence of an authoritarian dictator is the best way to ensure peace and stability... but for some reason far fewer people view this as an ideal system. Thus, we need to distinguish between a temporary fix and a permanent fix. However, keep in mind was that one of the reasons Islam was able to survive was because of the benevolence of the Christian nation of Abyssinia. And even today, we see examples of this. Take Russia. Russia's leaders pay a lot of lip service to the Orthodox faith; you can call this cynical or sincere, it makes no difference what we think. The point is: Russia's religious values have permeated its political system to some degree; this much is undeniable. Not all religions can proselytize freely in Russia: only Christianity (and I believe this excludes evangelicals and other new age offshoots of the religion), Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism. And yet their church officials openly liken their religion to ours, and their intellectuals recognize our school of thought as legitimate. (This is why Wahabis run into problems when publishing their books in Russia, while our scholars' works get published there all the time). This is the difference between a system which has religious tolerance but also discernment... and a system which has no discernment whatsoever and only speaks of "tolerance."

 

Which brings us to this final note... you have mentioned that secularism comes in many forms and so on. This is true. Sometimes it is completely atheistic and hostile towards religion (in the case of Ataturk, or most of the Soviet leaders). Sometimes it is practically atheistic but not officially (like in France). Sometimes, it is genuinely indifferent to religion (as is the case in the US). Supposedly, the last one is the true secularism and the praise-worthy one. But how is that praiseworthy?

 

For example: if I start a cult that worships a bag of cheeto's, legally speaking I would only need to do some paperwork to be considered a legitimate religion by the law of the land. Why?

 

By saying that all religions are equally legitimate, you are saying that all of them are equally illegitimate. You are saying that the belief in God, the Lord of the Universe, is the same as belief in the divine bag of Cheeto's. Of course, the people don't think this way just because the law says something. But still: the law is saying this thing. And laws are supposed to be based on morals. Everyone acknowledges this. With all the legislation on all the different sorts of issues, how can the law be indifferent toward cheeto-worship throwing its hat in the ring with, for example, Christianity? Is this something to be indifferent toward? A black man reaches into his pocket for his wallet, he gets shot, and this is rationalized as the police reacting on suspicion of a legitimate threat. Some guy's house is raided on suspicion of growing marijuana because he lit up a bunch of Christmas trees in his basement. These are things which happen here. The law which acts so swiftly and so brutally; the law which is omni-present, more so than in any other country on earth... cannot determine which position is superior: one God, or cheeto-bag???

 

Ultimately, I think it's more a matter of strategy. For example: Abu Sufyan was such a steadfast enemy of Islam. He was taking the Ataturk approach to Islam. But then once the tables turned against him, he donned the garb of godliness. Godlessness can disguise itself in any form, even godliness. We all know that. Having strict laws against religion just doesn't work out; why would a godless ruler or elite even bother with that when they know it will come back to bite them? It's better for them to be smart about it; let those religious nuts occupy themselves with their nuttery while I'm gettin' paperrrrrrrrrr.

[allsayyidsareahlulbayt! 18]

asa

our mentor ayatullah khumayni mentioned that those of us in the west are like "a cancer in the stomach of the taghut " in others we could affect the taghut from within, and completely change it.  imam sadiq as was asked " is it halal to leave dar ul islam from dar ul kufr ? imam said la. he said and if I do ? imam as said then their is pentaly . he said what is the pentaly ? that you must guide 40 persons to the path of truth ?

people agrue is it wajib, is it musthab etc.

but when imam as give an order we obey, that is the difference between islam and iman.

if we all did our job in this regard we would have been in a better situation to lay the ground work for our master's aswfj return to public view.

[Reza 11,153]

@baradar_jackson  - 1

Hipster Chumpsky-ites - 0

Edited May 12, 2016 by magma

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

On May 11, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Sumayyeh said:

@LeftCoastMom umm..sorry for any misunderstandings or if I wasn't able to express my thoughts well. Basically what I meant was what Baradar Jackson said above, and Abu Hadi's, and hajji's responses earlier answered any contentions.

To say that a religion was responsible for the killing of indigenous people sounds ironic again because it doesn't seem likely that that religion would be something one would want to follow. 

The example of that priest that I posted was to exemplify that it's not right to paint a brush over Muslim countries and say no other religion has a right to practice. There are huge Churches in Iran, as well as Synagogues. 

 

 

I think I mentioned Iran's diversity,therefor I don't think I was painting everyone with the same brush. There are churches in other Islamic countries as well. KSA is kind of a jerk about it, though.

You wouldn't believe how people read all kinds of things into a religion...from slavery being okay to kids dying  under awful conditions being okay because at least their souls were " saved". They don't have any problem following that.

[Chaotic Muslem 5,780]

3 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

to kids dying  under awful conditions being okay because at least their souls were " saved". They don't have any problem following that.

0.o

 

[Sumayyeh 2,735]

10 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

I think I mentioned Iran's diversity,therefor I don't think I was painting everyone with the same brush. There are churches in other Islamic countries as well. KSA is kind of a jerk about it, though.

You wouldn't believe how people read all kinds of things into a religion...from slavery being okay to kids dying  under awful conditions being okay because at least their souls were " saved". They don't have any problem following that.

Sure, I see what you're saying. Thanks for your response, and sorry if I thought you were painting Muslim countries with the same brush. Since the freedom of practicing a different religion seemed to be a major hallmark of secularism in your argument...just wanted to emphasize that it's not something particular to secularism. 

And with regards to the above statement, how much can Jesus Christ's words be misconstrued to the point of justifying mass killings and land seizure...just the fact that it got misconstrued shows that it really is not relevant anymore. Even if those crimes happened in the name of religion, or under its guise, if it's not the actual religion that drove that, then what it is it....

Also, that would imply that history would not lend itself to two groups of the same faith ever fighting against each other--Christians never fought with other Christians?

Or, had the natives been Christians, they would've gotten a pass? The settlers would've been like "Oh ok, they're Christians. We shall let them be...." ?

@Christianlady thanks also for your thoughtful response and God bless you too  

Edited May 13, 2016 by Sumayyeh

[LeftCoastMom 5,026]

^ It got justified by the concept of " saving souls". By any means necessary. If that meant herding people into the California mission slavery system, sending all the kids to disease-ridden boarding schools, or confining people with no food rations in the dead of winter to reservations, so be it, Break the culture, take them from their " pagan" roots, separate them from the land, destroy their history and thought process and replace it with your own " correct, Christian" one. It was all to the glory of God. At least they would die saved and go to heaven. 

No one is saying the churches did this alone. The settler nation-state was expanding, And there were Christians who objected. But the mindset at the time made Church and State partners in the project.

There were efforts to put " Christian Indians" in charge of non-Christians in various places and treat them slightly better. There were all kinds of ways to try to create internal strife within the native communities. 

As far as "Christian nations" fighting each other...they often simply labeled their rival " heretical". Easy-peasy. This is a method not unknown to Muslims.

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by LeftCoastMom

[Christianlady 753]

2 hours ago, Sumayyeh said:

how much can Jesus Christ's words be misconstrued to the point of justifying mass killings and land seizure...just the fact that it got misconstrued shows that it really is not relevant anymore. 

Salam Sumayyeh,

That saddens me, that Jesus Christ's commands to love neighbors as oneself and love enemies weren't important to the colonists.

Even nowadays, as LeftCoastMom has shared in other threads, she has experienced people who identify as Christians not loving her and her family.

God will judge the "Christians" who tried to hurt her and her family, and God will judge the "Christians" who killed and stole from the Natives long time ago too.

While Jesus' commands to love weren't important to the colonists, they are still accountable for what they did. On Judgement Day, I do believe God will demand from them an accounting for the blood they shed and for disobeying Jesus Christ.

Quote

 Even if those crimes happened in the name of religion, or under its guise, if it's not the actual religion that drove that, 

Awesome point.

Quote

then what it is it....

Greed, I think. Wanting where somebody else lived...

Quote

Also, that would imply that history would not lend itself to two groups of the same faith ever fighting against each other--Christians never fought with other Christians?

You know Christians have and still do actually (depending on which country one's from) fight with other Christians.  WWII included Christians killing other Christians.  In Europe centuries ago, Christians killed each other for religious reasons.

Ironically, secularism has done a lot to prevent Christians from fighting with other Christians for different reasons, including religious ones.

Obviously, it's very easy for Christians to disobey Jesus Christ's commands to love, and thus it really helps when no Christian group is in charge. 

Quote

Or, had the natives been Christians, they would've gotten a pass? The settlers would've been like "Oh ok, they're Christians. We shall let them be...." ?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

The only way settlers would have given the Natives a pass is if they (the settlers themselves) considered Jesus Christ's commands to love neighbors as oneself and love enemies to be literal and crucial to obey.

Quote

@Christianlady thanks also for your thoughtful response and God bless you too  

Thanks  

Peace and God bless you

Edited May 13, 2016 by Christianlady

[Abbas. 3,851]

On 21/04/2016 at 1:21 AM, Haji 2003 said:

If you are a homosexual living in the west and you protest about the status quo in order to improve your human rights, that's ok.

If you are a woman living in the west and you protest about the status quo in order to improve your human rights, that's ok.

If you are an animal lover living in the west and you protest about the status quo in order to reduce animal cruelty, that's ok.

But if you are a Muslim and seek to stand up for your own rights that's displaying contempt for society.

Standing up for your rights is a good thing. You go Girl ! But if you're going to become the next online Abdullah hating the guts out of bikini wearing ladies, please get the hell out of my country. Go back to where you came from .... Yes, go back to hell (I think that's the point OP is trying to make).

[Haji 2003 9,516]

18 minutes ago, Abbas. said:

Go back to where you came from .... Yes, go back to hell

London can be hot in summer ... but it isn't hell.

[Abbas. 3,851]

12 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

London can be hot in summer ... but it isn't hell.

 

[King 4,038]

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Firstly, bro, nobody here is talking about the necessity of setting up an Islamic system in the US. If it is not prudent in Lebanon, then it sure as heck isn't prudent in the US. (However, "not prudent in a given context" should not be confused with "not ideal in any context").

 

As you already know, we have fiqhi rulings on how a Muslim should act in the land of non-Muslims. One of them is to abide by the law (excepting any law which is a compulsion toward haraam). And as you can see, none of us are disobeying any laws here. We're just voicing our opinions. What is good about this society? What is bad about this society? What should we insulate (or vaccinate) our children from? And so on. This is not such a subversive discussion. The Christians - which constitute the majority in this country - are probably having the same sort of discussions amongst themselves.

No one has an issue with this, these sort of internal discussions are healthy but we both realize that there are members in our community whose incessant whining does more harm than good, especially to those Muslims trying to improve conditions and resist imperialism etc.

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Either way, regarding what "should" happen here. It's not really my country so it's not my place to opine. I don't participate in the sham political processes, I have not adopted the national identity of this country, and in keeping with the long-held tradition of US-based Muslims I try to be as cool and aloof as possible. So I can't really talk about specifics. However, in general, just because a large proportion of Christians are prejudiced towards us, and just because the secular-ness of the government prevents them from acting upon all of their whims, this is not a justification for the legitimacy of the secular system.

This isn’t unique to you, your fellow Muslims or Christians, most Americans are not involved in the political process and the reasons are very well documented, it has nothing to do with secularism.

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Firstly: because this is not a universal principle. It is not a universal principle that any time there is a minority religious group, the majority group will oppress and/or expel them unless there is a benevolent secular government to prevent them from doing so. This is not only not universal but we have countless examples of the opposite: although we remember Ataturk as that guy who banned hijab, he did a lot more than that. One of the things he did was forcibly bring Muslims who had been residing in Greece, to Turkey. Completely uprooted their lives. But why did he care, if he himself was an atheist? He cared because this was part of his project for a nation-state. (Overall, if we want to quantify bloodshed, any objective observer can see that the most bloodshed has been caused by this illegitimate project of the secular nation-state based on one language and one ethnicity)

It doesn’t have to be, the framework is sensible and in place to prevent such threats from materializing, whether they eventually do not is irrelevant.

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Secondly: were Christians in the US always like this? I personally think that a lot of the Christians who have fallen for certain hateful rhetoric, probably could have avoided falling for that rhetoric if the political system were a bit different. By "a bit different" I simply mean: if it just paid a bit more lip service to their beliefs. The problem is that they feel that they are oppressed. Are they actually oppressed? Not in the conventional sense. But you have to ask yourself, why in a majority Christian country, is the political and cultural apparatus completely indifferent to Christianity?

 

Or in the case of the cultural apparatus: often quite hostile. They were interviewing Jim Caviezel about this. (the guy who played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ). He said that Hollywood people really don't like Jesus (most of them are atheist "Jews" so no surprise there). Look at all the movies and shows that insult Jesus; most of the time not directly, but making light of him by depicting him in ways that are demeaning for a prophet (like putting him in some stupid MAD TV or SNL skit). If such things happened in even in the most secular Muslim country, there would be uproar. There is no way any of us would have tolerated it. So although I am against irrational prejudice (which I think we all are), I also understand why Christians are so upset. Their most holy figure is not safe from such treatment in their country. Their beliefs in general are considered fringe even though they constitute a majority.

The law might not accord special privileges to Christians but you can hardly say the political forces at work are indifferent to Christianity.  A large chunk of the republican base is Christian, and a worrying percentage of that base is fanatical evangelical Christians which has only recently been mobilized as a political force.  The Republican party cannot campaign on what it actually lobbies for (servitude to the wealthy) since they wouldn’t be able to accumulate votes, so they instead use their rhetoric to appeal to this Christian base. 

As far as Hollywood/TV is concerned, it is representative of a fringe element of US society, mostly concentrated in urban and wealthy segments of the US.  It says very little about the way most Americans live or behave politically.  Christians are upset just like the majority of other Americans are upset, it primarily has to do with the socioeconomic predicament they are faced with, I do not think Jesus bashing or same sex unions are the main culprit.  Different groups express their frustrations in different ways and the political parties use this to their advantage.

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Third: let's assume, in some specific social circumstance, the presence of a secular government is the only way to ensure peace between different religious groups. Let's put aside the fact that secular nation-states have caused more bloodshed than anything else ever. Let's put aside the possibility that the secularism in this country indirectly led to the radicalization of a large swath of the Christian population. Even so, this does not justify a secular system as being the most ideal system, or the least unideal system. In many countries, the presence of an authoritarian dictator is the best way to ensure peace and stability... but for some reason far fewer people view this as an ideal system.

Again, this is just your theory, I do not see how secularism has radicalized the large segments of the Christian population.  I also do not see how secular laws are responsible for the bloodshed you are referring to.   Powerful states pursue their self-interest, you cannot expect them to act morally.  

The argument that authoritarianism is good because some dictator happens to be benevolent and peaceful is a terrible argument, for obvious reasons, why on earth would any sane person view this as ideal?

On 5/12/2016 at 1:33 PM, baradar_jackson said:

Which brings us to this final note... you have mentioned that secularism comes in many forms and so on. This is true. Sometimes it is completely atheistic and hostile towards religion (in the case of Ataturk, or most of the Soviet leaders). Sometimes it is practically atheistic but not officially (like in France). Sometimes, it is genuinely indifferent to religion (as is the case in the US). Supposedly, the last one is the true secularism and the praise-worthy one. But how is that praiseworthy?

 

For example: if I start a cult that worships a bag of cheeto's, legally speaking I would only need to do some paperwork to be considered a legitimate religion by the law of the land. Why?

 

By saying that all religions are equally legitimate, you are saying that all of them are equally illegitimate. You are saying that the belief in God, the Lord of the Universe, is the same as belief in the divine bag of Cheeto's. Of course, the people don't think this way just because the law says something. But still: the law is saying this thing. And laws are supposed to be based on morals. Everyone acknowledges this. With all the legislation on all the different sorts of issues, how can the law be indifferent toward cheeto-worship throwing its hat in the ring with, for example, Christianity? Is this something to be indifferent toward? A black man reaches into his pocket for his wallet, he gets shot, and this is rationalized as the police reacting on suspicion of a legitimate threat. Some guy's house is raided on suspicion of growing marijuana because he lit up a bunch of Christmas trees in his basement. These are things which happen here. The law which acts so swiftly and so brutally; the law which is omni-present, more so than in any other country on earth... cannot determine which position is superior: one God, or cheeto-bag???

 

Ultimately, I think it's more a matter of strategy. For example: Abu Sufyan was such a steadfast enemy of Islam. He was taking the Ataturk approach to Islam. But then once the tables turned against him, he donned the garb of godliness. Godlessness can disguise itself in any form, even godliness. We all know that. Having strict laws against religion just doesn't work out; why would a godless ruler or elite even bother with that when they know it will come back to bite them? It's better for them to be smart about it; let those religious nuts occupy themselves with their nuttery while I'm gettin' paperrrrrrrrrr.

Laws in a secular society are not just supposed to be formed out of thin air.  At the end of the day if some cult desires to influence policy, they can present their arguments and engage in public discourse.  Obviously, if a group desires to introduce policy which might discriminate or infringe on the rights of others, and their primary justification is that god wills it so and not much beyond that, then they might have a harder time convincing others. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by King

[Haji 2003 9,516]

This article pretty much sums up where I am going with this topic:

Quote

 

A Norwegian city has banned adverts featuring semi-naked models in a bid to address negative body image issues, and campaigners are calling on other countries to follow suit.

“We have long argued that advertising that reduces women to sexual objects for men’s use and entertainment should have no place in a progressive society.

Last April a petition to remove controversial ‘Beach Body Ready’ bikini protein adverts from the London Underground reached 50,000 signatures within days and prompted a formal investigation.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-trondheim-ban-adverts-semi-naked-models-negative-body-image-a7026421.html

Now obviously, for a believing Muslim, this would have been a position that they would have been arguing for even when it was unfashionable to do so in the west. Because it was both Islamically and ethically (in secular terms) the correct thing to do.

Now that others are following suit, the Muslim position becomes vindicated and those Muslims who had stayed true to their religion are seen to have integrity.

Those Muslims who stuck with what was fashionable look a little bit silly in this world and heaven knows what their state will be in the next.