Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

What do you think about secularism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

What do you think of it? Do u support it? Do u believe it shouldn’t be practiced even if many non Muslims lives in the same country u live in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In theory, a country that applies the pure Shari'a of Allah would be the ideal state.

Unfortunately, all governments of today are run by fallible human beings, so no country is perfect.

That being said, some secular states are 1000 times better than some "Muslim" states.

At the same time, there are laws and customs in secular states that are absolutely repugnant and of Satanic nature.

Religion has been abused. Secularism has been abused. We should try as much to adhere to the laws and commandments of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and eventually prepare for the awaited Imam (atf) to establish the pure Islamic State.

8 minutes ago, Diaz said:

Do u believe it shouldn’t be practiced even if many non Muslims lives in the same country u live in?

If the majority of the people in certain country don't want Shari'a but instead want secularism, then secularism it is. You can't force anything on the people. This reminds me of the Iranian Islamic revolution: at the end of the revolution, there was a referendum for people to choose if they wanted either an Islamic State or an Islamic Republic. They chose the republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Mohamad Abdel-Hamid said:

If the majority of the people in certain country don't want Shari'a but instead want secularism, then secularism it is. You can't force anything on the people.

What about u? Will u vote for someone who is  secular and make all people happy or will u choose a Shia politics who will try to make everyone happy but only Shi’as are happy because he is ruling the country? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If that Shi'a is corrupt then of course not, I'd rather choose a just secular ruler. But if the Shi'a is a good ruler, and he's doing his best to make everyone happy but somehow the non-Shi'as are still not happy simply because the ruler is Shi'a, then it's their problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Most here will obviously oppose secularism, and there is certainly merit to that position, but one should also note that the MENA was ruled by Sunni theocrats well into the early twentieth century, including the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman regimes. These regimes were certainly opposed to secularism, but they also persecuted their religious rivals, particularly Shia influences. The various Christian regimes throughout history have done likewise, like other theocratic powers. Had secularism failed to come to the MENA, Shias would have probably ended up being discriminated on an even larger scale. Saddam Hussein is often regarded as a secular tyrant, but in reality he was more of a Sunni chauvinist operating under a Baathist “pan-Arab” garb. A true secularist would have tolerated religion on the communal level, as Syria has done under both Hafez and Bashar al-Assad. That is why orthodox Shias, along with secular Sunnis and other religious groups, have been generally supportive of the Assad government in its fight against foreign-sponsored, Zionist-backed Takfiri terrorism. By contrast, Shias have thrived in secular India since the days of the Partition (1947), and have generally fared better there than in “theocratic” Sunni states such as, say, Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Malaysia. Turkey’s post-secular transition toward Islamism since the 1980s has only resulted in the inflammation of Sunni sectarianism and Wahhabi–Salafi violence, all while the Turkish state has continued or expanded its ties to the West (NATO) and Israel. As much as one may rightly loathe the current state of the secular and “post-Christian” West, one must also note that Shiism would not have spread so widely as it has without a substantial degree of religious toleration, itself a product of state-level and/or society-wide secularism. Theocracy is always antithetical to religious pluralism, conversion, or experimentation. Had theocratic mentalities prevailed worldwide, people would have only stayed in their sectarian “lanes” from birth, and Shiism would not have gained footholds in such widely dispersed places as, say, France and Nigeria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think that aggressive secularism has destroyed America and that people of faith in America let it happen by buying into the idea of "tolerance" in the 1990s which of course, did not stop at mere "tolerance" (Tolerate: to put up with begrudgingly) and of course by the 2010s, became "acceptance" which was not good enough either and which is why "celebration" is being pushed now when it comes to things that would not have been talked about in polite company when I was a child (homosexuality, promiscuity, transexuality, and any other perversion that one can imagine). This is because Christianity has been fundamentally defeated in America and the West because Christians bought into the idea of "tolerance" of alternative lifestyles rather than condemning them the way that they used to. The homosexual agenda was pushed throughout the 1990s and 2000s in media and with the help of the "New Atheist Movement" like Richard Dawkins, et al. Religion has all but been forced out of American public life. People don't go to church anymore and the open sewer that is American popular culture reflects it.

I'm hoping that as more Muslims emigrate to America, that traditional Islamic values will at least put up a fight against the continued decadence and depravity of American media and popular culture, because I will admit: I was one of the ones who was scoffing and laughing at people like Jerry Falwell when they said that normalization of homosexuality was a "slippery slope" that would eventually lead to normalization of worse things... and now there is a movement to normalize "minor-attracted persons" and sex with children in American society because I've seen it on Twitter and FB when I still used them. My sister gets into arguments with people about men going into women's bathrooms and competing against women in sports by saying that they "identify as a woman" all the time and I told her that she needs to be careful because she lives in Canada where saying such things is considered to be "hate speech"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like communism - only works in theory and will destroy itself.

edit: When I say it works, I mean being able to last as a sustainable model. I'm not saying they're a good idea. There are societies based on Buddhism and Hinduism that have lasted for thousands of years. Communism and secularism don't have even that much, because they are as empty as it gets.

Edited by guest 2025
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, guest 2025 said:

It's like communism - only works in theory and will destroy itself.

edit: When I say it works, I mean being able to last as a sustainable model. I'm not saying they're a good idea. There are societies based on Buddhism and Hinduism that have lasted for thousands of years. Communism and secularism don't have even that much, because they are as empty as it gets.

So u support it or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, guest 2025 said:

Communism and secularism don't have even that much, because they are as empty as it gets.

Communism and secularism go hand in hand. A communist society would by it's own rules, have to be a secular society. Look at the way that Muslims were oppressed by the USSR when it was still in existence.

The people who want more secularism over here in America, despite the fact that our culture and morals have gone from being a mere dirty toilet to a disgusting open sewer inside of one generation, inevitably want some form of socialism or communism as well. The left hates religion and religious people which is why it makes no sense to me why Muslims in America are not pushing back against the left and even worse, thinking that they can ally with them. There is no allying with the left if you are even a nominally religious person: they want to throw Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and religion out of the society because they are idol worshipers whose god is sex and it's apparent when you watch the trash TV and movies that they make where all of the characters are always depicted having whatever kind of sex they want, with whoever they want.

And like I said in the other thread: when they finally finish off Christianity in America, they're going to come to wreck Islam with "progressivism" until Muslim becomes nothing more than a synonym for Arab. I may be "On The Wrong Side of History™" but I do not care, because I know that the Day of Judgment is coming and I am only concerned with what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) thinks of me, not what progressives and secularists think about me, because their opinion of me will avail me not on that day and I do not want to come to an evil journey's end and be among the fire whose fuel is men and stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I am for secularism.  Until the reappearance of imam al Mahdi, I do not trust most of the “Muslim” countries.  Most of them are pushing a theocratic or aristocratic agendas that go contrary to the teachings of the imams.  I also find interfaith dialogue is a lot easier in a freer and open society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Andrew Israel said:

I am for secularism.  Until the reappearance of imam al Mahdi, I do not trust most of the “Muslim” countries.

I sort of get what you mean, but I can also see how secularism has played out in America and it's been a disaster. America was never particularly a moral country with what the government did to the Native Americans and whatnot, but when I was a kid there were less debauched "pride parades" and a lower level of promiscuity than there is now. At first, these people said they wanted mere "tolerance" but of course once 2010 came around, merely tolerating degeneracy was no longer good enough and now it's demanded that religious people "accept" or even "celebrate" disgusting things that are against Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) design and laws for mankind and they're indoctrinating children into these alternative lifestyles in public schools and through the media on almost every TV show so now you have five year old boys saying that they're really girls and then the parents are liberal activist types and encourage these children to take hormones and mutilate their bodies.

This is all because of secularism. Because Christianity was thrown out of American public life by atheist activists and faithful Christians did not fight back. It just gets worse every year. The degeneracy is reaching a critical mass and I feel that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is going to do to America what he did to Lut's people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Diaz said:

So u support it or no?

Hard no. I can't wait until Imam Mahdi dismantles this nonsense.

It feels like being stuck in a spider's web. Sure the spider leaves you alive unlike other predators that kill you immediately, but it's only delaying the same outcome. We can freely practice our religion but eventually we'd be manipulated into throwing it away on our own volition. 

Edited by guest 2025
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

Communism and secularism go hand in hand. A communist society would by it's own rules, have to be a secular society. Look at the way that Muslims were oppressed by the USSR when it was still in existence.

The people who want more secularism over here in America, despite the fact that our culture and morals have gone from being a mere dirty toilet to a disgusting open sewer inside of one generation, inevitably want some form of socialism or communism as well. The left hates religion and religious people which is why it makes no sense to me why Muslims in America are not pushing back against the left and even worse, thinking that they can ally with them. There is no allying with the left if you are even a nominally religious person: they want to throw Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and religion out of the society because they are idol worshipers whose god is sex and it's apparent when you watch the trash TV and movies that they make where all of the characters are always depicted having whatever kind of sex they want, with whoever they want.

And like I said in the other thread: when they finally finish off Christianity in America, they're going to come to wreck Islam with "progressivism" until Muslim becomes nothing more than a synonym for Arab. I may be "On The Wrong Side of History™" but I do not care, because I know that the Day of Judgment is coming and I am only concerned with what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) thinks of me, not what progressives and secularists think about me, because their opinion of me will avail me not on that day and I do not want to come to an evil journey's end and be among the fire whose fuel is men and stones.

Assalaamu Alaikum brother,

I agree 100% with your analysis, and I find it really disappointing and shameful that so many Muslims in the west consider secularists and liberals to be their "allies." We don't need to please them or anybody. We should stick to the truth and the straight path and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will protect us and guide us rightly. 

At the same time, we need to be very careful about the so-called "Christian right", especially in America. A lot of them have very twisted ideas about religion and God and have fascistic leanings. In many ways they have become idolaters as well, they are not Christians in the classic sense, but have developed some sort of mutant ideology that combines racism, nationalism, militancy, worship of "free markets" and money, and even elements of the occult (psychics, speaking in tongues... calling their preachers "prophets" who claim to speak with God etc...). In my opinion many of them are extremely misguided and dangerous, just like the secularists. 

Just stick with the truth and stick with each other. We don't need to ally ourselves with corrupt or oppressive people. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will protect us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, guest 2025 said:

Hard no. I can't wait until Imam Mahdi dismantles this nonsense.

It feels like being stuck in a spider's web. Sure the spider leaves you alive unlike other predators that kill you immediately, but it's only delaying the same outcome. We can freely practice our religion but eventually we'd be manipulated into throwing it away on our own volition

A delayed outcome, from the Shia perspective, is arguably preferable to immediate extinction. As I have mentioned, the religious opposition to Shiism would have exterminated Shias from the face of the earth by now, had not religious pluralism and state-level secularism intervened. The militant Christian Zionists (Puritan and Pentecostal evangelicals) are no different from the Calvinist, Catholic, Orthodox, and Sunni theocrats. Under a Christian or Sunni theocracy, questioning the Trinity or the Companions of the Prophet, not to mention the usurper caliphs, would have merited accusations of apostasy and immediate execution. So blaming secularism as the cause of all modern ills is as silly as blaming religion for everything. As far as racism was and is concerned, virtually all societies and their ruling classes have been racist, at least to some degree. Discrimination is part of human nature, even on the racial level. I think one should also distinguish between hard, degenerate secularism of the postmodern type, i.e., the kind that has taken over the West, and state-level secularism that nonetheless respects and promotes conservative and/or religious values throughout society, without favouring one religious tradition over another. Modern Syria and India, in general, have admirably adopted and perfected the latter approach since the end of World War II. The problem is that “New Atheists” and fundamentalist extremists alike are upsetting the equilibrium. The former insist on cleansing society of any and all religious influences, while the latter attempt to impose one theological vision on the whole of society, up to including the physical extermination of theological rivals. As far as voluntarily giving up one’s religion is concerned, that is one’s own choice and fault, and one doesn’t need the state to enforce a “safe space” exclusively for one sect or faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

A delayed outcome, from the Shia perspective, is arguably preferable to immediate extinction. As I have mentioned, the religious opposition to Shiism would have exterminated Shias from the face of the earth by now, had not religious pluralism and state-level secularism intervened. The militant Christian Zionists (Puritan and Pentecostal evangelicals) are no different from the Calvinist, Catholic, Orthodox, and Sunni theocrats. Under a Christian or Sunni theocracy, questioning the Trinity or the Companions of the Prophet, not to mention the usurper caliphs, would have merited accusations of apostasy and immediate execution. So blaming secularism as the cause of all modern ills is as silly as blaming religion for everything. As far as racism was and is concerned, virtually all societies and their ruling classes have been racist, at least to some degree. Discrimination is part of human nature, even on the racial level. I think one should also distinguish between hard, degenerate secularism of the postmodern type, i.e., the kind that has taken over the West, and state-level secularism that nonetheless respects and promotes conservative and/or religious values throughout society, without favouring one religious tradition over another. Modern Syria and India, in general, have admirably adopted and perfected the latter approach since the end of World War II. The problem is that “New Atheists” and fundamentalist extremists alike are upsetting the equilibrium. The former insist on cleansing society of any and all religious influences, while the latter attempt to impose one theological vision on the whole of society, up to including the physical extermination of theological rivals. As far as voluntarily giving up one’s religion is concerned, that is one’s own choice and fault, and one doesn’t need the state to enforce a “safe space” exclusively for one sect or faith.

It's tricky. Let's say there's red damage and blue damage. Red damage is when people physically assault the religion by burning books, fiery hatred, slaughtering people, preventing people from practicing, etc. Blue damage is when you do damage from the inside. I don't fear red damage, historically it has been proven that we are like an alien that regenerates from a single living cell. There have been people who have annihilated us such as the Mongols, the crusaders, the corrupt caliphs. If anybody had a chance to destroy us through red damage it would have been them. yazid l.a had a better chance than anybody. But surprisingly, we always bounce back and come back even stronger. It's as if the more you physically hurt us, the stronger we become.

So I don't care about red damage, which these days comes from anti-muslims. Those guys won't put a dent in our religion even if they rounded half of us up and executed us. The people that I am concerned with are the slightly more clever secularists/liberals who don't target the Muslims, but Islam itself. They will smile at us, sit with us, eat with us, listen to us. Then once we've allowed them through the gate, they will attack from the inside. Not physically, but by corrupting the religion and culture. And by putting social pressure on the people. And a generous portion of brainwashing. 

So let's say I'm a 17 year old girl in the UK. All the women that are set to be my role models in the media are valuable in society because they are beautiful. So now I want to be beautiful, but I have to keep up with the unrealistic standards set on me, which have no room for the hijab. So there goes the hijab. Most of my friends do silly things like have sex with their boyfriends, smoke weed, watch/listen to vulgar things, waste time on social media. Some of my teachers say there is nothing wrong with these things, that they're normal teenage behavior and that they've done them too at my age. In fact my teachers were the ones who taught me how to put a condom on a man in sex ed class using a banana, so I take that as a greenlight to go ahead. But I still doubt if it's okay so I turn to the internet, not only do they say those things are okay, they recommend it. I have a trans man and a gay person in my class, I wonder if the lgbt is okay, but I'm assured that it's all okay by the internet and my teachers. My parents tell me that these things are bad and that I should get closer to Allah. My teachers and the internet tell me that this is a free society and that I have the right to do whatever I want, so I shouldn't listen to my bigoted parents. But I still value my religion and want to be a Muslim, so I turn to Muslim communities for guidance. So I find a group of people, called Progressive Muslims, who say that there is nothing wrong with what I am doing. Then I grow up and marry a Muslim who is also progressive, since the religious ones are way too restrictive of the lifestyle that I'm used to. My kids won't learn a thing about their religion or mother tongue because we're not all that religious. They'll become atheist/agnostic and I'll support them because they have the right to believe whatever they want and I won't judge them. And just like that they and their entire progeny will be cut from the Islamic link which has gone back for over a thousand years, and their identity would be absorbed and dissolved into a sea of non-muslims. Only to show up in a DNA test, "Wow it says I'm 7.8% Iraqi!" This is blue damage. It is a thousand times worse than red damage. In communist Russia everybody was atheist because the state forced you to be. Then as soon as it's gone they immediately revert back to being Christian. 

If a Muslim girl is brought up in such an environment, well no wonder she leaves Islam or her eman is nearly non-existent. Islam and secularism do not mix, they are like oil and water. Having the freedom to be religious means little when you also have the freedom AND encouragement to be a human animal. We are bombarded with temptations and pressures that our grandparents could not have imagined. If I want to be a good Muslim, I have to walk towards God on an extremely sloped hill. Meaning that if I only took a neutral position and just laid down on the floor, I would roll down towards wickedness. In the past if you liked to stick pinecones in your ears with the intention of getting yourself deaf, you would be called and idiot and be told to cut that out. Then you'd get over it and get on with your life. Now, if you like to stick pinecones in your ears with the intention of getting yourself deaf, you will find an entire community on the internet who will support and encourage you.

I cannot wait until Imam Mahdi puts an end to this.

Interesting and relevant quote by Malcom X: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8869214-the-white-liberal-is-the-worst-enemy-to-america-and

Edited by guest 2025
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 6/18/2021 at 7:08 PM, Guest Mullah_Sadra said:

At the same time, we need to be very careful about the so-called "Christian right", especially in America.

If there is one group that Muslims in America should be building bridges with, it's traditionalist Christians. The problem is, traditionalist Christians were hit with the anti-Islam propaganda during the George W Bush administration the hardest and do not even believe that we worship the same God. Many of the Christians you are talking about believe that we worship a "moon god" and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is not the same god of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" as they say it. These people would be natural allies because they have a lot of the same social values and family values that Muslims have, but they were convinced to hate Muslims by the Christian-Zionist media machine in the early 2000s.

It's like how another brother stated after you: There is red damage and blue damage. Red damage affects Islam the least because there have been period throughout history when people tried to wipe out Islam and it always came back stronger. Blue damage on the other hand, infiltrates Islam and fills it full of liberal degeneracy like feminism, LGBT ideology, "if it feels good, do it" and ultimately atheism. Blue damage is thousands if not millions of times worse and more dangerous to Islam and Muslims than Red damage. Red damage might result in a few martyrs for the faith, maybe some burned books or vandalized Masjids-- blue damage will take an entire generation of cradle Muslims and turn them into liberal (or worse, leftist) degenerates who see "Muslim" as nothing more than a synonym for "Arab" and who, if they actually have children, will not raise their children in Islam.

So really, you aren't wrong in saying that we have to remain an ummah unto ourselves and just trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because there really are not any "allies" that have our best interests in mind when it comes to that which really matters. I think one of the reasons I worry about the state of the ummah so much is because I don't really have an ummah, I am the only Muslim in my family and there is no Shia masjid anywhere close to where I live, so I don't get to participate in any of the Eids or programs that typicall come with the Muslim community.

Edited by Abdul-Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

If there is one group that Muslims in America should be building bridges with, it's traditionalist Christians. The problem is, traditionalist Christians were hit with the anti-Islam propaganda during the George W Bush administration the hardest and do not even believe that we worship the same God. Many of the Christians you are talking about believe that we worship a "moon god" and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is not the same god of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" as they say it. These people would be natural allies because they have a lot of the same social values and family values that Muslims have, but they were convinced to hate Muslims by the Christian-Zionist media machine in the early 2000s.

It's like how another brother stated after you: There is red damage and blue damage. Red damage affects Islam the least because there have been period throughout history when people tried to wipe out Islam and it always came back stronger. Blue damage on the other hand, infiltrates Islam and fills it full of liberal degeneracy like feminism, LGBT ideology, "if it feels good, do it" and ultimately atheism. Blue damage is thousands if not millions of times worse and more dangerous to Islam and Muslims than Red damage. Red damage might result in a few martyrs for the faith, maybe some burned books or vandalized Masjids-- blue damage will take an entire generation of cradle Muslims and turn them into liberal (or worse, leftist) degenerates who see "Muslim" as nothing more than a synonym for "Arab" and who, if they actually have children, will not raise their children in Islam.

So really, you aren't wrong in saying that we have to remain an ummah unto ourselves and just trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because there really are not any "allies" that have our best interests in mind when it comes to that which really matters. I think one of the reasons I worry about the state of the ummah so much is because I don't really have an ummah, I am the only Muslim in my family and there is no Shia masjid anywhere close to where I live, so I don't get to participate in any of the Eids or programs that typicall come with the Muslim community.

100% agree. The blue damage is 1000 more insidious and dangerous and I believe this is what the prophet and Imams (عليه السلام) often referred to when speaking about the latter days.  However, the threat of the red damage is very real right now. The republican party and their Christian-Zionist backers are committed to seizing power by all means possible. There is no room for Islam and Muslims in their vision of America. The same can be said of other fascist movements in Europe or the Hindu Nationalists in India. These people hide behind the idea of "democracy" and pluralism when it ensures their power and dominance. They will drop the idea as soon as their political and social domination seems threatened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Secularism is in and of itself an ideological opposition of religious governance, and thus it has not support in Islam. 
 

With regards to minorities, Islamic government (see that of Iran for an example), which is inherently democratic, maintains complete protection of ethnic minorities and members of the Ahl al-Kitab (I.e. followers of other Abrahamic religions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
On 6/18/2021 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Israel said:

I am for secularism.  Until the reappearance of imam al Mahdi, I do not trust most of the “Muslim” countries.  Most of them are pushing a theocratic or aristocratic agendas that go contrary to the teachings of the imams.  I also find interfaith dialogue is a lot easier in a freer and open society.

To all of you “sit around and wait until Imam Zaman al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) returns” type of Muslims, I hate to break it to you, but you’re tremendously ignorant of the teachings of Islam with regards to political society.
 

Has the Lord not said in the Holy Quran,  “If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.” (5:44)?

I recommend this video for further information: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Eshmake said:

Secularism is in and of itself an ideological opposition of religious governance, and thus it has not support in Islam.

 

On 6/17/2021 at 5:53 PM, Diaz said:

Do u believe it shouldn’t be practiced even if many non Muslims lives in the same country u live in?

^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Guest Mullah_Sadra said:

However, the threat of the red damage is very real right now. The republican party and their Christian-Zionist backers are committed to seizing power by all means possible.

The red damage is not all that damaging to Islam. Sure, some individual people might be victimized and Masjids might be spraypainted or have their windows bricked, but this can still be and is, prosecutable under the law. The blue damage is infinitely more of a threat because it seeks to remove religion and tradition entirely and set the liberal class up as the final authority on culture, life, etc.

I also have some bad news for you: it doesn't matter which American political party you vote for, you're going to get the same results either way it's just that one is more committed to the cause of Israel and one is more committed to destroying religion and replacing it with "Queer ideology" that teaches that the primary focus of the human being should be on having sex and committing any type of sodomy that their wicked hearts desire. Neither the Republican or Democrat party are trustworthy or otherwise "safer" to vote for. It's not a question of "the lesser of two evils" (which is still evil) as much as it's a question of "six of one, half a dozen of another". You either vote for a party that is going to bend over backwards to accommodate Israel and Christian-Zionism or you vote for a party that is eventually going to bully your children into leaving Islam and becoming like Lut's people (or at least, sympathetic to it) through massive media and social pressure campaigns. There is no way to really "win" persay other than to emigrate to a Muslim-majority nation and unfortunately, many of us do not have that luxury.

Edited by Abdul-Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
20 hours ago, Eshmake said:

To all of you “sit around and wait until Imam Zaman al-Mahdi (عليه السلام) returns” type of Muslims, I hate to break it to you, but you’re tremendously ignorant of the teachings of Islam with regards to political society.
 

Has the Lord not said in the Holy Quran,  “If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.” (5:44)?

I recommend this video for further information: 

 

I am not sitting around waiting for the Mahdi’s reappearance as I spend every day researching and taking 5 hawza courses online.  With that said, I am with you that its important to spread islam in the west.  As an ex-liberal (before reverting), I find it a lot easier converting liberals than the Christian conservatives who are in my family.  This might be different for others.  

That is why I prefer living amongst the secularists who to me are more open minded than the close minded Christian conservatives that think allah is a “moon god“ or is a “dark religion“.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Are librals pushing for the acceptence of Islam, i remember during the obama administration, books started to come out about islam and it seemed it was being accepted a little or im i wrong? i saw many libral outlets putting out articals about islam and ramadan and eid, and aboit the ottomans ect,especially durig the 2010s, i seemed like it was bening ecepted a little, what do you all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam , Liberals likewise of during obama administration don't have any problem with any neutralized & sterilized sects of Islam which inside America & European countries are just limited to Dawah & promoting Islam as a personal practice which has no connection to politics even supports liberal agendas likewise gay marriage & supporting LGBTQ which even they do Tatbir in degree of bloodbath in front of the White house until they are not a treat for America & European countries , by the same token, in places likewise west Asia these sects can kill each other in level of genocidal masscare infavor of America & European countries which after Iran revolution Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) had describe it as "American Islam" which by further details Imam Khamenei has described it as "American Sunnism & British Shi'ism" as two blades of same scissor against the Muslim unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
On 6/20/2021 at 5:19 AM, Diaz said:

 

^

Also as an addendum, if the majority of people in a given society do not adhere to Islam, then they statistically control the legal and socio-political system of said society. In such a situation, believers must always support righteousness while following the legal system of a specific country, whether it’s based on secularism or not, except in which case it might conflict with the Law of God (i.e the Shariah).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
21 hours ago, Andrew Israel said:

I am not sitting around waiting for the Mahdi’s reappearance as I spend every day researching and taking 5 hawza courses online.  With that said, I am with you that its important to spread islam in the west.  As an ex-liberal (before reverting), I find it a lot easier converting liberals than the Christian conservatives who are in my family.  This might be different for others.  

That is why I prefer living amongst the secularists who to me are more open minded than the close minded Christian conservatives that think allah is a “moon god“ or is a “dark religion“.

That is excellent, brother, however I meant political inactivity. The believers must spread the Holy Faith, but must also unite and establish a righteous polity based on the shariah, containing institutions of justice that the Mahdi (عليه السلام) will lead after his reappearance. Until then, such must be led by a guardian jurist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/21/2021 at 4:55 AM, Andrew Israel said:

I am not sitting around waiting for the Mahdi’s reappearance as I spend every day researching and taking 5 hawza courses online.  With that said, I am with you that its important to spread islam in the west.  As an ex-liberal (before reverting), I find it a lot easier converting liberals than the Christian conservatives who are in my family.  This might be different for others.  

That is why I prefer living amongst the secularists who to me are more open minded than the close minded Christian conservatives that think allah is a “moon god“ or is a “dark religion“.

 

8 hours ago, Eshmake said:

That is excellent, brother, however I meant political inactivity. The believers must spread the Holy Faith, but must also unite and establish a righteous polity based on the shariah, containing institutions of justice that the Mahdi (عليه السلام) will lead after his reappearance. Until then, such must be led by a guardian jurist.

Salam ,anyway everyone  of us is in different  situation which we must do our best for becoming  ready for reappearance  of Imam Mahdi (aj) which our action & procedure  will be different  from each other which for persons  likewise @Andrew Israel only can do it personally by step by step preparation  of the community around himself by his personal  behavior  which due his condition other activities  likewise "establishing a righteous polity based on the shariah, containing institutions of justice that the Mahdi (عليه السلام) will lead after his reappearance is not on his shoulders but in other hand shias in mulim countries likewise Iran must do these activities  which before expecting  from anyone  to act in similar  fashion  of us we must put ourselves  in their shoes before giving any procedure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/20/2021 at 8:12 PM, Lion of Shia said:

Are librals pushing for the acceptence of Islam

American leftists are pushing for acceptance of something that they call Islam, but has nothing to do with actual Islam because real Islam is not compatible with atheism and "if it feels good, do it" ideology of the American left. When the American left says they "support Islam", what they are really saying is that they hate Christianity. They hold to a racist belief that Islam is a "brown religion" and thus as a result, it is therefore superior to the "White religion" of Christianity. As a result of their racist belief that Islam is a "brown religion", they believe that it is automatically celebratory of Western feminism, the homosexual agenda, and other pet causes of theirs. These people often never understand that Islam truly is a multiethnic and multiracial faith for all people as they are largely ignorant of the White Muslim population of Europe or the Asian Muslim population. They think that Muslim = Arab and that Arab = good because it's not "White" (there are many Arabs who consider themselves part of the White demographic).

However, they say this with no understanding of Islam or how it commands obedience and submission to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) first and foremost. The hadith are abundantly clear that homosexuality is not to be tolerated within society and that Islam rejects feminism, rather that it has an understanding that men and women are fundamentally different and that both genders (there are after all, only 2 genders) have their own unique rights and responsibilities in society for society to function properly.

So when leftists in America say that they "love Islam", they are lying. They hate Islam's traditional values and submission to the Highest of Authorities and will destroy it through Bid'ah the first chance they get but they have to destroy Christianity first. They think that they are going to replace American Christianity with some politically-correct version of Islam that has women leading men in prayer, marrying homosexual couples, and pushing the deadly lie of "if it feels good, do it". They're wrong though, and I cannot wait until the day comes when their bubble is burst about Islam finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

American leftists are pushing for acceptance of something that they call Islam, but has nothing to do with actual Islam because real Islam is not compatible with atheism and "if it feels good, do it" ideology of the American left. When the American left says they "support Islam", what they are really saying is that they hate Christianity. They hold to a racist belief that Islam is a "brown religion" and thus as a result, it is therefore superior to the "White religion" of Christianity. As a result of their racist belief that Islam is a "brown religion", they believe that it is automatically celebratory of Western feminism, the homosexual agenda, and other pet causes of theirs. These people often never understand that Islam truly is a multiethnic and multiracial faith for all people as they are largely ignorant of the White Muslim population of Europe or the Asian Muslim population. They think that Muslim = Arab and that Arab = good because it's not "White" (there are many Arabs who consider themselves part of the White demographic).

However, they say this with no understanding of Islam or how it commands obedience and submission to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) first and foremost. The hadith are abundantly clear that homosexuality is not to be tolerated within society and that Islam rejects feminism, rather that it has an understanding that men and women are fundamentally different and that both genders (there are after all, only 2 genders) have their own unique rights and responsibilities in society for society to function properly.

So when leftists in America say that they "love Islam", they are lying. They hate Islam's traditional values and submission to the Highest of Authorities and will destroy it through Bid'ah the first chance they get but they have to destroy Christianity first. They think that they are going to replace American Christianity with some politically-correct version of Islam that has women leading men in prayer, marrying homosexual couples, and pushing the deadly lie of "if it feels good, do it". They're wrong though, and I cannot wait until the day comes when their bubble is burst about Islam finally.

which goes to my next topic, some muslims think its ok to bend sharia rules because thier in america, some even fornicate, is this also what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Lion of Shia said:

which goes to my next topic, some muslims think its ok to bend sharia rules because thier in america, some even fornicate, is this also what you are talking about.

yes, or drink alcohol, etc. It doesn't suddenly become OK to engage in any of that just because you live in America. I've lived in America from the moment I was born, I was not born into a Muslim family, and I somehow am capable of following the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/20/2021 at 3:19 AM, Guest Mullah_Sadra said:

100% agree. The blue damage is 1000 more insidious and dangerous and I believe this is what the prophet and Imams (عليه السلام) often referred to when speaking about the latter days.  However, the threat of the red damage is very real right now. The republican party and their Christian-Zionist backers are committed to seizing power by all means possible. There is no room for Islam and Muslims in their vision of America. The same can be said of other fascist movements in Europe or the Hindu Nationalists in India. These people hide behind the idea of "democracy" and pluralism when it ensures their power and dominance. They will drop the idea as soon as their political and social domination seems threatened. 

The nationalist right, while imperfect, is far preferable to the globalist left. The former respects borders, cultures, biology, ethnicity, religion, and race, albeit within geographical and other limitations, and therefore preserves integrity. The latter, on the other hand, want to form a perverted one-world “Babylon” by amalgamating and inverting reality, up to and including the abolition of marriage, nation, and so on. Ecumenism is another tool of the globalist agenda. The pro-Trump “nationalist” faction is therefore less devoted to the Zionist agenda than the globalist left, because Zionism’s aim has always been one-world trans-humanist government. So Biden is in fact the supreme representative of Zionism. Zionism, upon its global acceptance, presumes the abolition of all corporate states, including the State of Israel, which is no longer needed to ensure the hegemony of Zionism, given that Zionism at that point has taken over all corners of the world.

12 hours ago, Abdul-Hadi said:

...it has an understanding that men and women are fundamentally different and that both genders (there are after all, only 2 genders) have their own unique rights and responsibilities in society for society to function properly.

“Gender” is a construct and does not exist except linguistically. There are two biological sexes, not “genders.” “Gender” implies that one’s sexual identity is fluid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I prefer pluralism over secularism.

The problem with secularism is that it undermines religion completely. It slaps religion and asks it to stay in it's place i.e mosques, churches, temples etc. Don't interfere in anything. That is a mockery of religion and religious ideologies and in fact it harbors the sentiments of rage among religious people. Also, as it never takes religion seriously, it basically doesn't even benefits from positive aspects of religion. The results are these huge stereotypes about different religions, Misinterpretation, no religious ties. 

Noam Chomsky once said that Religious belief is helpful in binding a society. 

So, in my view undermining religion breaks the society. And that is what is happening now in majority of western and eastern societies.

I would rather support pluralism which is inclusive and respectful towards the ideologies it encapsulates. It harbors the sentiments of cultural and religious engagement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I don't think any actually believing person, someone who believes in judgement, heaven and hell will consciously not feel sorry on the inside somewhere at least for the secular people. Yeah provided he is into caring for others' well being. They are headed to trouble. They will be asked questions and they will not be able to defend their cases. There are good and peaceful people among them. Other than that, after all its their own decision to make and I wish them prosperity in peace. In fact if they believe in human values like truth, justice and friendship they can prove to be better than many otherwise so-called believers who never really swallowed basic Islamic teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

I mean, I’m still very young, so what I’m about to say might be very wrong, I’m not sure.

Whenever I hear of secularism, it’s made out to be this perfect system that is not only suitable for one religion, but for all religions. When I see it being practised, it is absolutely not what it is made out to be. It favours atheists. Think, if you live in a secular country, isn’t it so that the law is as if God doesn’t exist, EVEN THOUGH there are more theists than atheists.

Just seems pretty dumb to me.

Wassalam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...