03-05-2009, 05:58 PM
Dears,
In my view the post being criticised by us was reflection of one's lack of understanding about own belief. After all he is a muslim as per his statement and we cannot declare the thing to the contrary. Neither Islam allows it (if done without Ijmah-e-Ummah) nor the international rules which state that one should be called what he likes to. The people talking about social rules of Canada should know the rules of amnesty international as well. What is freedom of expression is a very long debate and has different meanings with reference to each jurisdiction. We are currently not discusisng this issue. I already explained that Canada is not a place where the world ends.
The issue is what should be the moral attitude of muslims when we talk as muslims purely on religious matters.
Every one who does not understand the issue should be explained everything. I understand that actions call for the reactions. However, we should at the outset try our best to explain the things. This should be a must. We should come up with a reaction only if we have thorowly explained the issue in question and if the other keeps on beating about the bush, uses indecent language and comes entirely to the personal level. Otherwise things should be avoided to the maximum extent.
Moreover, religion is entirely a different issue. It's not a professional discussion. If some one does not believe in Islam it's his right. If some one can express and has fullest right to express that he believes in God and Islam and Prophet PBUH, then we should have the courage to accept that there could be some else who can say the things to the contrary.
If I am not mistaken the poster did not abused any one. He said he cannot understand the things and the Islam's guidance about interest/riba and Jannah etc is unacceptable for him. He also said it illusion etc but to my understanding it is because of his failure to understand the things or having a personal dis-belief.
We openly criticise jewish lobby (and some other religions), their conspiracies, and so much and call them wajab-ul-qatal etc on this forum. No jew appears and calls it against the social rules. Even if some one would be saying this the people would not accept his reaction. I just pointed out this very instinct of our muslim brothers. We are far lesser practical than others and we are far more emotional than rest of the world.
When I discussed the shortcomings of muslims (not Islam), I included my self in that as well, so raising finer over me does not serve a constructive purpose. I don't keep myself out of the category I criticised.
The purpose of my previous post was very generalized to explain that we should give the other the right of having his own belief. Mind it, religion is not two plus two. If we debate on professional issues, it is just becuase it is two plus two which cannot be five. The religion is a complex issue based upon one's interior satisfaction and is purely between God and human being. The one corner of its thread is always hidden. There is no two plus two formula in this matter. So the critical debates over professional issues cannot be mixed up with religious matters. It's a funny effort.
I would request that some one (may be some economist) may provide some constructive information about the pitfalls and demerits of interest based economic systems after comparing it with Islamic proposed systems. There could be so many examples of disasters created by interest based systems. UAE, UAE and UK are current examples. We should need to make a research.
This would hopefully provide a better way to explain the poster his queries and clarifying his illusions (since he calls the religious matters as illusion).
Regards,
KAMRAN.
In my view the post being criticised by us was reflection of one's lack of understanding about own belief. After all he is a muslim as per his statement and we cannot declare the thing to the contrary. Neither Islam allows it (if done without Ijmah-e-Ummah) nor the international rules which state that one should be called what he likes to. The people talking about social rules of Canada should know the rules of amnesty international as well. What is freedom of expression is a very long debate and has different meanings with reference to each jurisdiction. We are currently not discusisng this issue. I already explained that Canada is not a place where the world ends.
The issue is what should be the moral attitude of muslims when we talk as muslims purely on religious matters.
Every one who does not understand the issue should be explained everything. I understand that actions call for the reactions. However, we should at the outset try our best to explain the things. This should be a must. We should come up with a reaction only if we have thorowly explained the issue in question and if the other keeps on beating about the bush, uses indecent language and comes entirely to the personal level. Otherwise things should be avoided to the maximum extent.
Moreover, religion is entirely a different issue. It's not a professional discussion. If some one does not believe in Islam it's his right. If some one can express and has fullest right to express that he believes in God and Islam and Prophet PBUH, then we should have the courage to accept that there could be some else who can say the things to the contrary.
If I am not mistaken the poster did not abused any one. He said he cannot understand the things and the Islam's guidance about interest/riba and Jannah etc is unacceptable for him. He also said it illusion etc but to my understanding it is because of his failure to understand the things or having a personal dis-belief.
We openly criticise jewish lobby (and some other religions), their conspiracies, and so much and call them wajab-ul-qatal etc on this forum. No jew appears and calls it against the social rules. Even if some one would be saying this the people would not accept his reaction. I just pointed out this very instinct of our muslim brothers. We are far lesser practical than others and we are far more emotional than rest of the world.
When I discussed the shortcomings of muslims (not Islam), I included my self in that as well, so raising finer over me does not serve a constructive purpose. I don't keep myself out of the category I criticised.
The purpose of my previous post was very generalized to explain that we should give the other the right of having his own belief. Mind it, religion is not two plus two. If we debate on professional issues, it is just becuase it is two plus two which cannot be five. The religion is a complex issue based upon one's interior satisfaction and is purely between God and human being. The one corner of its thread is always hidden. There is no two plus two formula in this matter. So the critical debates over professional issues cannot be mixed up with religious matters. It's a funny effort.
I would request that some one (may be some economist) may provide some constructive information about the pitfalls and demerits of interest based economic systems after comparing it with Islamic proposed systems. There could be so many examples of disasters created by interest based systems. UAE, UAE and UK are current examples. We should need to make a research.
This would hopefully provide a better way to explain the poster his queries and clarifying his illusions (since he calls the religious matters as illusion).
Regards,
KAMRAN.
