Convertion of muslims

Organisational work, teaching, Sunday school syllabus, charitable work, outreach, sharing of resources, artwork, etc.
pulga
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by pulga » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:56 pm

Bundokji wrote: To sum up: from theological point of view, the vast majority believe that Muslims who change their religion should be killed. Moderate Muslims dispute it and try to present Islam as peaceful. Many believe in it but don't act upon it.
Thank you. Once again you've provided the forum with information that is firsthand, concrete, and factual.

Caodemarte
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:57 pm

Being Muslim is often seen as the definition of being an ethnic Malay. It is a both a cause and an effect of ethnic rivalries.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:46 pm

Caodemarte wrote:It may be interesting to note that for the first century or so after the early Islamic conquests conversion of non-Arabs to Islam was not allowed. At that time, Islam was seen as a religion for the conquering Arabs and Muslims had special tax breaks and privileges. Even after conversion was allowed it was not usually encouraged.
This is something that will be denied to the teeth if one speaks to someone brought up in dominant modern narratives about the conquest, despite being verifiable through numerous historical sources. Knowledge is a funny thing. If enough people just say "no" it becomes a lie, functionally speaking.

I recall an interview with a very upset Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf, Archbishop of Mosul, just after Daesh had moved in. He was lamenting that his Christian forefathers had translated and preserved the wisdom of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc, into Arabic, giving the knowledge to the new hegemony, helping to precipitate the golden age of sorts for Islam.

Of course, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be able to read Boëthius today at all. He simply wouldn't exist (well, his works would have gone the way of the Confucian Classic of Music). And our society would be massively different. The Renaissance wouldn't have been the same, for certain.
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

Caodemarte
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:28 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Caodemarte wrote:It may be interesting to note that for the first century or so after the early Islamic conquests conversion of non-Arabs to Islam was not allowed. At that time, Islam was seen as a religion for the conquering Arabs and Muslims had special tax breaks and privileges. Even after conversion was allowed it was not usually encouraged.
This is something that will be denied to the teeth if one speaks to someone brought up in dominant modern narratives about the conquest, despite being verifiable through numerous historical sources. Knowledge is a funny thing. If enough people just say "no" it becomes a lie, functionally speaking.

I recall an interview with a very upset Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf, Archbishop of Mosul, just after Daesh had moved in. He was lamenting that his Christian forefathers had translated and preserved the wisdom of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc, into Arabic, giving the knowledge to the new hegemony, helping to precipitate the golden age of sorts for Islam.

Of course, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be able to read Boëthius today at all. He simply wouldn't exist (well, his works would have gone the way of the Confucian Classic of Music). And our society would be massively different. The Renaissance wouldn't have been the same, for certain.

A lot of the idea that these were wars of religion comes from the medieval narratives. These often assumed that Muslim conquerors used the same claimed motivation that Europeans did ("the Cross or the Sword"). In Spain Jews and Christians would sometimes riot in order to turn over their cities to Muslims. They knew they would get a more tolerant ruler (not that anybody is claiming Arab invaders were proto-hippies, just often better than the alternative)

Garrib
Posts: 349
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Garrib » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:54 pm

One of my favorite undergrad courses was a religious studies class about Islam - covering its history, beliefs, various practices, reform movements, and modern issues. The class was taught by one of my favorite professor's, a great political scientist/academic and also a practicing Muslim. There were many students at the school who were practicing muslims - many of the girls wearing hijabs. I never once had a negative interaction or experience with any muslim student or faculty member. In fact, I had many positive and friendly encounters. I did, however, (not infrequently) overhear non-muslims making derogatory and disparaging comments about Islam.

There is religious extremism in the world, and unfortunately a lot of violence is perpetrated by people who call themselves muslims- but let us not forget that most of the victims of that extremism are also muslims. And let us not lose sight of the fact that there are economic, ethnic, and political reasons for extremism as well religious ones.

It is one thing to disagree with certain views/beliefs/practices/values, or to offer a critique of religious ideas - but it is quite another thing to be bigoted against or to condemn an entire religion and all of its adherents; especially without considering the internal diversity of the religion and other factors.

I basically agree with the Bhikkhu's opinion, if it can be expressed in this way - there are places in the world where people who convert from Islam to another religion should be very careful about being open about their religious convictions. But this is not true in all cases - and we should not let the fact that it is true in others give rise to bigotry and enmity in our hearts.

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:00 pm

In his documentary Hypernormalisation, Adam Curtis explains how the use of Muslim faith to radicalize and then use people as landmine fodder or kamikazes which is fueling islamophobia arose some time in the 70s.

It is a trite, but regarding the topic of this thread, religious freedom is an important if not fundamental part of general human well-being, and we can only wish that all human beings could enjoy it.
DooDoot wrote:If you don't want to be a Muslim in Malaysia then it might be wise & respectful to emigrate given societies do often require some kind of core culture to remain sustainable.
Are you suggesting that Malays who wish to stop being Muslims should move to some other country so as to maintain some (impossible) religious homogeneity in Malaysia?

SarathW
Posts: 8288
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by SarathW » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:54 pm

Islam is not the same as Buddhism because it does have a political component
Do you mean Buddhism is a political ideology like capitalism and communism
or
Islam is a political ideology like capitalism and communism?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

DooDoot
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:14 am

SarathW wrote:Islam is a political ideology like capitalism and communism?
Capitalism and communism appear to be economic ideologies, which affect politics. Both appear to be forms of economic dictatorship because, when capitalism is unregulated, it leads to monopoly or oligarchy. 'Capitalism' is not necessarily 'free enterprise' or 'fair trade' or 'democracy'. The common correlation between capitalism & democracy I think is erroneous. The very formation of capitalism was from feudal dictatorship. That billionaires are now comprising of the US govt (rather than appointing puppets or proxies, such as Obama) shows how far the US is moving in the direction of economic dictatorship ('plutocracy'); where a president personally decides, on a whim of opinion based on tears from his daughter & the bliss of chocolate cake, to give an order to fire 59 missiles into another country. But capitalism and communism are not 100% political ideologies because they have no rules about crime & punishment in respect to non-economic human behaviour.

Islam is a political ideology because its tenants are about ruling a nation or society, including having laws about crime & punishment, the same as any other nation. All nations have legal systems with punishments for murder, theft, defamation, drug taking & drug trafficking and most used to have punishments for adultery, including fault in divorce. Buddhism only recommends certain behaviours and has no recommendations for punishment and no aspirations for national sovereignty. Therefore, Buddhism is not inherently a political system (even though its value can influence a political system).

I would speculate the original Muslims believed they were bringing a better civilisation to the world; which for many small groups was actually the reality (as has been posted by others on this thread). This is similar to the USA which claims to want to liberate nations (but actually destroys nations).
Buddha Vacana wrote:Are you suggesting that Malays who wish to stop being Muslims should move to some other country so as to maintain some (impossible) religious homogeneity in Malaysia?
Wasn't it your good self that recently wrote elsewhere that you & others appreciate a core & stable culture? I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture. For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy. They believe in a different culture. When I have travelled in Muslim cultures, I ensure I dress & behave in ways that are suitable to that culture. Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism. Once core & universal morals break-down, societies break down. For example, when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism). At least this is how a conservative would view things.

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:48 am

DooDoot wrote: Wasn't it your good self that recently wrote elsewhere that you & others appreciate a core & stable culture?
I don't think so. That doesn't sound like something I would write at all. Can you quote me saying so?
DooDoot wrote: I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
DooDoot wrote: For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
DooDoot wrote: Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism.
What??? :shock:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
DooDoot wrote: At least this is how a conservative would view things.
I guess that explains a lot

binocular
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by binocular » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:30 am

Buddha Vacana wrote:
DooDoot wrote:I think it is religious or moral values (rather than race or superficial identity group) that historically create a stable culture.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.

DooDoot
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:01 am

Buddha Vacana wrote:I don't think so. That doesn't sound like something I would write at all. Can you quote me saying so?
OK. I was mistaken.
Only if those values are the 5 precepts and tolerance. Also, people having these characteristic but different religions can coexist peacefully. Why on earth people would be by principle unable to mix and live together?
That is what I meant. Similar values, such as 5 precepts. As for 'tolerance', this is contrary to the five precepts. 'Tolerance' is a practise for individual reformation or liberation but not really a political value. Society does not 'tolerate' murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers & other criminals. Buddhist teaches 'tolerance' because it is transcendent or apocalyptic. The core essence of Buddhism is not clinging to anything in the world. This is contrary to Islam, which aims, even if misguided, to create a sustainable society & world.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
Your view here supports what I wrote, namely, the USA may be a divided culture because some believe in democracy & others do not. These are different cultures.
What??? :shock:
:stirthepot: :jumping:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
Certainly. Many articles about the decline of Thai Buddhism.
I guess that explains a lot
It explains a lot about Buddhism, which as a path of practise is obviously 'conservative'. Five, eight, ten, 227 precepts and 10 or 37 wholesome kammas are obviously 'conservative'. Funny & strange the things Western Buddhists are cheer-leading for these days.

Islam, like Judaism, is about kammic law. Buddhism goes beyond kammic law because it is essentially transcendent or apocolyptic.

DooDoot
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:12 am

binocular wrote:It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
But they actually don't live very similar lifestyles. A Christian & Muslim wants to exterminate Buddhists because Buddhists are atheists or polytheists is actually not following their own religion. Where does the New Testament or Koran say to wantonly exterminate people due to difference of religion? (For example, the wars & enemies depicted in the Koran, including 'The Polytheists', are said to be related to Arabian groups/tribes at war against the Muslims http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com.au/ ... ms-to.html). Therefore, there are two cultures here: Xtians, Muslims & Buddhists who follow their religious tenants and Xtians, Muslims & Buddhists who don't. Practitioners vs non-practitioners. Buddhism teaches to view things in terms of 'kamma' rather than 'identity'. Buddha taught a Brahman by family birth that broke moral precepts & was defiled was not a Brahman (holy man). I think Buddhism teaches to not get sucked into the delusion of 'identity politics', such includes stereotyping Muslim-identity either positively or negatively.

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:32 pm

DooDoot wrote:As for 'tolerance', this is contrary to the five precepts. 'Tolerance' is a practise for individual reformation or liberation but not really a political value. Society does not 'tolerate' murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers & other criminals.
We are talking about tolerating people with different cultures, like different clothing, different food, different religion, different language... why are you even bringing crime into the mix? There are criminals from all religions and in all societies, you don't need to mix different cultures for that. But surely some will try to put the blame on people who are not in their in-group.
DooDoot wrote: Buddhist teaches 'tolerance' because it is transcendent or apocalyptic.
What?? Buddhism is "apocalyptic"?
DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: For example, when Trump won the election & the left-wing were rioting shows these people do not believe in democracy.
Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. The USA are not an actual democracy, and people who actually believe in democracy call for changing that fundamentally corrupt system.
Your view here supports what I wrote, namely, the USA may be a divided culture because some believe in democracy & others do not. These are different cultures.
There is no single-eyebrow-raising emoji here, but that's the feeling. In a country of several hundreds of millions of inhabitants, you find some people disagreeing with one another. You're never going to have everybody in agreement even if they were all from the same cultural background. It's just a fact of life.

DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: Generally, interest in Christianity (generally Protestant) by a Muslim is a sign of less moral values; similar to Christians who are interested in Western (liberal) Buddhism.
What??? :shock:
:stirthepot: :jumping:
I am not sure you actually mean what the words above say.

DooDoot wrote:
DooDoot wrote: when Buddhists lament the decline of Buddhism in Thailand or Sri Lanka, this is usually due to the introduction of new cultures (such Western corporate liberalism)
.
What??? :shock:
Certainly. Many articles about the decline of Thai Buddhism.
I can believe there are articles contending that. It doesn't make it more accurate. There have certainly been some influence but Buddhists have certainly not waited on westerners to show up to become corrupt.

DooDoot
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by DooDoot » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:53 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:We are talking about tolerating people with different cultures, like different clothing, different food, different religion, different language... why are you even bringing crime into the mix? There are criminals from all religions and in all societies, you don't need to mix different cultures for that. But surely some will try to put the blame on people who are not in their in-group..
Has "tolerance" become a "holy word"? Why must socially destructive sub-cultures, be they drug taking, pornography or predatory corporate economics be tolerated? What is this "tolerance" business? Did the Buddha tolerate harmful behaviours in his community? Buddha tolerated those things he could not control, which included the bad behaviour of outsiders. But this tolerance is unrelated to what can be controlled or aimed for in a community.

I am saying criminals are a different culture. I am redefining culture. People of different clothing, food, language & even religion are not really a different culture when they share the same moral values. When Italians, Greeks, Christian Arabs, Germans, Yugoslavs, Swedes, etc, flooded into white-British-Irish-Australia after WW2, this did not cause social chaos because all shared Christian culture. But people who claim to be of the same religion but some are criminals & some are not are obviously people of a different culture.

I am trying to break down identity politics, such as when people of a certain race commit a crime and those opposing those crimes are called 'racists'. Material or physical attributes do not determine 'culture'. 'Culture' is something that gels or binds social harmony. Obviously, all of the social disharmony & social debate is due to different cultures.

While I am not preaching intolerance, I am just pointing out how tolerance only assists spiritual liberation but does not really assist social harmony. Too much tolerance seems to create social chaos, which is why I called 100% tolerance 'apocalyptic'. The teachings of liberation in Buddhism are distinguished from the teachings of mere morality (MN 117).

Caodemarte
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:35 pm

binocular wrote:....
It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
And yet they do as that is the definition of tolerance. I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups. I sincerely hope that they all continue to peacefully coexist with me.

binocular
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by binocular » Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:49 am

Caodemarte wrote:
binocular wrote:....It is not possible to peacefully coexist with someone who belives you're wrong about something that they consider important. Even if externally, the two parties may live very similar lifestyles, as long as their motivations for living those lifestyles differ, they won't be able to peacefully coexist.
And yet they do as that is the definition of tolerance. I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups. I sincerely hope that they all continue to peacefully coexist with me.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerance" and "peacefully coexist."

In one way, it is possible to "peacefully coexist" with someone whom one belives to be wrong in some important way -- provided that all parties involved are proud or indifferent enough towards eachother. That then externally looks like "tolerance." This is how, on principle, it is possible that one despises another to the core, but can still "peacefully coexist" with them. The question is, for how long, and in what circumstances.

I think that actual peaceful coexistence requires a lot more than just an external, superficial absence of intense conflict.
I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups.
But how Christian are those Christians; how Muslim those Muslims, how Buddhist those Buddhists, how Hindu those Hindus; etc.?
How consistently do they keep the precepts of their respective religions?

Caodemarte
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:00 pm

binocular wrote: ....Well, it depends on what you mean by "tolerance" and "peacefully coexist."

In one way, it is possible to "peacefully coexist" with someone whom one belives to be wrong in some important way -- provided that all parties involved are proud or indifferent enough towards eachother. That then externally looks like "tolerance." This is how, on principle, it is possible that one despises another to the core, but can still "peacefully coexist" with them. The question is, for how long, and in what circumstances.

I think that actual peaceful coexistence requires a lot more than just an external, superficial absence of intense conflict.
I live surrounded by conservative Christian churches, mosques, Buddhist temples, Hindu temples, and a variety of political groups.
But how Christian are those Christians; how Muslim those Muslims, how Buddhist those Buddhists, how Hindu those Hindus; etc.?
How consistently do they keep the precepts of their respective religions?
Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced.

That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion. Far from being indifferent, proud, or hostile many want to save me and as long as they are polite and non-threatening about it that's fine. I will accept anyone's good wishes. By the way, the Buddhists are really Buddhists, the Hindus really Hindu, etc. who all seem to follow the precepts of their churches or temple quite seriously. I may not agree with the teachings of local fundamentalist Christian church next to the mosque and Hindu temple, but there is no external sign that they don't take their own interpretations of their own scriptures seriously.

binocular
Posts: 4124
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by binocular » Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:28 am

Caodemarte wrote:Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced.
/.../
That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion.
Then you haven't learned anything yet from the persecution of Jews in pre-WWII Germany. It all started out with contempt for Jews being something acceptable.

Caodemarte
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by Caodemarte » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:30 pm

Caodemarte wrote:....
Having lived in my current region when it was pretty much all Protestant Christian with a distinct animus towards Catholics and very violent, I will gladly accept an abscence of people trying to kill me. Behavior can be legislated and that is all that can be required or enforced......That said, I doubt very much that anybody currently hates or despises me because of my religion. Far from being indifferent, proud, or hostile many want to save me and as long as they are polite and non-threatening about it that's fine. I will accept anyone's good wishes.
binocular wrote:....
Then you haven't learned anything yet from the persecution of Jews in pre-WWII Germany. It all started out with contempt for Jews being something acceptable.
???????????

User avatar
khemindas
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:06 am
Location: Myanmar
Contact:

Re: Convertion of muslims

Post by khemindas » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:21 am

Garrib wrote:One of my favorite undergrad courses was a religious studies class about Islam - covering its history, beliefs, various practices, reform movements, and modern issues. The class was taught by one of my favorite professor's, a great political scientist/academic and also a practicing Muslim. There were many students at the school who were practicing muslims - many of the girls wearing hijabs. I never once had a negative interaction or experience with any muslim student or faculty member. In fact, I had many positive and friendly encounters. I did, however, (not infrequently) overhear non-muslims making derogatory and disparaging comments about Islam.

There is religious extremism in the world, and unfortunately a lot of violence is perpetrated by people who call themselves muslims- but let us not forget that most of the victims of that extremism are also muslims. And let us not lose sight of the fact that there are economic, ethnic, and political reasons for extremism as well religious ones.

It is one thing to disagree with certain views/beliefs/practices/values, or to offer a critique of religious ideas - but it is quite another thing to be bigoted against or to condemn an entire religion and all of its adherents; especially without considering the internal diversity of the religion and other factors.

I basically agree with the Bhikkhu's opinion, if it can be expressed in this way - there are places in the world where people who convert from Islam to another religion should be very careful about being open about their religious convictions. But this is not true in all cases - and we should not let the fact that it is true in others give rise to bigotry and enmity in our hearts.
I quite disagree with you, I think your knowledge of Islam is very basic, is not the same as for other religions. In Islam you can't steal from muslim, or kill muslim, but you can steal from Kafir, or kill Kafir in some situation. I think you should study both Quran and Sunnah (Hadith) first than you can see real picture.
Last edited by khemindas on Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests