Lesson One for the modern Muslim: remember, this is not the 8th century

[STOIC]

***Edited**

[Paragon]

Several writers challenged me to take the next step and hypothesise the content of such a reform movement. The nine thoughts that follow form an initial response to that challenge, and focus primarily on Britain.

As far as Rushdie is concerned, these 'nine thoughts' encapsulate the change that needs implementation in order to keep Islam and Muslims from harm's way. These nine thoughts which Rushdie proposes are not new for those who follow the writings of the reformist agenda of some moderates, whom their echoes we regularly hear through the media. In essence, these nine thoughts are common to many reformists and seem to have the purpose of achieving Muslim pacification from sentiments of war, and compatibility with Western ideals and aspirations, all through the compartmentalisation of global Muslim psyche. Separation of Muslims in the West, from the rest of the Muslim world, in which they fear its influences. But without further ado, what follows are my point by point comments on some of Rushdie's so-called 'nine thoughts'. The first of his 'thoughts' is:

 

It may well be that reform will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contact (and friction) between communities is greatest, and then exported to the Muslim majority countries. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened. The idea of Pakistan was shaped in England, too. So were the history-changing characters of Mahatma Gandhi, Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the pro-British Indian Muslim leader Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

 

British Muslims, who are mainly of South Asian origin, should remember their own histories. In India, Muslims have always been secularists, knowing that India’s secular constitution is what protects them from the dictatorship of the (Hindu) majority. British Muslims should take a leaf out of their counterparts’ book and separate religion from politics.

Rushdie here speaks of 'reform' which he contemplates 'will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contacts (and friction) between communities is greatest', a reform which in turn produces the opposite of the current sphere of influence between majority/minority Muslims. Currently, ideas and influences flow from majority Muslim countries to minority Muslim populations (i.e. in the West). It is this sort of geographical shift of sphere of influence that requires the compartmentalization (or division of a whole into small categories with little of no effective functionality in separate) of the Muslim psyche. Rushdie wishes to achieve such a compartmentalization by following the examples of 'Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...and... Syed Ahmad Khan', who were all the product of British education. In a nutshell, it is a return to old colonial 'master and colony' sort of mentality' which Rushdie wishes to reappear.

 

That is why Rushdie warns Muslims of South Asian origin to 'remember their own histories', or their servitude to colonial powers. Because he says, in India, for example, secularism saved the Muslim minority from Hindu dictatorship. Although I am sure Indian Muslims owe a lot to the separation of religion and politics, Rushdie doesn’t seem to advocate for such a separation ONLY where Muslims are a minority. Ridiculously, he believes that, for British Muslims to have such safety as Indian Muslims did have under secularism, a reform concerning Islamic teachings has to take place in minority Muslim countries and then 'exported to majority Muslim countries! This means, Islam and the majority Muslim countries, must work very hard for the interests of minority Muslims elsewhere, and as if that wasn't enough, to adapt Secular systems. Rushdie's proposition isn't therefore an acceptable one, and seems illogical. Illogical because one cannot hope for the stoppage of other influences, but again do the very thing he fights against to others. As I see it, Rushdie's first is valid, if and only if, he limits himself with the concerns of British Muslims and them alone. As it stands his first 'thought' is contradiction.

 

Remembering history, part 2. Within living memory, Muslim cities such as Beirut and Tehran were cosmopolitan, tolerant, modern metropolises. That lost culture must be saved from the radicals, celebrated, and rebuilt.

In reply to Rushdie’s first ‘thought’, I mentioned that secular systems have had protections for only minority Muslims in specific situations and not the majority Muslims in our current situation. For Rushdie to speak of Beirut and Tehran, and to wish for the return of their ‘cosmopolitanism and tolerance’, is simply nonsense. In the West, minority Muslims are expected to abide by the land’s law or the ‘majority’s law’. Secularism in Britain hasn’t been forced on the majority; rather it is because of the majority’s democratic choice that secularism is the law of the land. Such should be the case in countries where Muslims are the majority, and their choices should be the law of the land. The Christian minority in Beirut or Tehran must abide by the rule of the majority’s law, as is expected from a British Muslim. Rushdie should not therefore speak doubly in contradictable tone, while advocating for the proliferation of one majority’s law (secularism) across/upon Muslim lands and peoples, while disregarding another majority’s law (Islamic or traditional) altogether.

 

The idea that all Muslims are kin to all others should be re-examined.

The truth is that, as the bitter divisions between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias demonstrate, it is a fiction, and when it deludes young men such as the British 7/7 bombers into blowing up their own country in the name of an essentially fantastical idea of Islamic brotherhood (few British Muslims would find life in conservative Muslim countries tolerable), it is a dangerous fiction.

In normal conditions, Muslims are indeed kin to all others, and that fact needs not a re-examination. However, the very thing that had created divisions among Muslims is the same thing which Rushdie portrays as the remedy. Although the priority of Muslims now is to try to fill the gap between Muslims, the initial divider cannot and will not escape Muslims’ eye. Rushdie wants to direct us to current division as a proof that the idea of Muslim brotherhood is fictitious. In reality, he wishes to deflect blame from the ‘West’, a land whose ideals he wishes us to embrace. In effect he means to say that we should busy ourselves mopping the wet floor, as it were, and not check the source of the wetness. To Muslim countries, Rushdie says, deal with your divisions, and to Muslims in the West, he advices them not to be tricked by the dangerous fiction of Islamic brotherhood.

 

and that the repression of free speech by the thin-skinned ideology of easily-taken “offence†must be replaced by genuine, robust, anything-goes debate in which there are no forbidden ideas or no-go areas.

This, I think, is worth discussing. Reasonable debates should be allowed to take place about all matters but with moderation. The ‘no-holes-barred’ debate which Rushdie wants is usually not a debate, but the permission of blasphemy in public spheres. I doubt if there is a need to grow thin-skin for reasonable and logical debates, rather, I believe, those who take offence do so because of the blasphemy which some mistake for debating.

 

Reformed Islam would encourage diaspora Muslims to emerge from their self-imposed ghettoes and stop worrying so much about locking up their daughters. It would emerge from the intellectual ghetto of literalism and subservience to mullahs and ulema, allowing open, historically based scholarship to emerge from the shadows to which the madrassas and seminaries have condemned it.

In other words, reformed Islam will do away with aspects of current restraints, which restrict British Muslims to ‘self-imposed ghettoes’. I wonder what these constraints or restrictions that need lifting are.

[NGONGE]

Paragon,

 

What a great first post, saaxib. I like you already.

 

I almost fully agree with your analysis of the piece and think such thorough and straight replies are what are needed to understand Rushdie and his ilk.

 

The only parts that I don’t think you addressed adequately were Rushdie’s suggestion to re-examine the idea that all Muslims are kin and his opposition to the ‘repression of free speech’!

 

He might be cunning, devious and conniving but, you have to admit, he hit on a juicy area in which to plant further seeds of division and doubt. Why should I, as a Somali, consider some distant fat Arab as my kin for example (I use this example because it is a popular one)? What do I, as a Sunni, have in common with a Shia who prays on a stone and weekly cut himself up with swords and knives in lamentations (pardon the extreme caricature)?

 

On the freedom of speech point, who or what decides what ‘moderation’ means? As for blasphemy, would it not depend on the context and reason rather than the blasphemy itself? Surely no sane person would debate with someone that uses blasphemy as an end in itself with no accompanying debate. Furthermore, surely all debates should be ‘anything-goes-debates’ (providing that they are logical and rational debates). Those that are not only armed with their own logic, ability to reason and wisdom but also with the superior words and commands of the almighty, should be able to ‘win’ any debate they engage in, regardless of the level of blasphemy involved. Right?

 

Again, welcome to SOL, saaxib. That was quite an entry.

 

 

[Rahima]

Surely the ummah is in great strife!

 

A hypocrite and a lesbian are now being asked about Islam and the progression of the Ummah.

 

Baashi, as always wonderful posts. Wonderful to read the views of educated young Muslims who have their fundamentals set right. May Allah bless you here and in the akhira.

[Jafarel.]

what we need to understand is that Islam is a divine religion put in place by the Almighty and in no need of reform.

[Strawberry_Xu]

Everybody is speaking of reform of Islam, which as we all know the majority of muslims will fiercly resist - and anyone who claims loyalty to democratic principles - as these liberal 'muslims' do - cannot deny the unambiguous vote against reform, and as such should respect it, and look for other ways to get Islam understood by the West.

 

But reform is still needed and by the state of things - needed urgently. This reform should take place in the people and their interpretation of Islam. Because flawed as he is, Rushdie is right. This is not the 8th century, and Islam is a timeless concept and should be constantly re-examined to find solutions to problems you simply didn't have in the 6th century. The niggling question of modernity need not be feared, it is not an immutable concept solely perpetuated by the West. Modernity ties into the societies that surround us, yes, but it also permeates us, binds us and carries us forward at the same time. If Muslims have faith, then they must also have faith that Islam has place for modernity, for no one ever expected the world to stand still. It didn't when the Torah was revealed, that's why mankind received the Injeel and thereafter the Holy Quran.

 

The Holy Quran is unique in that it shall be the last divine book to be revealed. Therefore you'd expect it to take into account the changing times, it would be common sense for a divine guidance to be flexible if no more alterations are to follow.

 

That's what muslims need to realise. That it is possible to draw from the Quran to deal with modern troubles. That in the modern world, to change one's mind is no great sin as long one doesn't change one's faith. Know that we can stretch, mutate and transform without destroying that which holds the muslim world together, which is faith.

 

 

However reducing the issue to two camps (mullahs and liberals) contending for the souls of the majority - silent or otherwise - seems rather naive. As if all we need to do is organise a middle-ground in which the disaffected majority can be satisfied. We are so busy submitting different solutions to the 'plight of the ummah', and are so busy denouncing the ideas of others, that I'm not sure if we all want to be in the same brotherhood.

 

The one thing that mend many a great slight between ourselves and others, is the one muslims often attribute to ills of the West, which is simply tolerance. How to get us to survive the 21st century without losing our faith is simply that, understanding other - even your enemies.

 

I'm sorry for the confounded reply, but I'm in a bit of a hurry now. I'll expand on my post later.

[Medley of extemporanea]

I don't take my medical advice from my mechanic. Mr. Rushdie should stop calling himself a muslim if he hates islam so much. The door to apostate is wide open. But I guess he can sell more books and make more money by doing what he’s been doing. People like Rushie and Irshad Manji aren’t targeting a muslim audience with their message (thank God), and they only pretend to speak for a Muslim constituency.

 

Islam if found in the Quran and the Sunna; Rushie and Irshad Manji don’t read the Quran and the Sunna, so how can they be expected to write about islam? These people just want to sell books, their words and idea’s are shallow, naïve, and worthless.

 

Rushie and Irshad Manji's advice for how muslims should practice Islam is like my advice on how Mormons should conduct a church service; absolutely worthless.

[Gabbal]

Surely the ummah is in great strife!

Yawmul Aakhira is just around the corner sis. These are but signs prophesied long ago in that 8th century!

 

 

In the West, minority Muslims are expected to abide by the land’s law or the ‘majority’s law’. Secularism in Britain hasn’t been forced on the majority; rather it is because of the majority’s democratic choice that secularism is the law of the land. Such should be the case in countries where Muslims are the majority, and their choices should be the law of the land. The Christian minority in Beirut or Tehran must abide by the rule of the majority’s law, as is expected from a British Muslim. Rushdie should not therefore speak doubly in contradictable tone, while advocating for the proliferation of one majority’s law (secularism) across/upon Muslim lands and peoples, while disregarding another majority’s law (Islamic or traditional) altogether.

Bravo! Bravo! Paragon welcome home nomad.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Xu:

The one thing that mend many a great slight between ourselves and others, is the one muslims often attribute to ills of the West, which is simply

tolerance

. How to get us to survive the 21st century without losing our faith is simply that, understanding other - even your enemies.

Xu, while Islam itself is very forbearing of other faiths and its adherents, tolerance is behavior unbecoming of a muslim nowadays. When did we fall off the tracks?

[Paragon]

Thank you very much for the welcome, NGONGE. I also show my gratitude to Roob who have welcomed me.

 

He might be cunning, devious and conniving but, you have to admit, he hit on a juicy area in which to plant further seeds of division and doubt. Why should I, as a Somali, consider some distant fat Arab as my kin for example (I use this example because it is a popular one)? What do I, as a Sunni, have in common with a Shia who prays on a stone and weekly cut himself up with swords and knives in lamentations (pardon the extreme caricature)?

Yes, I must admit that Rushdie seems to arrive at a point, NGONGE. However his point is dependently valid, and valid only in today's context in which inner Muslim communal division seems more apparent than before, at a time when there was at least an overarching authority, be it an empire or a caliphate. In the order of things, if such an overarching power is absent, anarchy creates a vacuum of equal distrust. To regain widespread order and progress among Muslims, we should be working hard to create an overarching power and central leadership. It is when such an overarching power is not instituted that majority Muslim peoples will eye each other with distrust. Rushdie rightly sees this distrust and proposes the hypothesis that pushes the idea of Muslim brotherhood and kinship to the extreme edge of falsity. Somehow I don't blame him.

 

Anyone who analyses the current situation of the Muslim world, without the realisation of the need for an 'overarching and central power', is likely to come to the same conclusion. I think it is also a case of optimism here. Rushdie et al don't seem optimistic about such a power coming into creation; therefore he prescribes the Muslims to conform to the current status quo. For the time being, Rushdie is only too happy to entertain us with the reality of (ethnically) divided Muslims, rather than the potential and possiblity of unity in the future. My strong believe is that an overarching power pulls peoples together. It also attaches peripheral nations to the core of power. That difference between Muslims, which Rushdie banks on will become invalidated, if a core-periphery power system comes into existence. This sounds straightforward; however anyone hoping for such a system will be confronted by practically another structural problem, which I won’t go into now. Futhermore, untill the created overaching or central power, can achieve a balance-of-power with current dominant status quo, I am affraid Rushdie's hypothesis awaits a refutation. The summarizing equation on Rushdie's hypothesis is: (If Power then, Fasle, If No Power then True). But I hope I have presented a satisfactory reply to your question, NGONE.

 

On the freedom of speech point, who or what decides what ‘

moderation

’ means? As for blasphemy, would it not depend on the context and reason rather than the blasphemy itself? Surely no sane person would debate with someone that uses blasphemy as an end in itself with no accompanying debate. Furthermore, surely all debates should be ‘anything-goes-debates’ (providing that they are logical and rational debates). Those that are not only armed with their own logic, ability to reason and wisdom but also with the superior words and commands of the almighty, should be able to ‘win’ any debate they engage in, regardless of the level of blasphemy involved. Right?

Decision on what is moderation, I beleive, depends on a common aggreement of what the limits of debate should be. This should be initiated by the most wise, neutral and reasonable of individuals of a given community, in order to avoid discussions degenerating into extremity and illogicality. To impose any other sort of moderation is unnecessary. The reality is that sometimes moderation is easily mistaken with legitimacy, which makes authorities to believe they have a right to dictate debates.

 

Debating, if formal and meant to be productive can tackle any subject upon which it is motioned. I will even go as far as stating that so long as we are logical or reasonable, a debate can be motioned to discuss blasphemy itself, but on one condition. On a condition that after debating certain understanding will be derived from the discussed subject. If that condition is not present, then, there is no use engaging in no-holes-barred debate. It is only right that even in heated debates, a freedom of equal expression or presentation is observed. That said, there are ethical reasons why a debate that is entirely logical is restricted from unsolicited blasphemy. The ethical point is: debates are conducted mostly for public consumption, in that if debate is unrestricted it may inappropriately inform the masses. The result of such happening is likely to contribute to social degradation.

 

It is this very ethical or moral consideration that informs Western governments, in their decision of not allowing the Media to expose indecent information to the masses. All blasphemous or indecent material is usually scheduled to be shown at a later time during night, when only adults are awake. Lately, even blasphemies subjected towards faiths are prohibited in the UK. In the case of blasphemy in debates regarding Islam, the reasoning behind the restriction is that blasphemy is both unnecessary and unproductive. That is a reasonable point, but I guess in earlier days when Muslim ruled themselves, blasphemous individuals were easily suppressed or punished. These days of Muslim powerlessness and secularism, blasphemous individuals cannot be gagged, therefore it would be fashionable confront them. It seems I have come to agree with you after all.

[Alle-ubaahne]

The topic of this subject depicts the eight century of the Islamic epoch as very unfavorable history. We were told that there were sacred generations of the Islamic era where the effectiveness of Islam has practically contained every social problems, and transformed an ill-fated society to the best of their potentialities. Muslim historians see the uniqueness of Islamic history through the lenses of the early stages of Islamic development to be guidlines of future plans for revival, whereby the opponents of the Islamic history, especialy the heydays of the Islamic civilizations, precaution the repetition of that era as a threat to their civilizations.

 

Much of what we understand from the western history or their historians today are the perpetual discretings of the Islamic history and its relevance for today's world. In other words, the western history stands in a cycle of constant guard from allowing the emergence of Islamic civilizations because of the opposing principles and forces parrelaly running and contesting in the same orbit. Though, I understand the topic was to enlighten the moderates, which I don't subscribe to, but I felt an obligation of every Muslim that is to correct the fellow muslims when you surely know what embarked needs to be corrected.

 

Moderate muslims should understand that the only way they can gain the support of their people is not to batrey Islam and its people. We have seen the praises of the western leaders for calling the moderates as their best friends and allies in their mission to pacify the rest of the muslim world. It appears that moderates have done everything so far to earn the approval of the west, of course for some reasons. But I say all praise is due to Allah, they are microscopically visible atoms in the muslim community. Their ability to influence fellow muslims for their inferior causes were severely tarnished, and can't even stand with a cohesive principle, thus making themselves appear hypocrites. In Islam, the term moderation has some vital importance in performing many rituals, but the stigma it carries out with today, with excessive western media uses, qualifies it to be refrained and utilize some lexicons with equal meanings.

 

Moderates should seriously think for themselves and Islamicaly in molding their goals and thought patterns so that their characteristics of moderation doesn't become what the western figures dictate, but rather the opposite that is always in line with the Muslims. To become a moderate doesn't supposed to be a pretentious conformity for an allien idealogies and causes. Moderation is what realy sets the practice of Islam in the best doable form without fear of inconsistency and laggardness.

[Strawberry_Xu]

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by Xu:

The one thing that mend many a great slight between ourselves and others, is the one muslims often attribute to ills of the West, which is simply

tolerance

. How to get us to survive the 21st century without losing our faith is simply that, understanding other - even your enemies.

Xu

, while Islam itself is very forbearing of other faiths and its adherents, tolerance is behavior unbecoming of a muslim nowadays. When did we fall off the tracks?

You know how they say truth is power, imagine when someone decides that they have a monopoly on the truth, that their interpretation of the truth is the only valid thing in the universe. What happens in their minds is a polarisation of society, a division of those who have the truth and those who don't. Even this is not disasterous in itself, the idea that those who are wrong are also inferior, however is. Suddenly you are no longer required to have respect, once respect is gone, tolerance soon follows until humanity finally disappears.

 

All this is political however, these ideas are always fuelled by those in power. I believe the Truth is fixed but its applications in the human world are not. It's constantly shifting, adapting, improving as conditions worsen. But to some people in power, not only are the applications fixed, but the way of finding these applications is too.

 

So when the people have been brainwashed into thinking that some mortal guy can tell you what the truth is and that thank God, you don't have to trouble yourselves with thinking and reasoning, then some attention-starved Sheikh will have the power he craved. And with that power, also the license to get rid of those who don't believe in your power to control the religion, those who don't want to submit to the Pope of Saudi Arabia.

 

And maybe the reason why this endures is that muslims have always been surrounded by people and nations intent on destablising their religion and their state. They are constantly comparing the two cultures, decadence of freedom versus the sobriety of a totalitarian state. They believe that between the two extremes, theirs is better. So instead devote their attention to fighting the former influence. This creates an 'us' and 'them', and the idea that 'them' are simply not worthy of understanding.

 

However, I don't see why no one realises that they can do both. That they don't have to settle for one extreme or another.

 

The topic of this subject depicts the eight century of the Islamic epoch as very unfavorable history. We were told that there were sacred generations of the Islamic era where the effectiveness of Islam has practically contained every social problems, and transformed an ill-fated society to the best of their potentialities. Muslim historians see the uniqueness of Islamic history through the lenses of the early stages of Islamic development to be guidlines of future plans for revival, whereby the opponents of the Islamic history, especialy the heydays of the Islamic civilizations, precaution the repetition of that era as a threat to their civilizations.

 

Much of what we understand from the western history or their historians today are the perpetual discretings of the Islamic history and its relevance for today's world. In other words, the western history stands in a cycle of constant guard from allowing the emergence of Islamic civilizations because of the opposing principles and forces parrelaly running and contesting in the same orbit. Though, I understand the topic was to enlighten the moderates, which I don't subscribe to, but I felt an obligation of every Muslim that is to correct the fellow muslims when you surely know what embarked needs to be corrected.

 

Moderate muslims should understand that the only way they can gain the support of their people is not to batrey Islam and its people. We have seen the praises of the western leaders for calling the moderates as their best friends and allies in their mission to pacify the rest of the muslim world. It appears that moderates have done everything so far to earn the approval of the west, of course for some reasons. But I say all praise is due to Allah, they are microscopically visible atoms in the muslim community. Their ability to influence fellow muslims for their inferior causes were severely tarnished, and can't even stand with a cohesive principle, thus making themselves appear hypocrites. In Islam, the term moderation has some vital importance in performing many rituals, but the stigma it carries out with today, with excessive western media uses, qualifies it to be refrained and utilize some lexicons with equal meanings.

 

Moderates should seriously think for themselves and Islamicaly in molding their goals and thought patterns so that their characteristics of moderation doesn't become what the western figures dictate, but rather the opposite that is always in line with the Muslims. To become a moderate doesn't supposed to be a pretentious conformity for an allien idealogies and causes. Moderation is what realy sets the practice of Islam in the best doable form without fear of inconsistency and laggardness.

Couldn't agree with you more. To add to a different aspect of the issue of moderation, I would have thought that moderation relates more to flexibility than a position on any side of the political table. To suggest that moderate muslims are somehow different in ideology from other muslims, or that moderation is some kind of movement (reformist or otherwise), is to miss the point. Moderation in fact is a false term, and probably not accurate in describing the majority of muslims (though technically, I still stand with the idea that there's no real unified majority in any tangible sense). Moderation should be called a fundemental approach, where one goes back to the fundementals of the religion, to figure out the details of today's society. I see it as an approach where one is constantly exercising caution in their beliefs and an understanding that the applications of religion are constantly in motion, though the fundementals may not be.

[Laba-X]

Some of Minor Signs of the day of judgement include:

 

- Books/writing will be widespread but knowledge will be low!

 

- The nations of the earth will gather against the Muslims like hungry people going to sit down to a table full of food. This will occur when the Muslims are large in number, but "like the foam of the sea".

 

- When the last ones of the Ummah begin to curse the first ones

 

- People will claim to follow the Qur'an but will reject hadith & sunnah

[Chocolate and Honey]

Quote

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

while Islam itself is very forbearing of other faiths and its adherents, tolerance is behavior unbecoming of a muslim nowadays. When did we fall off the tracks?

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

 

 

Whooh! Castro dat "we" saved my soul from a lot of anguish,for a second there, when you invoked the 5th amendment, i thought you fell off the wagaon

Anywhoo, I think any Muslim who read the Satanic verses is liable to experience a total break-down. Salman Rushdi----- aah, the sucker has torn my heart into peices when he described the lovely Caisha, as a prostitue. now let's go back to what is important. Muslims need to ask the golden question:

does Islam need to be reformed? depends on who you asking, on what intentions, and the very meaning of reformation. yeah we need to adujust to the 21century lifestyle, but that doesnt mean we have to compromise our very own existence, which is our faith.

Islam is built upon the very idea that the texts are sacred. everything is crystal clear and the righ path is easy to fallow if you willing to look.

Islam is complete, so it is very difficult to justify the re-touching on something that is beleived to be perfectly complete.

and as far as Rushdi and his alikes go, wisemen have stopped listening to them, all the fools keep getting tricked by his beautifully crafted but empty concerns for the welfare of Islam and Muslims.

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

the battle to be the best has just began

[Simple_Muslim]

Asalaamu Calaykum all. I'm glad to see brothers and sisters engaging in debates such as this; however, I'm disappointed with the fact that most reply with “sophisticated†words that are not used in every day conversations. Now, I don’t know whether you all are that well versed in the English language or it is simply due to showoff. I hope it is not the later. Please be kind to simple people like me and JILCIYA INGIRIISKA.

 

As for the topic in discussion, I will have to say that being prudent in times when you are weaker than enemies is a smart approach. And living peacefully with enemies will help you build and prepare for tomorrow. Now, I have seen some arguing that Muslims living in the Diaspora must live with other peoples in peace. Though, that is true one thing you all have to remember, for those living in Non-Muslim countries, is that we are not supposed to be living there permanently but until we get done with the purpose we went there for. And if you argue that “there is no Muslim country I could go live inâ€, think again. There are plenty of Muslim countries to go live in, starting with Somalia. And don’t laugh; if you don’t want to go there because you can’t let those luxuries go, then it is your choice.

 

RAMADHAN KARIIM!!!