the comfortable muslims of yesteryears and the pious muslims of now

[livingdead]

its too long... read only first post... @jamahir can you give a link to the original article in each post, some of us like to read from original source(sometimes they have better formatting, fonts etc)

 

[jamahir]

its too long... read only first post... @jamahir can you give a link to the original article in each post, some of us like to read from original source(sometimes they have better formatting, fonts etc)

the source is in post# 7.

i divided the article because of the 8-picture limit.

 

[livingdead]

This is very good information @jamahir ... thanks for sharing. It explores the ancient roots of socialism in the Muslim world. Very informative.

19th century is not ancient.

the source is in post# 7.

i divided the article because of the 8-picture limit.

ok.. thanks.. will read but its still is a mountain of text and not very interesting to me.

 

[jamahir]

19th century is not ancient.

i believe @haviZsultan is not just referring to 19th century socialism but also the fact that true islam has socialism as the basis... if he means another thing he should please correct me.

the modern muslim socialists were only going back to the true principles of islam by...

1. by rejecting the ulema ( islamic scholars, supposedly ) and clergy because such sections aren't part of islam at all ( no earthly agent of god, no monopolizer of religious procedures and advises, islam to be simple ) which is why every muslim is supposed to have a quran so as to read for themselves... sadly, the ulema and priest classes became created later but any sensible person will find wrongs and oppression in what these classes have created for centuries and hence the opposition to them by the modern muslim socialist ideologues.

2. by rejecting the hadith works as something to be taken entirely as truth because even the earliest of these books were written more a hundred years after the death of prophet muhammad and these books had sayings and narrations attributed to the prophet and his early comrades but most were in reality hear-say that might have origined in a particular society/culture and even when of true origin would have been modified by the thinking of the forwarder... also, there seems be contradictoryness between different hadith works and even within a single work, plus the fact that there are different hadith works for sunnis and the shia... however, some of the hadith quotations are good and are not only useful in moral teachings but also can be seen as windows to the culture of the time of writing of that particular work or of the time of the prophet and the culture he promoted... for example, the expected muslim view about cats can be found in the hadith "muwatta malik"[1]... therefore, the modern muslim socialist ideologues proposed that one use common sense in judging quotations/phrases from the hadith works.

3. by rejecting the wrongly understood meaning of "sharia" and "sunnah".

anyway, this all is described in the article.

and it is strange that @Zarvan and @Luffy 500 have not turned up on this thread despite me tagging them towards the end of the article.

---

[1] The Love and Importance of Cats in Islam | islam.ru

 

[Falcon29]

The spirit of Islam in itself, is socialism. The arab world failed at it because they were ruled by peasants, not by intellectuals.
For the few , phrases that I highlighted, name me one muslim country that follow those teachings, show me one Muslim leader that is a true followers of the spirit of the Prophet Mohamed SAWS, NONE! all of them are tyrant and no regard to anyone but their little person.

It may have socialist theme to it, but it's not secular. Let's be honest with our selves. In terms of lifestyle, Islam as a religion doesn't permit the modern lifestyle we see today. Neither does Judaism or Christianity. People in the world make the same mistake over and over again. A religion grows, then later it becomes controversial. Instead of admitting the nature of the religion isn't compatible for most humans, people twist the set of ideas of the religion and hence there is this endless argument of which interpretation is right or not. Why not just put away with religion entirely if your intent is to end religiously derived social problems???

I have no problem with those who point out what they see as flaws in religion and leave it, either becoming agnostic or atheist. However, I can't stand those who violate key tenets of their faith while also seeking to alter its fundamental identity. Those kind of people make up majority of the world today, they identify as adherents to whatever religion but reject all its aspects even if they deny it. Let me give example with pre-marital relations. You have people who accept the norm of pre-marital relations, which is totally fine. It's not fine with those people condemn other members of their faith for pointing out that the religion doesn't permit that. These are all pseudo adherents of their religion. If you live the modern lifestyle, you're doing so out of choice. You made logical assessments in your head that won't let religion disrupt your life. So why still identify as a Muslim, Jew or Christian?

This is where the problem arises. You have Christians and Jews around the world condemning Muslims for many things. The obvious is terrorism. Besides that though, let's focus on the cultural things. Christians and Jews oppose what they see as sexist society, they are pro-abortion, pro pre-marital relations, pro-drinking, etc...which again is totally fine. However they bash Muslims for having sexist beliefs, anti-drinking/adultery, etc....But for some odd reason cite this as a reason as to why their religion is superior. Little do they know their religion is same exact thing, Islam is continuation of scripture. Instead of being childish and playing the game of my religion is better than yours, just admit you're all agnostics/atheists who reject religion.

I'm sick of those people who live a double life. Then they will point fingers at conservative and say they're wrong about dating, drinking , homosexuality....no they're not wrong. So if you're complaining about Muslim leaders, it's the same way as Christian or Jewish leaders. All of them reject religion deep down inside. On the outside they will put on a act pretending to give a $hit. The majority of earth's inhabitants are anti-religion, they just either use it as a tool or as some form of identity to feel integrated with their society. As far as following the rules(Which you farking have to do in order to be like the Prophet's or their companions), nobody has time or need for that. So don't pretend to be surprised at the state of the world. If you want a just and religious world, you need to work for it and follow religion. But no one is ready to do that, all they care about is having fun/living life like no tomorrow.

So it's time to stop lying to ourselves. If you want to be like the biblical Prophet's than create a religious society. Their society was framed around religion. And yes with all the laws like Sharia and the thousands of commandments in the Bible. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad didn't go around getting drunk, hitting on chicks, living for money, chilling on nude beaches, getting lit or hitting pot...they spent their time in caves/forests mediating and separated sexes and encouraged much prayer. So believe whatever model of life you want, just don't farking tell us that those biblical Prophet's lived some other reality.

 

[haviZsultan]

19th century is not ancient.

Regardless Muslims have thought continuously of various governance philosophies and ideologies including secularism which was born very early in the years of early Islam. It proves as does jamahirs struggle with socialism that Muslims are continously thinking of new ways to govern themselves. It does not require me to accept or agree with jamahirs stance on Syria or Bashar.

Ibn Rushd and the Muta'zilites which include Ibni Sina were the paradigms of modern secular thought. Very few know of them today. The fact that paragons of Islamic thought were struggling from the beggining (Iqta system, Zakat system) to build a society built on secular principles proves that muslims are not unthinking backward beasts-we have always thought of ideas to improve our governance structure. The idea is that muslims have thought continuously of developing a system that is suited to the unique problems of Muslims and establishing a truly Secular Islamic society proves beyond doubt that we Muslims will be able to come up with a system that does not mimic the west or the Soviet union but is engineered specifically for us.

The point is regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with jamahir what he represents is welcome. He is trying to enforce as some are trying to devise a system that can/cannot be successful for Muslim. We don't know if it can be successful but at least some people are thinking and not following the western though process of a universal system for all-including Muslims who are unique. Following western born philosophy is not the solution to disparate and unique Muslim societies. A system needs to be brought that gives employment, gives merit ascendance, challenges the status quo and provides universal education. Socialism/Communism deals with education (99% for countries like Uzbekistan) and employment, other factors which show the lackings of communism can be improved upon as we can take the best out of each system-capitalism and communism and develop a system of our own from the rubble of the two. That in my eyes is the solution. With a mix of Islamic secular principles we can develop an extremely strong modern society. Better than copying the west with no indigenous thought for ourselves.

 

[jamahir]

And yes with all the laws like Sharia and the thousands of commandments in the Bible. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Muhammad didn't go around getting drunk, hitting on chicks, living for money, chilling on nude beaches, getting lit or hitting pot...they spent their time in caves/forests mediating and separated sexes and encouraged much prayer.

1. how do you know that??

2. so for you the only alternative for doing prayers is doing drugs, getting drunk and living for money??

3. when you mention "sharia" it seems you did not read the article. please read about the section about the hadith works.

 

[Falcon29]

1. how do you know that??

2. so for you the only alternative for doing prayers is doing drugs, getting drunk and living for money??

3. when you mention "sharia" it seems you did not read the article. please read about the section about the hadith works.

Did not mean to derail your thread mate. But, if one seeks to eliminate core tenets/ways of life according to Abrahamic tradition, then he is deviant from his religion. If you have a veggie pizza and pick the veggies off, it's no longer a veggie pizza. This idea of reforming religion is man made. Abrahamic religions aren't open to reform, this is why the messengers preaching these faiths repeatedly asserted the core tenets/beliefs which were already deemed for infinite time by the God which delivered this message to them. Now reform and interpretation are two different things. It is entirely reasonable that people will try to interpret the overall meaning of their faith. The Prophet's them selves were tasked with helping their followers/public interpret each aspect of Abrahamic tradition or divine verses.

Some people like to refer to Islam as a political ideology, I disagree. It's a way of life which does dictate certain political/social structures/norms. Trying to strike a balance between a separate ideology and Islam simply is rejected in Islam because the Prophet himself stated that Islam is complete and won't/shouldn't be tampered with. Reforming a religion, ie pretending that some of its core tenets no longer exist, is a form of disbelief according to all three Abrahamic religions. So when people say for example, that chastity is no longer important or needed, they are lying. Where did they get permission to make such rulings? Did Islam/Muhammad say that in 2016 you no longer need to be pure till marriage? Did Muhammad state that Sharia Law does not need to be followed once the Industrial revolution/era has arrived? No he didn't, and actually I find quotes of Muhammad deeming such people as deviant from the faith.

Of course, people will respond by disputing Hadith, saying it is all null and void. People come up with all kinds of reasons to justify their deviancy. And this causes confusion among religious people or people interested in religion, also sometimes leads to extremism. Christians nowadays enjoy drinking/having partners outside marriage. There is nothing wrong with that from a modern humans perspective. From Abrahamic tradition perspective there is absolutely is. When Christians or Jews are confronted about this subject, they will tell you let God judge people/stop being so extreme in your views. Well, actually your faith has set of laws which are to be regulated. And the followers of the faiths are supposed to regulate them. Instead, they reject half if not more of the content in their religion and justify and even sometimes incorporate modern lifestyle norms as apart of their faith. This is denial beyond imagination.

You yourself are against veils for women, you prefer no hijab. Well sorry to tell you, the Prophet's wives and his companions wives/daughters all wore such dress. The Prophet you claim to believe in/follow enforced Sharia Law, so did the companions that took leadership after him. The Prophet stoned a couple for adultery, this is in Hadith. It's also very clear in these texts what God expects of humanity. He expects submission that you can tolerate up to having a mental breakdown. He wants you to sacrifice all your lust/worldly needs and beliefs for his set of beliefs in order to deemed worthy of Paradise/salvation. The God in these texts is strict on humanity, let's admit it he is. Now ask yourself why is he so strict. Why did he expect humans to remain chaste or avoid alcohol even though he knows that humans will eventually become secular and sex would be normal thing for anybody to indulge in? This is something we don't know and have hard time understanding as humans. We don't understand God, he is not very open with us. All he did was ordain sets of beliefs on us and gave us multiple warnings that he will personally judge each and every one us face to face. This is all according to Abrahamic tradition.

Whether one chooses to embrace such ideology, it his choice and he is free to take philosophical approach to understand the meaning of life. What he can't do however, is TAMPER with religion. By doing this, there is an admission that humans consider religion to be man made and stick to it for cultural reasons. Of course after they render the rules no longer important. Islam especially was completed by Muhammad and he stated repeatedly that this faith shall not be tampered with. The ones that do will end up punished.

Humans need to make a choice and make it now for the sake of our future. Either come to conclusion that majority of world rejects religion and religion(not spirituality) should be banned. Or continue modifying religion to ones liking giving groups like ISIS legitimacy when they say they will fight the deviant people among their community and bring about the 'true' faith.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

My friend's mom (Muslim) herself notices the radicalised outset of the present youth's. She is a teacher and discourages her women's not to wear burqa and all other stuff.
She tells that during those days, she and her relatives going to dramas, or movies filled with characters from Hindu religion was pretty common, and there was great attendence during the airing of Mahabharata.

Now she complains, the youth's, including her own family members, refuse to see, read anything that can be against their belief. She does not how their world got so narrow from being broad minded.

I just replied to be fair to this gen, there are a lot of programs and other books to read or see, which was not the case 30 years back.

 

[Ryuzaki]

The first women doctors from India,Japan and Syria(1885)

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Better dead than red.

 

[livingdead]

Regardless Muslims have thought continuously of various governance philosophies and ideologies including secularism which was born very early in the years of early Islam. It proves as does jamahirs struggle with socialism that Muslims are continously thinking of new ways to govern themselves. It does not require me to accept or agree with jamahirs stance on Syria or Bashar.

Ibn Rushd and the Muta'zilites which include Ibni Sina were the paradigms of modern secular thought. Very few know of them today. The fact that paragons of Islamic thought were struggling from the beggining (Iqta system, Zakat system) to build a society built on secular principles proves that muslims are not unthinking backward beasts-we have always thought of ideas to improve our governance structure. The idea is that muslims have thought continuously of developing a system that is suited to the unique problems of Muslims and establishing a truly Secular Islamic society proves beyond doubt that we Muslims will be able to come up with a system that does not mimic the west or the Soviet union but is engineered specifically for us.

The point is regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with jamahir what he represents is welcome. He is trying to enforce as some are trying to devise a system that can/cannot be successful for Muslim. We don't know if it can be successful but at least some people are thinking and not following the western though process of a universal system for all-including Muslims who are unique. Following western born philosophy is not the solution to disparate and unique Muslim societies. A system needs to be brought that gives employment, gives merit ascendance, challenges the status quo and provides universal education. Socialism/Communism deals with education (99% for countries like Uzbekistan) and employment, other factors which show the lackings of communism can be improved upon as we can take the best out of each system-capitalism and communism and develop a system of our own from the rubble of the two. That in my eyes is the solution. With a mix of Islamic secular principles we can develop an extremely strong modern society. Better than copying the west with no indigenous thought for ourselves.

I am not an expert on the subject(socialism/communism in islam) but as somebody already pointed out, it has always been with us since dawn of civilization and every society has elements of it. I am not sure why muslims are the only one who need the feeling of 'islamic' anything to adopt a best practice..
Why you need a label of 'islamic'.. most of the time its just same thing in different package with few verses thrown in to make people feel good...
For example if secularism is a damn good idea, lets try to adopt it to local condition(may be tinker with it a bit so that it works better for us), why do we need to go back to quran and find a few verses, or go back to ME history and find an instance where it was done, are we emotionally so inadequate, feel so small in the world that we cant even like a good idea and implement?(east, west north or south, idea can come from anywhere).

I am pretty sure the 'west' has taken many ideas from ME. who cares where it came from?

i believe @haviZsultan is not just referring to 19th century socialism but also the fact that true islam has socialism as the basis... if he means another thing he should please correct me.

the modern muslim socialists were only going back to the true principles of islam by...

1. by rejecting the ulema ( islamic scholars, supposedly ) and clergy because such sections aren't part of islam at all ( no earthly agent of god, no monopolizer of religious procedures and advises, islam to be simple ) which is why every muslim is supposed to have a quran so as to read for themselves... sadly, the ulema and priest classes became created later but any sensible person will find wrongs and oppression in what these classes have created for centuries and hence the opposition to them by the modern muslim socialist ideologues.

2. by rejecting the hadith works as something to be taken entirely as truth because even the earliest of these books were written more a hundred years after the death of prophet muhammad and these books had sayings and narrations attributed to the prophet and his early comrades but most were in reality hear-say that might have origined in a particular society/culture and even when of true origin would have been modified by the thinking of the forwarder... also, there seems be contradictoryness between different hadith works and even within a single work, plus the fact that there are different hadith works for sunnis and the shia... however, some of the hadith quotations are good and are not only useful in moral teachings but also can be seen as windows to the culture of the time of writing of that particular work or of the time of the prophet and the culture he promoted... for example, the expected muslim view about cats can be found in the hadith "muwatta malik"[1]... therefore, the modern muslim socialist ideologues proposed that one use common sense in judging quotations/phrases from the hadith works.

3. by rejecting the wrongly understood meaning of "sharia" and "sunnah".

anyway, this all is described in the article.

and it is strange that @Zarvan and @Luffy 500 have not turned up on this thread despite me tagging them towards the end of the article.

---

[1] The Love and Importance of Cats in Islam | islam.ru

'true' islam is a dangerous beast, people have killed each other seeking it...

This is how non-muslims debate.
1. Is the idea(say self driving car) good and sound. Lets debate pros and cons.

This is how muslims debate
1. Is it in quran
2. is it in hadith
3. Did any 7th/8th century ME philosopher propose the idea, or was it normal back then (anything that can be remotely linked to the topic)
The result is debate then moves to what is true islam, and not self driving cars anymore.

 

[haviZsultan]

I am not an expert on the subject(socialism/communism in islam) but as somebody already pointed out, it has always been with us since dawn of civilization and every society has elements of it. I am not sure why muslims are the only one who need the feeling of 'islamic' anything to adopt a best practice..
Why you need a label of 'islamic', most of the time its just same thing in different package with few verses thrown in to make people feel good...
For example if secularism is a damn good idea, lets try to adopt it to local condition(may be tinker with it a bit so that it works better for us), why do we need to go back to quran and find a few verses, or go back to ME history and find an instance where it was done, are we emotionally so inadequate, feel so small in the world that we cant even like a good idea and implement?(east, west north or south, idea can come from anywhere).

I am pretty sure the 'west' has taken many ideas from ME. who cares where it came from?


'true' islam is a dangerous beast, people have killed each other seeking it...

The problem is though secularism was founded by Muslims it needs alterations to fit for the entire Muslim population. You are right in the claim that it does not matter who invented it but how it fits for our societies.

However it is useful that we again begin with the concept of ijtehad, a liberal discussion where we think of new governance methods for Muslims. We can't copy any system. 1.8 billion muslims need a system that is tailored to them and inspired by secularism.

 

[livingdead]

The problem is though secularism was founded by Muslims it needs alterations to fit for the entire Muslim population. You are right in the claim that it does not matter who invented it but how it fits for our societies.

However it is useful that we again begin with the concept of ijtehad, a liberal discussion where we think of new governance methods for Muslims. We can't copy any system. 1.8 billion muslims need a system that is tailored to them and inspired by secularism.

its one thing to discuss and know from a historical point of view, how elements of secularism/socialism or any other thought came into being. Thats a purely academic discussion.
What I am talking about is repeatedly using it to further one's argument, like the one you or @jamahir did. The pattern of muslims arguments is very well known here. You are doing exactly what I find silly.

 

[Luffy 500]

1) People like Ghulam Ahmed Parvez were good example of intellectually colonize class of people who infected the post colonial muslim world. If he was a quranist as per the article , then he lacked the very basic understanding of islam. Only people who suffer from an inferiority complex reject hadeeths. They want to twist and do intellectual gymnastics with Quranic interpretations to suit their preconceived notions and desires and that is only possible by rejecting hadeeths and pick & choose Quranic verses. Such people take everything western as gold standard for judging right and wrong and oppose everything going against their western indoctrinated notions. In our time this trend is represented by secular/ liberals/modernist who claim to be muslim. This group strive to have a piece of the booming islamophobia industry. They write books and articles disparaging islam & muslims and become blue eyed celebrities of the western media. The author Nadeem F. paracha and Dawn are representative of islamophobia industry in PAK.


Rejecting hadeeth is clear cut kufr. One wonders how such hadeeth rejectors who claim to be muslims make salah , give zakah and perform hajj. The method of making salah , giving zakah and other basic islamic practices are in the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Whoever rejects the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has rejected revelation from Allah. Allah has commanded the people to obey His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in many verses of the Quran.


Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):


“Say (O Muhammad): “Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad).” But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers.” [3:32]


“He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad), has indeed obeyed Allah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad) as a watcher over them.” [4:80]


“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” [4:59]


“And perform As‑Salah (Iqamat‑as-Salah), and give Zakah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) that you may receive mercy (from Allah).”


The misguided sectof al-Qur’aaniyyeen - islamqa.info


Should He Forsake His Family Who Reject the Sunnah? - islamqa.info


A Muslim Must Accept and Follow the Sunnah

2) Socialism and communism is another form of clear cut kufr & evil just like other isms such as liberalism and capitalism. Islam has nothing to do with such isms as Islam is a complete code of life ordained by Creator of the heavens & the earth for mankind and as such it is absolutely free and far away from the evil and deficiencies of man-made isms. There is NO such thing as islamic socialism or liberal islam etc etc. Imagine 20 years from now west start endorsing vegetarianism and vegan life style as the most civilized way of life , would these modernist then call for abolition of Eid ul Adza and declare eating meat to be haram ?...........infact some vegan lunatics dare say stuff like that now. Or imagine a future non-muslim society that is based on prostitution, technologically very advance but based on prostitution. Would "muslim" modernist endorse that as well? If they do endorse it and absurdly try to reconcile Islam with prostitution to suit their inferiority complex , it would be no less absurd than what they r calling for now such opposing hijab and calling polygamy oppression on women.


3) Arab socialist like Gamal Abdel Nasser and gadaffi were well known tyrant despots who ruined their country. Some such as the @sshead dynasty are comparable if not worse than genocidal maniacs like hitler & stalin in the pages of history. The evil that is communism only lead to mass slaughter and genocide and as such have proven to be a abject failure and evil whether its in eastern europe , USSR , the open jail called N.korea or the failed socialist shitholes of former egypt, libya and syria. Not to mention communist countries endorse state atheism. Communist low lives committed inhumane atrocities against muslims of ME, C.asia and eastern europe.


4) Liberalism is another poisonous ideology that ruined west as proven by their morally & intellectually bankrupt societies. Its based on individualism and theory of absolute freedom which doesn't even exist. In short its based on myth to suit man's hedonistic desires causing social chaos. The free individuals of the west r only free to live in debt , suffer depression, commit adultery & drink alcohol while blaming muslims for their broken economy and degraded society.


5) Secularism is another evil and is unique european phenomenon resulting from europe unique socio cultural experience with a paganized intolerant Christianity and has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. The islamic world never had the problems medieval christian europe faced. Secularism is the political aspect of liberalism. Liberalism replaced christianity as the new religion of the west. Trying to impose such alien ideology on muslims will inevitably results in destruction as proven over the last 100 years. Oil and water doesn't mix and the falsehood of man made isms can NOT be reconciled with the truth of Islam. Truth always prevails of over false as its the nature of truth :


And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

(Quran 17:81)


6) Reason and logic has its place. Allah (swt) bestowed intellect as a mercy to mankind but human also have vain desires, bias and greed that can cloud their thinking. Everyone has their own opinions & thoughts abt a particular issue. What's logical to u may not be logical to some one else and vise-versa.
Most of the time logic is simply a facade of one's desires and preconceived notions & conjecture. There r logical arguments defending some of the worst crimes & excesses in human history such as nuke bombing of Japan . There is no criterion for measuring logic & reason & its totally arbitrary. Also right & wrong can not be left to arbitrary definitions of humans since humans don't have any standard of judging right & wrong apart from guidelines from divine revelation. Hence logic has its proper place in Islam i.e its use is within the framework of islam. What Allah (swt) has made forbidden can't be made permissible by "logic " .Divine Revelation supersedes logic. In cases where logic & reason is required , its guided by divine revelation.

7) "Mullahs" and conservative clerics seem to be a good scapegoat for these islamophobia industry representatives like Nadeem F. paracha and Dawn. First of all these intellectually colonized fifth columnist should explain what they mean by "Mullahs" and conservative clerics. Islam opposes vile fanaticism and ideologies such as secularism , liberalism , individualism , feminism etc etc. Yes polygamy is allowed in islam . Yes adultery & fornication is prohibited and the islamic punishment for such vile acts once proven in court is stoning. Yes apostates after due islamic judicial procedure should be beheaded in an Islamic state. Yes Islam opposes exploitation of women and it doesn't give men or women absolute individual freedom since there is no such thing. Yes Islam is the only true religion and considers all other religion and isms as falsehood. Yes Islam has rules & guidelines regarding how people should conduct themselves in public and private life since its natural for men's conviction and beliefs to guide themselves in arranging their societies . Suggesting anything otherwise is absurd and illogical. Yes islam has rules and guidelines regarding how men should conduct business and trade. There is no such thing as equal rights. There is no question of equality between men & women just like there is not question of equality between a lion and a tiger , a cat and a dog , a employer and the employee , armed policemen and unarmed citizens etc etc . Calling for equality in cases where equality does not exist is absurd and result in chaos and injustice. Islam gives due rights to different groups of society NOT equal rights something that liberal societies can never do . Thus islam ensures tolerance , justice and stability unlike liberal societies. All these r basic islamic principles that all muslims believe in and is not something exclusive to the beliefs of "mullahs" or conservative clerics.

Islam is a religion of justice and peace. Islamic laws are meant to promote justice and ensure fundamental rights of citizens. Islam appeals to the conscience of human beings and takes human nature into consideration. Its a practical code of life and a solution to practical problems of human society , unlike man-made philosophical non-sense and artificial constructs like liberalism and socialism that is doing experiments with human society with disastrous effects over the last 100 years.



And Allah (swt) knows best

My friend's mom (Muslim) herself notices the radicalised outset of the present youth's. She is a teacher and discourages her women's not to wear burqa and all other stuff.
She tells that during those days, she and her relatives going to dramas, or movies filled with characters from Hindu religion was pretty common, and there was great attendence during the airing of Mahabharata.

Now she complains, the youth's, including her own family members, refuse to see, read anything that can be against their belief. She does not how their world got so narrow from being broad minded.

I just replied to be fair to this gen, there are a lot of programs and other books to read or see, which was not the case 30 years back.

Define radical. The term radical is subjective. A honest police officer or honest journalist is a radical to a corrupt politician or drug dealer.

Hijab/niqab is an integral part of islam. Obscenity, free mixing of sexes etc and as such movies are indeed haram in islam. Your friend's mom most likely is ignorant of islam but that doesn't mean islamically aware young people r radical. Now u may have been born into family of doctors but absurdly you are ignorant of the fact that open heart surgery technique exist , or worse u don't even know that people take paracetamol to cure fever. But young members of your family are not that absurdly ignorant . That doesn't mean that young members of your family taking paracetamol or doctors performing heart surgery are radical. The question of radical doesn't even come. Its all your ignorance and a problem with u not young members of your family.