What's new

Tunisia Lifts Ban on Muslim Women Marrying non-Muslims

You can say in 20th century many muslims are not religious.But decline had begun clearly from 18th century,are you saying muslim people of that time were not religious?They suddenly became irreligious?What methods did people of that time change?Why ottomans suffered huge defeats and mughals collapsed then?Infact mughals were strongest under 'irreligious' akbar and collapsed from late aurangzeb era who was devout .
Everyone from iran,saudi arabia to taliban afghanistan used it.

Muslims slowly became less and less religious as time passed on, but the main issue has always been that the governments turned away from Sharia and started normalising the haram. The people only followed in their footsteps.

No, the Mughals were at their peak under Aurangzeb. It was after Aurangzeb that the empire declined, due to incompetent successors. Under Aurangzeb, the empire had 1/4th of the global GDP, was the largest it had ever been, and at one point he was even the richest man in the world.
 
but I also feel these are heavily outweighed by conditions that we share with non Muslim countries who have also failed to provide societies as good as Western Europe and others in the anglosphere.
This is the direct result of our own failure, if you fail then others will take it as an opportunity this is the law of human nature.
Someone who understood this said the line in my signature.
 
Infact mughals were strongest under 'irreligious' akbar and collapsed from late aurangzeb era who was devout .

Actually, that had nothing to do with religion. Akbar was the leader during the height of Mughal prosperity which is why it was ok to remove the Jizya seeing as his empire was already economically stable, while Aurangzeb was the leader during the end of the Mughal Empire where everything was slowly falling apart. That's why he reinstated Jizya for extra funds for his armies that were putting down rebellions and stopped funding the arts and sciences because it was becoming too expensive for his empire to maintain while putting down rebellions. His tomb is actually quite bare and very modest so that way his state funeral wouldn't cost as much to his empire to make and maintain. In the long run, Aurangzeb was a pretty good guy who became the leader during a very bad time in his empire.

Aurangzeb during his reign...

" noting that he also built temples, also destroyed Islamic mosques, paid for the maintenance of temples, employed significantly more Hindus in his imperial bureaucracy than his predecessors did, and opposed bigotry against Hindus and Shia Muslims."
 
Chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow) ...There shall be no compulsion...There is no compulsion in religion...Let there be no compulsion in religion...No compulsion is there in religion -
These translations are not compatible. "There is -" and "No compulsion is there -" are statements of general principle; "Let there be -" prescribes a course of action.
 
why would anyone be a cuck that allows their women to marry men of a completely different culture?
Culture, race, are all man made.

And Muslim woman has the right to marry a non-Muslim. We should not be racist, and intolerant of other religions.
 
Muslims slowly became less and less religious as time passed on, but the main issue has always been that the governments turned away from Sharia and started normalising the haram. The people only followed in their footsteps.

No, the Mughals were at their peak under Aurangzeb. It was after Aurangzeb that the empire declined, due to incompetent successors. Under Aurangzeb, the empire had 1/4th of the global GDP, was the largest it had ever been, and at one point he was even the richest man in the world.

Aurangzeb left the empire bankrupt in his last 30 yrs,empire was its peak under shahjahan and its glory was due to akbar.Turning away from sharia and western liberal ideas only were adopted in 20th century,yet decline was done in 18th.How do you explain this in religious terms?Thing is decline has nothing to do with religious belief but with material factors.
 
Some seems to believe that now Tunisia lifted the Ban... Woman will rush to marry non-muslims...

May I ask what you take our woman for?
Or let's rephrase that Q...
May I ask how do you see Muslim woman? How do you see your Mothers? How do you see your Sisters? How do you see your Daughters?

As brainless pcs of meat? Someone who can't follow their own faith? Fragile creatures?

Muslims who wanted to marry non-muslims...didn't wait a Human rule or even Allah rule... to do so...
Over time they will start marrying non-Muslims because now they know the law supports them.

This sets a dangerous precedence.
 
Aurangzeb left the empire bankrupt in his last 30 yrs,empire was its peak under shahjahan and its glory was due to akbar.Turning away from sharia and western liberal ideas only were adopted in 20th century,yet decline was done in 18th.How do you explain this in religious terms?Thing is decline has nothing to do with religious belief but with material factors.

Material and religious belief's play a factor. Obviously you as a non-Muslim will deny the religious belief factor, but I as a Muslim will continue to believe it played a role. Let's just agree to disagree on that.

No, the empire was at it's peak under Aurangzeb. That was when the empire reached it's zenith. All this stuff about Aurangzeb's rule being unsuccessful is just an attempt to slander a powerful Muslim ruler, purely because he fought plenty of wars.
 
Well at least it separates those from the one know the game from those who fall for it and will regret it later.
 
Over time they will start marrying non-Muslims because now they know the law supports them.

This sets a dangerous precedence.
You could marry a non muslims before... you just had to make the contract abroad... and Voila...
Lifting the ban... will just give those who choose to make it abroad... less a headache...by doing it at home...

Muslim woman do marry non-muslim when they are living in the West...whatever they are First-Second or Third generation immigrant... But even with that... There is not a lot doing so...
 
Had, thats the key word.


I was expecting this, i though lets see who will take my comments as an attack to Islam first, your the winner.



This is a way too general answer, here i give you a educational video whats going wrong in muslim world and how it took its beginning centuries ago from within.

Its a little long but you will see why islamic world had its golden age when science was more valued and why it doesnt work that well today.


The Islamic civilization was brillant,in terms of science,poetry,litterature,philosophy,culture etc. included the greatest scholars of the time. The western world was much more backward compared to it. Now,that's the total opposite it seems.
 
Actually, that had nothing to do with religion. Akbar was the leader during the height of Mughal prosperity which is why it was ok to remove the Jizya seeing as his empire was already economically stable, while Aurangzeb was the leader during the end of the Mughal Empire where everything was slowly falling apart. That's why he reinstated Jizya for extra funds for his armies that were putting down rebellions and stopped funding the arts and sciences because it was becoming too expensive for his empire to maintain while putting down rebellions. His tomb is actually quite bare and very modest so that way his state funeral wouldn't cost as much to his empire to make and maintain. In the long run, Aurangzeb was a pretty good guy who became the leader during a very bad time in his empire.

Aurangzeb during his reign...

" noting that he also built temples, also destroyed Islamic mosques, paid for the maintenance of temples, employed significantly more Hindus in his imperial bureaucracy than his predecessors did, and opposed bigotry against Hindus and Shia Muslims."

Aurangzeb's personal conduct was exemplary ,he was a very disciplined man and lived a humble life.But he satrted with far greater economic resources than akbar who actually created the mansabdari system and zabti land revenue systems.Aurangzeb himself was responsible for the rebellions.He antagonized everybody and conducted military campaigns in NW tribal areas,against stanamis,jats,sikhs,rajputs,ahoms,deccan states and ofc the marathas.He exhausted the treasury built up for 3 generations with these activities.Jizya was not used to pay his armies but went to the ulema.
 
Back
Top Bottom