my very personal opinion... nothing more, and hope that it can be openly and civilly discussed should there be disagreement, and eventually, if it comes to be, everyone may agree to disagree...

when it comes to sin, i believe that us human are given free-will, therefore we have the freedom to sin against god. doesnt mean that we should though. we're given mental capacity and intellect to think, reflect upon our decisions, actions and behavior. we were reminded of it thorugh warnings in the scriptures and the teachings of the prophet. and it is the justice of god in the after-life, eventually which will make us accountable to what we did, what we said in life.

us humans are not angels, created without free-will. and god doesnt create humans to be robot.

that being said, when it comes to sin between another human being, be it through theft, violence, corruption, lies or slander or anything which escaped my thought at the moment, that we condemn and punish accordingly.

those who overly focuses on sins, punishments and whats forbidden (haram) seems to be ignorant, or forgetful of the two characters of god himself, ar-rahman and ar-rahim. the most gracious, the most merciful. and upon saying amar ma'ruf nahi munkar (encouraging the good and forbidding the evil), often they choose to focus on "nahi munkar" part, even when its the second part of the saying, without doing anything about "amar ma'ruf"

thus, when one commit sins against him, do sincerely regret and do fear his wrath, but at the same time, return to him, seeking his boundless mercy.

some of us emphasize too much on punishments and sins and whats forbidden. that distract others from the beauty of justice and mercy and love in islam.

#endrant - for now...

edit:-typo

This post has been edited by lucifer_666: Jan 13 2015, 01:49 PM

not sure if this answers the questions, but in the case of islam, it gained prominence due to the number of followers which are spread worldwide, instead of mostly focus to a specific geographic region (i.e:- hinduism, shintoism and buddhism). thus the level of exposure, representation and misrepresentation greatly differs.

it might not be religion, but i suppose, a similar analogy to your case would be that of communism and its media representation during the cold war. even to us in malaysia, the stigma remains.

and btw, im assuming, when we talked about "media," its the western media.

This post has been edited by lucifer_666: Jan 16 2015, 10:59 AM

i wonder, whether the situation we're in today is party contributed by the closing of the door of ijtihad. that the reasoning of the past scholars are used to formulate rules and interpretation for present-day situation, instead of reforming the interpretation based on current scenario.

quoting wiki, if i may



some might argue that it does have effect towards the dynamism of islam in the modern era. whereas islam itself wont necessarily have to adapt to modernity, perfect as it is, but muslims do. we live based on laws and norms of our time anyway.

true, that none of us might comes to the level of the great imams of the past, but wont the dependency on "taqlid" kinda deny the role and function or our own rational intellect that we've been blessed with, bestowed upon us by God himself?

no flaming here, rather would love to hear opinions and feed back of others...

I always wonder about this though.. If the khatib is informing the wrong facts to the congregations during the khutbah, how should one who knows better react and response?

Since the hadith seemingly advised for silence during the khutbah.. Should one remain silence at the cost of public knowledge/interests?

Therefore, as per my understanding based on the article, silence is mandatory, although it is known that the khatib is stating falsehood/unfounded rumours in his khutbah to the congregation.. Personally don't have a good feeling about this but I'll keep my tongue, for now