Behaviour of "westernised" Muslims

Mslarkin

Good evening,

I have a few questions to ask about Islam and what it says about forgiveness (please forgive my ignorance).

I have come to know a number of Muslim people who have lived in Ireland for a number of years.

From what I know, the men pray a number of times daily, fast during Ramadan, speak openly about their faith and so on. Generally speaking, good Muslim people.

However, these same men gamble regularly, drink occasionally, sleep around a lot and so on.

So I was wondering how on one hand they appear to be good Muslim people but at the same time their activities totally contradict the teachings of the Quran.

Do they expect that these activities will be forgiven? And why do they do these things when they are against their core beliefs?

I hope this post is not considered offensive to anyone, I'm just confused by it.

irishconvert

Mslarkin wrote: »

Good evening,

I have a few questions to ask about Islam and what it says about forgiveness (please forgive my ignorance).

I have come to know a number of Muslim people who have lived in Ireland for a number of years.

From what I know, the men pray a number of times daily, fast during Ramadan, speak openly about their faith and so on. Generally speaking, good Muslim people.

However, these same men gamble regularly, drink occasionally, sleep around a lot and so on.

So I was wondering how on one hand they appear to be good Muslim people but at the same time their activities totally contradict the teachings of the Quran.

Do they expect that these activities will be forgiven? And why do they do these things when they are against their core beliefs?

I hope this post is not considered offensive to anyone, I'm just confused by it.

They are human and have weaknesses is the simple answer. It is the same as Christians who shouldn't have sex before marriage, however most do. My experience is that some Muslim men, although becoming "westernised" and doing things such as you mentioned, still have Islam at their core and always come back to it by praying, fasting, etc. Maybe they think they can do these things when they are young, they have plenty of time to be a good Muslim and make up for it when they are older.

BTW it is not only Muslim men in the west who do this, I was talking to a taxi driver in Malaysia and he was telling me Arab Muslim men who are there on holiday get up to all the same kind of things.

Mslarkin

irishconvert wrote: »

Mslarkin wrote: »

Good evening,

I have a few questions to ask about Islam and what it says about forgiveness (please forgive my ignorance).

I have come to know a number of Muslim people who have lived in Ireland for a number of years.

From what I know, the men pray a number of times daily, fast during Ramadan, speak openly about their faith and so on. Generally speaking, good Muslim people.

However, these same men gamble regularly, drink occasionally, sleep around a lot and so on.

So I was wondering how on one hand they appear to be good Muslim people but at the same time their activities totally contradict the teachings of the Quran.

Do they expect that these activities will be forgiven? And why do they do these things when they are against their core beliefs?

I hope this post is not considered offensive to anyone, I'm just confused by it.

They are human and have weaknesses is the simple answer. It is the same as Christians who shouldn't have sex before marriage, however most do. My experience is that some Muslim men, although becoming "westernised" and doing things such as you mentioned, still have Islam at their core and always come back to it by praying, fasting, etc. Maybe they think they can do these things when they are young, they have plenty of time to be a good Muslim and make up for it when they are older.

BTW it is not only Muslim men in the west who do this, I was talking to a taxi driver in Malaysia and he was telling me Arab Muslim men who are there on holiday get up to all the same kind of things.

Thanks for the response.

Yes I know they're only human, it's not even that I'm frowning upon it or anything, I guess I just find it really strange that on one hand they have such a strong set of core beliefs but on the other hand they behave totally out of this context.

I appreciate it's the same as when Christians shouldn't have sex before marriage but generally do, but from my experience most of these are not really practicing Christians. As in, I wouldn't expect any Christian who is deeply religious etc to be having sex before marriage either. I would just consider that a bit hypocritical.

hivizman

Also, from my experience of talking to Muslims involved in Islamic Finance, I would suggest that there's a lot of rationalisation going on. Muslims can turn into scholars when they want to argue that particular behaviour is OK - for example, "The Qur'an only prohibits wine made from dates, so other forms of alcohol are OK", or "The Qur'an only prohibits games of chance, but poker [or some other gambling game] involves skill". It's a bit like Bill Clinton's notorious claim "I did not have sexual relations with that woman [Jennifer Lewinsky]", which he subsequently claimed meant that he did not have full vaginal intercourse. Some Muslims argue that the latter is a necessary condition for something to count as fornication, so other forms of sex are OK.

In Islamic Finance, a lot of transactions are structured so that they look like loans, and payments look like interest, but because of the wording of documents they are not considered to be loans and interest within Sharia.

As irishconvert notes, many men hope that good deeds as they get older will cancel out any sins when they are young. He is also right to comment that this sort of behaviour isn't unique to Muslims, nor is it something that all Muslims indulge in.

Tom Dunne

I live and work in a Muslim country.

When I for a pint at the weekend, there are plenty of locals there. When I go to the horse-racing track, there's plenty there too.

My answer is exactly the same as irishconvert's - they are human.

Jaafa

As a Muslim living in a western country I have noticed this alot sometimes in myself and sometimes in Muslim friends. I know some that don't pray regularly, drink etc and yet consider themselves good Muslims. Now personally I don't like this. Not because they have 'strayed from the path' or whatever but because it hypocritical. And I hate hypocrisy in any shape or form. Also they don't seem to make up for it anyway (at least that I'm aware of).

Now while I never drink, sleep around etc (tho I'm only 18) I have given into what I see as temptation on a number of occasions. As a result I have experienced this 'rationalization' that hivizman talks about in myself. I tried to explain my deeds away for a long time. Eventually I realized I could not quit in any meaningful way. So I intend to do as much good as possible to counteract this and endure any punishment I receive as a result of it.

Siuin

The west doesn't corrupt Muslims, they corrupt themselves. I've been to Muslim countries and their behaviour seems to be worse than that of many Muslims in the west, particularly in regard to their treatment of women. From talking with a number of them, it appears that the main factor pushing non-Western Muslims to keep on the straight and narrow is the social pressure of living in a community where everyone is conscious of the 'rules' and wants to save face. If anything, there is more hypocrisy among such Muslims than those in Ireland and other western countries.

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

The west doesn't corrupt Muslims, they corrupt themselves. I've been to Muslim countries and their behaviour seems to be worse than that of many Muslims in the west, particularly in regard to their treatment of women. From talking with a number of them, it appears that the main factor pushing non-Western Muslims to keep on the straight and narrow is the social pressure of living in a community where everyone is conscious of the 'rules' and wants to save face. If anything, there is more hypocrisy among such Muslims than those in Ireland and other western countries.

Kinda the same reason anyone obeys any rule TBH.

However I would agree with the west doesn't corrupt them they corrupt themselves idea.

Siuin

Jaafa wrote: »

Kinda the same reason anyone obeys any rule TBH.

Not necessarily- most people follow rules because they see the logic in them as being of mutual benefit to the whole community. Religious rules differ from laws, in that there isn't necessarily any logic in them- the only important thing is that God gave them, and that's it. When the whole community is aware of religious rules, it makes it much more difficult to bypass them without being noticed. If you eat on the street in Ireland during Ramadan, nobody cares. In the middle of a street in, say, Saudi, it's a huge social taboo

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

Not necessarily- most people follow rules because they see the logic in them as being of mutual benefit to the whole community. Religious rules differ from laws, in that there isn't necessarily any logic in them- the only important thing is that God gave them, and that's it. When the whole community is aware of religious rules, it makes it much more difficult to bypass them without being noticed. If you eat on the street in Ireland during Ramadan, nobody cares. In the middle of a street in, say, Saudi, it's a huge social taboo

I'm sure there's plenty of laws here I could find that have little sense in them too. I mean being a Muslim or Christian or whatever doesn't suddenly make you incapable of seeing logic. I see the logic in most of the rules in Islam and the few that I don't are small things and I don't follow them. Usually also they are the ones sourced from Hadeeths and not in the Quran.

For example that taboo you mentioned in Saudi. There's a very clear reason why its there and people follow it because it benefits them and the very large majority of Saudis.

Siuin

Jaafa wrote: »

I'm sure there's plenty of laws here I could find that have little sense in them too. I mean being a Muslim or Christian or whatever doesn't suddenly make you incapable of seeing logic. I see the logic in most of the rules in Islam and the few that I don't are small things and I don't follow them. Usually also they are the ones sourced from Hadeeths and not in the Quran.

For example that taboo you mentioned in Saudi. There's a very clear reason why its there and people follow it because it benefits them and the very large majority of Saudis.

No need to go on the defensive- this isn't a cause of Islamic laws VS Irish ones in terms of how logical they are. However, Irish laws are open to change, whereas religious laws are static (although there may be differing interpretations). Islamic laws aren't all illogical, but logic isn't a necessary component in whether you follow them or not. A Muslim should obey them because they are considered to be send by Allah- the end- it's not a pick and choose situation.

My point in regards to Saudi isn't whether it makes sense or not to fast during Ramadan. It's the fact that because Saudi is a Muslim country, a Muslim will be compelled by social pressures to conform, rather than genuinely wanting to (although I'm sure many people actually do want to fast). In the west, the majority of Muslims don't feel this pressure, unless they're being very closely monitored by their peers or are living in an area which has become predominantly Muslim.

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

No need to go on the defensive- this isn't a cause of Islamic laws VS Irish ones in terms of how logical they are. However, Irish laws are open to change, whereas religious laws are static (although there may be differing interpretations). Islamic laws aren't all illogical, but logic isn't a necessary component in whether you follow them or not. A Muslim should obey them because they are considered to be send by Allah- the end- it's not a pick and choose situation.

My point in regards to Saudi isn't whether it makes sense or not to fast during Ramadan. It's the fact that because Saudi is a Muslim country, a Muslim will be compelled by social pressures to conform, rather than genuinely wanting to (although I'm sure many people actually do want to fast). In the west, the majority of Muslims don't feel this pressure, unless they're being very closely monitored by their peers or are living in an area which has become predominantly Muslim.

I'm only on the defensive in the sense that this is a debate. Nothing hostile intended.

Again I would say only the main Islamic laws are closed to change. The ones that are as fundamental to Islam as being neutral is to Ireland. (i.e the five pillars perhaps others).

For example the rule about not drinking alcohol. If some day in the future we could improve our livers to the point where they can detoxify very very large amounts of alcohol thus making it impossible to get drunk, well in that case I do believe most Muslim would drink alcohol.

Back to your point about Saudi. Society is always going to be a factor in whether you follow a certain rule or not. It doesn't matter if its a Muslim,Irish,French, educated/uneducated,poor/rich society. It always influences you.

The point you seem to be making is that societies pressure in Muslim countries is the main factor in people obeying religious laws,yes? With logic or reason taking a back seat? I would contend that such an assertion is impossible to make. You may say it's true in your personal experience but not for Muslims in general.

Siuin

Jaafa wrote: »

I'm only on the defensive in the sense that this is a debate. Nothing hostile intended.

Again I would say only the main Islamic laws are closed to change. The ones that are as fundamental to Islam as being neutral is to Ireland. (i.e the five pillars perhaps others).

For example the rule about not drinking alcohol. If some day in the future we could improve our livers to the point where they can detoxify very very large amounts of alcohol thus making it impossible to get drunk, well in that case I do believe most Muslim would drink alcohol.

Back to your point about Saudi. Society is always going to be a factor in whether you follow a certain rule or not. It doesn't matter if its a Muslim,Irish,French, educated/uneducated,poor/rich society. It always influences you.

The point you seem to be making is that societies pressure in Muslim countries is the main factor in people obeying religious laws,yes? With logic or reason taking a back seat? I would contend that such an assertion is impossible to make. You may say it's true in your personal experience but not for Muslims in general.

Society does influence people- and I'm sure it works the same for other religions and nationalities. My point is simply that Muslims in Muslim countries have this influence of social pressure when it comes to following rules, whereas Irish Muslims by and large don't.

All I can do is speak from experience- but I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, and nothing has changed my mind on the matter. Logic and reason taking a back seat when it comes to rules is a pretty widespread phenomenon. Sure, you can suggest possible reasons and that the rules are in place, but you follow them because they are part of the religion (ie an act of faith- not needing any more reason than that they were stated by God), not because you've decided that they are beneficial to you.

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

Society does influence people- and I'm sure it works the same for other religions and nationalities. My point is simply that Muslims in Muslim countries have this influence of social pressure when it comes to following rules, whereas Irish Muslims by and large don't.

All I can do is speak from experience- but I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, and nothing has changed my mind on the matter. Logic and reason taking a back seat when it comes to rules is a pretty widespread phenomenon. Sure, you can suggest possible reasons and that the rules are in place, but you follow them because they are part of the religion (ie an act of faith- not needing any more reason than that they were stated by God), not because you've decided that they are beneficial to you.

And that's a fair enough point to make.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but any rules that I personally follow as part of my religion I have looked into enough so that I see a reason behind them other than 'God said so'.

Siuin

Jaafa wrote: »

And that's a fair enough point to make.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but any rules that I personally follow as part of my religion I have looked into enough so that I see a reason behind them other than 'God said so'.

We can always look for reasons behind religious rules, but technically to be a 'good' Muslim, even the nonsensical laws must be followed. I find that this is stronger in Judaism, where there are a lot of ritualistic actions which are mandatory, and while Rabbis can offer suggestions as to possible reasons for dietary laws etc, there is no getting around the fact that one must do them. If we just do things because we want to or can understand explicitly the benefits of it, then we're not doing it for the sake of any God, but for ourselves.

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

We can always look for reasons behind religious rules, but technically to be a 'good' Muslim, even the nonsensical laws must be followed. I find that this is stronger in Judaism, where there are a lot of ritualistic actions which are mandatory, and while Rabbis can offer suggestions as to possible reasons for dietary laws etc, there is no getting around the fact that one must do them. If we just do things because we want to or can understand explicitly the benefits of it, then we're not doing it for the sake of any God, but for ourselves.

Again though this is not exclusive to religion. People are irrational. Plenty of times in my life I have thought 'Why did I do that?'. Searching for a reason produces no results.

I would imagine in terms of religion specifically though people probably attribute these seemingly 'meaningless rituals' to some sort of higher purpose.

Siuin

Jaafa wrote: »

Again though this is not exclusive to religion. People are irrational. Plenty of times in my life I have thought 'Why did I do that?'. Searching for a reason produces no results.

I would imagine in terms of religion specifically though people probably attribute these seemingly 'meaningless rituals' to some sort of higher purpose.

But in life you can identify irrational actions as being mistakes and avoid doing them in future. In religion, you've gotta just carry on and continue doing the action and hope that there is simply some underlying reasoning that only God is aware of.

And that's very true, people do feel that there is some kind of 'higher purpose' involved. In Judaism (sorry for all the references, but it's how I make it relateable for me!) fulfilling actions without looking for a reason is actually favourable. 'Chukim' are commandments which have no rationale comprehensible to the human mind. One of the most prominent Jewish thinkers, Maimonides, stated that "he[ie any Jew] should not reject the commandments because he does not know their reasons, and he should not attribute false ideas to G-d or think about them as of profane matters..." However, some people have offered ideas about reasons for commandments, and these are known as "taamei hamitzvot" (literally meaning 'tastes of the commandments') I particularly like how one Rabbi explained this;
just as we eat food in order to survive, we nevertheless enjoy its variety of tastes and textures as a pleasant side benefit of eating -- ie we fulfil the rule because it is part of survival / fulfilling the basic tenants of faith, but the reasons for and benefits of following it are the 'enriching elements'.

Anyways, apologies for going off on a Jewish tangent, but I guess with the great deal that Judaism has influenced Islam, it's sometimes nice to see the similarities and different thoughts on various topics

Jaafa

[QUOTE=Siuin;74342224]But in life you can identify irrational actions as being mistakes and avoid doing them in future. In religion, you've gotta just carry on and continue doing the action and hope that there is simply some underlying reasoning that only God is aware of.

And that's very true, people do feel that there is some kind of 'higher purpose' involved. In Judaism (sorry for all the references, but it's how I make it relateable for me!) fulfilling actions without looking for a reason is actually favourable. 'Chukim' are commandments which have no rationale comprehensible to the human mind. One of the most prominent Jewish thinkers, Maimonides, stated that "he[ie any Jew] should not reject the commandments because he does not know their reasons, and he should not attribute false ideas to G-d or think about them as of profane matters..." However, some people have offered ideas about reasons for commandments, and these are known as "taamei hamitzvot" (literally meaning 'tastes of the commandments') I particularly like how one Rabbi explained this;
just as we eat food in order to survive, we nevertheless enjoy its variety of tastes and textures as a pleasant side benefit of eating -- ie we fulfil the rule because it is part of survival / fulfilling the basic tenants of faith, but the reasons for and benefits of following it are the 'enriching elements'.

Anyways, apologies for going off on a Jewish tangent, but I guess with the great deal that Judaism has influenced Islam, it's sometimes nice to see the similarities and different thoughts on various topics [/QUOTE]

Not really. I have found myself repeating these same 'mistakes' over and over each time getting angrier at myself for doing them. Then again maybe I'm just an idiot.

That's interesting. I never knew that concept existed in Judaism.

I have always thought that were people to question their religion more often you would have 2 results.

1. A good few would probably leave.
2. Those that stay would find they have a reinforced idea of what their religion is and likely it would become a bigger part of their lives.

Unfortunately we are in a situation today were as you say most don't question the pointless (and on rare occasion dangerous) things they have to do in the name of God. So when they are tested in some way to uphold a part of their religion that has real benefits to them, they fail.

Siuin

Agreed, I personally think it's best to question *everything* and reinterpret religious instructions in light of modern times. I'm sure Benazir Bhutto also held this view, and favoured a return to Ijtihad as a way of keeping Islam relevant. A woman before her times, I guess

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

Agreed, I personally think it's best to question *everything* and reinterpret religious instructions in light of modern times. I'm sure Benazir Bhutto also held this view, and favoured a return to Ijtihad as a way of keeping Islam relevant. A woman before her times, I guess

Yes I think I would subscribe to Ijtihad personally too.

oceanclub

Am I the only one who thinks the constant used of "Westernised" in this context as a negative is, well, insulting? I would like to think Europe has given the world more than one-night-stands and vodka shots. What's wrong with simply "non-observant"? Noone calls Christians who have one-night stands "westernised" Christians.

It also plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.

P.

Jaafa

oceanclub wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks the constant used of "Westernised" in this context as a negative is, well, insulting? I would like to think Europe has given the world more than one-night-stands and vodka shots. What's wrong with simply "non-observant"? Noone calls Christians who have one-night stands "westernised" Christians.

It also plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.

P.

It's simply a word used to describe a person who abandoned eastern or middle eastern traditions (not necessarily religious traditions) in favor of western ones. Nothing more nothing less at least in my mind. I'm sure both have their advantages and disadvantages. IMO your reading into it too much.

Siuin

I strongly disagree- Oceanclub is bang on- the Muslim world have overwhelmingly adopted 'westernised' as a substitute word for all things depraved and immoral. God forbid such things could exist in the Middle East :rolleyes:

Jaafa

Siuin wrote: »

I strongly disagree- Oceanclub is bang on- the Muslim world have overwhelmingly adopted 'westernised' as a substitute word for all things depraved and immoral. God forbid such things could exist in the Middle East :rolleyes:

Just as the 'western' world have adopted 'jihad' for meaning holy war, or Taliban for meaning cavemen terrorists. At least those words had previous meanings. :rolleyes:

Yeah but you can see where this is gona end up.:p

Amateurish

Jaafa wrote: »

Just as the 'western' world have adopted 'jihad' for meaning holy war, or Taliban for meaning cavemen terrorists. At least those words had previous meanings. :rolleyes:

Yeah but you can see where this is gona end up.:p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Traditionally Jihad was understood to be a military effort. In an offensive war it is an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole (fard kifaya), and in a defensive war it becomes a personal obligation (fard 'ayn) on every adult male Muslim. The war was primarily considered to be against unbelievers, those not of the Islamic faith.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Taliban
A member of the Taliban movement or its militia


I'd say they were pretty accurate descriptions. Certainly more accurate than equating 'western' with 'corrupt'.

Hobbes

Amateurish wrote: »

I'd say they were pretty accurate descriptions. Certainly more accurate than equating 'western' with 'corrupt'.

Please don't quote out of context.

Jihad wrote:

... Other interpretations put forward by reformers and modernizers in the nineteenth and twentieth century argue that Jihad is primarily a moral and spiritual struggle. In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-muslims as "holy war". Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous. Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.

Amateurish

Hobbes wrote: »

Please don't quote out of context.

If I had associated Islam with violence (I don't), I would apologise on being shown I was wrong. It hasn't occurred to anyone here yet to do anything remotely like apologise even when its been said that its insulting to associate 'western' with 'corruption'. Or am I missing a meaning hidden in corruption? Is it a good thing somehow?

Hobbes

Amateurish wrote: »

If I had associated Islam with violence (I don't),

you are over reading into my request in regards to quoting.

You had pointed out a link to "Jihad" and only quoted the start which pointed out its initial meaning. If you had linked the whole paragraph it would have shown that Modern Islam do not link the word "Jihad" meaning with violence.

So you were partly correct in that it has multiple meanings. Much the same way Western probably does as well.

I don't see it as offensive, as I have been to a Muslim country (Maldives). The culture is so different that it I can see more connections with say Europe-America as the west, vs say East / Middle East / Asia-Pacific.

So it appears to be lumping in general culture that would not exist in other countries.

Now if they had used the term as a derogatory term/statement, it would be a different matter.

Incidently, Taliban are not terrorists. That is AQ. Taliban were a ruling body in Afghanistan. Nasty group, yes. But again I believe he was pointing out how language changes between cultures. Nothing really to do with this thread though.

Amateurish

Hobbes wrote: »

So you were partly correct in that it has multiple meanings. Much the same way Western probably does as well.

I don't see it as offensive,

Now if they had used the term as a derogatory term/statement, it would be a different matter.

Incidently, Taliban are not terrorists. That is AQ. Taliban were a ruling body in Afghanistan. Nasty group, yes. But again I believe he was pointing out how language changes between cultures. Nothing really to do with this thread though.

Fair enough words can have many meanings,
So how was it meant then?
Its already been pointed out thats its insulting.
Double standards possibly?

Hobbes

Amateurish wrote: »

So how was it meant then?

Intent and context is the main thing.

To non-western muslims, there is a lot about our culture that is anathema to them, but we wouldn't have bat an eyelid about. Likewise the other way around.

Rather then arguing semantics I would much prefer the thread went back to the original topic.

Amateurish

Hobbes wrote: »

Intent and context is the main thing.

To non-western muslims, there is a lot about our culture that is anathema to them, but we wouldn't have bat an eyelid about. Likewise the other way around.

Rather then arguing semantics I would much prefer the thread went back to the original topic.

Sure since it means you can have your cake and eat it. Think I'm done here.

Jaafa

Amateurish wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Traditionally Jihad was understood to be a military effort. In an offensive war it is an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole (fard kifaya), and in a defensive war it becomes a personal obligation (fard 'ayn) on every adult male Muslim. The war was primarily considered to be against unbelievers, those not of the Islamic faith.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Taliban
A member of the Taliban movement or its militia


I'd say they were pretty accurate descriptions. Certainly more accurate than equating 'western' with 'corrupt'.

You really shouldn't rely on wikipedia so much. The Jihad issue you already discussed with someone else here so I'll reply to the use of Taliban.

The word 'Talib' means student. Taliban is 'students'. A lot of the 'Taliban' came from 'madrassas' in Pakistan or simply schools. Which also happens to be a word that has taken a new meaning in the media. That's what the word meant before it was ''changed''.

Anyway as Hobbes has said lets not argue semantics. The point I was trying to make is that you can't say the Muslim world equates Westernized to meaning Demonized. It's simply a far too general statement which doesn't take into account the fact that many of them have different meanings for it, probably a large part not nearly as negative as you suggest.

philologos

oceanclub wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks the constant used of "Westernised" in this context as a negative is, well, insulting? I would like to think Europe has given the world more than one-night-stands and vodka shots. What's wrong with simply "non-observant"? Noone calls Christians who have one-night stands "westernised" Christians.

The question would be what makes them Christians rather than non-Christians. The same question could be asked in relation to Islam in this case.

You're right there is no need to use "Westernised" but there is a valid case for probing into how genuine their Christianity or Islam would be respectively.

Jaafa

poul111 wrote: »

As a Muslim living in the western country, I noticed a lot of times myself, and friends sometimes Muslims. I know some who do not pray regularly, drinking, etc., and still be considered good Muslims. Now, personally I do not like this. Not because they have "deviated from the path" or anything, but because he is a hypocrite. And I hate the hypocrisy of any kind. Moreover, they do not seem to constitute her anyway (at least that I know of).

Why did you copy my post?

Irishrevert

Mslarkin wrote: »

Good evening,

I have a few questions to ask about Islam and what it says about forgiveness (please forgive my ignorance).

I have come to know a number of Muslim people who have lived in Ireland for a number of years.

From what I know, the men pray a number of times daily, fast during Ramadan, speak openly about their faith and so on. Generally speaking, good Muslim people.

However, these same men gamble regularly, drink occasionally, sleep around a lot and so on.

So I was wondering how on one hand they appear to be good Muslim people but at the same time their activities totally contradict the teachings of the Quran.

Do they expect that these activities will be forgiven? And why do they do these things when they are against their core beliefs?

I hope this post is not considered offensive to anyone, I'm just confused by it.

Hello there, you know it's all to do with the individual person. Culture, education and background all play a part and even if someone is Muslim that doesn't mean they are practising. Sometimes its only by name they are Muslim and I think it has nothing to do with east of west. I have seen and experienced the extremes and everything inbetween after living overseas for 10 years in several Islamic and non Islamic countries, you get ever combination. Once I went to a Muslim wedding and felt so out of place, there was a dance floor, and a bar and all the girls were totally dressed up OTT I felt so out of place! Another time i met a group of Muslims (friends of friends) at the beach...and some were drinking openly, couples, I was gob smacked. I felt I would be more at ease with non muslims. Well spotted re some Muslims here but sadly you can find that in Muslim countries too and whats worse is its undercover. lots of experiences...

Wibbs

TBH I don't know why some are surprised by this kind of thing. I mean if you're Irish you've grown up surrounded by a la carte Christians, both Catholic and Church of Ireland. I've met Hindus and Buddhists that self identified as such, more as a label than a faith or lifestyle, so I don't see what's odd about some Muslims being the same.

On Muslims in the west, one Muslim chap I know reckons that you can find more a la carte Muslims in Muslim countries. Many of the guys he knows that travel to the west can start off being very western, but often become more devout with time. I suppose as a connection to home? My dad who lived in the US noticed similar with Irish Catholics far from home.