mohater on Islam - Questions & Answers [Archive] - Page 2

Just Peachy

10-25-2007, 08:14 AM

Peachyum - I can't watch youtube at work - will reply with a complete reply later.

A women is allowed recourse from an abusive husband - both legally and through obtaining a divorce. Much like the martial process in the early 20th century - under Islam a marriage is typically through more of a courtship setting and there is a "marriage contract" which can be made. Aside from all the rules, certain conditions can be made in the contract (lifestyle, education, etc. - whatever you want to cover that is not something specific in the religion). Breaking the rules contained in Islam is, always, grounds for divorce. A women is allowed to have her marriage nullified under Islamic law (assuming something in the contract is broken).

Okie dokie. :D

I was watching this other video where a woman says her neighbor was being beat by her husband and he wouldn't let her leave. She called her father, and he called the police, but the police said if the father were to enter the house without the husbands permission, then he (the father) would be arrested. Of course, the police did nothing to assist the woman either. She was throwing her clothing and jewelry off a balcony to escape. My question on this scenario is, what if the woman is beaten so badly she can't leave? Again, in this situation it seems as if the only recourse the woman has is to wait until Judgment Day if she cannot escape. (I'd like to state here that if it were me in this situation and I was able to throw things off a balcony, I'm not sticking around to grab clothes and jewelry. The only thud heard is me hitting the ground.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouztv-tRPKM

Parafly9

10-25-2007, 08:51 AM

It's simply that the rights of women in countries established long ago are a RECENT phenamon, and here people tout them as being as the very nations themselves. Change came with time here, as it did with every other DEVELOPED nation. If things take time with DEVELOPED nations, won't they also take time in DEVELOPING or UNDER-DEVELOPED countries?

Things don't change overnight. They don't change in Iraq overnight, they don't change in our policies that quickly, and they don't change abroad that quickly either.
.

That's what I'm saying. I agree with you here. Are you interpreting otherwise?

FWIW it's not a defense of the behaviour. Only an explanation.

vangolu

10-25-2007, 08:55 AM

In terms of Islamic laws, you have the two main sources: Quran and the Sunnah. If the answer is not found therein, such as modern affairs, Muslims are to refer to those who are incharge of their affairs, that is the leader of the Muslim nation, who will make a ruling not contradictory to the Quran and Sunnah.

I disagree with this Sultan. Some Sunnah cannot be trusted as it has been corrupted over the years. I see examples of this everyday. We need to verify with a scientific process before we can accept any and even at that point take it with a grain of salt.

And Quran is a reference book, hence any Islamic laws are nothing more then men made laws that some guy is using the religion for personal gain due to their interpretation of the Quran. When someone reads the Quran, they read not only with their brains but with their hearts, hence when someone says Jihad, people who have hate in their hearts will take it as armed struggle against anything while others will understand it as a struggle that does not necessarily have anything to do with arms. When it says cut off the hand of a thief, the cold hearted will cut off the hand but the one who reads with heart will instead take away that mans ability to steal (1 - Prison, 2 - Help it out with theraphy, 3 - Job opportunities).

God gave us a brain to use while reading the Quran and we know it is not an easy to read book. If we dont know Arabic (aka. I), then us Muslims have to work many times more hard to understand it and the only way to do that is to read the different interpretatitons of it and feel the one closest to our hearts.

mohater

10-25-2007, 09:06 AM

That's what I'm saying. I agree with you here. Are you interpreting otherwise?

FWIW it's not a defense of the behaviour. Only an explanation.

Yes - I interpreted you were indicating the opposite.

superdan54

10-25-2007, 09:07 AM

You're really serious about this? I've already asked you for your sources once and you've ignored my request. If you're going to keep quoting something and not cite it's source I have nothing to respond to.

Actually, I provided my sources numerous times, and you simply pointed me to a rebuttal site.

Where does the Quran validate rape of someone's wife? Where does it validate a man may take money from the earnings of his wife? Where in the Quran does it claim a women is to be put to death for leaving her abusive husband?

I wasn't talking about the death penatly for divorce but for apostasy (going to an LDS church).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Maybe rape is too harsh of a word but the following Sura seems to validate the man's position:

Sura 2.223 "Your wives are a tilth [plowing field] for you, so go into your tilth when you like..."

I understand that in ancient culture, a situation where a woman was bread-winner was rare if not non-existant, so I wasn't necessarily referring to that part. But I'm honestly just curious, and am not out to make some point or start a debate: In most Islamic nations, she would be put to death (for apostasy), and nothing would be done to the man, right? Or am I really off base? And you, as a sensible Muslim, how do you as a view the situation?

I'm really not looking for a fight here...

mohater

10-25-2007, 09:44 AM

Actually, I provided my sources numerous times, and you simply pointed me to a rebuttal site.

If I used evilbible.com as a source to attack Christianity, I would l have responses that contained the following:

Bad source as it's sole purpose is to attack the faith.
Bad source as they don't change published material even as there is much contrary data to contradict it.
Bad source because no one can contradict them and prove them wrong, they are not open to discussion.

...
and you don't see the same contrast here with Answering-Islam?

I said I have never heard of those hadith in anything I've ever read, and I don't know where they got them from.

I wasn't talking about the death penatly for divorce but for apostasy (going to an LDS church).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Maybe rape is too harsh of a word but the following Sura seems to validate the man's position:

Sura 2.223 "Your wives are a tilth [plowing field] for you, so go into your tilth when you like..."

I understand that in ancient culture, a situation where a woman was bread-winner was rare if not non-existant, so I wasn't necessarily referring to that part. But I'm honestly just curious, and am not out to make some point or start a debate: In most Islamic nations, she would be put to death (for apostasy), and nothing would be done to the man, right? Or am I really off base? And you, as a sensible Muslim, how do you as a view the situation?

I'm really not looking for a fight here...

This has nothing to do with agriculture. It implies that relations with your spouse are like an open field (with a handful of exceptions). i.e. - if you like something that's strange, let your husband/wife know so you may satisfy your desire (assuming it's within what is allowed).

Apostasy is a contested issue. I don't take a position as I am not learned enough on the subject. Some nations do condone killing the apostate (mostly those that follow tribal mindsets), and some do not.

In our own country, police have lots of trouble interceding on domestic abuse cases. It's a touchy issue. In some more tribal areas - yes it's rare actions are taken out against the male (the same with our country if the abused refuses to press charges). In more developed nations, which still hold fast to their Islamic identity, it's a problem like it is in the USA (i.e. Oman, Morocco, Kuwait, Malaysia, etc.).

It's an unfortunate situation. Nothing more.

sultan

10-25-2007, 10:00 AM

I disagree with this Sultan. Some Sunnah cannot be trusted as it has been corrupted over the years. I see examples of this everyday. We need to verify with a scientific process before we can accept any and even at that point take it with a grain of salt.

And Quran is a reference book, hence any Islamic laws are nothing more then men made laws that some guy is using the religion for personal gain due to their interpretation of the Quran. When someone reads the Quran, they read not only with their brains but with their hearts, hence when someone says Jihad, people who have hate in their hearts will take it as armed struggle against anything while others will understand it as a struggle that does not necessarily have anything to do with arms. When it says cut off the hand of a thief, the cold hearted will cut off the hand but the one who reads with heart will instead take away that mans ability to steal (1 - Prison, 2 - Help it out with theraphy, 3 - Job opportunities).

God gave us a brain to use while reading the Quran and we know it is not an easy to read book. If we dont know Arabic (aka. I), then us Muslims have to work many times more hard to understand it and the only way to do that is to read the different interpretatitons of it and feel the one closest to our hearts.

Some points in the above post are valid. However, collections of Sunnahs such as that by Imam Bukhari, or Abu-Dawud have been verified time over time to be accurate. Sunnah and Hadith have been classified as Sahih, Za'eef, etc, to show the strength in the chain of evidence. So I am not sure why you would say that Sunnah have been "corrupted over time".

As for Quran being a "reference book", that is incorrect. It is the word of God. That is the belief. Jihad has different forms. The best of Jihads is definitely a struggle of one against evils/sins, but Jihad also encompasses armed struggle when either attacked or oppressed or when the nation is threatened. Furthermore, the cut hand of a thief is not simply cut it off, there exists complete laws as to how many times the perpetrator has committed the crime, the severity of the crime, etc.

The Quran itself says:
004.059
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

sultan

10-25-2007, 10:04 AM

Actually, I provided my sources numerous times, and you simply pointed me to a rebuttal site.

I wasn't talking about the death penatly for divorce but for apostasy (going to an LDS church).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Maybe rape is too harsh of a word but the following Sura seems to validate the man's position:

Sura 2.223 "Your wives are a tilth [plowing field] for you, so go into your tilth when you like..."

I understand that in ancient culture, a situation where a woman was bread-winner was rare if not non-existant, so I wasn't necessarily referring to that part. But I'm honestly just curious, and am not out to make some point or start a debate: In most Islamic nations, she would be put to death (for apostasy), and nothing would be done to the man, right? Or am I really off base? And you, as a sensible Muslim, how do you as a view the situation?

I'm really not looking for a fight here...

With regards to Apostasy, the punishment of death is liable on one who makes a public acknowledgement of his/her decision to leave Islam, which is considered treason under an Islamic republic. If someone chooses to believe in any other faith leaving Islam and does so without making a spectacle out of it, he/she is only answerable to God.

In your example, the man did not commit apostasy, but under Islamic law, he can certainly be punished for any crimes he committed against his wife.

sultan

10-25-2007, 10:08 AM

Ok Saudi - What about Lebanon? UAE? Oman? Kuwait?

It's simply that the rights of women in countries established long ago are a RECENT phenamon, and here people tout them as being as the very nations themselves. Change came with time here, as it did with every other DEVELOPED nation. If things take time with DEVELOPED nations, won't they also take time in DEVELOPING or UNDER-DEVELOPED countries?

Things don't change overnight. They don't change in Iraq overnight, they don't change in our policies that quickly, and they don't change abroad that quickly either.

I agree with Mohater with the above post, but I fail to see how this an Islamic issue? This is more of a non-Islamic issue or rather, a lack of implementation of Islamic law.

mohater

10-25-2007, 10:30 AM

Thats great and all, but you still never answered my question, WHY ARE WOMEN TREATED AS 2ND CLASS CITIZENS IN ISLAM? You even admit they are not equal, as they do not inherit a full inheritance, but you simply try and justify it saying well they dont need it all. And as well with the testimony that 2 women are needed for contracts/torts, hmm, those 2 things pretty much seem to make them 2nd class citizens.. Plus there are many more things I can get into, but this is good for now. So are you going to answer my question as to why Islam treats women as 2nd class citizens or ignore it because you have no answer?

I really don't know what you're looking for. I gave the reasons for inheritance, and I'm fairly certain there are reasons for contract rules, but I don't know them. It doesn't apply to all other aspects of acting as a witness - therefore it's logical to conclude there is a reason for it, I simply don't know it.

They are not treated as second class citizens. You seem to think that receiving less inheritance = 2nd class when you have no understanding of the respective financial responsibility of the genders. Just because society has changed to "free" families from taking care of their women (in events where assistance is needed) doesn't mean it's good for the world as a whole.

mohater

10-25-2007, 10:39 AM

Eve is not blamed in Christianity, either. Perhaps I need your definition of Original Sin. It sounds like yours and mine are different.

Sorry I just saw this. Eve is not blamed for tempting Adam to eat the apple?

mohater

10-25-2007, 10:44 AM

....

As an addendum to this, do you disagree with the fact within Islam knowledge is debatable? It seems to me that's the major reason you have violent strife within muslim sects in the middle east to begin with.

You have to be specific on things like this. There are topics debatable is Islam and there are topics that are no open for discussion (the same exists in Christianity and Judaism)

The strife that exists today largely exists due to control of natural resources and leadership of the respective nations.

vangolu

10-25-2007, 12:18 PM

Some points in the above post are valid. However, collections of Sunnahs such as that by Imam Bukhari, or Abu-Dawud have been verified time over time to be accurate. Sunnah and Hadith have been classified as Sahih, Za'eef, etc, to show the strength in the chain of evidence. So I am not sure why you would say that Sunnah have been "corrupted over time".

Hi Sultan, the reason why I said was some are corrupted and I have a hard time to believe in them is because they are not the word of God hence easily corruptable. We have seen examples of these (even in these forums) and I am sure we have seen them in our native countries. This is why I take them with a grain of salt. Also do not forget that when Sunnah and Hadith gets translated, words take on a whole new meaning as there may not be a 1-1 translation from Arabic.

As for Quran being a "reference book", that is incorrect. It is the word of God. That is the belief.

Well you are right that I could have chosen a better word for it. I agree that it is word of God and I believe in that. I also believe that the laws in it are divine. God gave us its Word, to follow and guide us to the path of salvation. But let us not forget Quran is much more then a law book as well. I know it still wont do justice to the Holy Book but let me rephrase by saying "Guide book" instead of "reference".

My belief is that God gave humans a brain for a reason, free-will to do so as we please to see who is worthy and who is not. As we see from scripture, Hz. Adem could learn about all different things around him while Angels would only know what God has thought them. (Hence why the devil was tripping :)) This shows, intellect in the first human. God gave men the ability to learn and choose (part of the free-will concept). But God also knew
free-will was a 2 edged sword, hence why it has sent its word as in the form of the Holy Books and prophets so that we dont fall estray from Gods path.

Jihad has different forms. The best of Jihads is definitely a struggle of one against evils/sins, but Jihad also encompasses armed struggle when either attacked or oppressed or when the nation is threatened. Furthermore, the cut hand of a thief is not simply cut it off, there exists complete laws as to how many times the perpetrator has committed the crime, the severity of the crime, etc.

I would argue that once again this depends on the interpretation. I am nearly 99% positive that in Afganistan this was the case where on the first stealing it was cut off.

The Quran itself says:
004.059
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

I take this as a quote to not hold a grudge. Refering it to God falls into the concept of belief in Destiny. If someone wrongs me, instead of holding a grudge and judging that person, I refer that person to God, so that it can judge our situation and act on it when it pleases. Of course because God knows best.

Hope you can see my point Sultan

SlickForLife

10-25-2007, 01:25 PM

I just want to know what kind of religious education does mohater have to have been the one to answer any islamic questions.

mohater

10-25-2007, 01:30 PM

I just want to know what kind of religious education does mohater have to have been the one to answer any islamic questions.

Being Muslim, studying under various people who spent year studying Islam in various institutions and obtained degrees (Syria, Egypt, etc. - anywhere from a certificate of completion, to your standard BA, MS ,Ph.D.). My own reading, attending seminars and conferences.

I said in a previous post I'm no scholar by any means. If I don't know an answer I will simply say that (which I have among some posts here).

Do you have a question?

Jhaan

10-25-2007, 01:31 PM

Sorry I just saw this. Eve is not blamed for tempting Adam to eat the apple?

No, I've never heard of Eve being blamed. In fact, of all the sermons and books I've read, Adam is blamed more than Eve. Adam's sin was that he acted passively and did nothing while Eve got tempted by the serpent -- the same thing men still struggle with today (passivity).

mohater

10-25-2007, 01:42 PM

No, I've never heard of Eve being blamed. In fact, of all the sermons and books I've read, Adam is blamed more than Eve. Adam's sin was that he acted passively and did nothing while Eve got tempted by the serpent -- the same thing men still struggle with today (passivity).

You're the FIRST person to ever tell me this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden#Genesis

Everyone else I've ever encountered has explained it to me the way the wiki has it. (Women suffer labor pains due to Eve's actions, Eve tempted Adam, etc.).

Original Sin does not exist as a concept in Islam. Adam and Eve are blamed equally for the action of disobedience to God (yes Muslims believe they were banished from the "Garden" (in Islam they are said to be in Paradise itself) for their actions).

Parafly9

10-25-2007, 02:06 PM

The strife that exists today largely exists due to control of natural resources and leadership of the respective nations.

I would agree with that, but is not a large portion (most of it) of the violence in Iraq today due to Sunni vs. Shia trying to get control for the sake of their particular views on Islam. ?

SlickForLife

10-25-2007, 02:08 PM

Jhaan

10-25-2007, 02:11 PM

You're the FIRST person to ever tell me this

Everyone else I've ever encountered has explained it to me the way the wiki has it. (Women suffer labor pains due to Eve's actions, Eve tempted Adam, etc.).

Really?! I've never read anything where Eve was singled out and blamed for everything (other than a joke or two). Afterall, God cursed both of them and kicked them both out of the Garden.

Original Sin does not exist as a concept in Islam. Adam and Eve are blamed equally for the action of disobedience to God (yes Muslims believe they were banished from the "Garden" (in Islam they are said to be in Paradise itself) for their actions).

I think this is where our definitions of Original Sin come into play. I define Original Sin not as who takes the blame, but that all humans are both with sin. Another way to explain it is that at birth, you are separated from God.

Those who do not believe in Original Sin believe that sin doesn't enter into your life until you actually commit your first sin (at whatever age). Tabula Rasa, if you will.

I was curious how Islam describes Original Sin (using my definition). Afterall, someone said earlier that there is no man without sin, so when does one become sinful - birth or at first act of sin?

Doctor_Wu

10-25-2007, 02:16 PM

OK, so just to make it clear for everyone. You are no scholar, you are simply informing others of what you learned or what you think you understood from the so-called scholars. So from their mouth, into your slickdeals "teachings" here, it is possible you are providing not so completely accurate information.

Welcome to the internet...

You are no scholar

Although we could get into a discussion about what constitutes a scholar. But we'd need to have that conversation in another thread.

vangolu

10-25-2007, 02:56 PM

Really?! I've never read anything where Eve was singled out and blamed for everything (other than a joke or two). Afterall, God cursed both of them and kicked them both out of the Garden.

I think this is where our definitions of Original Sin come into play. I define Original Sin not as who takes the blame, but that all humans are both with sin. Another way to explain it is that at birth, you are separated from God.

Those who do not believe in Original Sin believe that sin doesn't enter into your life until you actually commit your first sin (at whatever age). Tabula Rasa, if you will.

I was curious how Islam describes Original Sin (using my definition). Afterall, someone said earlier that there is no man without sin, so when does one become sinful - birth or at first act of sin?

Actually that is how I knew the Christian concept of original sin, so I am as suprised as Mohater. Thanx for sharing Jhaan, your explanation does make sense that God kicked them out both. But as Mohater explained Muslims have no concept of Original Sin as we are all Gods creations (servants) and we sin because we are human (but it is no excuse of course). That is why we have to ask for foregiveness and repent.

From my perspective, a baby born has no sin.There is nothing to clear, no debt to pay, and life starts anew. Later on, due to the fact that we are humans, we sin and that is when we become sinfull.

Here is my favourite original sin :lmao:

Original sin! What a hellish idea that is! People have to go,

"Father, bless me for I have sinned, I did an original sin I poked a badger with a spoon."

"I've never heard of that one before! Five Hail Mary's and two Hello, Dolly's."

"Oh, all right..."
"Oh, all right..."

"Bless me, Father, for I have slept with my next door neighbor's wife."

"Heard it! I want an original sin."

"Oh, I'm terribly sorry!"

The Anglican faith doesn't have that. You'll never go,

"Vicar, I have done many bad things."

"Well, so have I."

"What shall I do?"

"Well, drink five Bloody Marys and you won't remember."

Eddie Izzard (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eddie_Izzard)

bonkman

10-25-2007, 02:58 PM

Actually that is how I knew the Christian concept of original sin, so I am as suprised as Mohater. Thanx for sharing Jhaan, your explanation does make sense that God kicked them out both. But as Mohater explained Muslims have no concept of Original Sin as we are all Gods creations (servants) and we sin because we are human (but it is no excuse of course). That is why we have to ask for foregiveness and repent.

From my perspective, a baby born has no sin.There is nothing to clear, no debt to pay, and life starts anew. Later on, due to the fact that we are humans, we sin and that is when we become sinfull.

Here is my favourite original sin :lmao:

Eddie Izzard (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eddie_Izzard)
I love that routine. Dressed to kill is spectacular.

mohater

10-25-2007, 03:43 PM

I would agree with that, but is not a large portion (most of it) of the violence in Iraq today due to Sunni vs. Shia trying to get control for the sake of their particular views on Islam. ?

No it's not - it's who gets to control the gov. and thus gets to control and dictate the oil revenues.

OK, so just to make it clear for everyone. You are no scholar, you are simply informing others of what you learned or what you think you understood from the so-called scholars. So from their mouth, into your slickdeals "teachings" here, it is possible you are providing not so completely accurate information.

Do have a question? If not, you can go cause a rukus and problems in a different thread.

mohater

10-25-2007, 03:46 PM

...

I was curious how Islam describes Original Sin (using my definition). Afterall, someone said earlier that there is no man without sin, so when does one become sinful - birth or at first act of sin?

There is simply no original sin (as defined in Christianity). The birth of a human being is defined as close to being pure (read: innocence) as one can ever be. One becomes "responsible" for their actions in the same way it exists in Judaism (entering to adulthood - puberty).

Jhaan

10-25-2007, 04:14 PM

There is simply no original sin (as defined in Christianity). The birth of a human being is defined as close to being pure (read: innocence) as one can ever be. One becomes "responsible" for their actions in the same way it exists in Judaism (entering to adulthood - puberty).

Thanks again mohater. But your word usage has me curious. You said at birth we are "as close to being pure (read: innocence) as one can ever be." Does that mean we are never 100% pure, even at birth?

I want to move into the concept of righteousness next, but I wanted to clear up this last little bit before I went there.

mohater

10-25-2007, 04:24 PM

Thanks again mohater. But your word usage has me curious. You said at birth we are "as close to being pure (read: innocence) as one can ever be." Does that mean we are never 100% pure, even at birth?

I want to move into the concept of righteousness next, but I wanted to clear up this last little bit before I went there.

Define pure - (I should have just used innocence and not pure).

Again, it's the same rule - that until puberty - sins do not "accrue" as the threshold of responsibility has not taken place.

mammothwoolly

10-25-2007, 07:49 PM

sodaseller

10-25-2007, 07:59 PM

One thing is certain. Some Muslims, at least, also hate the liberal media undermining the troops. Note the parallels:

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape)

- Al-Qaida sympathizers have unleashed a torrent of anger against Al-Jazeera television, accusing it of misrepresenting Osama bin Laden's latest audiotape by airing excerpts in which he criticizes mistakes by insurgents in Iraq.

Users of a leading Islamic militant Web forum posted thousands of insults against the pan-Arab station for focusing on excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents, including his followers.

Analysts said the reaction highlighted militants' surprise at bin Laden's words, and their dismay at the deep divisions among al-Qaida and other Iraqi militants that he appeared to be trying to heal.

"It's not about Al-Jazeera, it's about their shock from bin Laden," said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Islamic militant groups. "For the first time, bin Laden, who used to be the spiritual leader who gives guidance, became a critic of al-Qaida and is confessing mistakes. This is unusual."

," railed one militant Web poster, calling the station a "collaborator with the Crusaders" for suggesting the tape showed weakness in al-Qaida and featuring discussions of how the tape reflected weaknesses and divisions among insurgents in Iraq.

mohater

10-26-2007, 05:15 AM

Sigh.
I was just using Christian beliefs as a referent.
OK, forget that.

Can you please explain how Islam views God, and man's relationship to God.
I know you've tried to cover this before, but I'm seeing mostly negatives "Christianity doesn't believe that, Islam says viewpoint X is incorrect, etc". I'd like to know how Islam does see God. I would especially like to see how it contrasts with Christianity, but I'm not going to ask that question because that seems to make my question not get answered.

Thank you for your continuing patience in this regard.

The only reason I'm contrasting (what I understand) Christian fundamentals with Islamic fundamentals is in your very question you're citing the Christan view.

My goal is not to be negative - merely to identify where the paths do cross, and where they diverge.

Yes - Islam views God as a "far" away Monarch. Single ruler of all creation. The "far" away part is simply like that as it is repeated in the Quran that nothing is like him (not bound by an aspects of creation). Therefore being "far" is in the sense that we have no idea how to think of God except as a distinct, "distant" entity that is unique in all ways. On the other hand - there are many, I guess psalms you might call them, and verses in the Quran where it states that: if my servants ask about me, I am close and I answer their calls if they call upon me.

From this - because God is unique in all aspects, we have a natural "distance" as we are bound by the limitations of creation (sight, sound, touch, etc.). We also can *become* close to God by following what was prescribed upon us.

sultan

10-26-2007, 07:17 AM

Hi Sultan, the reason why I said was some are corrupted and I have a hard time to believe in them is because they are not the word of God hence easily corruptable. We have seen examples of these (even in these forums) and I am sure we have seen them in our native countries. This is why I take them with a grain of salt. Also do not forget that when Sunnah and Hadith gets translated, words take on a whole new meaning as there may not be a 1-1 translation from Arabic.

Well you are right that I could have chosen a better word for it. I agree that it is word of God and I believe in that. I also believe that the laws in it are divine. God gave us its Word, to follow and guide us to the path of salvation. But let us not forget Quran is much more then a law book as well. I know it still wont do justice to the Holy Book but let me rephrase by saying "Guide book" instead of "reference".

My belief is that God gave humans a brain for a reason, free-will to do so as we please to see who is worthy and who is not. As we see from scripture, Hz. Adem could learn about all different things around him while Angels would only know what God has thought them. (Hence why the devil was tripping :)) This shows, intellect in the first human. God gave men the ability to learn and choose (part of the free-will concept). But God also knew
free-will was a 2 edged sword, hence why it has sent its word as in the form of the Holy Books and prophets so that we dont fall estray from Gods path.

I would argue that once again this depends on the interpretation. I am nearly 99% positive that in Afganistan this was the case where on the first stealing it was cut off.

I take this as a quote to not hold a grudge. Refering it to God falls into the concept of belief in Destiny. If someone wrongs me, instead of holding a grudge and judging that person, I refer that person to God, so that it can judge our situation and act on it when it pleases. Of course because God knows best.

Hope you can see my point Sultan

Br. Vangolu, I agree with you on most of your above comments. Hadiths can be corrupted. However, the collection of hadiths that I mentioned have gone through extensive due diligence, and the context/circumstances have been explained with all of them. Further research on them continues to this day in institutions like Al-Azhar, Medina University, etc. The issue is not whether the hadiths are valid, but whether the explanation/precedence set by them is being used or implemented correctly.

I also agree with you about the Quran being a "Guide book". And yes, we have free-will. Just to further your statement, some laws in the Quran are absolute, for example, you cannot eat pork. Other laws are left open for interpretation... God being all-knowing gave allowance for progressiveness with changing times. On these particular laws does free-will come in.

Further expanding, other laws become absolute based on sunnah, such as the method of salaah (prayer). The Quran does not indicate how many times to pray or how to pray. However, many sunnah are again left for interpretation for progressiveness with changing times using free-will.

Your example of Aghanistan is regarding *implementation* of Islamic law, not about Islamic law. We can safely say, nothing was right in a country torn by war for two decades and ranked as the poorest nation in the world.

vangolu

10-26-2007, 07:38 AM

Hi Sultan
Br. Vangolu, I agree with you on most of your above comments. Hadiths can be corrupted. However, the collection of hadiths that I mentioned have gone through extensive due diligence, and the context/circumstances have been explained with all of them. Further research on them continues to this day in institutions like Al-Azhar, Medina University, etc. The issue is not whether the hadiths are valid, but whether the explanation/precedence set by them is being used or implemented correctly.

I guess the problem is with me that I do not enough about these institutions to trust them. However I will keep reading and researching about them and see if I am wrong or not. But thank you for clarifying this.

I also agree with you about the Quran being a "Guide book". And yes, we have free-will. Just to further your statement, some laws in the Quran are absolute, for example, you cannot eat pork. Other laws are left open for interpretation... God being all-knowing gave allowance for progressiveness with changing times. On these particular laws does free-will come in.

Further expanding, other laws become absolute based on sunnah, such as the method of salaah (prayer). The Quran does not indicate how many times to pray or how to pray. However, many sunnah are again left for interpretation for progressiveness with changing times using free-will.

Your example of Aghanistan is regarding *implementation* of Islamic law, not about Islamic law. We can safely say, nothing was right in a country torn by war for two decades and ranked as the poorest nation in the world.

I agree and thanx for expanding the information. This would be a good topic to discuss in a future thread so that we can further our learning :)

sultan

10-26-2007, 07:44 AM

Hi Sultan

I guess the problem is with me that I do not enough about these institutions to trust them. However I will keep reading and researching about them and see if I am wrong or not. But thank you for clarifying this.

I agree and thanx for expanding the information. This would be a good topic to discuss in a future thread so that we can further our learning :)

Your not accepting the rulings from these institutions at face value is *perfectly* valid and actually the correct thing to do for Muslims. All rulings (fatwas) are legal opinions that are non-binding. The rule of the thumb is 80% of scholars agree on a particular view, you should more or less accomodate that ruling.

I am not sure if I recall it correctly, but even Mohammad (sa) stated that the difference of opinion amongst my people is a mercy... the logic behind it is that it encourages plurality, thought and exchange of ideas.

Jhaan

10-26-2007, 11:02 AM

Define pure - (I should have just used innocence and not pure).

Again, it's the same rule - that until puberty - sins do not "accrue" as the threshold of responsibility has not taken place.

Instead of "pure," how about "holy" or "righteous"?

It's interesting that sins do not accrue before puberty. Once sins start accruing, it sounds like a Muslim starts earning a "sin debt" with God. How is this debt resolved, or paid?

In Protestant theology, it's believed that sin cannot exist within God's perfect holiness. With sinful humans, this poses a problem. So, it's believed that when a person trusts Christ as savior, that person's soul (or heart) is renewed (or imputed) with Jesus' righteousness (note: this is the "born again" concept). This makes a person "righteous" or "holy" in God's eyes, and so that person can enter into God's presence. Another way to look at it is that it makes a person's soul holy so that God can enter that person and indwell the Holy Spirit.

With Jesus obviously out of the equation, how does a Muslim enter into God's presence?

mohater

10-26-2007, 11:55 AM

Instead of "pure," how about "holy" or "righteous"?

Righteous is typically reserved for actions/describing people.

I think innocent is the best word for that example.

It's interesting that sins do not accrue before puberty. Once sins start accruing, it sounds like a Muslim starts earning a "sin debt" with God. How is this debt resolved, or paid?

In Protestant theology, it's believed that sin cannot exist within God's perfect holiness. With sinful humans, this poses a problem. So, it's believed that when a person trusts Christ as savior, that person's soul (or heart) is renewed (or imputed) with Jesus' righteousness (note: this is the "born again" concept). This makes a person "righteous" or "holy" in God's eyes, and so that person can enter into God's presence. Another way to look at it is that it makes a person's soul holy so that God can enter that person and indwell the Holy Spirit.

With Jesus obviously out of the equation, how does a Muslim enter into God's presence?

The same concept exists in Judaism - hence the Bar Mitzvah (entrance to adulthood - entrance to accountability in the eyes of God).

That idea does not exist in Islam. It boils down to individual responsibility to be aware of their actions, be aware of sins, and repent (there are rules for repentance). Belief is the basis to be granted God's mercy, but one must strive as much as possible to ensure access to the mercy.

There is a parable where a person who when asked by God why he should be given entry into Paradise and the person's response was I lived a life of following your commands. When all he deeds where weighed against the blessing of eye sight, the blessing of sight out weighted all his blessings. The take away from this is that we all have countless blessings, many which we are often unaware of/take for granted. Thus, we must always be aware of how we are using what we have been blessed with and hope to be among those granted God's mercy.

The Quran has many verses where it states that God grants his mercy to whom chooses, God grants blessings to whom he chooses, God loves those who repent, etc..

sultan

10-26-2007, 03:02 PM

Thanks again mohater. But your word usage has me curious. You said at birth we are "as close to being pure (read: innocence) as one can ever be." Does that mean we are never 100% pure, even at birth?

I want to move into the concept of righteousness next, but I wanted to clear up this last little bit before I went there.

Pure, innocent, free of sin. In Islam, one does not carry the burden of sins for any other individual. He/she shall be judged soley on his/her actions. The sins (and the good deeds) start accumulation post puberty. Puberty is not defined as a set age, but the time when the person is able to consciously make judgements between right and wrong.

sultan

10-26-2007, 03:07 PM

Instead of "pure," how about "holy" or "righteous"?

It's interesting that sins do not accrue before puberty. Once sins start accruing, it sounds like a Muslim starts earning a "sin debt" with God. How is this debt resolved, or paid?

In Protestant theology, it's believed that sin cannot exist within God's perfect holiness. With sinful humans, this poses a problem. So, it's believed that when a person trusts Christ as savior, that person's soul (or heart) is renewed (or imputed) with Jesus' righteousness (note: this is the "born again" concept). This makes a person "righteous" or "holy" in God's eyes, and so that person can enter into God's presence. Another way to look at it is that it makes a person's soul holy so that God can enter that person and indwell the Holy Spirit.

With Jesus obviously out of the equation, how does a Muslim enter into God's presence?

With respect to your second question, regarding "sin debt", the individual ALSO accumulated the blessings for his/her good deeds and his/her good deeds are measured against his/her sins. Furthermore, as mohater pointed out, God is merciful, He loves those who repent, and so on.

I am unable to reconcile the Protestant view. I imagine Protestants would also believe God is omnipresent and therefore sin exists within His presence or at the least, amongst His creations. The logic of belief in God as savior to be in the presence of God seems circular to me.

mammothwoolly

10-27-2007, 03:57 PM

Thanks for your answer. I have another question: What do you think about Queen Rania of Jordan? I was just watching an interview with her by Wolf Blitzer, and I was surprised that she was allowed to not cover her head. So I did a bit more research on her, reading through a transcript on Oprah, where they said

Oprah: Newsweek magazine reported that there are some Muslim fundamentalists that see you as a threat. They've said, 'She is attacking our ancient values, tearing at our social fabrics as a member of our moderate Muslim brotherhood.' How do you respond to that?

Queen Rania: You find fundamentalists and extremism in every religion and these are the people on the fringes. They are expressing their own point of view, a personal point of view. I believe in what I am doing. It's my personal choice. I feel that people of my country accept me the way that I am, and I hope the rest of the world will see it that way. I cannot really answer to these kinds of things because everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

Now note that I know little about her, but she seemed liberated, eloquent, and free. If her freedom was to spread to all Islamic women, would that be wrong from Islam's perspective?

(according to the interview) Jordan is criticized for it's discrimination in pension, social security benefits, inheritance, divorce, ability to travel, child custody, and citizenship laws. What things in Islam, if anything, will prevent a woman from freedom in these areas. If I understood what she was saying, the status quo is merely cultural, but is supported by Islamic fundamentalists. So I assume there must be something "fundamental" to Islam which makes women into second class citizens.

I've read what you're written before, that women are honored and cover up to not excite men, but I'm asking whether there is another part of the story; certain passages or tenets which fundamentalists use to limit a woman's education (or whatever).

mohater

10-27-2007, 06:46 PM

Peachyum: I'm going to answer in the order you presented the info:

First - all the videos are posted by mermi, a source that's obviously comes with baggage (like everything else). They cut and paste interviews (the same way groups like moveOn does to Bush) and only use excerpt to show the backwardness of the people they display (and not showing any opposing views).

Under Islamic law - breaking the rule of Shari'a is the same as breaking the law in a western setting - there is (not always used in practice) a *worldly* punishment for any infractions that involve civil or tort matters. Your question about when they people in the videos state that they would be punished by God is only something to be considered as a fact in the afterlife. The first link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58)- he states if a transgression is committed by the husband and the wife chooses to forgive her husband (i.e. not make it a civil matter) he is still accountable in the eyes of God for his action(s).

As to the second video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hcQTmcgkKA) - the point he is making is that under Islamic law - when there is a conflict of something permissible in Islamic rule, but is forbidden in the local law (polygamy is an example) - the law of the land trumps as you (the Muslim living as a minority) must respect the laws which govern the area you reside. Cultures is the improper word - he's saying groups or areas, implying about laws of local the land. The context is about how to deal when living in lands not governed by Islamic law.

The third (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh7qiO3Ygnk) he is claiming it is as a last resort - but the permissible capacity of is limited to this, thus what harm can come of it (as a response that Islam allows unlimited beatings on a women). Remember - given you only get an excerpt of the answer without the question it's very difficult to gage why the speaker chooses words.

Same goes for the fourth one.

I'll concede that within the Muslim world they do have an issue with women being subjugated below men (not a universal - but it does exist), and it very apparent in areas ruled by tribal mentality (regardless of what religion as this is a massive issue with Hindus in India and tribal religions in Africa). That being said, the "West" has it's own problems with the subjection of women that is unique from the tribal world. In the tribal world - it is the responsibility of the men to protect and look after their women, a matter of familial and tribal honor. In the west, women in the lower ranks of society are often forgotten by family and left to fend for themselves under the welfare provided by their government.

Recourse does exist for women in case any matters of Islamic law are broken by their husband, and can be grounds for divorce. The idea of matters being taken into account in the afterlife is the same as it exists with Judaism and Christianity: that the final judgment lies with God, and no one will be able to escape when they are called to account for their actions.

mammothwoolly

10-27-2007, 07:32 PM

The idea of matters being taken into account in the afterlife is the same as it exists with Judaism and Christianity: that the final judgment lies with God, and no one will be able to escape when they are called to account for their actions.

*ahem* well, cough cough, actually, that's not an accurate picture of Christianity. Not that that was your point or anything. And I'm sure you can find me a post where someone says that it is. Oh well.

FWIW: Christians escape God's judgement through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

But I liked the rest of your post. I am curious about whether there is progress on women's related issues in Islamic countries; it seems like the Jordanian queen might be an example of this, if there are other examples, etc.

I'd like to visit Mecca someday too, but no fair it's only for Muslims. :(

sultan

10-31-2007, 07:00 AM

Thanks for your answer. I have another question: What do you think about Queen Rania of Jordan? I was just watching an interview with her by Wolf Blitzer, and I was surprised that she was allowed to not cover her head. So I did a bit more research on her, reading through a transcript on Oprah, where they said

Now note that I know little about her, but she seemed liberated, eloquent, and free. If her freedom was to spread to all Islamic women, would that be wrong from Islam's perspective?

(according to the interview) Jordan is criticized for it's discrimination in pension, social security benefits, inheritance, divorce, ability to travel, child custody, and citizenship laws. What things in Islam, if anything, will prevent a woman from freedom in these areas. If I understood what she was saying, the status quo is merely cultural, but is supported by Islamic fundamentalists. So I assume there must be something "fundamental" to Islam which makes women into second class citizens.

I've read what you're written before, that women are honored and cover up to not excite men, but I'm asking whether there is another part of the story; certain passages or tenets which fundamentalists use to limit a woman's education (or whatever).

I am against monarchy. There is no concept of King/Queen/Prince whatever in the faith.

What I personally think about Queen Rania? She's hot man! What "freedom" does she have that is special? Not covering her hair? Having millions/billions in her own account, wealth that belongs to the people of Jordan? She is a good example of how freedoms are taken AWAY from the people.

mammothwoolly

10-31-2007, 07:13 AM

I am against monarchy. There is no concept of King/Queen/Prince whatever in the faith.

What I personally think about Queen Rania? She's hot man! What "freedom" does she have that is special? Not covering her hair? Having millions/billions in her own account, wealth that belongs to the people of Jordan? She is a good example of how freedoms are taken AWAY from the people.

She has the freedom to not cover her hair and to speak in public without her husband around. Are these freedoms antithetical to Islam? Are these freedoms irrelevant to Islam? Or are these freedoms promoted by Islam?

And while I wouldn't call her "hot", she definitely is more beautiful as she is, rather than having to wear a burqa.

Neo Tocqueville

10-31-2007, 07:45 PM

She has the freedom to not cover her hair and to speak in public without her husband around. Are these freedoms antithetical to Islam? Are these freedoms irrelevant to Islam? Or are these freedoms promoted by Islam? mammothwoolly, sometimes your statements make me wonder if the two of us live in the same world. I'll get to the heart of your question, but to suggest that the fact that Queen Raina is able to "not cover her hair" and "speak in public without her husband" as something extra ordinary speaks to a profound difference in our "facts" not just views/opinions. I mean to say this with all due respect but how is it that we jump past the fact that Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina Wazed and Benazir Bhutto have all been elected head of governments in two of the three largest Muslim countries? How did we not consider those facts as the basis of forming our view of Muslim women (as "second class citizens", as you've said)? In other words, why isn't our approach to say, in the choice of Muslim population (at least in those countries) we have proof that at least close to 250 million Muslims didn't see a problem with a women leading them, while many in the West still continue to question if women can be effective leaders? So much for the "second class citizen" deal ... Let's put this issue to rest and ask some more relevant questions (e.g., why aren't Muslims getting the choice to choose their leaders -- man, women or whatever is there in between?).

Note that these things that I'm bringing up are not new. Bhutto was first elected prime minister in 1988, Khaleda Zia 1991, and Wazed in 1996. Before Bhutto, Fatima Jinnah was running for the President of Pakistan when Martin Luther King still was fighting for civil rights here in the US (in 1965). So, to me, it sounds crazy, really crazy, that all of a sudden in 2007 people are asking if Muslim women are treated with dignity in the Islamic world. Again, I mean no disrespect to you but I simply have no words to convey my amazement at how lacking in factual basis discourse about Islam sometimes is.

Now to come to the heart of your question ... does Islam say anything about her "freedoms" to not cover her hair and not speak in public ? Well, no, Islam doesn't say anything about her "freedoms". May be because it's an absurd way to ask the question.

Islam, first and foremost, prescribes a belief system and personal moral code which forms the basis of everything. Muslims believe that Allah has, in His book and through His prophet, prescribed a way of life for every human being on earth, which is the perfect. The closer any human being is to following that prescribed way of life, the better it is for that individual -- in this life and in the life hereafter -- as well as for the society at large.

Because I, as a Muslim, believe that the way prescribed by God is best for myself, my family, the society I live in and the humanity, I make a conscious effort to be as close to that prescribed way as possible. The goal is to follow that way as much as possible, because that's how I'll be the best human being I can be. This is, in a nutshell, what a Muslim is ... and you can take this to the bank!

What I described above is how I, and I'll assume most, if not all, Muslims basically view Islam's role in their lives. Now, can you appreciate why asking about the "freedom" to not cover one's hair seems so absurd to me? That's just not the lens I look at the world through.

Let me give an analogy. I'm getting late to a meeting across town and driving frantically. I stop to ask directions and the guy I'm seeking directions from says to me, "well, I don't have the directions but it's a bright sunny day, you have the "freedom" to take a bike". That's not what I'm looking for, that's not what interests me, that's not a metric I'm going to measure my success with. So, thanks for the useless advice. This is really how I feel about all the talk of freedoms (or lack thereof) in the Muslim world.

The question of freedom is useful only insofar as I have the freedom to actually follow the path that, I believe, makes me a good human being and, by extension, the world a better place.

Now, going to the issue of which aspect of the Islamic moral code can the state enforce (as a matter of law) ... This has always been, is, and will always be a matter of debate, as will the exact details of such law. To me, while it is an important debate, it is not a timely one and it is certain not a debate that non-Muslim Westerns, living in non-Muslim countries ought to be having today. If this is a debate worth having today, I'd also like to put forth a proposition in California's next election asking voters if Uttar Pradesh should follow Maharashtra in passing a MACOCA-type bill? Seriously. It's completely and utterly nonsensical to have this debate in this time and place.

A near consensus of Muslim scholars believe that covering hair is part of the modest dress code for women prescribed in Islam but I don't know of any similar position against speaking in public without the presence of one's husband (whatever that means). Now, does that mean she has the "freedom" to speak in public but not to uncover her hair? I don't know and I don't care.

vangolu

10-31-2007, 08:52 PM

She has the freedom to not cover her hair and to speak in public without her husband around. Are these freedoms antithetical to Islam? Are these freedoms irrelevant to Islam? Or are these freedoms promoted by Islam?

And while I wouldn't call her "hot", she definitely is more beautiful as she is, rather than having to wear a burqa.

Mammothwooly, I also agree with Neo's statement above.

Take a look at this (http://www.missworld.tv/history/previousTitleHolders.sps?iType=6919&icustompageid=13266)

Neo, you forgot to mention Tansu Ciller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tansu_Ciller)of Turkey but except then that great post.

mammothwoolly

10-31-2007, 09:04 PM

sultan

11-01-2007, 09:07 AM

Dear Br. Tocqueville,
Thank you for your response. You question whether we live on the same planet, sensing that I am newly interested in .... Muslim limitations (?) ... to freedom. Friend, I have spent much time in a Muslim nation, doing things which I can't discuss, but believe me when I say that these are neither new interests of mine, nor are they the remarks of a 15 year old who is exploring the world for the first time.

My remarks stem from my experience in a particular culture where having a Muslim woman with her head uncovered would have been grounds for punishment at the hands of the people as well as the government. Now, frankly, what I am limited by is my exposure primarily to a single culture within the Islamic world. Because of this, and his culture's tendency to "mush" everything together, I still struggle with questions like:

Is it the country which interprets Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the religious leaders which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the convictions of the people which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the individual's conviction that Islam requires a woman to not go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?

It cannot be the last one in the particular culture I refer to, because it is against the law (although I don't know whether it's the legal, or religious leader's ethical law, which is law in that culture).

So, the point is, the Islam I know comes from one culture, and therefore it is biased and confused. Which is why I appreciate this forum.

The explanation you have given me, that each individual determines for themselves what they believe the law requires, and follow it as closely as possible, is antithetical to my understanding of Islam in the culture of which I speak. Because I am biased due to my experience (as we all are), I assumed that Islam as a definable institution of rules of conduct was a universal practice.

Thus, the practice of Islam is the following of particular prescribed rules. So, I was surprised when Queen Rania, who "broke" the rules I was accustomed to, would be accepted. I assumed a Muslim would reply to the effect "Queen Rania is breaking two rules set forth by XYZ, and therefore she is going to hell (or the equivalent)"

So, I am surprised by your response. Could it be that you are conditioned by American individualism to believe that you can individually interpret Islamic regulations by yourself? Or am I off track (again!)? Thank you for your continued help in this area.

To answer your question, which is present in the last paragraph, again, the main sources for deriving Islamic law are the Quran and Sunnah. IF the answer is not contained therein, one can refer the issue to the learned, or use his/her own judgment.

As you can clearly observe from the multitude of examples present on this forum, from Rania to Benazir to Tansu Ciller, Muslim women have been extremely successful up to the highest levels of governments.This is not a new phenomena, Muslim women have been successful throughout, from Aisha (RA) to Nur Jehan.

With respect to your specific examples of Queen Rania, she is not held in high esteem by the people, nor is Benazir, and the likes. This does not stem from the fact that they are bad Muslims, but from the fact that they are bad people, horrible leaders and (atleast in the case of Benazir), outright corrupt.

Let me narrate an incident I had with a Jewish female regarding the hijab. The said person accusingly asked me, why is the headscarf forced on the women? I simply replied, that it is not forced, and even if it is, it is just one extra piece of cloth. What is wrong with it? She replied that it suffocates the women, it is uncomforable, and hot. I said she was wearing clothes, if a piece of garment suffocates you or makes you uncomfortable or hot, why doesnt she take off her clothes? She was taken aback, and after a moment replied, yes, many European cultures do that, dont wear any clothes and I find that very civilized, not like you Muslims. All I could say back was that over centuries, humankind has progressed to the present state where they have learned how to be shameful. And now you want to turn it back around. You have certainly reached the height of civilization. :)

mohater

11-01-2007, 10:40 AM

*ahem* well, cough cough, actually, that's not an accurate picture of Christianity. Not that that was your point or anything. And I'm sure you can find me a post where someone says that it is. Oh well.

FWIW: Christians escape God's judgement through the imputed righteousness of Christ.

But I liked the rest of your post. I am curious about whether there is progress on women's related issues in Islamic countries; it seems like the Jordanian queen might be an example of this, if there are other examples, etc.

I'd like to visit Mecca someday too, but no fair it's only for Muslims. :(

So you don't believe in the purgatory fire? That's part of the purification for some Christians before entering Paradise.

Jordan is far from an example of "free" country. Just because the "Queen" is afforded certain luxuries does not mean the local are afforded the same (including a legal stand point). Saudi is not the catch all for how women are in all Islamic countries - in the majority of the Gulf states, they are allowed to drive (Qatar, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.), work, etc. Yes, they have issues, but so do we - some of the same issues and some different.

As for Mecca, the Quran says it's only for Muslims to enter, so that's that.

I won't bother touching on your follow up question as it's been tackled.

Jhaan

11-01-2007, 10:53 AM

So you don't believe in the purgatory fire? That's part of the purification for some Christians before entering Paradise.

Purgatory is more of a Catholic idea. I don't think there are any Protestant denominations who subscribe to it (possibly Lutherans or Episcopals).

Neo Tocqueville

11-02-2007, 09:43 AM

Could it be that you are conditioned by American individualism to believe that you can individually interpret Islamic regulations by yourself? mammothwolly, I'll get back to you on the broader questions you've posed in your post later but let me quickly address this (relatively simple) question: Absolutely not.

If there's one thing that you find consistently in the ethos of Muslim scholars, clergymen, and ordinary people, from the day Muhammad passed away till this day, it is the notion that there is no single individual who has the 'right' interpretation of Islam, or the right to interpret Islam for others. That every interpretation (except that offered by Muhammad himself) is a "personal opinion" to some extend, is the basis of Islamic law (it's a lame way to put it, but I hope it conveys the point).

This is evident in virtually every aspect of Islam -- in theory and in practice. Take, for example, the absence of any formal hierarchy in the clergy or a "Pope". People ask why don't Muslims have a Pope who can speak for the religion/all Muslims? The answer simply is that the notion of a consensus religious authority is against the ethos of Muslims. A scholar in some mountain hut or a desert tent, if he is recognized by his peers as an expert jurist, is just as eligible to interpret Islam as the Imam of the mosque in Makkah. By extension, any individual Muslim (layman like myself) is free to follow any scholar that I may find most convincing.

Of course, this practice, as we've seen in some very unfortunately ways, has both its pros and cons. We see in Islamic history, for example, immediately after the death of Muhammad, his closest friends and companions were giving religious rulings that were many times in conflict with each other. Today, we see good and sound scholars of Islam interpretting it in many different ways, with no bitterness toward each other. We also see interpretations from fringe scholars, that are accepted by fringe groups. These opinions can be challenged but not the right of those fringe scholars to present them.

The right of a scholar to give an opinion on a religious matter is widely known, recognized and accepted as a source of diversity in Islam. Muslims are expected not to confuse such opinions with clear injunctions. For example, walk in to any mosque in the US today and you'll find people praying in many different ways. But ask any of them how many times a Muslim is supposed to pray in a day and at what times, they'll all offer you the exact same answer.

Again, much of what I'm saying is not something that you need to go too far to validate. To conclude, I'd say that the diversity of opinions offered by Muslim scholars is vast (but finite) and so is the degree of freedom for individual interpretation of Islam.

As for myself, quite opposite to what you're suggesting, seeing the effects of unbounded individualism in the West has impressed upon me the value of a more refined, cultured and parameterized individualism that Islam has to offer.

sodaseller

11-02-2007, 10:12 AM

A bit OT, but Bill Cork makes some sense today at Link (http://billcork.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/is-dialogue-possible-with-muslims/)Is Dialogue Possible with Muslims?
Jump to Comments
Vatican official says no. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran is the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and has made lots of Muslims upset.

It is unfortunate. He should have been in my World Religions Class Monday night. We had a great dialogue with three Muslims. I had invited a former student of mine; one of my current students invited two more, one of whom is a faculty member. We had two Sunnis and one Shia, from Pakistan, Morocco, and Iran. It was a fascinating and cordial discussion, in which all learned.

If a small group of folks in SE Texas can have a positive dialogue, surely the Vatican, with all the scholarly resources at its disposal, can figure something out.

mammothwoolly

11-02-2007, 01:51 PM

So you don't believe in the purgatory fire? That's part of the purification for some Christians before entering Paradise.
It's junk like purgatory which sarted protestantism. I'm not overly familiar with Catholic practice.
Jordan is far from an example of "free" country. Just because the "Queen" is afforded certain luxuries does not mean the local are afforded the same (including a legal stand point). Saudi is not the catch all for how women are in all Islamic countries - in the majority of the Gulf states, they are allowed to drive (Qatar, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.), work, etc. Yes, they have issues, but so do we - some of the same issues and some different.
I never said the country I was familiar with was Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
As for Mecca, the Quran says it's only for Muslims to enter, so that's that.
Muhummad would have let me in beause he knows what a nice guy I am.
I won't bother touching on your follow up question as it's been tackled.
So you agree with what Br. Sultan said?

Also, my questions here were not tackled:
Is it the country which interprets Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the religious leaders which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the convictions of the people which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the individual's conviction that Islam requires a woman to not go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?

mohater

11-02-2007, 02:20 PM

I never said the country I was familiar with was Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

You keep talking about your experience in an Islamic country, but never mention the country. Most of the examples you give are what are mentioned when most people mention Saudi Arabia.

Muhummad would have let me in beause he knows what a nice guy I am.

Don't be so sure of that. I could as easily say Jesus would grant me salvation because I'm a good person even if I don't believe salvation is achieved through him (which you would probably tell me is wrong).

Also, my questions here were not tackled:
Is it the country which interprets Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the religious leaders which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the convictions of the people which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the individual's conviction that Islam requires a woman to not go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?

I have not studied the enforcement of such rules as they exist in Islamic law. There are rules which are enforceable (i.e. the 2.5% "tax" required) and there are others that are not enforceable (no one knows if you pray five times a day or fast). I don't know where women covering falls.

As for public speaking, there is nothing in Islam that forbids a women from speaking in public. As neo mentioned, there have been many female politicians in the parts of the Muslim world long before civil rights were established here.

The religious leaders would boil down issues as they relate to religious matters.

As for the previous response, sultan did not answer your question, but neo did.

mammothwoolly

11-02-2007, 03:51 PM

You keep talking about your experience in an Islamic country, but never mention the country. Most of the examples you give are what are mentioned when most people mention Saudi Arabia.
I am sneaky like that.

Don't be so sure of that. I could as easily say Jesus would grant me salvation because I'm a good person even if I don't believe salvation is achieved through him (which you would probably tell me is wrong).

It was a joke, sorry. Besides, I thought Islam taught that Christians and Jews can go to heaven. But, mostly, it was a joke. :)

Neo Tocqueville

11-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Also, my questions here were not tackled:
Is it the country which interprets Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the religious leaders which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the convictions of the people which interpret Islam such that a woman cannot go out without her head covered, or speak publicly?
Is it the individual's conviction that Islam requires a woman to not go out without her head covered, or speak publicly? I get the sense that you are asking this rhetorically. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I'm getting because (1) the question (wrongly) assumes that the practice of enforcing head-covering is universal in Muslim countries (of the 50+ Muslim countries only TWO -- Iran and KSA -- have such laws whereas Turkey has the exact opposite -- so, where's the relevance of this state-enforced-head-covering-question?), and (2) because if you replace "women cannot go out without her head covered" with any moral issue (say, drinking in public, lewd behavior in public, etc.) in a secular society, you'll basically get your answer.

Let me elaborate this a little because I think that's where the answer also lies. Who determined that having sex in public restrooms in Minneapolis constitutes lewd conduct and lewd conduct in a public place should be a punishable offense? Was it the country that interpreted/deemed such action as lewd behavior, lawyers and lawmakers, or individuals? Obviously, the answer is all of them within their own circle of influence.

I frankly do not see the rationale in your question either.

Neo Tocqueville

11-02-2007, 04:00 PM

A bit OT, but Bill Cork makes some sense today at Link (http://billcork.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/is-dialogue-possible-with-muslims/)

I can see the symbolic importance of a interreligious dialogue at the level of the Pope, but the real pontiff of our times is "The Media". Not only does it inform us of our view of morality and increasingly spirituality, it has become the sole arbiter of truth.

CoconutCookie

11-02-2007, 05:34 PM

CoconutCookie

11-02-2007, 05:53 PM

Mohater,

Unitarians, Jehovah Witness', and Mormons are not Christians. They are not sects of Christianity.

That's not true -- they accept Jesus, just not the "spin" of other religions that goes with it. It frustrates me to no end when people say a religion isn't "christian" or not christian enough and dub them a cult :( Doesn't Christian mean "of Christ" -- they accept Christ, are "of" Christ. They just don't believe as *your* brand of Christianity, so they're a cult? I think that is very narrow-minded and unfair :(

vangolu

11-03-2007, 12:19 AM

I will try to give answers from my perspective.
:blush: I am still wading my way through the posts reading all of the info (very informative, and very interesting, thanks so much for sharing).

Sorry if these are repeats, but these are the questions I have been sincerely wondering about for awhile ...

1) Do Muslims intermarry with non-Muslims? If it is prohibited, why, and what would happen if it is a rule and someone broke it? Would the spouse of another faith be accepted by the rest of the family/Muslim community? ( I don't mean that to sound disrespectful ... I just know that in my brother's religion for example, the both the bride and groom would be kicked out of their christian church until the other converted and both repented -- just curious if this is a common practice in other religions)

Depends which part of the world you are in. In Western Turkey, intermarried couples are very common. Rest of Turkey, intermarried couples are common but either the bride or groom converts to Islam first. In Eastern Turkey, this is out of the question.

2) Regarding conversion -- do Muslims who grew up in your faith treat/view converts from Judaism or Christianity with less regard than "real" Muslims?

No Muslim should view anyone else with less regard. You may not like the person but it is not up to you to judge the person, only God can do that. Short answer to your question would be absolutely not.

3) I heard a Christian preacher say that the goal of Islam is to convert and control the world -- which seemed a little extreme to me. Was that a fair summary that he gave?

Some sects of Islam may have that view (and those sects are known fundamentalists) but overwhelming majority of Muslims do not share this belief.

4) Regarding "paying interest" -- is it really against the religion of Islam to have a credit card, take out a loan for college, or a mortgage? I saw a commercial recently claiming they have a "loophole" allowing Muslims to get a mortgage without paying interest -- are the loopholes hypocritical since people are in essense paying interest, though it is given another name? What if you gave something else prohibited (if it really is prohibited) a different name, would that be seen as acceptible too?

I am not sure about this, I know some Islamic Banks in Turkey do not call it interest but somehow people still end up paying money. So no matter what they call it, the interest system is there.

mohater

11-03-2007, 07:29 AM

It was a joke, sorry. Besides, I thought Islam taught that Christians and Jews can go to heaven. But, mostly, it was a joke. :)

Well, sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet.

In any case, Islam says no one is allowed to tell someone who is going to heaven and who is not. There are no free passes.

Jhaan

11-03-2007, 11:27 AM

No Muslim should view anyone else with less regard. You may not like the person but it is not up to you to judge the person, only God can do that. Short answer to your question would be absolutely not.

This kind of touches on apostasy. What does the Quran actually say on apostasy (I'm looking for specific verses here.)?

mammothwoolly

11-03-2007, 11:58 AM

Well, sarcasm is hard to detect on the internet.

In any case, Islam says no one is allowed to tell someone who is going to heaven and who is not. There are no free passes.

My bad.

I get the sense that you are asking this rhetorically. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I'm getting because (1) the question (wrongly) assumes that the practice of enforcing head-covering is universal in Muslim countries (of the 50+ Muslim countries only TWO -- Iran and KSA -- have such laws whereas Turkey has the exact opposite -- so, where's the relevance of this state-enforced-head-covering-question?), and (2) because if you replace "women cannot go out without her head covered" with any moral issue (say, drinking in public, lewd behavior in public, etc.) in a secular society, you'll basically get your answer.

I think this is both true and not true. I agree those countries are the only ones to legally require people to wear the hijab. But in the Cano state of Nigeria, for example, all Muslim students of age are required to wear the hijab. Link (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9946878)

This is not the first time that dress codes have caused a stir in Nigeria. Though there are no federal laws on the subject, many workplaces and universities enforce a stern code. In May, Kano state began requiring all private-school students to obey a Muslim dress code, including the hijab for women, that already applies in public schools. The local government says the rules apply only to Muslims. But to fit in at school and in other public places, many non-Muslims feel they must conform.

So here we have an example of government enforced wearing of the hijab. Is this correct or incorrect from an Islamic perspective?

Also the Palestinian Christians are afraid to go out without a hijab on. link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395473254&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter):

"Since Hamas took over, I cover my head in Ramallah," she says. "I don't feel comfortable."

In the largely cosmopolitan Ramallah, though they comprise some 10 percent of the population, Christians are becoming less and less visible.

The first time that Khoury ran into her local parish priest there with her head covered, he raised his eyebrows and laughed.

"I see more and more women covered up," Khoury says, explaining that for now, it's preferable to play it safe and assimilate on the street, even if she would never choose to cover her head otherwise.

"Years ago I even used to go in short sleeves," she says. "You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to wear short sleeves now."

With fear of government-supported religious coercion on the rise since Hamas's unexpected win in January's Palestinian elections, Christians across the West Bank and Gaza Strip are keeping a low profile, with eyes wide open.

Though no changes on the ground have affected their rights as of yet, they are watching carefully and anxiously to see if an already precarious "church and state" separation in Palestinian government is about to disintegrate.

In other words, my reading of this is that even Palestinian Christians feel compelled to wear the hijab How much more so the Palestinian Muslims? Since Hamas was put in power, women are afraid to wear short sleeve blouses or go out without the hijab. This is Islam in politics enforcing Islamic dress codes.

How can you argue that people in these countries are doing whatever they personally feel they should to honor God? So, my question is: is the political enforcement of the Islamic rules encouraged/irrelevant/discouraged by Islam?

Let me elaborate this a little because I think that's where the answer also lies. Who determined that having sex in public restrooms in Minneapolis constitutes lewd conduct and lewd conduct in a public place should be a punishable offense? Was it the country that interpreted/deemed such action as lewd behavior, lawyers and lawmakers, or individuals? Obviously, the answer is all of them within their own circle of influence.

I would say that it was the people who convinced their states and the feds to write up these laws, because we're in a democracy and that's how stuff usually works.

But if I was going to answer my own question in this context, I would say that having sex in restrooms is discouraged by Christian teachings when there is at least 1 Christian involved. This same action is irrelevant to Christianity when people of other religions partake.

vangolu

11-03-2007, 09:12 PM

This kind of touches on apostasy. What does the Quran actually say on apostasy (I'm looking for specific verses here.)?

Sure thing Jhaan. Quran does not mention an earthly punishment for those who converts from Islam.

The Qur'an says:

Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Clearly the Right Path (i.e. Islam) is distinct from the crooked path.

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 2:256]
A section of the 'People of the Book' (Jews and Christians) says: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 3:72]
But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 3:90]
Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them.

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:48]
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:137]
O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He (Allah) will love as they will love Him lowly with the believers, Mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproachers of such as find fault. That is the Grace of Allah which He will bestow on whom He (Allah) pleases. And Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things.

�Qur'an, [Qur'an 5:54]

Hope this helps. Here is the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy)

mohater

11-04-2007, 04:19 AM

Ok look:

We've said more than once this thread is about Islam, not Muslims. I'll answer your questions, but keep this in mind for future posts

I think this is both true and not true. I agree those countries are the only ones to legally require people to wear the hijab. But in the Cano state of Nigeria, for example, all Muslim students of age are required to wear the hijab. Link (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9946878)
So here we have an example of government enforced wearing of the hijab. Is this correct or incorrect from an Islamic perspective?

Can you name a place in Africa that contains internal strife and does NOT have any group forcing down it's policies onto everyone? There are areas where recently converted Christians do this, and there are areas where the tribal religions are doing this.

Under the Islamic empire (Ottoman), groups were typically accountable under their own laws as long as those laws were recognized at a macro level (i.e. Christians could drink and own alcohol, Jews were allow to maintain their own family courts, etc.) It's the modern idea of the nation state where everyone must conform to one universal set of laws where there are no exceptions to that created these problems (small exceptions like the Jewish family court in NYC, but the State court still trumps them when they want to).

Also the Palestinian Christians are afraid to go out without a hijab on. link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395473254&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter):

In other words, my reading of this is that even Palestinian Christians feel compelled to wear the hijab How much more so the Palestinian Muslims? Since Hamas was put in power, women are afraid to wear short sleeve blouses or go out without the hijab. This is Islam in politics enforcing Islamic dress codes.

Again, another unique situation. Israel has a massive intelligence budget, which a decent chunk of it comprises spying and information gathering. How do you think they can carry out these extra-judicial assassinations as people are walking in the public, sometimes within minutes of their emergence? They have a lot of spies. Here, people are afraid to be targeted as spies by Hamas, and wish to reduce their visibility in public.

Look at the complete opposite - like Tunisia where women are banned from covering due to the secular/Christian influence from Europe. The same took place in Turkey, where Islam was totally banned from all aspects of daily life (not so much a problem today).

How can you argue that people in these countries are doing whatever they personally feel they should to honor God? So, my question is: is the political enforcement of the Islamic rules encouraged/irrelevant/discouraged by Islam?

I would say that it was the people who convinced their states and the feds to write up these laws, because we're in a democracy and that's how stuff usually works.

Again - I don't know how dress code applies to non-Muslims under a Muslim state. I personally have not studied or learned this. This issue was created by the concept of the nation state, and as such, people are trying to apply it as it is applied in the West.

mammothwoolly

11-04-2007, 03:28 PM

Ok look:

We've said more than once this thread is about Islam, not Muslims. I'll answer your questions, but keep this in mind for future postsI thought asking about an Islamic perspective to Muslim-y activities was allowed. Sorry.

Can you name a place in Africa that contains internal strife and does NOT have any group forcing down it's policies onto everyone? There are areas where recently converted Christians do this, and there are areas where the tribal religions are doing this.
I was simply asking about an Islamic perspective on their actions. You do not have to condone or attack your brothers. I just want to know what Islam has to say.
Under the Islamic empire (Ottoman), groups were typically accountable under their own laws as long as those laws were recognized at a macro level (i.e. Christians could drink and own alcohol, Jews were allow to maintain their own family courts, etc.) It's the modern idea of the nation state where everyone must conform to one universal set of laws where there are no exceptions to that created these problems (small exceptions like the Jewish family court in NYC, but the State court still trumps them when they want to).
Ah, so Islam has nothing to say or do with this, beyond providing a context for power hungry people, because the Koran was not written with the modern nation-state system in mind.. OK.

Again, another unique situation. Israel has a massive intelligence budget, which a decent chunk of it comprises spying and information gathering. How do you think they can carry out these extra-judicial assassinations as people are walking in the public, sometimes within minutes of their emergence? They have a lot of spies. Here, people are afraid to be targeted as spies by Hamas, and wish to reduce their visibility in public.
So, again nothing to do with Islam; Islam is neutral on this topic. Make JEws wear a headskarf, don't make them do so, it's all the day to Islam. Yes?
Look at the complete opposite - like Tunisia where women are banned from covering due to the secular/Christian influence from Europe. The same took place in Turkey, where Islam was totally banned from all aspects of daily life (not so much a problem today).
Tunisian women are hot when young; not when old. How sad. But I digress.
Again - I don't know how dress code applies to non-Muslims under a Muslim state. I personally have not studied or learned this. This issue was created by the concept of the nation state, and as such, people are trying to apply it as it is applied in the West.
Okie dokie, my impression is that Islam has nothing to do with Muslim governmental practices in nations, even those governed by so called Sharia law. That seems weird to me. I mean, my understanding was that Islam taught how to function in all avenues of life, work, home, politics, religion, etc, and therefore Sharia law was necessary for true observance of the Islamic faith. Again, it must be my background and biases. Thanks for all of the info, although I must say I'm still a bit confused.

mohater

11-05-2007, 09:35 AM

This is really getting out of hand mammoth.

I was not condoning or advocating what my "brothers", I was spelling out what reality is for the two places you mentioned. As mentioned by many others the Quran has a verse

PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in God hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. God is Hearer, Knower.

The women in the West Bank were not being forced to wear the scarf, they were doing so on their own free will. They didn't have to, but felt safer to do so. Under the Ottoman empire, the Jews were not forced to cover, nor were the men forced to adopt the Arab style of clothing.

Saying Tunisian women are hot really adds value to your response [/sarcasm]. More so in the context of what I was replying to (where did the age reference come from?). It's a counter example to your statements of what an Islam dominated country does.

Islam has EVERYTHING to do with governmental practices. I said I DO NOT KNOW the extensiveness of what rules apply at the macro level for non-Muslims in a Muslim run area. I said the reason it's a large problem today is that the idea of a nation state = 1 law to rule everyone, regardless of what they do/believe. Europe pushed this down the throats of the colonies they ruled, and this is the result. You're question is about how the laws apply to non-Muslims, and I do not know how dress code applies (read: THEY EXIST, I just don't know them).

mammothwoolly

11-05-2007, 01:01 PM

This is really getting out of hand mammoth.OK, I'll stop.

Saying Tunisian women are hot really adds value to your response [/sarcasm]. More so in the context of what I was replying to (where did the age reference come from?). It's a counter example to your statements of what an Islam dominated country does.I said I was disgressing. I once knew this really hot Tunisian chick. Then I met her mom. That's all that this comment was in regards to.

Islam has EVERYTHING to do with governmental practices. I said I DO NOT KNOW the extensiveness of what rules apply at the macro level for non-Muslims in a Muslim run area. I said the reason it's a large problem today is that the idea of a nation state = 1 law to rule everyone, regardless of what they do/believe. Europe pushed this down the throats of the colonies they ruled, and this is the result. You're question is about how the laws apply to non-Muslims, and I do not know how dress code applies (read: THEY EXIST, I just don't know them).

OK. Thank you for your help.

sultan

11-07-2007, 11:34 AM

:blush: I am still wading my way through the posts reading all of the info (very informative, and very interesting, thanks so much for sharing).

Sorry if these are repeats, but these are the questions I have been sincerely wondering about for awhile ...

1) Do Muslims intermarry with non-Muslims? If it is prohibited, why, and what would happen if it is a rule and someone broke it? Would the spouse of another faith be accepted by the rest of the family/Muslim community? ( I don't mean that to sound disrespectful ... I just know that in my brother's religion for example, the both the bride and groom would be kicked out of their christian church until the other converted and both repented -- just curious if this is a common practice in other religions)

2) Regarding conversion -- do Muslims who grew up in your faith treat/view converts from Judaism or Christianity with less regard than "real" Muslims?

3) I heard a Christian preacher say that the goal of Islam is to convert and control the world -- which seemed a little extreme to me. Was that a fair summary that he gave?

4) Regarding "paying interest" -- is it really against the religion of Islam to have a credit card, take out a loan for college, or a mortgage? I saw a commercial recently claiming they have a "loophole" allowing Muslims to get a mortgage without paying interest -- are the loopholes hypocritical since people are in essense paying interest, though it is given another name? What if you gave something else prohibited (if it really is prohibited) a different name, would that be seen as acceptible too?

Anyway, back to reading :) I am really enjoying this thread :)

Let me answer these questions from the Islamic Sharia perspective.

1. Muslim men are generally forbidden to marry non-Muslims. The exception is that they are allowed to marry women who are Ahlal-Qitab, or people of the book. These are Christians and Jews. The exception carries the requirement of their chastity. The concept stems from maintaining strict monotheism. Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslims. Reasoning can vary depending on how you look at it, but generally speaking, a few reasons are that the child will bear the faith of the father, the women who is a more accepting/accomodating gender may not be able to pursue her own faith, etc, etc.

2. Born Muslims view converts with extremely high regard, especially since the knowledge of the converts is far greater. Converts (or reverts as some like to say) study the religion and follow the path of their own violation. Hence they're usually regarded highly.

3. Islam like all major religions is a proselytizing religion. Muslims believe the message is true, and hence would like to spread out the truth to everyone.

4. Islam does not view cash as an asset. Islam does not teach about the time value of money. Islam completely forbids riba, or interest. Some Muslims like to argue between interest and usury but by and large, both are declared forbidden by majority of scholars. Islamic finance is an immensely broad topic. The loophole you speak of is touted by some uneducated Muslims. True in many countries, the form is invalid, however, in the States and other countries, educated Muslims have devised methodology to give out "mortgage" under strict Islamic guidelines. The validity or invalidity does not come from the end result, that is, it is a mortgage in other words, but rather, how the money in the form of monthly payments is computed and how it is used throughout the stream. Credit cards are not forbidden, but paying interest on it is.

Hope the above helps.

Jhaan

11-24-2007, 02:42 PM

mohater

11-24-2007, 05:29 PM

Can someone explain the link (if any) between Jesus and the Twelfth Imam? I'd heard the the Quran teaches that it's Jesus who will return in the End Times. However, I've also heard that Ahmadinejad has been praying for the return of the Twelfth Imam. Who is this 12th Imam? Is that only a Shiite interpretation?

Thanks.

The concept of the 12 Imams among Shiites is the decedents of the Prophet Mohammed's nephew (PBUH) Ali (RA), as he was married to his daughter - the males who have direct lineage to the Prophet (PBUH). This is (for the most part) is only contained with the Shiite belief as the beginning of the catalyst for the end of time. These Shiites have a specific time line for the end of time - an order of operation and this is among the first ones.

No link in the way you have your question worded. A Connection exists in that with Shiites they are both aspects to mark the end of time, but different parts.

Halfspin

11-25-2007, 11:51 AM

.... This is (for the most part) is only contained with the Shiite belief as the beginning of the catalyst for the end of time. These Shiites have a specific time line for the end of time - an order of operation and this is among the first ones.

No link in the way you have your question worded. A Connection exists in that with Shiites they are both aspects to mark the end of time, but different parts.

A link on the specific timeline and perhaps how that affects current political thought in Iran would be very interesting. If you have time, definitely post!

---Halfspin

Jhaan

11-25-2007, 03:30 PM

A link on the specific timeline and perhaps how that affects current political thought in Iran would be very interesting. If you have time, definitely post!

---Halfspin

:iagree:

mohater

11-26-2007, 05:19 AM

Just like with Christianity - there are known signs of the end of time, but the order is not completely clear (with the exception of the last signs like slaying of the Anti-Christ, etc.).

Some Shiites are of the opinion that the return of the 12th Imam is one of the early signs, and thus anyone of opinion would like to accelerate it's occurrence (much like Evangelicals would like to believe today's Israel is one and the same as the Israel known in the prophecies).

Some Evangelicals don't care about right or wrong when it comes to Israel, and some Shiites are the same when it comes to the 12th Imam.

If I find more info on this I will update the post.

mammothwoolly

11-26-2007, 08:14 AM

Halfspin

11-26-2007, 08:04 PM

Actually, while most evangelicals I know think that this Israel is the same Israel, I don't think many are looking forward to the end times. It's good for them, I suppose, but what of the people who will suffer through those times?

Most evangelicals would readily admit that they don't if the prophecies relate to Israel in its current form. Israel in its current form could be related to end time prophecies, but it is missing several key elements. Even if it had those elements the prophecies could very well relate to an Israel yet in the future. Israel has been /has not been/ has been has not been /.... a state many times.

mammothwoolly

11-26-2007, 10:15 PM

It seems like you're talking about the intellectual elites of evangelicalism. I'm talking about joe sixpack evangelical. Asked if we should support Israel, he'll most likely spout on about how Israel is the blessed country of God, and being on their side guarantees God's blessing.

:rolleyes:

Or sumpin.

ImaginaryFriend

11-27-2007, 12:21 PM

A link on the specific timeline and perhaps how that affects current political thought in Iran would be very interesting. If you have time, definitely post!

---Halfspin
Imams (http://slickdeals.net/?sduid=212506&t=119846&u2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imamah_%28Shi%27a_twelver_doctrine%29)

gibbersome

07-07-2008, 02:04 AM

What are the origins of the Koran?

mohater

07-07-2008, 06:08 AM

What are the origins of the Koran?

That's a pretty vague question. I'll post the high bullet points and then you can be more specific.

Like the Torah or the Bible, the Quran is believed to be divinely inspired through a human messenger from God.

The Quran was transcribed shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) since some of the people who had it memorized were dying in battle. There was a very strict science used to ensure people's recollections were not marred by anything or anyoen was simply trying to get their own words in.

gibbersome

07-07-2008, 06:46 AM

That's a pretty vague question. I'll post the high bullet points and then you can be more specific.

Like the Torah or the Bible, the Quran is believed to be divinely inspired through a human messenger from God.

The Quran was transcribed shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) since some of the people who had it memorized were dying in battle. There was a very strict science used to ensure people's recollections were not marred by anything or anyoen was simply trying to get their own words in.

Hehe, I was referring to the second one.

Who transcribed the Koran and when? Was there more than one version of it in existence at any time? If the original writings have been retained over the last ~1400 years or so, how well is the modern scholar's understanding of it? Is the Koran chronologically arranged?

Most importantly, can we subject the Koran to analysis by the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism? Why or why not?

mohater

07-07-2008, 07:15 AM

Hehe, I was referring to the second one.

Who transcribed the Koran and when? Was there more than one version of it in existence at any time? If the original writings have been retained over the last ~1400 years or so, how well is the modern scholar's understanding of it? Is the Koran chronologically arranged?

Most importantly, can we subject the Koran to analysis by the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism? Why or why not?

The leader of the Muslim Empire (Abu Bakr) after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) led the goal to formalize and transcribe. The third leader (Uthman) formalized the printing and republication to send around based on the original copy from Abu Bakr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr#The_Qur.27an_.E2.80.94_preservation

The only contention about the Quran was the order of the chapters. There was a consensus by the scholars at the time as to what would constitute the Quran (Chapters and Verses), and there were no other "versions" with that respect. It is not chronologically arranged, and there has only been one version. Modern scholars depend on teachings from previous scholars to figure things out. We're in this "pop" culture age where anyone can pick up anything and become a self proclaimed expert. This is dangerous in any field.

Certain minorities at different times have promoted their "perfected" version of the Quran, and at times were adopted and held on to by that or another minority.

I personally have a problem with aspects of the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism. Two main reasons:

English and Latin are not the native language of the Bible
Things we apply to in a worldly sense (i.e. creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the age of the universe, etc.) are very modern definitions in Christianity, and they were implemented to be a direct counter to the entirety of Evolution.

We have people using variables with different definitions and arguing, thinking they are on the same page.

Aspects of the critiques or criticism can be used, but again, you should have a basis in a topic if you are going to ask pin pointed questions.

talgot

07-07-2008, 07:19 AM

Things we apply to in a worldly sense (i.e. creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the age of the universe, etc.) are very modern definitions in Christianity, and they were implemented to be a direct counter to the entirety of Evolution.

If I understand you correctly you are wrong. Creationism is nothing new and surely wasn't created as a counter to evolution. It was around way before evolution.

bonkman

07-07-2008, 01:04 PM

If I understand you correctly you are wrong. Creationism is nothing new and surely wasn't created as a counter to evolution. It was around way before evolution.
:iagree:

Evolution was the counter to the idea of creationism, not the other way around.

mohater

07-07-2008, 01:10 PM

mammothwoolly

07-07-2008, 01:16 PM

I personally have a problem with aspects of the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism. Two main reasons:

English and Latin are not the native language of the Bible
Things we apply to in a worldly sense (i.e. creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the age of the universe, etc.) are very modern definitions in Christianity, and they were implemented to be a direct counter to the entirety of Evolution.

Point 1: Biblical criticism is a technical term for the analysis of biblical texts in their original language, to determine what was original, and what was added later. If people did biblical criticism in latin only, then that'd be terrible indeed. And yeah, English is useless for that. Using the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic original languages, advised by the translations, is appropriate.

Point 2: :confused: I don't understand your point. Christians before Darwin didn't think that the world was created in 6 days?

gibbersome

07-07-2008, 01:17 PM

Thanks mohater for the information. One more question, were there surahs that were left out of the Koran? And if so, why?

bonkman

07-07-2008, 01:20 PM

You guys are reading my post incorrectly (taking a part of it as is w/o the rest). I was only referring to modern definitions adopted by Christianity (age of the universe, time to create the heavens and the Earth). These things were created to combat the entirety of Evolution (even though aspects of evolution are in opposition to creationism).

They took the definitions at face value, when some Christian scholars say that the six days were in reference to time with respect to God (much longer than a human day), this same goes for the age of the universe concept (years being much longer than a human year).
I don't get what you're trying to say here, mo. Can you reiterate in a different way? It sounds like you're saying that Christians pre-Darwin didn't really believe in biblical creation and only once an alternative was presented did some fundamentalist Christians insist upon Genesis. The idea that 6 days != 6 days predated Darwin as well. (IIRC, there are many ancient Torah scholars who've discussed this, and I'm sure Christian scholars have as well.)

mohater

07-07-2008, 01:31 PM

Point 1: Biblical criticism is a technical term for the analysis of biblical texts in their original language, to determine what was original, and what was added later. If people did biblical criticism in latin only, then that'd be terrible indeed. And yeah, English is useless for that. Using the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic original languages, advised by the translations, is appropriate.

Point 2: :confused: I don't understand your point. Christians before Darwin didn't think that the world was created in 6 days?

You guys are really getting stuck on this minute point.

It's not that they didn't believe in the six day thing, it's that they had no reason to question was it six human days, how old is the universe, etc. These things didn't matter.

Now that science is trying to make definite measurements to apply to the world and prove religion is "wrong", some religious people feel they need to create concrete definitions from religious aspect, where these things were not so clearly defined before.

It has nothing to do with religion preceding Darwin.

As for Biblical criticism, that's a whole different topic.

Thanks mohater for the information. One more question, were there surahs that were left out of the Koran? And if so, why?

No surahs were left out. As mentioned, the main concern after the compilation as the order of the surahs (chapters)

bonkman

07-07-2008, 01:33 PM

You guys are really getting stuck on this minute point.

It's not that they didn't believe in the six day thing, it's that they had no reason to question was it six human days, how old is the universe, etc. These things didn't matter.

Now that science is trying to make definite measurements to apply to the world and prove religion is "wrong", some religious people feel they need to create concrete definitions from religious aspect, where these things were not so clearly defined before.

It has nothing to do with religion preceding Darwin.

People questioned the wording from day one. This is OT we're talking about here. Go to a Jewish bookstore and look at all the books of the sages talking about interpretation of the Torah -- Talmud, Mishnah, commentaries, etc

mohater

07-07-2008, 01:40 PM

People questioned the wording from day one. This is OT we're talking about here. Go to a Jewish bookstore and look at all the books of the sages talking about interpretation of the Torah -- Talmud, Mishnah, commentaries, etc

It's not about questioning, it's about applying a strict definition, something concrete. There was no need to have a strict definition and promote it as unquestionable due to a counter arguement attacking these ideas (claiming they are at the foundation of the faith).

Jhaan

07-07-2008, 01:41 PM

People questioned the wording from day one. This is OT we're talking about here. Go to a Jewish bookstore and look at all the books of the sages talking about interpretation of the Torah -- Talmud, Mishnah, commentaries, etc

:iagree:

With both Testaments, I'd wager every single word has been analyzed hundreds, maybe thousands of times to get an exact meaning. It's one the main reasons there are so many different translations of the Bible.

The online Blue Letter Bible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=1&version=KJV#1) is awesome for word analysis.

zor

07-07-2008, 07:09 PM

How many wives is a Muslim allowed to have?
How many wives did the founder of Islam have?
If the numbers are not the same, then please explain.

Syncretist

07-07-2008, 10:52 PM

How many wives is a Muslim allowed to have?
How many wives did the founder of Islam have?
If the numbers are not the same, then please explain.

What relevance does this have to any discussion on Islam? Please explain.

zor

07-07-2008, 11:02 PM

What relevance does this have to any discussion on Islam? Please explain.

Monogamy is a Christian doctrine. Polygamy is an Islamic doctrine. (I believe polygamy should be legal btw and have stated so in another thread here and I don't believe in monogamy myself and have also stated so in another thread). I just want my questions about Islam answered. If you don't know the answers, I'll just wait for an expert or adherent to respond. Thank you.

Maybe you didn't get what I meant by "allowed to have" -- I meant allowed to have under their religion, not under the laws of a Western nation, but under their own religious doctrine.

BayArea

07-07-2008, 11:05 PM

What relevance does this have to any discussion on Islam? Please explain.

It has a big relevance. A religion giving you the right as a man to have more than one wife is a big deal. He has every right to ask a question like that.

Syncretist

07-07-2008, 11:11 PM

It has a big relevance. A religion giving you the right as a man to have more than one wife is a big deal. He has every right to ask a question like that.

Never said he didnt have the right to ask. I wanted to understand the rationale behind the question so that I could answer it adequately. We are all friends here nobody is telling anybody else what they can or cannot do :)

Syncretist

07-07-2008, 11:13 PM

zor

07-07-2008, 11:19 PM

It has a big relevance. A religion giving you the right as a man to have more than one wife is a big deal. He has every right to ask a question like that.

Yes, I'm not bothered by that at all btw (in fact I see that as a good point of Islam -- though I think it should work both ways) I was more interested in whether the numbers allowed and what Mohammed had were different. I'm just going to google it since I am impatient :)

OK, I found out that Muslims are allowed to have up to 4 wives.

Now let's see how many Mohammed had...

According to wikipedia, he had 11 or 13 wives. I assume the limit on 4 is 4 at one time but apparently he did have more than 4 at one time ... and googling found me this answer:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_Muhammad_allowed_to_have_more_than_4_wives_when_the_Quran_says_you_can_not_have_more_than_4_wives

Now to the original question: In Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammad(sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam), it was the custom to keep as many wives one desires without any limits. But This verse capped the max limitation to 4. Now when this verse was revealed, prophet already had more that 4 wives(though he had more marriages for the sole purpose of spreading Islaam and only after the death of his beloved first wife, Hazrat Kadija). As prophet could not unjustly divorce any of his existing wives hence after this verse was revealed prophet did'nt marry further but kept his existing wives.

OK, that's very reasonable sounding to me (I'm not saying Islam is reasonable sounding -- just that this part seems quite reasonable and logically consistent)

So I guess I answered my own question unless a Muslim or other expert wants to correct what the link stated.

mammothwoolly

07-08-2008, 12:00 AM

As for Biblical criticism, that's a whole different topic.

:sleepy: You're the one who brought it up....

gibbersome

07-08-2008, 03:01 AM

One more important thing to consider is that 4 wives was a limit imposed by Islam, not an allowance.

mohater

07-08-2008, 03:30 AM

:sleepy: You're the one who brought it up....

I didn't bring it up - I mentioned my main contention with it based on someone's question.

It has it's uses, but is greatly misused today.

mohater

07-08-2008, 03:33 AM

Monogamy is a Christian doctrine. Polygamy is an Islamic doctrine. (I believe polygamy should be legal btw and have stated so in another thread here and I don't believe in monogamy myself and have also stated so in another thread). I just want my questions about Islam answered. If you don't know the answers, I'll just wait for an expert or adherent to respond. Thank you.

Maybe you didn't get what I meant by "allowed to have" -- I meant allowed to have under their religion, not under the laws of a Western nation, but under their own religious doctrine.

It has a big relevance. A religion giving you the right as a man to have more than one wife is a big deal. He has every right to ask a question like that.

This is not a debate thread, it's a Q&A thread. The normal podium rules are not applied the same way because of this. You don't have "rights" - you are afforded the license to post in here. Big difference.

That, and polygamy in Christianity (according to Wiki at least) is not such a cut and dry topic as you make it out to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Christianity

FYI: There are few to no "experts on SD on any given subject.

There's more to answer your question here:

http://ilalliqa.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/why-did-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-marry-many-wives/

bonkman

07-08-2008, 07:41 AM

It's not about questioning, it's about applying a strict definition, something concrete. There was no need to have a strict definition and promote it as unquestionable due to a counter arguement attacking these ideas (claiming they are at the foundation of the faith).
no it's not. The questioning is what LEADS to the "strict definition." Biblical language is quite ambiguous at times, hence the works of the Sages in order to tie it together to make sense.

The need to have strict definitions was to follow the religion and wind up on G-d's good side (according to the religion). Not to compete with Darwin. :shake:

mohater

07-08-2008, 07:48 AM

no it's not. The questioning is what LEADS to the "strict definition." Biblical language is quite ambiguous at times, hence the works of the Sages in order to tie it together to make sense.

The need to have strict definitions was to follow the religion and wind up on G-d's good side (according to the religion). Not to compete with Darwin. :shake:

We're really splitting hairs on this. The point is that religion is quite ambiguous (and some people say it is on this point). Some people have adopted the need for strict definitions to counter the claims of science, where there is no real concrete disagreement.

Please leave this point here. This thread had maintained it's "cleanliness" and I'd like it to stay this way. I'm sure there's an older thread that covers this topic.

Grinner

07-08-2008, 09:38 PM

If gambling isn't permitted, is speculating on stock markets allowed?

How does Islam view corporations and the quest for profit that we see in the USA?

mohater

07-09-2008, 04:06 AM

If gambling isn't permitted, is speculating on stock markets allowed?

There are a handful of opinions on speculating, some argue if you are an expert in a field (say livestock, precious metals, etc.), speculating is ok since some futures investments give you the rights to a product.

"Investing" (or speculating) has been around for a long time. People didn't have stock tickers and monitors, but people still invested in things they felt would appreciate (livestock, metals, antiques, etc..). "Speculating" is pretty broad, which can include your long term invested 401k, or day trading, and you will find different opinions on the different aspects investing in the market.

Please specify if the above did not suffice.

How does Islam view corporations and the quest for profit that we see in the USA?

Corp profit = commerce, which is not a problem. You gotta have industry to survive.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html
002.275
YUSUFALI: Those who devour usury will not stand except as stand one whom the Evil one by his touch Hath driven to madness. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury," but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); but those who repeat (The offence) are companions of the Fire: They will abide therein (for ever).

What do you mean when you "in the USA"?

gibbersome

07-09-2008, 05:22 AM

What about using interest as a way to protect against inflation?

Grinner

07-09-2008, 06:33 AM

There are a handful of opinions on speculating, some argue if you are an expert in a field (say livestock, precious metals, etc.), speculating is ok since some futures investments give you the rights to a product.

"Investing" (or speculating) has been around for a long time. People didn't have stock tickers and monitors, but people still invested in things they felt would appreciate (livestock, metals, antiques, etc..). "Speculating" is pretty broad, which can include your long term invested 401k, or day trading, and you will find different opinions on the different aspects investing in the market.

Please specify if the above did not suffice.

Corp profit = commerce, which is not a problem. You gotta have industry to survive.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

What do you mean when you "in the USA"?

"In the USA" refers to the general feeling that many US corporations act in an immoral manner in the quest for profits. Chevron circumventing environmental laws, Kaiser illegally dropping folks health coverage, big tobacco knowingly concealing health studies on smoking dangers etc. etc. as examples. Are corporations in Islamic nations equally bad? Do they fear religious judgment of their activities? Are the directors and officers more answerable to Islam or to shareholders?

As for speculating, it's an interesting question as to whether it's gambling or not. You say an expert can freely speculate on stocks. Well, an expert poker player probably gets a similar return on their money as a skilled stock market trader - what's the difference? Both are risking their money on the chance of a good return based on their skill, knowledge, experience and a little luck. This may be out of your area, but is an interesting question that perhaps only a scholar can address.

Thanks for an informative thread.

mohater

07-09-2008, 06:55 AM

What about using interest as a way to protect against inflation?

You're confusing topics. If you have a system that uses interest, you have to arbitrarily adjust interest rates to compensate for inflation, currency, etc. If you remove interest, you no longer need to that compensating force, as the markets will dictate things.

Interests attempts to set a base line for growth (or the factor that attempts to control inflation). If you remove interest, you rely on the market.

"In the USA" refers to the general feeling that many US corporations act in an immoral manner in the quest for profits. Chevron circumventing environmental laws, Kaiser illegally dropping folks health coverage, big tobacco knowingly concealing health studies on smoking dangers etc. etc. as examples. Are corporations in Islamic nations equally bad? Do they fear religious judgment of their activities? Are the directors and officers more answerable to Islam or to shareholders?

You're stating that companies broke the law. The law is the law.

I don't know how bad corporations are in Islamic countries. People, regardless of religion, are opportunistic and the lines people cross will always vary.

Islam, like any other Abrahamic religion, holds justice will be served to people in the afterlife, regardless of if justice was sought in this life.

As for speculating, it's an interesting question as to whether it's gambling or not. You say an expert can freely speculate on stocks. Well, an expert poker player probably gets a similar return on their money as a skilled stock market trader - what's the difference? Both are risking their money on the chance of a good return based on their skill, knowledge, experience and a little luck. This may be out of your area, but is an interesting question that perhaps only a scholar can address.

Thanks for an informative thread.

As I said, it's a mixed bag. Gambling is a firm nay-no, while aspects of investing in the market have their history and are acceptable, and other aspects are not. Investing in a commodity or a company is nothing new. That being said, there is a clear difference in gambling and investing, understanding the statistics and reading about them will easily show that.

I can't answer the specifics on the mixed bag, I can just say it is a mixed bag.

Grinner

07-09-2008, 10:55 AM

mohater

07-09-2008, 11:19 AM

FYI:

On December 2007, the Tokyo Stock Exchange launched a new sharia index that includes shares of companies that comply with the Islamic law. The index of 79 stocks traded in Japan includes companies that are screened on a daily basis to ensure that they maintain strict Sharia compliance. The index excludes businesses that offer products and services considered unacceptable under Islamic law including alcohol, financial services, gambling, pork, pornography and tobacco.

I'm curious how certain companies operate in countires where Shariah law is supreme.

This is getting off track from the purpose of this thread. You're asking very complex issues where things are not so cut and dry. There is an index fund in the USA that attempts the same thing.

Do you have any other questions? I think we have exhausted the answers on this topic.

zor

07-09-2008, 11:54 AM

OK I have questions:

Is Sharia lending zero interest lending or is it tied to inflation?

Can non-Muslims make use of Sharia lending?

Is Mohammed considered sinless his whole life or only after he became a prophet or not sinless at all?

mohater

07-09-2008, 02:26 PM

OK I have questions:
Is Sharia lending zero interest lending or is it tied to inflation?

Zero interest, but it's not that simple. More often than not, people take on debt to invest in something (a home, biz, etc.). Historically, you would often invest rather than loan. In the investment with someone in a home, you split the appreciation (or depreciation) when you eventually buy out the investor's share.

Can non-Muslims make use of Sharia lending?
I have no idea, this seems to be more of an question for institutions rather than a question on the faith.

Is Mohammed considered sinless his whole life or only after he became a prophet or not sinless at all?

Muslims consider all prophet to be w/o "sin". The prophets who made "mistakes" that are mentioned scripture (i.e. Noah praying for his son after his death, Jonnah abandoning his people, Mohammed not giving due time to a blind man who came to him, etc.), these were reveled with divine inspiration as a lesson to man kind.

zor

07-09-2008, 02:29 PM

Zero interest, but it's not that simple. More often than not, people take on debt to invest in something (a home, biz, etc.). Historically, you would often invest rather than loan. In the investment with someone in a home, you split the appreciation (or depreciation) when you eventually buy out the investor's share.

When did this kind of thing start? Is it a modern innovation? Are some Muslims still opposed to it?

Muslims consider all prophet to be w/o "sin". The prophets who made "mistakes" that are mentioned scripture (i.e. Noah praying for his son after his death, Jonnah abandoning his people, Mohammed not giving due time to a blind man who came to him, etc.) these were reveled with divine inspiration as a lesson to man kind.

So is "mistake" just something that's a little bit wrong and "sin" something that's seriously wrong? Please explain.

Thank you.

mohater

07-09-2008, 02:51 PM

When did this kind of thing start? Is it a modern innovation? Are some Muslims still opposed to it?

The concept of investing in an idea is as old as dirt. I don't know when it started, and this really isn't a religious question.

So is "mistake" just something that's a little bit wrong and "sin" something that's seriously wrong? Please explain.

Thank you.

I don't have a quantifier for mistakes (I don't think anyone does for that matter). You can classify what happened with the prophets as lessons to man kind, because that's how scripture explains it to us. Those sent by God to guide us, at times, had verses reveled to show how they erred. Is that a "sin" the way it's described in scripture? I can't say for certain.

zor

07-09-2008, 02:57 PM

I don't have a quantifier for mistakes (I don't think anyone does for that matter). You can classify what happened with the prophets as lessons to man kind, because that's how scripture explains it to us. Those sent by God to guide us, at times, had verses reveled to show how they erred. Is that a "sin" the way it's described in scripture? I can't say for certain.

Do some Muslims not call Allah "God"?

Also, why must your daily prayers be ideally said in Arabic? Why can't you just continue to say them in your own language (if you are a convert from a different race)?

Are you 100% certain Islam is true and to be Muslim do you have to be 100% certain Islam is true or is it good enough to be 99% certain for example?

mohater

07-10-2008, 06:44 AM

Do some Muslims not call Allah "God"?

I'm not sure I understand you.

If you assume God as the unique singular entity, then Allah = God.

Allah is in Arabic, God is in English.

Also, why must your daily prayers be ideally said in Arabic? Why can't you just continue to say them in your own language (if you are a convert from a different race)?

The same question could be posed to a Jewish person.

You should pray in the language of the revelation, otherwise you lose out on aspects of the meaning. Full meanings are only inherent in the native language, this is known and why prayers are offered in the native language.

Are you 100% certain Islam is true and to be Muslim do you have to be 100% certain Islam is true or is it good enough to be 99% certain for example?

Is anything 100% certain in life (or death for that matter)?

FYI: That's not a religious question. Please keep on point in this thread if you have further questions.

redmaxx

07-10-2008, 04:25 PM

Full meanings are only inherent in the native language, this is known and why prayers are offered in the native language.

:huh: You mean their god doesn't understand other languages?

Jhaan

07-10-2008, 04:29 PM

:huh: You mean their god doesn't understand other languages?

Well, I have met people who believe God only inspired King James. I think it's all a little silly.

zor

07-10-2008, 11:00 PM

:huh: You mean their god doesn't understand other languages?

Yeah doesn't make sense to me either but since he doesn't like a lot of my questions I won't ask anymore. Most Muslims I've met are happy to answer questions though.

Neo Tocqueville

07-11-2008, 03:25 AM

Also, why must your daily prayers be ideally said in Arabic? Why can't you just continue to say them in your own language (if you are a convert from a different race)?

:huh: You mean their god doesn't understand other languages?

Yeah doesn't make sense to me either ...

I thought mohater's reply was short but to-the-point but I can understand why there's a confusion, so I'll chime in (this would be an exception though).

First, there is a difference between "prayer" in the sense of supplication (called Dua'a in Arabic) and prayer we are talking about, i.e., the five daily prayers (called Salaah in Arabic). A supplication can be made in any language, anywhere, anytime. Salaah is a, to borrow from common terminology, a religious service. It includes recitation from the Quran (which is in Arabic) and it is a public affair (as it is preferred that Salaah be offered in congregation).

From a practical standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense to have a "standardized" prayer in a common language. For example, at the mosque closest to me, on average even a small congregation (10 to 12 people) during the five daily prayers has 4 or 5 different nationalities represented (Indonesian, Chinese, Indian, Arab, African American, etc.). Because of the "standardization", who leads the Salaah is never an issue (when the regular imaam is not available). The Friday sermons are usually in the local language (almost every mosque in the US that I've been to, the Friday sermon is in English). As you might have noticed, this might be one reason why, unlike Korean and Vietnamese churches, you won't see any "Korean mosques", or "Persian mosques" etc. (of course, there might be some isolated case).

Finally, I've heard people say that it requires learning no more than 100 words of Arabic to pray the basic salaah. I haven't actually done the counting myself so I'm not sure but, of course, non-Arab Muslims all over the world pray in Arabic so it isn't too hard. I've seen new Muslims (non-Arabic speaking) pick up the salaah in a month or so usually.

Hope this answers the question.

mohater

07-11-2008, 04:11 AM

Yeah doesn't make sense to me either but since he doesn't like a lot of my questions I won't ask anymore. Most Muslims I've met are happy to answer questions though.

It's not about whether or not I like your questions. This thread has a standard set of rules (go read the first page). Many posts have been deleted because the rules were not followed (it keeps the usual garbage out of this thread).

If you have other questions, feel free to ask, but be mindful of the intention of this thread.

....

Thanks for chiming in.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 07:08 AM

I have heard and argued that women in Islamic ruled countries are possessions and not sentient beings.

Since I am lacking in any first hand knowledge, I would like to ask some of the Muslims here explain to me the role of a woman in Islam.
Specifically strict Islamic ruled countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran and so forth, if I misrepresented a country as strict as apposed to moderate or free then please correct me.

Is there a difference with regard to moderate ruled countries like Turkey?

Here are a few questions.

Are women required to wear a burkha?
Are women required to walk behind a man?
Are women required to be in public with a male relative?
Are women allowed to choose their husband and if so, are there any courtship rituals?
Are women allowed to have more than one husband?
Are women allowed possessions?
Are women allowed to keep their earned income?

Are there specific rules in the religious text defining the role of women? If so, what are they?

mohater

05-01-2009, 07:12 AM

Is there a difference with regard to moderate ruled countries like Turkey? Turkey is unique, like Tunisia. They have forced secularization which created its own strife for some time. Turkey is moderate in some regards, but extreme in others

Here are a few questions.

Are women required to wear a burkha? No
Are women required to walk behind a man? No
Are women required to be in public with a male relative? No
Are women allowed to choose their husband and if so, are there any courtship rituals? Yes and Yes
Are women allowed to have more than one husband? No
Are women allowed possessions? Yes
Are women allowed to keep their earned income? Yes

Are there specific rules in the religious text defining the role of women? If so, what are they? It is a mix between Quran, hadith and scholarly text.

I know you have follow ups, so I'll let you ask them one by one.

Honestly, this should be in the Islam Q&A thread.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 07:32 AM

I know you have follow ups, so I'll let you ask them one by one.

Honestly, this should be in the Islam Q&A thread.
Are women required to wear a burkha? No
Is it a choice then? What does it represent?

Are women required to walk behind a man? No - Thanks

Are women required to be in public with a male relative? No
Why are some women persecuted by the religious police for this?

Are women allowed to choose their husband and if so, are there any courtship rituals? Yes and Yes
Would they be allowed to divorce their husband from an arranged marriage?

Are women allowed to have more than one husband? No- Thanks
Are women allowed possessions? Yes- Thanks
Are women allowed to keep their earned income? Yes- Thanks

Is the word of a woman given equal weight as a man in a disputed brought before a religious court?

Would you prefer to move this to the Islam Q&A thread

Are there specific rules in the religious text defining the role of women? If so, what are they? It is a mix between Quran, hadith and scholarly text.

Can they be listed or if you prefer, would you direct me to an English translation of them?

mohater

05-01-2009, 07:46 AM

Are women required to wear a burkha? No
Is it a choice then? What does it represent?
To some it is a choice, to some it is forced (Afghanistan). It represents the modesty of women, hiding the only those who need to see it. I personally disagree with the burka, but that's my personal opinion. No one in my family wears one.

Are women required to walk behind a man? No - Thanks

Are women required to be in public with a male relative? No
Why are some women persecuted by the religious police for this? ...because they are stupid? This type of policy only exists in Saudi, and tribal areas of the Indian subcontinent (Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Are women allowed to choose their husband and if so, are there any courtship rituals? Yes and Yes
Would they be allowed to divorce their husband from an arranged marriage? Divorce in Islam has to be for a reason. If a woman wants to divorce her husband, she has to have a valid reason (abuse, husband is not fulfilling obligations, etc.). Arranged marriages are frowned upon in Islam, the *right*method, if you will, is more of a courtship.

Are women allowed to have more than one husband? No- Thanks
Are women allowed possessions? Yes- Thanks
Are women allowed to keep their earned income? Yes- Thanks

Is the word of a woman given equal weight as a man in a disputed brought before a religious court? The only instance where a woman's word can be considered less than a man's is business transaction. I forget the why, but I can get it if you want. In all other matters, the word of a woman = the word of a man

Would you prefer to move this to the Islam Q&A thread

I'm indifferent about moving it. I'm sure another reason will come up.

See answers above.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 07:52 AM

I'm indifferent about moving it. I'm sure another reason will come up.

See answers above.

Would you take some time to make me aware of the religious requirements for a Muslim woman?

mohater

05-01-2009, 07:53 AM

Would you take some time to make me aware of the religious requirements for a Muslim woman?

I'm doing that right now, aren't I? :lol:

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 07:57 AM

I'm doing that right now, aren't I? :lol:

Yes, you are and I appreciate it but I'm sure I'm not asking all the questions I could.

I might be better served to read them myself.
If you could, would you recommend an English translation of the Islamic requirements for women?

mohater

05-01-2009, 08:00 AM

Yes, you are and I appreciate it but I'm sure I'm not asking all the questions I could.

I might be better served to read them myself.
If you could, would you recommend an English translation of the Islamic requirements for women?

I'm not sure you'll find one book that lays it all out. The comprehensive books are that, comprehensive, and as such you would get more than just the info on women. The books that are just for women are probably post modern garbage written for someone expects to become an expert based on one book.

I'm fine answering questions here, PM, or email if you'd like.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 08:05 AM

I'm not sure you'll find one book that lays it all out. The comprehensive books are that, comprehensive, and as such you would get more than just the info on women. The books that are just for women are probably post modern garbage written for someone expects to become an expert based on one book.

I'm fine answering questions here, PM, or email if you'd like.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

stardesire

05-01-2009, 08:10 AM

Heres a question for you:
Are women allowed to be buried next to their husbands?

Are women allowed to be by the gravesite of their husbands? (by this I mean are they allowed on the hallowed ground where their husband or father etc. may be buried)

Do women have the right to refuse their husbands sex if they don't feel like having it?

mohater

05-01-2009, 08:19 AM

Heres a question for you:
Are women allowed to be buried next to their husbands? Yes

Are women allowed to be by the gravesite of their husbands? (by this I mean are they allowed on the hallowed ground where their husband or father etc. may be buried) Yes

Do women have the right to refuse their husbands sex if they don't feel like having it? Technically, no. It is one of the wife's obligations in marriage. Now, if it will cause the wife HARM, that's something different. Simply not "feeling like it" is not a right to refuse the husband.

See answers above.

That's actually three questions, not "a" question.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 08:27 AM

See answers above.

That's actually three questions, not "a" question.
Can the husband demand sex?

Is he allowed to force himself on his wife?

Is it left up to the woman to choose NOT to refuse her husband?

mohater

05-01-2009, 08:30 AM

Can the husband demand sex? Yes, but the husband also has an obligation to fulfill his wife's "desires".

Is he allowed to force himself on his wife? No. It is sinful for a women to refuse her husband, but a husband is not allowed to *force* his wife. You don't remedy one wrong act with another.

Is it left up to the woman to choose NOT to refuse her husband? See above.

Responses noted above.

stardesire

05-01-2009, 08:35 AM

See answers above.

That's actually three questions, not "a" question.

yes they are three questions. And you are incorrect about being buried on hallowed ground with their husbands. They may not be unless he is buried in what we as Americans consider a 'regular' cemetary. They are also not allowed on the sacred ground of their men while they are being interred.
How do I know?
One of my BFF ex-husband whom I spoke to extensively on this subject told me so.
I asked the same questions. He was from Jordan. His father also spoke to me through a translator as he spoke only Arabic. I asked him the same thing. He told me that he loved his wife. She was like a dog to him. He protected and provided for her.
How cute is that?

mohater

05-01-2009, 08:39 AM

yes they are three questions. And you are incorrect about being buried on hallowed ground with their husbands. They may not be unless he is buried in what we as Americans consider a 'regular' cemetary. They are also not allowed on the sacred ground of their men while they are being interred.
How do I know?
One of my BFF ex-husband whom I spoke to extensively on this subject told me so.
I asked the same questions. He was from Jordan. His father also spoke to me through a translator as he spoke only Arabic. I asked him the same thing. He told me that he loved his wife. She was like a dog to him. He protected and provided for her.
How cute is that?

Thanks for answering your own question.

My wife's paternal grandmother is buried in the exact same plot as her paternal grandfather. Her mom is buried in the same plot as her maternal grandfather. We visited both graves when we were visiting. They re-use plots after X years because Muslims don't bury in caskets or preserve bodies. They figure out how often they can re-use plots, and the people who own the plots figure things out accordingly.

If you have a real question, please ask. If you're looking to start a fight, go do so elsewhere.

NJDevils28

05-01-2009, 08:43 AM

mohater

05-01-2009, 05:01 PM

Can they be listed or if you prefer, would you direct me to an English translation of them?

I missed this last question.

Quran translation (3 diff translations offered):
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

Hadith:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/

One word of caution:

You can't take everything at face value. There is context (much like Judaism or Christianity) when it comes to revelation or scholarly text (here the hadith). That being said, you can find just about anything on the USC MSA site with regards to your question. Again, you're not going to find everything laid out easily in one book.

stardesire

05-02-2009, 06:53 AM

Thanks for answering your own question.

If you have a real question, please ask. If you're looking to start a fight, go do so elsewhere.

Firstly my questions were real. Secondly I was hoping for truthful answers.
As for a fight, no I seek truth. I understand that some men are threatened by forthright and strong opinionated women. That is fine with me.

mohater

05-04-2009, 06:43 AM

Posts 390 and up have been deleted. This thread was made for a very specific purpose and off topic posts, rants, and inane ramblings will be deleted.

Firstly my questions were real. Secondly I was hoping for truthful answers.
As for a fight, no I seek truth. I understand that some men are threatened by forthright and strong opinionated women. That is fine with me.

The fact that you disagree with something does not negate it of truthfulness. Your long post was deleted because there were no references, it was just a long copy and paste (and some of it was from Urban Dictionary, not exactly the premier source of info).

I am not threatened by you, annoyed maybe, but not threatened. Asking someone a question with a preconceived notion in mind, and only looking to confirm that notion is no way to look for "truth".

If you have other questions feel free to post them. Otherwise, please make your own threads with its specific agenda.

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 07:12 AM

Do some Muslims not call Allah "God"?

Also, why must your daily prayers be ideally said in Arabic? Why can't you just continue to say them in your own language (if you are a convert from a different race)?

Are you 100% certain Islam is true and to be Muslim do you have to be 100% certain Islam is true or is it good enough to be 99% certain for example?

Allah and God are one and the same thing.

In order to be Muslim, all you have to do is believe the 5 pillars of Islam to be true/accurate.

1) There is only one god, and that is God.
2) Pray 5x a day
3) Zakat, or charity, with rules specified as to how much and whom to give to
4) Fast during Ramadan
5) Pilgrimage to Hajj, if you can afford it.

Now, it's important to note that you can still not do these things and be Muslim (except for the first), you just have to believe them all to be true. So Muslims who don't pray can still be Muslim, they just have to believe that you're supposed to pray.

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 07:14 AM

Thanks for answering your own question.

My wife's paternal grandmother is buried in the exact same plot as her paternal grandfather. Her mom is buried in the same plot as her maternal grandfather. We visited both graves when we were visiting. They re-use plots after X years because Muslims don't bury in caskets or preserve bodies. They figure out how often they can re-use plots, and the people who own the plots figure things out accordingly.

If you have a real question, please ask. If you're looking to start a fight, go do so elsewhere.

That may be more cultural than universal. My family buries in caskets and have for generations.

vivahate

05-04-2009, 07:15 AM

1) There is only one god, and that is God.

I'm glad thats cleared up :-)

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 07:23 AM

I'm glad thats cleared up :-)

Capitalization is important. I could say there is only one god, and that is Zeus. But that's not what we believe, we believe in one god known as God.

stardesire

05-04-2009, 07:47 AM

Can you give me an example of hallowed ground?
I gave you an example but Mohater removed it. As well as the rest of the post. He didn't like Urban Dictionary. There are other examples you may Google.
I don't like Snopes and FactCheck because they are both owned by the average biased mentality. You can look them up on WhoIs :)

mohater

05-04-2009, 07:52 AM

That may be more cultural than universal. My family buries in caskets and have for generations.

No, it's the religious method of burying people.

Covered in plain white cloth buried in a plot. No casket.

I gave you an example but Mohater removed it. As well as the rest of the post. He didn't like Urban Dictionary. There are other examples you may Google.
I don't like Snopes and FactCheck because they are both owned by the average biased mentality. You can look them up on WhoIs :)

You referenced nothing. It was removed because this thread has a specific purpose.

Whether or not I like Urban Dictionary had nothing to do with it. It was HOW you referenced the material (or lack there of) and your quest to validate your notion, not ask a question. Factcheck or Snopes have never been used in this thread.

Again, if you have a question, feel free to ask. Otherwise, please move on.

sam81

05-04-2009, 08:00 AM

Is the word of a woman given equal weight as a man in a disputed brought before a religious court? The only instance where a woman's word can be considered less than a man's is business transaction. I forget the why, but I can get it if you want. In all other matters, the word of a woman = the word of a man

See answers above.

I believe I came across this a while ago. I can't remember the exact location but it was near the beginning of a Quran. It was primarily due to women not being versed in business as well as men. It wasn't a question of a woman's ability. If a woman absolutely needed to engage in some type of business transaction with a male, she would need to bring another woman to help her (maybe to catch errors the first one missed?).

Is this still a required practice today even though women engage in business much more than the past? Could someone explain in more detail?

Cough*mohater*cough*cough*

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 08:01 AM

No, it's the religious method of burying people.

Covered in plain white cloth buried in a plot. No casket.

Plain white cloth, yes, but there's nothing saying you can't use a casket, is there?

mohater

05-04-2009, 08:07 AM

Plain white cloth, yes, but there's nothing saying you can't use a casket, is there?

Yes there is.

No concrete plots, no caskets.

As for the witness question: I'll look into that over the next few days.

NJDevils28

05-04-2009, 08:37 AM

Mohater,
Is there such a thing as hallowed burial ground?
Are women permitted there?

mohater

05-04-2009, 08:40 AM

Mohater,
Is there such a thing as hallowed burial ground?
Are women permitted there?

In the post that was removed, stardesire said hallowed burial ground = cemetery. With that definition, yes there is such a thing.

Only the Saudis (the Wahhabis) restrict women from entering cemeteries. That only counts for cemeteries that are manned. I'm sure there are cemeteries in Saudi that are not manned and people freely enter and exit.

TRNT

05-04-2009, 11:16 AM

Was it necessary to remove the point made by two posters that kafan is the Arabic word for coffin?

mohater

05-04-2009, 11:22 AM

Was it necessary to remove the point made by two posters that kafan is the Arabic word for coffin?

Go read the OP. This thread has a very specific purpose, and all posts that do not meet this purpose (lots of leeway has been given) are removed. Yes, it was necessary. This thread will not turn into pointless bickering like some of the other threads here. I have worked hard to keep this thread on point and clean.

Kafan is not the Arabic word for coffin. Kafan is the Arabic word for for the white cloth that the dead is wrapped with.

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 11:34 AM

Can you point me in the direction of where it says caskets aren't allowed?

In the post that was removed, stardesire said hallowed burial ground = cemetery. With that definition, yes there is such a thing.

Only the Saudis (the Wahhabis) restrict women from entering cemeteries. That only counts for cemeteries that are manned. I'm sure there are cemeteries in Saudi that are not manned and people freely enter and exit.

I know when my family has burials, women aren't allowed at the burial site (although they do often come to the cemetery and stand to the side). However, they aren't prevented from visiting the gravesites afterward and upon future visits.

norush

05-04-2009, 11:39 AM

Capitalization is important. I could say there is only one god, and that is Zeus. But that's not what we believe, we believe in one god known as God.

Why is capitalization important? And what about "god" in other languages?

Again, if you have a question, feel free to ask. .

1. How do you know so much? Seriously, I attended Catholic schools, but I don't think I could answer many, much less all questions about Catholicism or about Christianity. Other than being a believer, have you studied Islam in depth?

2. Are there different interpretations of scripture, as there are among various Christian denominations?

3. What do you think about Sufism?

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 11:43 AM

Why is capitalization important? And what about "god" in other languages?

Capitalization is important because it shows that you're talking about THE God, not just any god. Other languages are fine, in Arabic it is Allah (and Christian Arabs call God, the same God, Allah as well). The point is, when you speak of God, it's clear that you're not talking about Zeus or Athena or Shiva. If you were to say god, it's not quite as clear.

mohater

05-04-2009, 12:27 PM

Can you point me in the direction of where it says caskets aren't allowed?

I'll get the details for you later this week. I don't know exactly where it is, I'll have to dig around and ask.

1. How do you know so much? Seriously, I attended Catholic schools, but I don't think I could answer many, much less all questions about Catholicism or about Christianity. Other than being a believer, have you studied Islam in depth? Yes, all from various sources (my own reading, attending lectures, study circles, etc.) Note: Not all of the answers here are mine (I consulted people on some), and it is possible some are incorrect. I have posted this. I am not perfect nor do I have 100% perfect information.

2. Are there different interpretations of scripture, as there are among various Christian denominations? Yes, but by and large, the different accepted interpretations all generally have the same meaning. You will find other interpretations that give other meanings, or modern interpretations, but by and large they are not accepted at scholarly levels.

3. What do you think about Sufism? Can you be more specific? Not sure what you're getting at here.

See responses above.

shhaggy

05-04-2009, 01:34 PM

I'll get the details for you later this week. I don't know exactly where it is, I'll have to dig around and ask.

Thanks, can you also PM me when you find it?

vangolu

05-04-2009, 04:36 PM

Thanks, can you also PM me when you find it?

PM me as well cause in Turkey cascets are used (not fancy but simple cascets) so I would also be interested in learning this

stardesire

05-04-2009, 05:06 PM

In the post that was removed, stardesire said hallowed burial ground = cemetery. With that definition, yes there is such a thing.

Only the Saudis (the Wahhabis) restrict women from entering cemeteries. That only counts for cemeteries that are manned. I'm sure there are cemeteries in Saudi that are not manned and people freely enter and exit.

If you wish to quote me please do so correctly. I added that hallowed meant sacred also. And in the post it stated the above that is in bold lettering. .

TRNT

05-05-2009, 05:50 AM

Go read the OP. This thread has a very specific purpose, and all posts that do not meet this purpose (lots of leeway has been given) are removed. Yes, it was necessary. This thread will not turn into pointless bickering like some of the other threads here. I have worked hard to keep this thread on point and clean.

Kafan is not the Arabic word for coffin. Kafan is the Arabic word for for the white cloth that the dead is wrapped with.The point of kafan/coffin was a linguistic point. Are you saying these two words are not related, linguistically that is? I will contact a professor of linguistic with specialty in Arabic and ask about this. I will then report my finding here, That is, if you allow it.

BTW: if you are going to speak authoritatively about Islam/Arabic language, it would have been nice if you had established that authority at the beginning of this thread. An introduction, including your credentials, would have been (and still is) nice. (If this happened and I missed it, please my accept my apology.)

Thanks.

norush

05-05-2009, 06:38 AM

RE: Sufism

Can you be more specific? Not sure what you're getting at here..

Just asking what is your view of Sufism, which is one part of Islam I find intriguing. As I've said before, I am for the most part agnostic, but I find the mysticism found in all the major religions interesting... and far closer to the idea of religion (the desire to transcend or connect with "the divine" that humans have shown since way back) than all the dogma.

I know that there are some Muslims view Sufis as outside the realm of Islam and even as heretics. I just wonder what you think.

mohater

05-05-2009, 08:09 AM

The point of kafan/coffin was a linguistic point. Are you saying these two words are not related, linguistically that is? I will contact a professor of linguistic with specialty in Arabic and ask about this. I will then report my finding here, That is, if you allow it.

BTW: if you are going to speak authoritatively about Islam/Arabic language, it would have been nice if you had established that authority at the beginning of this thread. An introduction, including your credentials, would have been (and still is) nice. (If this happened and I missed it, please my accept my apology.)

Thanks.

There might be a linguistic relation on kafan and coffin, but at a definition level, the words have diverged greatly. Even if the linguist agrees about the linguistic connection, the differences are (today) far apart. Feel free to post that response.

I have no "real" credentials. I asked for this thread, and the Mod (Doctor_Wu) approved it. That being said, this thread doesn't follow the norms of other threads because of that.

As I stated, my religious studies are what I previously listed (attending lectures/conferences, reading, study circles, asking people of scholarly background, etc.). The goal of this thread was a centralized question/answer bank, nothing else. No debate, no conflict, etc. If you go through, you'll see the posts where I requested other posts deleted because people got into long winded debates, etc, and other areas where posts were hidden. I can't actually hide/delete anything since I'm not a mod.

mohater

05-05-2009, 08:16 AM

RE: Sufism

Just asking what is your view of Sufism, which is one part of Islam I find intriguing. As I've said before, I am for the most part agnostic, but I find the mysticism found in all the major religions interesting... and far closer to the idea of religion (the desire to transcend or connect with "the divine" that humans have shown since way back) than all the dogma.

I know that there are some Muslims view Sufis as outside the realm of Islam and even as heretics. I just wonder what you think.

Some groups (the Wahhabis for example) reject all aspects of Sufism and associate with with disbelief. Flip the coin to the opposite extreme, and you can find Sufis who believe they have attained "certainty" and thus no longer feel the need to follow the tenants of the religion. Like most other "extreme" ideas, they are both wrong.

My view is Sufism has it's place in Islam. There is a mysticism aspect of life, and sometimes there are explanations for it.

An examples (some pluralism for you): I attended a lecture about Sufism years ago. The speakers was talking about the benefits of meditation and how some people can attain a state of near detachment (almost entirely in his/her mind), almost a drug induced euphoric state (but no drugs of course). He showed some slides about some researchers who tested the "alertness" of meditating monks in Nepal. They fired pistols within 30 yards of the monk into targets away from the monks. When the monks came out of meditation, the researches asked if they had heard gunshots. Most reports they had heard gunshots "far away" as if they just heard the echo through the mountain range.

NJDevils28

05-05-2009, 09:10 AM

In the post that was removed, stardesire said hallowed burial ground = cemetery. With that definition, yes there is such a thing.

Only the Saudis (the Wahhabis) restrict women from entering cemeteries. That only counts for cemeteries that are manned. I'm sure there are cemeteries in Saudi that are not manned and people freely enter and exit.

Ok. So only certain sects of Islam have the Hallowed Ground restriction, correct?

If so, where do they receive their direction for making this rule?
Is it written in a variant of the Islamic writings somewhere? Is it a regional custom?

Also, are there any fundamental rules regarding women that differ with each sect?

mohater

05-05-2009, 09:27 AM

Ok. So only certain sects of Islam have the Hallowed Ground restriction, correct?

If so, where do they receive their direction for making this rule?
Is it written in a variant of the Islamic writings somewhere? Is it a regional custom?

Also, are there any fundamental rules regarding women that differ with each sect?

Let's just say cemeteries for simplicity sake.

I'm looking for the answer to that (along with the question on the casket)

The answer is somewhat laid out here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545042

The conclusion is that it's not 100% one way or another. Saudi has chosen to take a very strict ruling on this. I'm sure some other Muslim countries have as well, while others are more lax on the issue.

NJDevils28

05-05-2009, 01:04 PM

Let's just say cemeteries for simplicity sake.

I'm looking for the answer to that (along with the question on the casket)

The answer is somewhat laid out here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545042 (http://slickdeals.net/?sdtid=119846&u2=http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545042)

The conclusion is that it's not 100% one way or another. Saudi has chosen to take a very strict ruling on this. I'm sure some other Muslim countries have as well, while others are more lax on the issue.
So the woman is strongly discouraged from going but not strictly forbidden. Thanks for the link.

Has Islam ever eased some of its restrictions?

Has it ever undergone any form of evolution?

I have another question. Is it possible to no longer believe in the tenants of Islam without incurring the wrath of other Muslims? What I�m asking is can an individual choose not to be Muslim without fear of retribution?
Is it written anywhere that once you have chosen Islam, you can never un-choose (I know, it�s not a real word) it?

I have another question.
Can a Muslim woman mary a non-Muslim man?

mohater

05-05-2009, 01:20 PM

So the woman is strongly discouraged from going but not strictly forbidden. Thanks for the link. There are hadith going both ways on the matter, with nothing real concrete/conclusive. Like I said earlier, hadith all have a context and can't always be taken at face value. Since there are hadith that differ on the matter, the context is important. The problem is the context is in the history, which is not captured in the hadith books. Hadith is of itself is a discipline in Religious Studies.

Has Islam ever eased some of its restrictions? No, but please expand. What restrictions are you referring to?

Has it ever undergone any form of evolution? No.

I have another question. Is it possible to no longer believe in the tenants of Islam without incurring the wrath of other Muslims? What I’m asking is can an individual choose not to be Muslim without fear of retribution? Depends where that person lives and how "open" they are about denouncing his/her faith. Muslims are usually like everyone else, just trying to get ahead during his/her lifetime. You'll find plenty of Muslims who put religion on the sideline for daily life and no one gives them any bother about it.
Is it written anywhere that once you have chosen Islam, you can never un-choose (I know, it’s not a real word) it? There is hadith on the matter. It is not in the Quran.

I have another question.
Can a Muslim woman mary a non-Muslim man? Per Islamic law, no.

See responses above.

shhaggy

05-05-2009, 02:48 PM

So the woman is strongly discouraged from going but not strictly forbidden. Thanks for the link.

Has Islam ever eased some of its restrictions?

Has it ever undergone any form of evolution?

I have another question. Is it possible to no longer believe in the tenants of Islam without incurring the wrath of other Muslims? What I�m asking is can an individual choose not to be Muslim without fear of retribution?
Is it written anywhere that once you have chosen Islam, you can never un-choose (I know, it�s not a real word) it?

I have another question.
Can a Muslim woman mary a non-Muslim man?

There's no real mechanism for anything to officially change in Islam, you can't change the rules of the book the way you can amend the Constitution, there's no governing body in place for that. Does that mean Muslims have not culturally evolved? Of course not. Many of the questions you ask are cultural rather than religious. Free will has to be important for Islam, it makes no sense to force a non-believer into "believing". But does that mean a community will support that decision everywhere? Well, no. I have several aunts that grew up in the US and married Americans. One keeps a token allegiance to Islam, the others have abandoned it. They haven't been disowned or anything, we're still a normal family.

Officially though, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man and remain Muslim. A Muslim man, however, can marry a woman 'of the book', that is, belonging to the previous lineage of Abrahamic religions (Jew or Christian).

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 04:32 AM

There's no real mechanism for anything to officially change in Islam, you can't change the rules of the book the way you can amend the Constitution, there's no governing body in place for that. Does that mean Muslims have not culturally evolved? Of course not. Many of the questions you ask are cultural rather than religious.

I see where you can get that. I just need to phrase my questions better.

Free will has to be important for Islam, it makes no sense to force a non-believer into "believing". But does that mean a community will support that decision everywhere? Well, no. I have several aunts that grew up in the US and married Americans. One keeps a token allegiance to Islam, the others have abandoned it. They haven't been disowned or anything, we're still a normal family.

Officially though, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man and remain Muslim. A Muslim man, however, can marry a woman 'of the book', that is, belonging to the previous lineage of Abrahamic religions (Jew or Christian).

The above statement is what I mean by evolve. Is there room in Islam for women to be equal to men?

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 04:34 AM

Has Islam ever eased some of its restrictions? No, but please expand. What restrictions are you referring to?

Can women ever be considered equal to men?

Could a woman have the same freedoms and liberty men of Islam have?

ASG

05-06-2009, 04:42 AM

Is there a sect of Islam similar to Reform Judaism that allows more leeway for assimilation? One that takes into account that the oral stories/laws might not have been passed down exactly correct?

mohater

05-06-2009, 04:49 AM

Can women ever be considered equal to men?

Could a woman have the same freedoms and liberty men of Islam have?

You need to be specific here. When you say "same freedoms and liberty men of Islam have", what are you referring to?

There is nothing in Islamic Law that bars women from:
Working
Voting
Owning property
Choosing her husband
Education
etc.

I'm still waiting on a response about the "why" two women act as one witness in business transactions. Once I get that I'll post the answer. I'll ask about the "why" on the marriage issue too.

Is there a sect of Islam similar to Reform Judaism that allows more leeway for assimilation? One that takes into account that the oral stories/laws might not have been passed down exactly correct?

I'm not sure that is how reform Judiasm looks at things, but I'm sure there are groups. Are they a formal sect, not really.

When you say assimilation, what are you referring to?

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 05:30 AM

You need to be specific here. When you say "same freedoms and liberty men of Islam have", what are you referring to?

There is nothing in Islamic Law that bars women from:
Working
Voting
Owning property
Choosing her husband
Education
etc.

I'm still waiting on a response about the "why" two women act as one witness in business transactions. Once I get that I'll post the answer. I'll ask about the "why" on the marriage issue too.

I'm not sure that is how reform Judiasm looks at things, but I'm sure there are groups. Are they a formal sect, not really.

When you say assimilation, what are you referring to?

Everything.

Can a woman ever be equal to a man

mohater

05-06-2009, 05:36 AM

Everything.

Can a woman ever be equal to a man

Is a women ever really equal to a man? Are men and women the same? Is 100% equality between men and women possible?

Should we be working in the direction of equity or equality?

That's more of a subjective question rather than a religious question.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 05:48 AM

Can women ever be considered equal to men?

Could a woman have the same freedoms and liberty men of Islam have?

There's no mechanism in place to change anything in Islam though. Even if some Muslims want it to be that way, there will always be a group who will want to follow the letter of the law, and that happens in every religion. Women can be Rabbis in Judaism, but certain more orthodox sects don't believe that. It's the same with Islam. There is no one powerful enough to change the rules officially, so any change that is made has to be cultural.

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 06:08 AM

Is a women ever really equal to a man? Are men and women the same? Is 100% equality between men and women possible?

Should we be working in the direction of equity or equality?

That's more of a subjective question rather than a religious question.

Not really.

Can a woman have the same rights and freedoms as a man?

mohater

05-06-2009, 06:14 AM

Not really.

I think it is quite subjective.

Can a woman have the same rights and freedoms as a man?

You have to be specific here.

We can use that "freedom index" and find out the US is not the "freest" place in the world. Boil it down to entrepreneurial ability, availability of work, mobility to move, etc., the US easily takes the cake. Simply saying "the same rights and freedoms" is not accurate because men and women are not the same. Freedom does not = License.

Men can not bear children
Men can not breastfeed
Women are typically weaker than men (strength wise)
Women are usually the care givers of children in the child's early years
etc.

vangolu

05-06-2009, 06:24 AM

Can a woman have the same rights and freedoms as a man?

Yes they have and there is nothing against this. But remeber this depends on the culture and education level of the society hence where you live and what you've grown up with. Everyone will interpret scripture differently.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 06:26 AM

Not really.

Can a woman have the same rights and freedoms as a man?

Religiously, no. You can't change what's in the book. Much the same way more orthodox sects of Jews don't think women can be Rabbis. But that doesn't mean that a Muslim family or community living in the modern world doesn't treat them equally.

ASG

05-06-2009, 06:29 AM

When you say assimilation, what are you referring to?
I'm referring to being more lax about the customs (such as diet or wearing modest clothing) over the deeds (honoring your father and mother).

Basically I'm getting at like waht shhaggy said about rabbis and such. Are there sects that are more open to things like having a female imam? Or sects that would be more open to homosexual relationships? If so, which ones?

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 06:30 AM

I think it is quite subjective.

You have to be specific here.

We can use that "freedom index" and find out the US is not the "freest" place in the world. Boil it down to entrepreneurial ability, availability of work, mobility to move, etc., the US easily takes the cake. Simply saying "the same rights and freedoms" is not accurate because men and women are not the same. Freedom does not = License.

Men can not bear children
Men can not breastfeed
Women are typically weaker than men (strength wise)
Women are usually the care givers of children in the child's early years
etc.
What does any of that have to do with Freedom or Rights?

Are you purposely being dense?

If you are not capable of answering the question then say so and I�ll understand.

If you are refusing to answer then say that and I�ll not ask any more questions.

Believe me when I say I�m not looking for conflict, I�m just trying to understand.

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 06:34 AM

Religiously, no. You can't change what's in the book. Much the same way more orthodox sects of Jews don't think women can be Rabbis. But that doesn't mean that a Muslim family or community living in the modern world doesn't treat them equally.

Thank you very much!
:nod: <- nod to you.

So, it is written somewhere that men and women are not equal and should never be so?

If the answer is yes, is there a reason given?

mohater

05-06-2009, 06:45 AM

What does any of that have to do with Freedom or Rights?

Are you purposely being dense?

If you are not capable of answering the question then say so and I’ll understand.

If you are refusing to answer then say that and I’ll not ask any more questions.

Believe me when I say I’m not looking for conflict, I’m just trying to understand.

When have I been purposely dense with you? Islam treats men and women as they are, different. Equality is a farce, equity is a goal.

I'm referring to being more lax about the customs (such as diet or wearing modest clothing) over the deeds (honoring your father and mother).

There are things that are customs (can be ignored), and there are things that are fundamental in the faith.

The customs do and have change. The fundamentals are forever.

Basically I'm getting at like waht shhaggy said about rabbis and such. Are there sects that are more open to things like having a female imam? Or sects that would be more open to homosexual relationships? If so, which ones?

There are not such "sects". They are just groups that claim to be Islam "reformers". Unfortunately/fortunately (depending which way you look at it), most of the people who lead those groups end up being hacks out for personal gain (usually only fame and wealth).

Thank you very much!
:nod: <- nod to you.

So, it is written somewhere that men and women are not equal and should never be so?

If the answer is yes, is there a reason given?

No, it is not written anywhere. As mentioned above, the Quran mentions that men and women are not the same.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 06:48 AM

I'm referring to being more lax about the customs (such as diet or wearing modest clothing) over the deeds (honoring your father and mother).

Basically I'm getting at like waht shhaggy said about rabbis and such. Are there sects that are more open to things like having a female imam? Or sects that would be more open to homosexual relationships? If so, which ones?

No, no official sect. Not every Muslim identifies themselves as being part of a sect. Many of them, particularly those away from the Middle East, don't identify with any sect.

ASG

05-06-2009, 06:51 AM

No, no official sect. Not every Muslim identifies themselves as being part of a sect. Many of them, particularly those away from the Middle East, don't identify with any sect.
I know this question is going to sound retarted but then how do you know which mosque to go to (which you would be most comfortable in)?

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 07:01 AM

I know this question is going to sound retarted but then how do you know which mosque to go to (which you would be most comfortable in)?

I live in an area (well, short traveling distance from) where there are a lot of people from my culture, and there're several mosques that reflect that, none of which identify with any specific 'sect'. Besides, sects can mix in mosques, nobody asks questions. Typically you only go there to pray. On a holiday you may here a kutba (or sermon), but it's pretty universal. I only go to mosque maybe 10 times a year at most, usually on a holiday or special occasion (like if someone decides to celebrate a birthday or wedding there). Sometimes the mosque that I go to (incidentally my uncle is the Imam) has activities like pool/darts/table tennis tournaments and I'll go to those, none of the activities are biased towards or against any sect. It's the sects that have bias, not those that don't identify with them.

If I were to move to a strange place, there MAY be an issue, but realistically you can walk in and mind your own business.

ASG

05-06-2009, 07:20 AM

I live in an area (well, short traveling distance from) where there are a lot of people from my culture, and there're several mosques that reflect that, none of which identify with any specific 'sect'. Besides, sects can mix in mosques, nobody asks questions. Typically you only go there to pray. On a holiday you may here a kutba (or sermon), but it's pretty universal. I only go to mosque maybe 10 times a year at most, usually on a holiday or special occasion (like if someone decides to celebrate a birthday or wedding there). Sometimes the mosque that I go to (incidentally my uncle is the Imam) has activities like pool/darts/table tennis tournaments and I'll go to those, none of the activities are biased towards or against any sect. It's the sects that have bias, not those that don't identify with them.

If I were to move to a strange place, there MAY be an issue, but realistically you can walk in and mind your own business.
There's only sermons on holidays? Interesting. What about prayers? Do all services have the same exact structure of what prayers are said and what those prayers say?

mohater

05-06-2009, 07:30 AM

There's only sermons on holidays? Interesting. What about prayers? Do all services have the same exact structure of what prayers are said and what those prayers say?

The prayers are all the same. It's a combination of movement and recitation from the Quran and certain other verbal prayers.

There are sermons every Friday (the "holy" day). There are also sermons at special events (the Islamic Holidays, weddings, etc.). Typically the sermons are a mixture of Arabic and the local language of that Mosque (some have sermons entirely in Arabic, some Arabic and English, some Urdu/Arabic/English, Turkish and Arabic, etc..)

Shaggy chooses not to attend Friday prayer.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 07:31 AM

There's only sermons on holidays? Interesting. What about prayers? Do all services have the same exact structure of what prayers are said and what those prayers say?

No, they have sermons other times, I just don't attend is what I'm saying. I take an interest in learning and research about Islam because I find it interesting, not because I'm religious. I break a lot of the rules regularly. I'm not proud of it per se, but in the interest of full disclosure I feel I should mention that.

The structure of prayers is fairly universal, and what's said is direct recitation from the Quran, so there is no question or debate.

TRNT

05-06-2009, 07:38 AM

There might be a linguistic relation on kafan and coffin, but at a definition level, the words have diverged greatly. Even if the linguist agrees about the linguistic connection, the differences are (today) far apart. Feel free to post that response.

I have no "real" credentials. I asked for this thread, and the Mod (Doctor_Wu) approved it. That being said, this thread doesn't follow the norms of other threads because of that.

As I stated, my religious studies are what I previously listed (attending lectures/conferences, reading, study circles, asking people of scholarly background, etc.). The goal of this thread was a centralized question/answer bank, nothing else. No debate, no conflict, etc. If you go through, you'll see the posts where I requested other posts deleted because people got into long winded debates, etc, and other areas where posts were hidden. I can't actually hide/delete anything since I'm not a mod.Apparently the words "coffin" and "kafan" are related and perhaps even the same, linguistically, that is. However, it does not mean kafan *is* coffin in *every* sense. And to the best of my recollection, no one suggested that they were the same. However, while corpses in US are often put in a coffin, corpses in Saudi Arabia are often put in kafans (cloth) -- and that is the extent of the actual similarity between the two. I think this information (that the to words are the same, linguistically, that is) is a very important information and I am glad that now it is here in this thread for all to see and use.

ASG

05-06-2009, 07:50 AM

The prayers are all the same. It's a combination of movement and recitation from the Quran and certain other verbal prayers.

There are sermons every Friday (the "holy" day). There are also sermons at special events (the Islamic Holidays, weddings, etc.). Typically the sermons are a mixture of Arabic and the local language of that Mosque (some have sermons entirely in Arabic, some Arabic and English, some Urdu/Arabic/English, Turkish and Arabic, etc..)

Shaggy chooses not to attend Friday prayer.
So I guess I'm back to the original question. In Judaism and Christianity, sermons can be very different in terms of what they are likely to speak about and focus on. The sect usually is a good indicator of what kind of sermon you're going to get. I can normally tell from the sect of Christianity or Judaism which sect's sermon I'm comfortable sitting through on any given week. There's nothing like this in Islam? Do you just have to bounce around from mosque to mosque to even know if you will even get mostly or even some English in your sermon, let alone what they will be about?

I ask because I find the sermon to possibly be the most important part of the service so sorry if it seems I'm too focusing on this aspect.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 07:56 AM

So I guess I'm back to the original question. In Judaism and Christianity, sermons can be very different in terms of what they are likely to speak about and focus on. The sect usually is a good indicator of what kind of sermon you're going to get. I can normally tell from the sect of Christianity or Judaism which sect's sermon I'm comfortable sitting through on any given week. There's nothing like this in Islam? Do you just have to bounce around from mosque to mosque to even know if you will even get mostly or even some English in your sermon, let alone what they will be about?

I ask because I find the sermon to possibly be the most important part of the service so sorry if it seems I'm too focusing on this aspect.

Well listen, I'd be lying if I said I'd never heard a sermon where I felt the Imam or speaker was wrong or overly conservative or bigoted in some way or another, but I'm not going to jump up and challenge him. I've heard sermons ranging from how women should be treated better to how to clean your butthole (literally). Some are good, some are bad, some are stupid. The differences don't come in the form of 'sects' though, again it's more cultural. Here in NY there're a lot of mosques from West Indian communities, where I'd feel more comfortable than in a Middle Eastern or Pakistani mosque.

mohater

05-06-2009, 07:57 AM

So I guess I'm back to the original question. In Judaism and Christianity, sermons can be very different in terms of what they are likely to speak about and focus on. The sect usually is a good indicator of what kind of sermon you're going to get. I can normally tell from the sect of Christianity or Judaism which sect's sermon I'm comfortable sitting through on any given week. There's nothing like this in Islam? Do you just have to bounce around from mosque to mosque to even know if you will even get mostly or even some English in your sermon, let alone what they will be about?

I ask because I find the sermon to possibly be the most important part of the service so sorry if it seems I'm too focusing on this aspect.

No problem at all.

If one is new to an area, then yes, one will have options and if distance is not a factor, one will choose the Mosque he/she is most comfortable with. Like everyone else, Muslims sometimes associate based on comfort zone. Different communities have different preferences in what they prefer the general theme of the sermons cover. People often ask when moving if someone they know has experience with communities in that area.

There is some truth in what you posted regarding Muslims.

ASG

05-06-2009, 08:02 AM

Is there a school you go to become an imam? If so, please expand on any details (how many there are, how many years it takes, etc.).

NJDevils28

05-06-2009, 08:06 AM

Well listen, I'd be lying if I said I'd never heard a sermon where I felt the Imam or speaker was wrong or overly conservative or bigoted in some way or another, but I'm not going to jump up and challenge him. I've heard sermons ranging from how women should be treated better to how to clean your butthole (literally). Some are good, some are bad, some are stupid.
I could be wrong but I don't think he was questioning the subject matter per se but maybe more the �atmosphere� of the service.

An example would be that Catholic services focus more on the ritual and less on the Sermon (word of God) as apposed to Baptist which focus more on the Word of God as apposed to ritual.

A typical Catholic service involves kneeling, shaking of hands, and recital of prayers and so forth with maybe 15 minutes of actual Sermon. Baptists on the other hand could have the Preacher on the podium for 45 minutes of pure lecture on the Word of God.

mohater

05-06-2009, 08:09 AM

Is there a school you go to become an imam? If so, please expand on any details (how many there are, how many years it takes, etc.).

There are degree programs and seminary programs to become an Imam. There are two seminary schools in the US (one on the East Coast, I forget where and the name, and one in Bay Area (www.zaytuna.org). I met someone who was part of the Zaytuna pilot program (started like 3-4 years ago), and I *think* the guy said it was a seven year program.

The length of time really depends on what you're going for. As mentioned, there are all sorts of different disciplines in Islamic Studies. There are universities in Muslim countries (Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan, even some in India) where a person can get a University Degree in such a program.

I could be wrong but I don't think he was questioning the subject matter per se but maybe more the “atmosphere” of the service.

An example would be that Catholic services focus more on the ritual and less on the Sermon (word of God) as apposed to Baptist which focus more on the Word of God as apposed to ritual.

A typical Catholic service involves kneeling, shaking of hands, and recital of prayers and so forth with maybe 15 minutes of actual Sermon. Baptists on the other hand could have the Preacher on the podium for 45 minutes of pure lecture on the Word of God.

With Muslim/Islamic sermons, it's less oriented on the sect and more oriented on the politics of that community.

shhaggy

05-06-2009, 08:10 AM

I could be wrong but I don't think he was questioning the subject matter per se but maybe more the �atmosphere� of the service.

An example would be that Catholic services focus more on the ritual and less on the Sermon (word of God) as apposed to Baptist which focus more on the Word of God as apposed to ritual.

A typical Catholic service involves kneeling, shaking of hands, and recital of prayers and so forth with maybe 15 minutes of actual Sermon. Baptists on the other hand could have the Preacher on the podium for 45 minutes of pure lecture on the Word of God.

There's no real ritual during a sermon. It's just right after the ritualistic part, which is prayer. The sequence of events is relatively universal. Imam leads the congregation in prayer and then speaks afterward. The length can vary wildly.

mohater

05-06-2009, 08:11 AM

There's no real ritual during a sermon. It's just right after the ritualistic part, which is prayer. The sequence of events is relatively universal. Imam leads the congregation in prayer and then speaks afterward. The length can vary wildly.

There are rules as to what constitutes a Friday sermon. The sermon on Friday takes place before the prayer. On holidays (Eid) or special events (Weddings), the sermon is after the prayer.

mohater

05-18-2009, 10:56 AM

Can you point me in the direction of where it says caskets aren't allowed?

I'll get the details for you later this week. I don't know exactly where it is, I'll have to dig around and ask.

So I finally got the answer to this:

Back in the day (1400+ years ago), caskets were a foreign concept. Under the Islamic rules for burial, ONLY a plain white cloth was used to shroud the body. There are a number of hadith on the matter where people tried to use expensive cloth to shroud the body, and the response was that we do not utalize resources to shroud the dead. Upon death, we are all the same and will only have our deeds to account for upon the Day of Judgment.

The rule is extended by analogy to caskets. The same rule applies for marking graves - only small, simple markings are allowed, and plots are to be re-used.

Note: Since the law in the US requires that people buried on US soil must be buried on allocated land and in a casket (the law does not extend to Native American Reservations), Muslims are buried under that law and are buried in caskets. I know that one of the Muslim communities in Phoenix bought some land from the Native Americans outside the city and bury its dead w/o caskets. The community has to get a funeral home to carry the body in a casket from the hospital/corner office/etc in a hearse (again - laws mandate what type of vehicles can carry dead bodies) Once the Indian Reservation is reached, the body can be buried w/o the casket.

shhaggy

05-18-2009, 11:12 AM

mohater

05-18-2009, 11:17 AM

That's what I thought it would be, an extrapolation of another rule. That's not a hard and fast law though. My family has used caskets for ages, from a simple wooden box structure back in our native country to the ones they sell here in the US. We keep them in the Masjid for viewing and transport them from morgue to mosque to funeral home to burial ground in the caskets. It's not against the rules per se, just some Muslims' interpretation of the rules.

Please don't start with that.

There are no hard rules on forbidding things like qaat, or marijuana (since neither were known substances in Arabia at that time). Yet, you won't find anyone who tells you that either are allowed. They are forbidden on two analogous measures:

1. As products that cause intoxication in small quantities and thus hinder inhibition
2. As products that the positive aspects are outweighed by the negative aspects.

There is no per se. If an extension holds two concepts (i.e. simple burial, intoxicants, etc.) the general rule holds.

Plenty of things didn't exist at the time of Prophet Jesus, Prophet Moses or Prophet Mohammed. Just because a concept did not exist does not mean it is up to everyone's interpretation.

shhaggy

05-19-2009, 06:31 AM

I think that's exactly what it means, that it's up for interpretation. Marijuana is clearly illegal as a substance of intoxication IMO. If I don't agree with your interpretation of something, why are you right and I'm wrong? Everything written in any religious text is up for interpretation IMO, when people move away from that is when religion runs into problems, because there's no way books written centuries ago can govern our lives today if nothing is up for interpretation. If we followed the Bible to the letter, we'd see daughters sold into slavery and men stoned for working on the Sabbath.

The entire concept of simple burial is up for debate as to what it means. The concept IMO is not designed so that we only bury people in white sheets and reuse plots as rule, but so that everyone is the same and no one has any perceived advantage in death. I think you have to look at what the purpose of the rule IS, and follow it in principle. As such, I know several mosques in the Toronto area actually offer VERY affordable burial options (maybe even free if you can't afford it), which includes a basic plot and plain wooden casket for any Muslim. They ensure that a simple burial is affordable and practically guaranteed for all, so that a casket is not a luxury but 'simple' and minimum for everyone, which is the point. Now, I suppose you could argue that health regulations require it, but I happen to think what it achieves is exactly what was intended, for everyone to be viewed the same in death.

mohater

05-19-2009, 06:49 AM

shhaggy

05-19-2009, 06:59 AM

You're missing the point.

Caskets are REQUIRED in the US/Canada. It is NOT optional.

The being said, interpretation exists for people of sound knowledge to interpret, not anyone (is it practical to challenge people on genetic issues w/o having a background in genetics?). You'll find plenty of Christians, Jews or Muslims who will tell you they have no governing their lives based on aged sound religious teachings. That being said, if you want to talk about Christianity or Judaism go make another thread. Just because you choose to look at a topic one way doesn't make it true for everyone else.

This is a thread I asked for and I'm maintaining (as the mods allow me). Please stop responding unless you're sure about the answer (i.e You were wrong about sermons always after prayer and that sermons have no "real" rules).

I'm not trying to sell my opinion to anyone else, I'm just stating and defending it (and it's the opinion of many, I'm no radical). Don't mistake me for a preacher. And I fully agree that people with more in depth knowledge than myself are more qualified to make judgments than myself, but they still have to justify it. They can't just say "that's the way it is"; if the justification doesn't make sense, I will push the issue. Those of "sound knowledge" are not infallible, nor am I incapable of interpreting something. Just because their general knowledge of something is greater than my own doesn't mean that discussion and debate is useless.

mohater

05-19-2009, 07:09 AM

I'm not trying to sell my opinion to anyone else, I'm just stating and defending it (and it's the opinion of many, I'm no radical). Don't mistake me for a preacher. And I fully agree that people with more in depth knowledge than myself are more qualified to make judgments than myself, but they still have to justify it. They can't just say "that's the way it is"; if the justification doesn't make sense, I will push the issue. Those of "sound knowledge" are not infallible, nor am I incapable of interpreting something. Just because their general knowledge of something is greater than my own doesn't mean that discussion and debate is useless.

This isn't the place for this type of discussion.

If you want to continue, make a new thread or send me a PM.

shhaggy

05-19-2009, 08:29 AM

I'll agree to let it go altogether. I just hope everyone understands that a lot of the laws and rules of religion are often simply learned people's interpretation of laws and rules, that it's not universal and other people, even other learned people, don't always agree.

hasanahmad

05-19-2009, 11:30 AM

As a follower of Islam, I am interested in the perspective here at SD. Maybe I can clarify some things for you

tresanus

05-19-2009, 11:35 AM

I believe it is an religion much like christianity but you always get groups of extremists (terrorists / KKK) that cast an ugly cloud over what might be a beautiful religion.

hasanahmad

05-19-2009, 11:41 AM

I believe it is an religion much like christianity but you always get groups of extremists (terrorists / KKK) that cast an ugly cloud over what might be a beautiful religion.

the extremists are almost always following the wahabism sect of Islam which was started in Saudi Arabia. It is a very small minority but with a major agenda to militarize Islam. Most of the supports in Pakistan don't even know of this fact, most often because they are illiterate.

Radeck

05-19-2009, 11:41 AM

i believe mohater already has a thread about this (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=204438&t=119846).

luvtoargue

05-19-2009, 12:14 PM

In my opinion, it's a stupid, irrational, fantasy, made up by a guy named Muhammad who was as power hungry and crazy as Hitler. He took a little from the Jewish religion and twisted it to his own end. If Germany had won the war, don't you think Nazism would be huge? Muhammad and the Muslims won the war...so now Islam is huge. It's no different than any of the other fantasies called religion. They run the gamut from no God, to multiples. Each follower is convinced...enough to kill others, or die himself...that they, and ONLY they, know the truth. I think all followers are... Well, I'll leave it at that...no sense pushing my luck...

Is that what you were looking for? Of maybe you wanted to discuss the nuances of this of many fantasy religions? Why bother? They're all BS anyway...

I'm sorry if I offended you...I understand that Muslims hold their religion high... But I don't. I think ALL religions are silly...and the followers sillier.

You wanted honesty...there it is.

Am I mistaken? Do I owe an apology?

Hey! How did I end up here? This isn't the thread I was in...