Official Islam Thread! - Page 3

I don't think there is an obligation unless one takes a rather rigid view and adheres to later judicial rulings of certain schools of thought.

Certainly it does not derive from the Qur'an and is demonstrably a pre-Islamic practice.


No...always best not to.

Firstly I would object to the term 'free-minded'. If there is one thing I have learned from Islam - and it is the core of Islam - it is this: I have my interpretation based on my spiritual state..you have yours based on your state.

Your state is not my state and although one may be 'higher' we cannot ourselves know. All we can do is do our best and in the end God will be the judge.

So my understanding of the Qur'an is merely an expression of my current state of learning which I endeavour to constantly expand....probably unsuccessfully and I don't know much. But that's ok...the point is to try to be sincere from where you are and strive to find more knowledge..I hope I do this. Probably you do it too.....we can reach different conclusions, it's ok.


In line with the above, I see no mention of headscarf there.

As Islam exhorts people to rationality and using their reason I have to ask why not? If we are to infer headscarf is meant then why does it not say so? Is God incapable of saying it?

And the fact that it could mean headscarf or not - and there IS debate on this - leads to confusion. Does God intend confusion.

My reason says no.


This Surah is more explicit. It uses the word for headscarf but states 'bosom' not head.

Again why? Why not head if is meant alongside bosom which IS mentioned? Why leave to infer?

This is what you call free-thinking/...it is what I call 'aql or reason. But perhaps that is free-thinking. Whatever it is, it is Islamic and existed in the early years of Islam though admittedly has now been stamped out.


Not the Muslims. The Christians were.


See above.

Btw, you do realize that in the early Muslim community there was no such injunction whatsoever until 627 CE.

Then a verse was revealed which applied ONLY to Muhammad's wives when being addressed by men:


Here hijab could also mean a screen. Note also it tells the MEN to ask from behind the hijab - not the wives.

In fact, nowhere in the whole of the Quran is the term hijab applied to any woman other than the wives of Muhammad cited above. I challenge you to find a quote with this exact Arabic word. You will not be able to.

In this case, the hadith has become holy writ and taken as superceding the Qur'an - a hadith written by men. Sometimes even men with no understanding of anything much.

Very worrying. When right-wingers start talking 'muscular' I tend to get concerned.

Another thing: if multiculturalism has 'failed' then whose fault is it?

Or Jews in Nazi Germany maybe? How about - "You know we are racists here with genocidal plans so now....."

You get the picture.

Actually your reasoning exactly demonstrates Hands point above:

1) Immigrants want no boobs = BAD they are immigrants

2) Natives want to join the EDL and kick immigrants heads in = OK/GOOD they are British (it is our traditional values after all)

Btw, your whole point shows the degree you have bought into the thinking of right-wingers like Cameron and the EDL - which is surprising.

None of his points are really true are they - they are just Fox News/Daily Mail headlines. I am really really surprised someone like you has been affected and taken it on board. I can't get over that.

Where are these people protesting over boobs in the Sun? Are you really saying the Sun is Culture???? Millions of people object to it: every feminist, every leftie, every anti-Murdoch thinker, the whole of LIVERPOOL to a man. But I haven't heard of immigrants doing it. In fact though.....it would be very 'British' to condemn it.

Who are these people being intolerant in UK society? Cameron says he will 'stop funding them' so that implies he HAS been funding them. It also implies they are not exactly al Qaeda if that has been the case. So who are they? I can tell you: ordinary Muslims but perhaps ones that (shock) oppose the government...and something else: they are most likely not immigrants at all.

They could well be 2nd or 3rd generation BRITISH.

Integration: another thing....where I used to live in London there was a whole area, perhaps 10 minutes from my house, which was designated as an eruv where every single person in the area (more or less) was Jewish. I didn't see much integration. And you know what that's ok. It's ok from my pov because I don't have a problem with it...although Cameron does disagree in the abstract it is ok with him also because he is only talking about MUSLIMS.

Final point - this one concerns the rampant stinking hypocrisy of the British nano-classes. I have lived in many different countries. Wherever I have found myself I have - to my horror - pretty soon realized there is a large British community on my doorstep.

I take pains to avoid these character but sometimes it is impossible (though we move in widely different circles). I invariably find the following - and this is almost 100% true and universal wherever I go - the British community:

• Never speaks the language of the place they live
• Always subscrinbes to Sky English TV
• Never mixes with the locals
• Centres their life around fish and chip shops decorated with English flags
• Only ever goes to the local 'English Pub'
• Lives like they are still in the UK

Oh and one more: "wanks on interminably about how bad England got so they had to leave because of foreigners who refuse to integrate"

I've got to also believe that you don't object to atheist prostletyzing in religious societies - which is something that is rabidly increasing and is exactly in the category you are deriding (except that atheists 'have the truth' of course) - so this is a massive double standard.

Not good.

Do they ever? Not sure I know of any examples outside of right-wing tabloids.

Again would depend on the 'freedom' wouldn't even if so?

I suppose if an immigrant emigrated to the deep south in the 50s and pointed out why segregation was bad he might also be 'restricting the freedoms of the native populace' etc etc

If something bad needs pointing out it doesn't matter who does it. I think you might have a problem when the immigrants bring their religion no?

Well...that's a good thing then. We don't live in the 7th century Arabian desert.

All knowledge is updating. Where it isn't it isn't knowledge.

You see this is the problem.. not only is it what makes people ignorant of Islam see it as 'backward' it also empowers various scumbags within the community - we all know who they are - to behave in barbaric ways.

And of course it hands the loaded gun to scumbags like Wilders and other Nazis.

You talk about headscarves and they are pretty innocuous - why not? But it doesn't stop there does it?

I agree with this - but evolution applies to ideas and abstracts too and things that fail to evolve to deal with threats tend to die out.

Anything is possible. God himself may even send a new revelation abrogating many things as is claimed in the hadith at the end time.

Personally I believe we are in the end time now and many, if not most, of the prophecies in that line have already come true. I don't know why people don't pay more attention to that. Muslims I mean.

Nothing obviously but when things need clarification or updating - and this is permissable - it is men who do it. The clerics.

I think sometimes they can be wrong.

I think they have sometimes made some very serious errors that have derailed the whole religion. It is obvious in Shi'ism for example.

I also think that these clerics have no right to impose themselves between a person and God. Priests are not allowed in Islam and everyone is equal - and yet these clerics sometimes have taken that role for themselves.

This is kind of my point though - you have said how it is for sure. My question is 'is this how it should be?'

If a person is born into Islam then ok, it is obvious that laws and culture and faith go hand in hand.....but someone coming to Islam from the outside (and this is if anything more valid imho as it is indicative of a search for truth that is not always there with people born into the religion or culture) is more often than not looking for God.

As such I don't think laws and societal rules have a similar role. Personally I am only interested in finding answers. I don't need a societal code. In fact, I often disagree with rulers and Govts on principle.

I like this quote of Michael Muhammad Knight:


This is pretty much my view actually.

Link

That's a different question. Society needs regulating but that - imo - has no impact on one's spiritual position.

People are fond of asking these days "Is Islam compatible with democracy?"

I think it is....but the problem is that there are millions of Muslims who [I]think it isn't[/I ] and don't want it to be.

Democracy did not exist at the time of the Prophet and so we do not know how he would have approached it. We have to rely on Clerics to 'rule on the issue' .....I say three things:

1) Often these are hidebound idiots who live in the middle ages or before and don't in any case know what they're talking about.

2) Who says they have the right?

3) I don't care anyway - Islam says that each person can approach God alone with no need of an intermediary so who needs 'em?


I think that is a misunderstanding. Obviously he would not be a Muslim if he believed that and he clearly is. See my point #3 above

Definitely the way to go

Relax man! Take it easy....

Just saying that immigrants have the right to come to a country and to point out things in that country which they think - and which may actually be - what we might call 'wrong'.

I know your track record but depriving immigrants of this right will play into the hands of people whose track record is of quite a different sort to yours.

That's all..... no offence intended......

I agree with you in principle - and in practice probably but the current case re Muslims (and that is what 'immigrants' mean in Cameron's speech for example) is a bit more tricky.

Not because they are Muslims or have any higher status than other groups but because they are the ones now currently in the crosshairs.

The history of other and non-Western cultures in the West - specifically Europe - is one of persecution before assimilation (if that happens at all) and right now any such restriction (which I repeat I agree with in theory) is actually to hand power to racists, bigots and general wankers.

So I baulk a little at supporting it in the current climate because I don't trust:

a) our current leaders

b) the current mood of the populace

Nasty things are brewing....definitely in the UK and soon in the US which will soon see it's own variety with the Tea Party and perhaps even worse monstrosities.

Edit: btw: what I was actually questioning - and which we should also address - is the question I raised before "are immigrants moving in and trying to change things?"

I can speak only of the UK and Spain from personal experience but I can honestly say every example I have heard has turned out to be bullshit.

For example: every Xmas you get the "no Xmas trees because Muslims would be offended" routine in the tabloids. In all my knowledge of the Muslim community I have never, ever heard remotely of such a thing. It only exists in the tabloids. I did hear that once a COUNCIL decided to have no Xian Xmas decorations so as to be inclusive to all faiths (actually this is not far off what certain atheists want in the UK too) but in that case Muslims protested.

I just do not believe these stories have any basis in the UK. Another one: when I lived in London every corner shop in the area (and most others) was Muslim run. ALL sold alcohol with no problem. EVERY ONE. I never heard anything about it at all.

And further than that - with the exception of Iran and Saudi (which don't count for the following reason: any immigrants from there will be actively trying to embrace the West. You won't find anyone more Western than an Los Angeles Irani) all the countries they come from have a tradition, more or less, of inclusion.

You can buy alcohol anywhere in Syria - from Christians fine, but that is more inclusion - and Turkey and Jordan on and on. Where are these immigrants coming from who want to impose a culture that does not exist?

There is only one place I can think of and - yet again - it is closely linked to the stinking disgrace of Western Hypocrisy which allows this country (no points for guessing I'm afraid) to build mosques anywhere and spread their fundie doctrine unhindered and then blame it on communities that don't even believe in that sect.

Re your question about devil worship - I suppose it depends on what 'worship' is. Many Muslims worship many things: money, fame, Imams. It's not accepted as such but it is not the sin of ascribing a partner to God which would be the thing that takes someone out of Islam.

This book: The Tragedy of Satan explains beautifully Satan's tragedy:

That he refused to bow to anyone but God as he loved God so much he refused God's command to do so....and was thus the true model Muslim. One also has to realize that Satan in Islam is in no way the same figure as in Christianity.

Or try Yezidi Devil Worshippers of Iraq who are a form of Sufi Muslim but split off from the mainstream and perhaps not strictly Islamic.


It's a great question and one I have often had issues with and pondered. As of now I have one answer (might change in future): one connects in a religion with what speaks to one's inner self.

Some bits of a given religion might strike you as 'true' while others you might find offensive. It doesn't matter - especially if they contradict themselves. Is even better if this is the case because one must be false....you just choose which one you think is 'of God'.

For example: I heard today of a young Bangladeshi girl who was publicly flogged for adultery and died by bleeding to death.

Link

Now I don't ask myself "Is this Islam" I rather ask myself "is this something God would condone?" By this I mean my conception of God. And the answer is no - for me. It is 'yes' obviously for many Muslims (Nightcrawler seems to agree with the punishment at least in principle) and certainly many clerics promote it.

But I don't believe in a God like that and it contradicts enough other things in Islam and the life of Muhammad (though obviously many Muslims and others argue that both would promote exactly this) that I have a legitimate choice:

Choose the 'good' bits or choose the 'bad' bits like this example. You can't have both....some have been invented by men and corrupt the teaching obviously. There is no other conclusion.

So it is merely a question of whether God is a maniac or...well..God. I choose to believe the latter but there's always the possibilty I could be wrong. But we're all responsible for our own choices.

That's what Islam is all about: if you believe there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet you are a Muslim. No matter what else you do...you may get in trouble from up-tight maniacs but you are still a Muslim.

Well...it depends....there are many hardliners in Islam who claim they have 'the truth' like any religion but even they have to agree that if one subscribes to the formula I mentioned then they are by definition a Muslim.

After that, well, I suppose their are arguments and different schools - some are very rigid and conservative and some are very loose. Many in the middle.

But the idea is that God in the end will decide who is right and we can't really know. But it says in the Qur'an that Jews, Christians and other religions will go to 'heaven' (I don't take heaven as a literal place which is ok I think) so it's probably a pretty wide catchment area hahah.