Feel free to ask me anything about Islam...

[JamesR]

Well I'll be damned, it looks like those history textbooks that schools teach to us are false. In 7th grade when we learned about the rise of Islam the book said that Muhammed directly wrote the Qur'an in the cave by himself right after having the visions from Gabriel, and that he did not have several visions throughout his life but that he had all of the visions at once while in a cave and that the Qur'an was already written and finished by the time his visions stopped.

[Kerdy]

Well I'll be damned, it looks like those history textbooks that schools teach to us are false. In 7th grade when we learned about the rise of Islam the book said that Muhammed directly wrote the Qur'an in the cave by himself right after having the visions from Gabriel, and that he did not have several visions throughout his life but that he had all of the visions at once while in a cave and that the Qur'an was already written and finished by the time his visions stopped.

You will find a lot of text books are filled with flaws.  Public education is in a downward spiral.  The same thing happened to me in college with a history book.  I asked the professor why we had an inaccurate text book to which I was asked how it was inaccurate.  I explained, she rebutted and I supplied historical facts to back up my observation.  She finally said its up to someone else to screen the text books and we moved on.  That actually happened a lot in that class.  I hope they got that book out of the school.

[jmbejdl]

Do you have a serious point or are you just trying to convince me of how clever you are?

James

No just how naive you are. And I guess since you studied philosophy how misinformed you are.

Enjoy your polemics dressed in "questions".

Oh and on the "philosophy" business, how much Islamic philosophy have you read? You are begging the question throughout your "questions". There is a quite a long and varied discussion throughout Islam on the status of the Koran. How much have you read about that discussion? Again if you are looking for what pollsters are likely to reveal about beliefs are held among Muslims, google, not Fibonacci, is your friend.

If you already know what is "normative" among Muslims or can easily find such information, why are you asking Fibonacci the questions you are?

I originally asked a reasonably open question, which Fibonacci failed to answer, because I was interested in how Shia Muslims might or might not differ in this. Only after receiving no answer at all did I start to fill in the details that I had previously heard from other Muslims, all of whom have been Sunni. I have never had any opportunity to discuss anything much with a Shia before and so, whilst I know what I have been told is normative by Sunnis, I'm trying to find out if the same is true of Shias. I'm not interested in polls I'm interested in how he deals with his text. Yes, I think he's wrong (clearly as I'm Orthodox) but had he lived up to his invitation in the opening post I would never have had any need to inject my previous understandings as a goad to get a response. Whatever you may think it was not intended as polemics from the outset. Unfortunately when I see someone repeatedly dodging the question I do have tendency to pile it on - this is undoubtedly a failing of mine.

I'll quite happily admit to having read no Islamic philosophy. It wasn't required at university and I had no interest in it, but every Muslim (again, all Sunni) I've spoken to in the past has told me what I previously related was true and that anyone who disagreed was not really Muslim (as you yourself have noted is common). I wondered if Shia then had a different interpretation or if they too seemed to selectively ignore the very existence of inconvenient details that would seem contradict such a view. I see from this single interaction (unrepresentative though a single view is) that they appear not to differ from the Sunnis in this regard.

Now it may be that in all cases, what I have been told is down to Muslims being badly informed of their own faith. Certainly if I were to pick a similar number of Christians and ask them to explain some central article of faith I'm likely to get a high proportion, quite possible 100%, of misleading or plain incorrect answers. I'd say that they are unlikely to be anything like as uniform as this, but it's not impossible, but if you have anything useful to contribute it would be in pointing out evidence in contradiction of my understandings not in waxing philosophical about the relationship between messages and their delivery.

James

[Theophilos78]

So a lot of people were paying close attention to it, and memorized the message the prophet was delivering.  They recorded it all on paper.  Then they analyzed all these notes and cross-referenced with people's memories, and made the one quranic text for Muslims to use.

Where are the papers those indefinite people allegedly recorded the Qur'an verses on? May I have a look at them in order to make a comparison between the first raw version of the Qur'an and the later version revised by Uthman?

About trinity, the overall message that God is delivering... is that there is only one God.  

Trinity is also one God. God IS three persons. I must remind you that before the migration your prophet designated Christians as monotheists. However, things changed after the migration and he started to accuse all religious communities (Jews and Christians alike) of associating partners with God.

He doesn't have a son, and He doesn't have human/spiritual manifestations, like coming on earth as a human or as a holy ghost.  It was just saying that the Messiah was a prophet, not a God.   If you don't agree with that, than that's your belief.  

We do not say that Messiah was a god. We say He IS THE God, inseparable in essence from the Father.

Is it not surprising to you that until Muhammad's time NO Christian sect - either canonical/orthodox or heretical - taught that Jesus was but a messenger. Even groups who denied Jesus' divinity did not identify Him as a mere messenger.

Furthermore, it's important to study the origins of Trinity at a deeper level.  Because undoubtedly, the Messiah never explicitly mentioned that he's God.  

This proves that you have never read the Gospel. Jesus said "Before Abraham was made, I AM". "My Father and I are ONE". Thus, He explicitly stated His divinity. He also did not rebuke Thomas, who said to Him: "My Lord and my God!". He rather considered this a statement of faith.

Besides, the author of the Qur'an identified Jesus as the Messiah, but Jesus never calls Himself the Messiah in the Qur'an. Do we have to approach this doctrine with doubt because of that? 

For example, when he was being crucified, he said 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?'.  If he's God, why would he say something like that?

Because He's both God and man. He took human nature and became a perfect man. Additionally, He recited the opening verse of a Messianic Psalm when He said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Secondly, some Christians say he's God because he could do miracles.  But Moses could do miracles aswell.

I have never come across such Christians in my life. This sounds like an Islamic argument.

Others say it's because he didn't have a human father.  But Adam was created without a human mother nor a human father.

By others you mean the writer of the Qur'an? As I said before, Christianity does not teach that Jesus is God because He was born without a father.

[Theophilos78]

These verses are interpreted after studying the topic at a closer level. 

Again, who decides which topics must be studied at a closer level and why?

If it's talking about Jesus, then one will have to study the bible, and history...

Why the need to study the Bible when you have the Qur'an? Is it not sufficient for you? Don't you have historical data in the Qur'an?

and then based on intuition, they would make a decision on whether the message is literal or figurative.

So there is no system, everything is arbitrary. Like the way the chapters of the Qur'an are named.

Remember what I said earlier

intuition when you're pious and in a clean environment = God talking to you

This is also subjective.

[Theophilos78]

Theophilos the first verse is a direct message
the other is just a narration of the husband

I know. 

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.  In any case, if the semantics of these verses is really bothering you, I suggest you speak with an expert in Arabic linguistics.

I only wonder if what Al-Aziz said was accurate or not. Why did he say such a thing? After seeing the statement in Surah 4:76, can Muslims say now that Al-Aziz made a false statement and slandered women? Was he a misogynist character?

[Αριστοκλής]

From what I've studied, I'm certain that Islamic laws (or any religious laws for that matter) should really be implemented at the community level, not a the national level.  Those who want to live a certain way can join the community that best matches their belief. And 'Islamic' nations, should really be free republics not democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, ...etc.

My friend, this is almost, if not exactly, what the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project" is using in order to incrementally establish Sharia in the west and in the USA. It is working in Britain; it will not be done in America.

[fibonacci]

From what I've studied, I'm certain that Islamic laws (or any religious laws for that matter) should really be implemented at the community level, not a the national level.  Those who want to live a certain way can join the community that best matches their belief. And 'Islamic' nations, should really be free republics not democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, ...etc.

My friend, this is almost, if not exactly, what the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project" is using in order to incrementally establish Sharia in the west and in the USA. It is working in Britain; it will not be done in America.

I don't think so... the Muslim Brotherhood, first of all they want to establish sharia at the national level. We can all see it in Egypt.

Now I on the other hand, said community level... like at a municipal level.  Each town will have their own set of moral laws that the citizen should abide by.  If someone does not wish to live under those rules, then they can move to a community that best matches their belief. Do you see the difference? 

[orthonorm]

From what I've studied, I'm certain that Islamic laws (or any religious laws for that matter) should really be implemented at the community level, not a the national level.  Those who want to live a certain way can join the community that best matches their belief. And 'Islamic' nations, should really be free republics not democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, ...etc.

My friend, this is almost, if not exactly, what the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project" is using in order to incrementally establish Sharia in the west and in the USA. It is working in Britain; it will not be done in America.

I don't think so... the Muslim Brotherhood, first of all they want to establish sharia at the national level. We can all see it in Egypt.

Now I on the other hand, said community level... like at a municipal level.  Each town will have their own set of moral laws that the citizen should abide by.  If someone does not wish to live under those rules, then they can move to a community that best matches their belief. Do you see the difference?  

A difference sure. But to aristocracy's point, this ain't happening in America*. Folks can submit should they wish to some extra-legal arbitration and play out their Shariah LARP all they want. But again, this sorta nonsense will have the legal legitimacy a fatwa against provocatively dressed women issued by hamrunt. Which is fine cause most of Shariah law as I understand it (which is not that well) hardly approaches anything requiring juridical involvement.

If the Catholic Church refuses to recognize a civil divorce, that is their choice as long as they don't interfere with the civil guarantees and limitations granted or imposed on either party in such a divorce.

Perhaps the grand legal minds of oc.net: podcast and icky more can weigh in.

*Outside the degree to which precedent has been already set for the need to incorporate international law into US judicial rulings.

[Shiny]

I come back from vacation only to see this thread gets up to 278 replies, wowza.

[Αριστοκλής]

From what I've studied, I'm certain that Islamic laws (or any religious laws for that matter) should really be implemented at the community level, not a the national level.  Those who want to live a certain way can join the community that best matches their belief. And 'Islamic' nations, should really be free republics not democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, ...etc.

My friend, this is almost, if not exactly, what the Muslim Brotherhood's "Project" is using in order to incrementally establish Sharia in the west and in the USA. It is working in Britain; it will not be done in America.

I don't think so... the Muslim Brotherhood, first of all they want to establish sharia at the national level. We can all see it in Egypt.

Now I on the other hand, said community level... like at a municipal level.  Each town will have their own set of moral laws that the citizen should abide by.  If someone does not wish to live under those rules, then they can move to a community that best matches their belief. Do you see the difference? 

Actually, establishing Sharia at the local level is but part of their strategy to impose it nationally. Hence this is no difference to perceive.

[fibonacci]

Actually, establishing Sharia at the local level is but part of their strategy to impose it nationally. Hence this is no difference to perceive.

How can they establish sharia in communities that are not Muslim?  Or even in Muslim communities that don't accept the sharia of the salafi school?  There will always be differences.

Remember what I said, real Muslims are against hierarchical structure.  Communities need to be strong enough to not allow outsiders to come in and manipulate their laws.

[fibonacci]

What if all the sects of Islam follow the same corrupted and incomplete version of the Qur'an? 
Would the agreement to use the same text change the fact that the text is no more perfect and original?

Well this is a matter of faith.  Muslims agree with the truths/wisdom in the quran, and hence they accept that the messages are of divine orign.

So when they see this verse http://quran.com/39/28

they accept it, and hence say there is no corruption in the Qur'an.

We'll just have to wait until Imam Mahdi returns to notify us if there has been any corruption.  Just like Jesus will come back and notify us if there has been any corruption in the recording of his message.

[fibonacci]

I mean no offense to you in this, but you are making assumptions on my thinking and understanding if you are under the impression that I do not find "lessons" in history, but only facts.  Sometimes it may be the case that a "lesson" might be drawn that is not, in fact, based on real situations or facts.

A case in point: as a Muslim you esteem the Quran and claimed that "the original" has been preserved in totality but that this is not the case for either the Jewish or Christian scriptures.  This seemed to have the meaning, or lesson if you will, that there is something superior to Islam because of this preservation.  However, the reality and fact of the manuscript and its history  from what I found is that 1) there is only about 1/3 of it left and 2) there is more than one as Uthmar had five copies made and then burned all of the versions that had variations which, it was noted with a reference, were usually minor.  So there is no exisiting complete "original copy" of the Quran either.  

If I misunderstood the lesson that you were trying to get across I apologize.    I am also aware of the left/right brain theories and the human brain has different areas of functioning in the different halves.  But was there a particular person's/group's ideas that you are thinking of, please?

First of all, as I mentioned in my other post... the lesson you can learn from early islam is that..
once the general population started to care about human rights (thanks to the prophet to convince them to not kill their daughters, to free slaves, to not implement usury, ...etc)

then the population became productive, and expanded the field of science and technology.

This is how societies always work...

human rights -> allows economic freedom -> which allows technological and scientific progress

If you want to argue and debate against this theory, then there is no point.  Because this is what I believed, based on my research.

About the original Quran.  Will Uthman's quran is one of them that some say 1/3 of it exist.  First of all, how do you know that?  Have you seen it yourself?

Secondly, his quran isn't only 'original' one around.  There are many others... there are many very old qurans still residing in mosques Medina, Saudi Arabia- where the prophet
was living.  

The most important thing to see is that there is uniformity in the text.  A Muslim in Indonesia is reading the same Qur'an as a Muslim in morocco.

From your view as a Shia Muslim, those who slaughtered Hussein and his followers (I am familiar with the history of the early years of Islam) were hypocritical and evil.  From the Sunni side they were rebelling against the right way and were dealt with albeit with violence.  My point is that there is more than one "side" or view of events.

Yes there are different point of views in history.  Remember what history is... HIS story.  

But the truth will come out eventually.   Do you think it's morally right thing for a leader to use force and even kill an individual that doesn't want to pledge allegiance to you?
If you think that the other side was justified in killing Hussein, then there is no point debating.  We'll just have to wait until the truth comes out....... that is when Imam Mahdi reveals the truth for all sects.

Just to understand, when you refer to a particular "region" you mean the area of Persia/Iran?  There was a vast area beyond that which was conquered by forces under the banner of Islam beyond that land and the Arabian Peninsula.

I'm talking about the regions where human rights are accepted.  In those vast areas where forces were carrying the banner of 'Islam'... did they accept human rights?  If not, then by definition they're not Muslims, and it's incorrect to associate them with real Muslims.

 

Would you please give some more specific information about the times and events that you are thinking of here?  What political changes in the Middle East and who wasn't taking the religion seriously?  Thank you.

Around the time when the siege of Baghdad happened and the big library (house of Wisdom was burnt down).  

This is something I'll have to study more to give you exact details of political changes.  But in general, when the mongols took over, it's obviously a different political system that disregarded human rights.

Well, one question is: Is it the function of the book to refer to everyone who may have been historically involved in a subject or is it focused on a narrower field?  Why should any book on optics have a few sentences on Al-Hazen? What about references to the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who did things with Optics?  From my point should I expect that the English Bishop Robert Grosseteste or Roger Bacon be mentioned in optics texts because they did work in that area?   If the purpose of a text is to instruct on a particular subject technically, the writer(s) may not think that historical background is necessary.

Those who truly want to develop an intuition for a scientific subject, like optical physics....... it's very important to study the history of the subject.  To understand where these formulas originated.  You don't really learn by just memorizing a few equations and not making the effort to find out where they come from.

Al-Hazen is widely believed to be the father of optics.. because he most likely made the most non-trivial contributions to the field.  Sure, scientist from ancient civilizations made theories on the subject... but Al-Hazen discredit most of those ideas with simple arguments and revolutionaries the subject with different way of thinking.  

Again, historical background is very necessary to develop an intuition for the subject.

If you don't mind me asking, but did you study science, math, engineering, ...etc?
If you did, do you remember studying complex numbers.... like i = sqrt(-1) .   You know, most people just accept that sqrt(-1) is ok and just use it.  But for a professional mathematicians who're doing research at the front line, will need to rationalize the meaning of sqrt(-1)..... and so they'll have to study the history of the subject, to see where the idea came from and how it was widely accepted.  Btw, complex numbers means that the number is 2-dimentional, where the real part is a vector on the x-axis, and the imagenary part is a vector on the y-axis, and the resultant vector is the complex number.

I would not give Al-Jazari the title of "father of Robotics" when there were automata of various kinds in many places and times that pre-date him. There are accounts of them from ancient China, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Technology is more of a continuum with people building on what came before.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata

A lot of experts disagree... because he invented the first programmable humanoid robot.

Sure other individuals outside of Europe needs to be credited as well.  The overall point that I'm making, is as a whole, the Muslim scholars are not getting the recognition they deserve in western textbooks-- it would help today's scientist a lot when they're trying to develop an intuition for the subject.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Well I'll be damned, it looks like those history textbooks that schools teach to us are false. In 7th grade when we learned about the rise of Islam the book said that Muhammed directly wrote the Qur'an in the cave by himself right after having the visions from Gabriel, and that he did not have several visions throughout his life but that he had all of the visions at once while in a cave and that the Qur'an was already written and finished by the time his visions stopped.

You will find a lot of text books are filled with flaws.  Public education is in a downward spiral.  The same thing happened to me in college with a history book.  I asked the professor why we had an inaccurate text book to which I was asked how it was inaccurate.  I explained, she rebutted and I supplied historical facts to back up my observation.  She finally said its up to someone else to screen the text books and we moved on.  That actually happened a lot in that class.  I hope they got that book out of the school.

You will find that in schools it will depend on the politics of the people in charge that determines which textbooks are used.

The High school I went to was predominantly republicans, so the history books and the teachers were as well.

There was a certain assignment I had and the teacher wanted me to write exactly opposite of what I had been taught about the depression and the presidents involved in that time period, which as I was later to learn was driven by the politics of that school.

[Αριστοκλής]

Actually, establishing Sharia at the local level is but part of their strategy to impose it nationally. Hence this is no difference to perceive.

How can they establish sharia in communities that are not Muslim?  Or even in Muslim communities that don't accept the sharia of the salafi school?  There will always be differences.

It's being done now in Britain.

Remember what I said, real Muslims are against hierarchical structure.  Communities need to be strong enough to not allow outsiders to come in and manipulate their laws.

Yes, that is exactly how my ancestral areas were conquered in Anatolia. The 'outsiders' became numerous and strong enough to take a part, a little here, a little there. War was only used to mop up the conquest.

Same format is being followed today.

[fibonacci]

Actually, establishing Sharia at the local level is but part of their strategy to impose it nationally. Hence this is no difference to perceive.

How can they establish sharia in communities that are not Muslim?  Or even in Muslim communities that don't accept the sharia of the salafi school?  There will always be differences.

It's being done now in Britain.

Remember what I said, real Muslims are against hierarchical structure.  Communities need to be strong enough to not allow outsiders to come in and manipulate their laws.

Yes, that is exactly how my ancestral areas were conquered in Anatolia. The 'outsiders' became numerous and strong enough to take a part, a little here, a little there. War was only used to mop up the conquest.

Same format is being followed today.

First of all, what happened in Anatolia was wrong, I've made a thread regarding the events that happened in Constantinople:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45203.0.html

About Islamic laws being implemented in Britian....... that's a stretch.  For one thing, British Muslims are currently using the British pound as their currency.  A true Islamic community wouldn't use such a currency, which is based on usury (riba). 

[fibonacci]

I have read some on human psychology and your claim is debateable.  First, you wrote that women and men are "mentally unequal".  Perhaps I should have been more clear and ask if you think that females are less intelligent then males.  "Different" is not the same as "unequal" by the way but your word was the latter.

Ebor, with all due respect, I'm not the type of individual that debates semantics.  You'll have to speak with a linguistic expert on words in the Quran that you have questions about it.

Next, when I said mentally unequal...... I'm saying they're different.  It doesn't mean one is smarter than the other.  Come on, this is something obvious.
Females on average excel in certain tasks, while Males on average excel in other tasks.  If you want to argue with me that this isn't the case, then you're arguing against nature IMO.  That is feminist ideology, which has been around for about 50 years (and that is the result of having a monetary system is based on usury).  Islam is different, we believe that men and women play different roles in society and are suppose to be complements of one another.

[fibonacci]

But aren't there still religious symbols in Islam, Fibonacci? Even the flag of the Shahada, while in some sense purely textual, is still a symbol, in that even those who could not read it came to eventually associate it with Islam. Or, for that matter, the association of the color green with Islam. You can't get more symbolic/abstract than taking a color and tying meaning into it.

This reminds me of the conundrum of Protestant Christians, who will often look at physical acts or objects in the Church and say "that's idolatry" or "that's paganism", but not even consider why they might have an American flag somewhere in their church (we had one off to the side of the stage in the Presbyterian church I was raised in), or their pastor might of a photograph of his wife on his desk in his office, or they might even have modern drawings (not icons) of a rather hippie-ish Jesus in the "teen bibles" produced or purchased for use in their youth groups.

Many people have more symbols in their spiritual lives than their 'orthodoxy' allows them to admit.

The star and moon originated from paganism, and was spiritually charged.  Spiritually charged symbols is something fundamental to paganism and witchcraft.  You'll have to take my word for it.

The other symbols that Muslims use, is not that much of a big deal, unless people worship it ... in that case it's a sin.

You're right, in fact many things in people's lives do symbolize something..... it is really against God's way.

For example, did you know that when an engineer graduates from college, they get a ring... called the 'iron ring'.  They say it represents an engineer's pride.  Most Muslims, Christians just accept the ring without thinking about it.

[fibonacci]

Explain Islamic sexual morality and sexual taboos in Islam. Is it comparable with Christianity?

Sex can only be done privately between adult male and adult female who truly love each other (that is committed for the long term... ie. they're married).

No sex based on lust .. ie. no fornication, adultery, ...etc.


Other types of sexual relationships are forbidden as well, as they also draw demons into your life.

[fibonacci]

What's the relationship between Islam and Jews? I've understood that Islam has more negative view of Jews than of Christians. Am I correct? Why is that?

We believe pious Jews are also our brothers in getting closer to God.

The negative view is directed towards the edomites, who converted to juedisim and corrupted their religion.

Also Muslims do not agree with the concept of 'Eretz Yisrael' that modern day edomites are striving for.

[fibonacci]

Why can't the Abrahamic religions be cool, modern and peaceful like Buddhism?

Hey come on now, Abrahamic religions are cool too.. there are a lot of knowledge/wisdom available for us to learn......like the knowledge of teleportation (Tay al-Ard).

[Theophilos78]

We believe pious Jews are also our brothers in getting closer to God.

The negative view is directed towards the edomites, who converted to juedisim and corrupted their religion.

Also Muslims do not agree with the concept of 'Eretz Yisrael' that modern day edomites are striving for.

If you say that the Edomites succeeded in corrupting Judaism, this means that now ALL Jews think, believe, and worship like Edomites. 

Who are the Edomites anyway? I cannot see a reference to them in the Qur'an? Why is that? Why did the author of the Qur'an make no reference even to Esau, Jacob's twin brother?

[Theophilos78]

Well this is a matter of faith.  Muslims agree with the truths/wisdom in the quran, and hence they accept that the messages are of divine orign.

It sure IS a matter of faith.

Which religion in the world would admit that its original scripture was corrupted and lost? 

So when they see this verse http://quran.com/39/28

they accept it, and hence say there is no corruption in the Qur'an.

We'll just have to wait until Imam Mahdi returns to notify us if there has been any corruption.  Just like Jesus will come back and notify us if there has been any corruption in the recording of his message.

We believe what Jesus said in the Gospel "I am with you always, unto the end of ages". This is why we deny Muhammad and the Qur'an. 

[Theophilos78]

Also Muslims do not agree with the concept of 'Eretz Yisrael' that modern day edomites are striving for.

Why do Muslims curse Israel in their slogans? Isn't Israel also the second name of a great religious figure (Jacob) that is considered a prophet by the author of the Qur'an? Besides, in the Qur'an the name Israel appears only as Jacob's other name (Surah 19:58). Isn't the use of this name in a curse overt blasphemy? If the nation of Israel had the name Abraham, would Muslims likewise curse Abraham?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I have read some on human psychology and your claim is debateable.  First, you wrote that women and men are "mentally unequal".  Perhaps I should have been more clear and ask if you think that females are less intelligent then males.  "Different" is not the same as "unequal" by the way but your word was the latter.

Ebor, with all due respect, I'm not the type of individual that debates semantics.  You'll have to speak with a linguistic expert on words in the Quran that you have questions about it.

Next, when I said mentally unequal...... I'm saying they're different.  It doesn't mean one is smarter than the other.  Come on, this is something obvious.
Females on average excel in certain tasks, while Males on average excel in other tasks.  If you want to argue with me that this isn't the case, then you're arguing against nature IMO.  That is feminist ideology, which has been around for about 50 years (and that is the result of having a monetary system is based on usury).  Islam is different, we believe that men and women play different roles in society and are suppose to be complements of one another.

But, you just played with semantics. "Mentally different" can mean "Mentally unequal" in some cases, when either is smarter than the other. It can also mean, as you pointed out that men and women excel in different tasks. However, "mentally unequal" by itself has only one connotation, a difference in degree, where one must be inferior to the other. In context, it means that women are inferior to men.

[Αριστοκλής]

Actually, establishing Sharia at the local level is but part of their strategy to impose it nationally. Hence this is no difference to perceive.

How can they establish sharia in communities that are not Muslim?  Or even in Muslim communities that don't accept the sharia of the salafi school?  There will always be differences.

It's being done now in Britain.

Remember what I said, real Muslims are against hierarchical structure.  Communities need to be strong enough to not allow outsiders to come in and manipulate their laws.

Yes, that is exactly how my ancestral areas were conquered in Anatolia. The 'outsiders' became numerous and strong enough to take a part, a little here, a little there. War was only used to mop up the conquest.

Same format is being followed today.

First of all, what happened in Anatolia was wrong, I've made a thread regarding the events that happened in Constantinople:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45203.0.html

Yes, I saw that thread but did not comment thinking it was an apology of sorts but not sure how far those sentiments went as to the general extinguishing of our faith in my ancestral lands. After all, my grandfather's baptismal church - the Church of the Holy Wisdom at Trapezounta (now Trebizond) is a fuel dump today.

About Islamic laws being implemented in Britian....... that's a stretch.  For one thing, British Muslims are currently using the British pound as their currency.  A true Islamic community wouldn't use such a currency, which is based on usury (riba). 

Not such a stretch as you might think. I just did a Bing search on "British Sharia" and got returned 5,500,000+ hits about the FACT that in Britain court cases involving Muslim communities my be adjudicated within Sharia courts outside the usual British system.

[Ebor]

I mean no offense to you in this, but you are making assumptions on my thinking and understanding if you are under the impression that I do not find "lessons" in history, but only facts.  Sometimes it may be the case that a "lesson" might be drawn that is not, in fact, based on real situations or facts.

A case in point: as a Muslim you esteem the Quran and claimed that "the original" has been preserved in totality but that this is not the case for either the Jewish or Christian scriptures.  This seemed to have the meaning, or lesson if you will, that there is something superior to Islam because of this preservation.  However, the reality and fact of the manuscript and its history  from what I found is that 1) there is only about 1/3 of it left and 2) there is more than one as Uthmar had five copies made and then burned all of the versions that had variations which, it was noted with a reference, were usually minor.  So there is no exisiting complete "original copy" of the Quran either.  

If I misunderstood the lesson that you were trying to get across I apologize.    I am also aware of the left/right brain theories and the human brain has different areas of functioning in the different halves.  But was there a particular person's/group's ideas that you are thinking of, please?

First of all, as I mentioned in my other post... the lesson you can learn from early islam is that..
once the general population started to care about human rights (thanks to the prophet to convince them to not kill their daughters, to free slaves, to not implement usury, ...etc)

No, I have not learned that lesson from early Islam. Perhaps you have but you have not told us what materials and sources you have learned this though I have asked you to give some so that others can see what you have read.  Why do you think that it is not necessary to let us know where you get your information?  Why should your opinion/ideas on early Islam be accepted as authorative please?

At the same time I have mentioned Reza Aslan's book and I can give other sources as well.  Slaves were still taken and kept in Muslim societies. As I recall it was that freeborn Muslims could not be enslaved, but non-Muslims could.  Muslim/Arab slavers operated in Africa.  Slavery was common in many areas of the world, so this is not to say that it was unique to Islamic societies.  Here is a link to the first two chapters of Dr. Bernard Lewis' Race and Slavery in the Middle East
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

then the population became productive, and expanded the field of science and technology.

This is how societies always work...

human rights -> allows economic freedom -> which allows technological and scientific progress

If you want to argue and debate against this theory, then there is no point.  Because this is what I believed, based on my research.

You believe this. When you say, though, that it is "how societies always work" that is a claim that needs more support than just your saying so.  If you do not want to defend your beliefs, no one can force you to.  And how can anyone debate you if you do not give real information from history but repeat a vague idea?

About the original Quran.  Will Uthman's quran is one of them that some say 1/3 of it exist.  First of all, how do you know that?  Have you seen it yourself?

Secondly, his quran isn't only 'original' one around.  There are many others... there are many very old qurans still residing in mosques Medina, Saudi Arabia- where the prophet
was living.  

The most important thing to see is that there is uniformity in the text.  A Muslim in Indonesia is reading the same Qur'an as a Muslim in morocco.

I do not mean to seem rude, but you were the one who made a claim that the Quran was preserved in the original text while Christianity and Judaism did not have this advantage.  When I asked you where this "original" might be you answered that you thought it was in Uzbekistan.  I did research and found the article and information it and that 1) it is not the complete text and 2) it was not the only existing copy from when Uthman destroyed the variant texts and had one version compiled.  He was the one who ordered it and that five copies were made of it from which others were copied. 

I have seen photos of the manuscript in Uzbekistan.  Have you?  Have you seen any of the copies that date from Uthman's order yourself? And is a Muslim in Indonesia reading an Quran in his/her language or only in Arabic? As far as I know the Latin Vulgate text of the Bible has not changed, it is the translations into other languages and over time that are different. 

I submit that you are changing your claim from a miraculous preservation of the complete original to that copies that are all in the same language are "uniform".

From your view as a Shia Muslim, those who slaughtered Hussein and his followers (I am familiar with the history of the early years of Islam) were hypocritical and evil.  From the Sunni side they were rebelling against the right way and were dealt with albeit with violence.  My point is that there is more than one "side" or view of events.

Yes there are different point of views in history.  Remember what history is... HIS story.  

I call that a semantics game.  The etymology of "history" is not from that play on the word.  It's from French-Latin-Greek on back.  Here's the info from EtymologyOnline: 
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=history&searchmode=none
 

But the truth will come out eventually.   Do you think it's morally right thing for a leader to use force and even kill an individual that doesn't want to pledge allegiance to you?
If you think that the other side was justified in killing Hussein, then there is no point debating.  We'll just have to wait until the truth comes out....... that is when Imam Mahdi reveals the truth for all sects.

I don't have any bias one way or the other.  I am not any kind of Muslim. I do not think that it is right to use force and deal death to others.  Please do not attempt to attribute the idea that Hussein's death was justified to me.  I did not say that nor do I think that and there is nothing to debate in that area.

The split between Sunni and Shia was due to disagreement with who would lead Islam.  This combines religion and power struggles.  Muhammad was not a pacifist and used force against those who did not agree with him, the Battle of Badr and the Conquest of Mecca being a couple of instances.

Just to understand, when you refer to a particular "region" you mean the area of Persia/Iran?  There was a vast area beyond that which was conquered by forces under the banner of Islam beyond that land and the Arabian Peninsula.

I'm talking about the regions where human rights are accepted.  In those vast areas where forces were carrying the banner of 'Islam'... did they accept human rights?  If not, then by definition they're not Muslims, and it's incorrect to associate them with real Muslims.

I think that this is a core point of your thought:  That you say that those who conquered other lands and peoples, who did violence in the name of Islam are not "real Muslims".  That is your definition.  But why would that apply to 14 centuries and millions upon millions of human beings?
 

Would you please give some more specific information about the times and events that you are thinking of here?  What political changes in the Middle East and who wasn't taking the religion seriously?  Thank you.

Around the time when the siege of Baghdad happened and the big library (house of Wisdom was burnt down).  

This is something I'll have to study more to give you exact details of political changes.  But in general, when the mongols took over, it's obviously a different political system that disregarded human rights.

I would appreciate any information that you can post.  I think that you must be referring to the Siege of 1258 (Baghdad was besieged more than one or two times)


This is getting long, so I will finish up the last bit in a later post.

With respect,

Ebor

[recent convert]

irst of all, as I mentioned in my other post... the lesson you can learn from early islam is that..
once the general population started to care about human rights (thanks to the prophet to convince them to not kill their daughters, to free slaves, to not implement usury, ...etc.

too free slaves? LOL>>>

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/slaverebel.htm

[tweety234]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

[Justin Kissel]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

I am woefully ignorant of Islam, but I would still hazard a guess of "no" with some confidence 

[tweety234]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

I am woefully ignorant of Islam, but I would still hazard a guess of "no" with some confidence 

I once read a page about different religions, Of all of them besides christianity, I liked suffism.
It said that the only requirement they have in order to accept you as a suffi, is that you accept that there is only one God. No other Gods. Just one. (Which of course I do). They don't care how you call this God. As long as you admit this little Dogma. Of course I may be wrong. Any thoughts Anyone?

[dzheremi]

Yes, you are wrong. Sufism is a sort of spiritual or mystical approach to Islam, but it is still Islam. So in order to be Sufi, you have to be Muslim, and in order to be Muslim you cannot be Christian. The two are incompatible.

[Nephi]

you cannot be Christian. The two are incompatible.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't concern tweety that much.

[tweety234]

you cannot be Christian. The two are incompatible.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't concern tweety that much.

it does? but you don't have to believe me. I can live with it.

[Jetavan]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

Yes, there are Sufi orders that don't require one to become Muslim.

Of course, some other Muslims may argue that a true Sufi is always a Muslim.

[dzheremi]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

Yes, there are Sufi orders that don't require one to become Muslim.

Which ones, where?

[Jetavan]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

Yes, there are Sufi orders that don't require one to become Muslim.

Which ones, where?

Members of the Chishti Order, especially Hazrat Inayat Khan (who came to the West in 1910, married a relative of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy, and inspired several Sufi communities based on what is called "Universal Sufism").

[JamesR]

Sex can only be done privately between adult male and adult female who truly love each other (that is committed for the long term... ie. they're married).

No sex based on lust .. ie. no fornication, adultery, ...etc.


Other types of sexual relationships are forbidden as well, as they also draw demons into your life.

I am highly skeptical about this. I admit, I am no expert on Islam and probably less qualified to speak on it than you are, but from what I have observed and studied, it seems like Islam contains a lot of "loopholes" in regards to sexual morality. For example, allowing sexual relations between you and your slaves and captives, and requiring something like four or more adult men to WITNESS the act of intercourse at the same time in order to convict a man for rape.

[JamesR]

...when the mongols took over, it's obviously a different political system that disregarded human rights.

I think you may be mistaken on this. The Mongols actually had quite a bit respect for human rights that--at the time--would put to shame most other empires of the world. The Mongols at the time were the only civilization I am aware of which truly allowed religious freedom, whereas Shariah allows discrimination against non-Muslim religions. The Mongols on the other hand treated all religions equally and pretty much stayed out of your life provided you paid them their tax. As for their violent system of war, it was essentially the same model that the Romans used.

[Nephi]

I think you may be mistaken on this. The Mongols actually had quite a bit respect for human rights that--at the time--would put to shame most other empires of the world. The Mongols at the time were the only civilization I am aware of which truly allowed religious freedom, whereas Shariah allows discrimination against non-Muslim religions. The Mongols on the other hand treated all religions equally and pretty much stayed out of your life provided you paid them their tax. As for their violent system of war, it was essentially the same model that the Romans used.

Tell that to the entire cities the Mongols massacred and razed.

Many scholars even argue that much of the developments of jihad as a theology, and as utilized today by militants, were in response to the violent occupation of Islamic lands by Mongols. In other words, the Mongols were more brutal and encompassing in their conquest compared to the drop-in-a-bucket crusades.

IIRC, the "Assassins" were brutally conquered and effectively wiped out by the Mongols.

It can't be said they had religious freedom, but rather religion was much lower in priority to them. Their empire was rather mixed through time - Pagan, partly Nestorian, and later Islamic.

[dzheremi]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

Yes, there are Sufi orders that don't require one to become Muslim.

Which ones, where?

Members of the Chishti Order, especially Hazrat Inayat Khan (who came to the West in 1910, married a relative of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy, and inspired several Sufi communities based on what is called "Universal Sufism").

Ah...yes..."universal Sufism", i.e., the "Unitarian Universalists" of the Sufi world. Forgive me if I take that as a non-answer because every form of "Universal" anything is always a non-answer to anything.

[Jetavan]

can you be a suffi, without changing your christian faith, or denying your baptism?

Yes, there are Sufi orders that don't require one to become Muslim.

Which ones, where?

Members of the Chishti Order, especially Hazrat Inayat Khan (who came to the West in 1910, married a relative of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy, and inspired several Sufi communities based on what is called "Universal Sufism").

Ah...yes..."universal Sufism", i.e., the "Unitarian Universalists" of the Sufi world. Forgive me if I take that as a non-answer because every form of "Universal" anything is always a non-answer to anything.

It should be noted that the Chishti Order is not part of "Universal Sufism".

[fibonacci]

Hi folks

Been a few months since I was here.  Hopefully I can respond to some of your replies.

If you say that the Edomites succeeded in corrupting Judaism, this means that now ALL Jews think, believe, and worship like Edomites. 

Who are the Edomites anyway? I cannot see a reference to them in the Qur'an? Why is that? Why did the author of the Qur'an make no reference even to Esau, Jacob's twin brother?

I'm surprised you haven't heard about Edomites.  I believe in bible studies, they're referred to as the 'red jews'.

A lot of jews know about them, and know they're an open enemy to their religion-- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Edomites.html

Alot of christian sites claim that it was the edomites that crucified Jesus -- http://divinepageant.com/indictment_of_edom.htm


In the quran they're referred to as the people of Gog and Magog (yajooj and majooj).  One particular surah is, surah Al-Kahf which talks about how they were corrupt and carried out mischief. 


If you ever wondered why the Zionists are lusting for a war with Iran, it's because of a religious prophecy they're obsessed about-- http://choshvei.blogspot.ca/2006/03/gemara-on-war-between-edom-and-persia.html .

They believe that such a war will accelerate the emergence of their long-awaited messiah (which from Islam's and Orthodox Christianity's point of view, will be the antichrist, a leader in eretz yisrael who trys to impersonates the messiah).


 

[fibonacci]

Well this is a matter of faith.  Muslims agree with the truths/wisdom in the quran, and hence they accept that the messages are of divine orign.

It sure IS a matter of faith.

Which religion in the world would admit that its original scripture was corrupted and lost?  

So when they see this verse http://quran.com/39/28

they accept it, and hence say there is no corruption in the Qur'an.

We'll just have to wait until Imam Mahdi returns to notify us if there has been any corruption.  Just like Jesus will come back and notify us if there has been any corruption in the recording of his message.

We believe what Jesus said in the Gospel "I am with you always, unto the end of ages". This is why we deny Muhammad and the Qur'an.  

Look I'm not sure what point you're making.....

but the truths that were revealed to mankind come in many different formats and in different books... it's the same truths whether it's from prophet Jesus or prophet Mohammed!  Saying you deny what Mohammed and the quran says, is like saying you deny the truths revealed from God.  

You see, the original bible had a lot of truths in it, talked about God's law, and how humans should behave if they want to reach a higher state where they can understand the secrets of the universe, questions like why we're here and what's our purpose,...etc.

Now overtime that original text of that bible was lost... although the old testament always talked about the 1 God and His way and His prophets, it had some flaws, where it said some sinful things about the prophets.  That prophet Noah was an alcoholic and managed to create the arc in such a state!!! Prophet Lut committed very bad sins with his daughters!!! And Prophet David murdered someone so he can get away with an adulterous relation!!!  

Obv these stories are not true.  The quran was sent down to fix this problem.  It contains many of the same stories about prophets, but made it clear that prophets of God don't commit such bad sins.  I suggest you read both the whole bible (not just a few passages), then read the whole quran.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Feel free to ask me anything about Islam...