What do you know about Islam?

[chacha kashmiri]

The point Jadz makes is true...wording is significant...in most languages 'right' tends to be linked to something positive whilst left isn't...

The allusions of righteousness themselves show a discrimination...the fact that left handedness is an allusion to negativeness is relevant...

Muslims just followed on from everyone else...the greek language for left is sinister...right is linked to dexterity...language is very important...

It's why it's called the final message

Muslims have no problems with the old testament or most of the Torah


First you claimed Hadrat Uthman changed the quran, then you claimed that Islam took the message of the prophet Lut incorrectly from the old testament thus making your argument about the Quran being a copy illogical by your own statement

The Quran is a continuation from the Torah and Old testament
Of course it incorporates stuff from both books as they are also the word of God

Judaism and Islam both stem from prophet Ibrahim with the branches seperating with the timelines from Isaac and Ismail


Your argument i.e about homosexuality makes me quite clear where you are coming from and it is a militant liberal position which would explain your arguments on slavery and your hatred for Christianity as well as Islam

 

[Yossarian]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on 'mainstream Islam'. Anyone know what that 'mainstream' actually is? Considering that there are so many factions / 'schools of thought' / sects / branches et al, in addition to the diverse nature of muslims coming from different regions of the globe, different societies, ethnic groups, cultures, local customs, speaking different languages ..... ?

And who defines which one out of the many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of permutations and combinations of the above this 'mainstream' represents?

And lastly, don't forget, all this started with one human being, The Prophet. Meaning that the only reason for the vast number of the aforementioned permutations and combinations that currently exist, and Muslims are split amongst, is the result of so called scholars having differing views and interpretations of the Qu'ran and the life of The Prophet.

And yet there is still something called the 'mainstream' ?

 

[shaykh]

It's why it's called the final message

Muslims have no problems with the old testament or most of the Torah


First you claimed Hadrat Uthman changed the quran, then you claimed that Islam took the message of the prophet Lut incorrectly from the old testament thus making your argument about the Quran being a copy illogical by your own statement

The Quran is a continuation from the Torah and Old testament
Of course it incorporates stuff from both books as they are also the word of God

Judaism and Islam both stem from prophet Ibrahim with the branches seperating with the timelines from Isaac and Ismail


Your argument i.e about homosexuality makes me quite clear where you are coming from and it is a militant liberal position which would explain your arguments on slavery and your hatred for Christianity as well as Islam

I know Muslims don't have a problem with the Torah...the Torah which seems to borrow a lot from the Hammurabi code...

And herein comes the problem...anything remotely provocative from the Torah or the Bible is called innovation and corruption...

So I mentioned the Sodom and Gomorra story...if you have read Genesis then you will know that Lot a Prophet of God offers his virgin daughters to the townspeople and then ended up sleeping with both of them while getting wasted...just shows how dated this nonsense is...God saved the incestuous, drinking, fornicating Prophet and the girls that got him drunk ...nice moral story...

It's reading rubbish like this that provides me reason to dislike Abrahamic religions...

The fact that Christianity requires a man to marry his rape victim and is not allowed to divorce her...a practice which still existed in some Catholic countries until recently...

My dislikes have a basis...they aren't arbitrary...

As for Uthman I never claimed that the Muslims took the 'wrong' version of Lut...they just reformed it...and took out the part about Lot getting wasted...im not saying Uthman did this...im saying Muhammad reformed it...

Your final sentence implies a criticism but I don't see it as such...i have an open dislike for slavery, homophobia, rape which Abrahamic faiths have absolutely no problem with...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I know Muslims don't have a problem with the Torah...the Torah which seems to borrow a lot from the Hammurabi code...

And herein comes the problem...anything remotely provocative from the Torah or the Bible is called innovation and corruption...

So I mentioned the Sodom and Gomorra story...if you have read Genesis then you will know that Lot a Prophet of God offers his virgin daughters to the townspeople and then ended up sleeping with both of them while getting wasted...just shows how dated this nonsense is...God saved the incestuous, drinking, fornicating Prophet and the girls that got him drunk ...nice moral story...

It's reading rubbish like this that provides me reason to dislike Abrahamic religions...

The fact that Christianity requires a man to marry his rape victim and is not allowed to divorce her...a practice which still existed in some Catholic countries until recently...

My dislikes have a basis...they aren't arbitrary...

As for Uthman I never claimed that the Muslims took the 'wrong' version of Lut...they just reformed it...and took out the part about Lot getting wasted...im not saying Uthman did this...im saying Muhammad reformed it...

Your final sentence implies a criticism but I don't see it as such...i have an open dislike for slavery, homophobia, rape which Abrahamic faiths have absolutely no problem with...

Abrahamic religions Sounds like the owner of a London football club. You should get out of this thread along with your buddies before making yourself look even more ridiculous.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Now Shaykh, I do hope you realise that since you have drawn attention on ancient texts regarding to Abrahamic faiths it is only fair to raise similar topics to discuss non Abrahamic faiths so we can at least get some perspective. Let us progress on this path of learning

 

[Mughal]

Deen of islam is basically a proper rule of law and unless people understand importance of having and following a proper rule of law they cannot unite or live in peace so they are not going to make much progress and be prosperous. Since having a proper rule of law and its proper following is absolutely important so a question arises, what is origin of proper rule of law as far as deen of islam is concerned? The answer is the book of Allah and its proper interpretation by people who accept it as guidance from Allah through mutual consultation. In other words it is ummah that legislates laws in light of guidelines in the quran and realities that face ummah on the ground.

The main question is, why do we need rule of law to begin with? It is because we have been set some goals to accomplish and we have also been provided some guidelines to accomplish them in accordance with. Had we not been set any goals, we had no need for guidelines therefore any program, constitution or laws. The goals we have been set and guidelines we have been given are in line with purpose of Allah for our creation. This is why Allah sent messengers and messages and took covenants of the messengers and their supporters. This covenant is simply a promise of undertaking a task in presence of Allah in order to do all one can to fulfil it as an individual or as a part of proper human community.

Once people come together they must organise as a proper human community on basis of the quran using its guidelines for forming a constitution and regulate themselves using quranic guidelines for forming rules and regulations and laws. The community should sets up needed administration and the office to carry out its work from and then carry on working for creating a kingdom based upon guidance of Allah. Once a kingdom is brought about it must be secured in every way so that it does not become undone or disintegrates and that all its people must be set tasks and they must carry them out to ensure blissful, dignified and secure existence of the proper human community. What it means is deen of islam is about educating people to be responsibility conscious so that they could self regulate themselves just like one wakes up in the morning to go to work and do what one has been given by the community to do as a responsibility to fulfil. It is because rights of each other can only delivered if all peopel made responsible for tasks fulfil their given tasks whole heartedly.

From all these explanations it is not difficult to see what deen of islam is really about and what it is not really about. The idea that people need to pray to Allah is a nonsense created by mullahs by misinterpreting the quranic text. I have explained already that word SALAAH has nothing at all to do with prayer, it is about people forming a community network so that with help and support of each other they could bring about a proper human community so that they could have a blissful, dignified and secure existence and once they have that they could concentrate on other important goals such a discovering the universe for themselves so that they could use it for their own good. The question is, why mullahs replaced task of setting up a community network with idea of prayers? In relation to use of word SALAAH as prayer terms like QAYAAM, RAKOO and SAJDAH have also been given alternative meanings that have nothing at all to do with message of the quran. In the proper context of the quran salaah means act of forming a proper human community and in that context QAYAAM means not standing up during prayer but establishing something or making something stand up ie raise a community of people that is constantly in touch with each other so that people are aware of community needs to ensure each other's well being.

Word RAKOO likewise in the quranic context means bending oneself or one's life according to requirements of the quranic message or modelling one's life according to model given in the quran for living one's life. Word SAJDAH simply means to accept the will of Allah or bow down to it ie accept living by way of life advised by Allah. In all this there is no such thing as prayer as told by mullahs. A clear proof that this pillar of islam has been deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented in order to make fool of people through sense of personal piety.

We can see same thing about word HAJJ. It is from root HAA, JEEM and JEEM. This root revolves around concept of fighting or struggling or making effort towards some goal. The question is, what is the basic goal the quran has set for us? It is bringing about a kingdom in the name of Allah so that humanity could live as a family in peace and progress and prosper. It is very root from which comes word HUJJAT=argument, dispute. The quran is not telling us to make a journey to a house made of stones but to make a journey towards bringing about a kingdom based upon guidance of Allah. There is no concept of worshipping idols in the deen of islam. KABAH is one of the many houses people build in the name of Allah around the world. The question is, what is kabah and why it is something important to take care of? It is an ancient building that was build and rebuild and used by messengers of Allah and their supporters to carry out tasks relating the kingdoms they brought about based upon guidance of Allah. There were more buildings like it in the world because there came about many messengers from Allah throughout the world and set up kingdoms based upon guidance of Allah. MASJID does not mean a place where people pray but a community centre where is based community administration to carry out its duties set for it by the community.

So one pillar of deen of islam is community building around model given in the quran and the other bringing about a kingdom based upon guidance of Allah.

Another pillar of deen of islam is ZAKAAH ie making sure that community is free of all thoughts and actions that could mean harm or destruction of the community by hands of each other. Word ZAKAAH is from root ZAA, KAAF and WOW/YAA. The concept of this root revolves around development and growth or prosperity. The idea is that community should work hard at ensuring its growth and development because unless people plan things properly and execute the action plan faithfully a community can never become free of troubles and difficulties and hardships.

I have already discussed the importance of the main pillar ie declaration that Allah alone is God and that Muhammad is his messenger who brought the message in form of the quran.

Yet another pillar of deen of islam is SOWM from root SWAAD, WOW and MEEM. This root revolves around concept of abstaining from something all by oneself without anyone telling one as one's guard or keeper ie not doing anything harmful or destructive through self control. It means one holding oneself back from doing something that could harm or destrcution.

Now that all fives pillars of deen of lislam have been explained as to what they mean in the text of the quran in their proper context one can see what deen of islam actually means.


We are told by mullahs the quran was revealed in the month of ramadhan. What does it really mean in the context of the quran? The clue lies in the root of word RAMADHAN. The root is RAA, MEEM and DWAAD. It revolves around concept of severe or fierce heat. Heat is attributed to two things a)hot weather ie heat of summer months and b)heat of wars that people feel. The quran was revealed to invite warring people towards unity and peaceful existence. So what the quran is telling us is the fact that it was revealed during a period of time when people were at war with each other in order to help them become united and peaceful because they were divided into many factions tearing each other apart due to adopting a way of life based upon personal gains at the expense of each other.

This explanation should help people see what mullahs call islam is not the actual deen opf islam that messenger of Allah told about to the people. If the messengers of Allah only sat down on prayer mats and did all those things that mullahs falsely attribute to them there could not be deen of islam at all and the world will have been in much worse state of existence than it is today.

One should read my posts and see what I said about words like AZAAN, SAALIHAH, HASNA, SADAQAH, KHAIRAAT ITAAT, ITIBAA, SUNNAH etc etc. See how all explanations of the quran interconnect perfectly?

The message of the quran is very clear for the mankind that if you are genuinely interested in transforming your world for the better then prayers, fasting, visiting an old building, and paying 2.5 % tax is not going to do it. You need to do the needed works that will change the world for the better. This is the original deen of islam. So if people want to know actual deen of islam then there is no other way but that they must study the quran properly themselves with help of each other.

 

[shaykh]

Now Shaykh, I do hope you realise that since you have drawn attention on ancient texts regarding to Abrahamic faiths it is only fair to raise similar topics to discuss non Abrahamic faiths so we can at least get some perspective. Let us progress on this path of learning

I don't see how anything I have stated can be construed as ridiculous...Abrahamic is the collective name for Judaism, Christianity and Islam...

By all means discuss other religions...it would be interesting...my criticism of Abrahamic religions is by no means an endorsement of anything else...i'm an agnostic after all...

 

[Buffet]

Very informative thread. Now I get it why I see so many different views when it comes to Islam.

 

[OZGOD]

Very informative thread. Now I get it why I see so many different views when it comes to Islam.

That's what I'm seeing too. It's a fascinating thread. It's hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. I guess even when you look at Catholicism which is centrally organised and has a Head of the Church who basically tells Catholics what the doctrine is, and there are organised theological colleges to teach priests what the Scripture means, there are still differences (between Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Opus Dei, etc). With Islam (Sunni anyway) I'm seeing that a lot of it is really due to a) grassroots interpretation and b) your personal belief system. Which is why I guess you keep having people flock to the likes of ISIS because at a grassroots level their interpretation of Islam appeals to those particular individuals. It's like Catholicism 1000 years ago, it was ok to go on Crusades and kill heretics (Spanish Inquisition anyone) but this is the same religion that also says "turn the other cheek".

If anything I feel that there is an "original Islam" and a "modernist Islam" where the original Islam is practised by the likes of ISIS and to a lesser extent countries like Saudi and Afghanistan, where the interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths is more literal than not, while "modernist Islam" is more people who try to interpret the Quran and Hadiths in reflection of the changes in society and culture today. Modernist Islam is the "kinder, gentler Islam" similar to the evolution of Catholicism over the past millenia, after the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisitions and political Catholicism as practised by the Papal States.

Having said that in many ways I feel that "original Islam" such as was practised a thousand years ago when Arab culture was at its apex, when Baghdad was the greatest city in the world, and Islamic scientists led the way in innovation and discoveries, was a lot more tolerant than "original Islam" as practised by ISIS, Saudi et al today.

What I would like to know more about though is the Shia Islam. It's a shame we don't have more Shia on this forum. I'd like to know what they think of Sunni Islam. Are Shia allowed into Mecca and Medina or are they prevented from entering because they are heretics like the rest of us non-Muslims? Is their interpretation of the Quran and Hadith roughly the same, aside from the succession?

 

[venomousx]

From all these explanations it is not difficult to see what deen of islam is really about and what it is not really about. The idea that people need to pray to Allah is a nonsense created by mullahs by misinterpreting the quranic text. I have explained already that word SALAAH has nothing at all to do with prayer, it is about people forming a community network so that with help and support of each other they could bring about a proper human community so that they could have a blissful, dignified and secure existence and once they have that they could concentrate on other important goals such a discovering the universe for themselves so that they could use it for their own good. The question is, why mullahs replaced task of setting up a community network with idea of prayers? In relation to use of word SALAAH as prayer terms like QAYAAM, RAKOO and SAJDAH have also been given alternative meanings that have nothing at all to do with message of the quran. In the proper context of the quran salaah means act of forming a proper human community and in that context QAYAAM means not standing up during prayer but establishing something or making something stand up ie raise a community of people that is constantly in touch with each other so that people are aware of community needs to ensure each other's well being.

Very interesting perspective!! How would you interpret this ayat which relates to wudhu. The need for wudhu before prayer is something that has always confused me. I feel that it was more suited to the people who lived in the desert and actually needed to wash 3 or 5 times a day. Here it is: "5:6 O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salat (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. had a sexual discharge), purify yourself (bathe your whole body). But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse) and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favour on you that you may be thankful."

 

[Buffet]

That's what I'm seeing too. It's a fascinating thread. It's hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. I guess even when you look at Catholicism which is centrally organised and has a Head of the Church who basically tells Catholics what the doctrine is, and there are organised theological colleges to teach priests what the Scripture means, there are still differences (between Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Opus Dei, etc). With Islam (Sunni anyway) I'm seeing that a lot of it is really due to a) grassroots interpretation and b) your personal belief system. Which is why I guess you keep having people flock to the likes of ISIS because at a grassroots level their interpretation of Islam appeals to those particular individuals. It's like Catholicism 1000 years ago, it was ok to go on Crusades and kill heretics (Spanish Inquisition anyone) but this is the same religion that also says "turn the other cheek".

If anything I feel that there is an "original Islam" and a "modernist Islam" where the original Islam is practised by the likes of ISIS and to a lesser extent countries like Saudi and Afghanistan, where the interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths is more literal than not, while "modernist Islam" is more people who try to interpret the Quran and Hadiths in reflection of the changes in society and culture today. Modernist Islam is the "kinder, gentler Islam" similar to the evolution of Catholicism over the past millenia, after the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisitions and political Catholicism as practised by the Papal States.

Having said that in many ways I feel that "original Islam" such as was practised a thousand years ago when Arab culture was at its apex, when Baghdad was the greatest city in the world, and Islamic scientists led the way in innovation and discoveries, was a lot more tolerant than "original Islam" as practised by ISIS, Saudi et al today.

What I would like to know more about though is the Shia Islam. It's a shame we don't have more Shia on this forum. I'd like to know what they think of Sunni Islam. Are Shia allowed into Mecca and Medina or are they prevented from entering because they are heretics like the rest of us non-Muslims? Is their interpretation of the Quran and Hadith roughly the same, aside from the succession?

You are right about one version of Islam interpretation at grass root level otherwise you can't really explain thousands of young men and women going to join ISIS even from western countries. Situation is somewhat similar to what Christianity had 1000 years back when it came to interpreting religious scriptures.

As far as I know, Saudis have issues with Shia but Shia can visit religious sights. While Googling, I came across only one issue. In July 31, 1987, pilgrims from Iran(Shia) rioted in Mecca causing the deaths of over 400 people, it was attributed to Shia and Sunny differences. But I don't see anything which says that Shias are not allowed right now or they were not allowed in any earlier years.

 

[CricketCartoons]

[MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]. I am convinced that those who reject the sahih hadiths cannot call themselves sunnis. But they can surely call themselves muslims? Because to be a Muslim all you must believe in is the shahadah and the 5 pillars of Islam.

 

[shaykh]

[MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]. I am convinced that those who reject the sahih hadiths cannot call themselves sunnis. But they can surely call themselves muslims? Because to be a Muslim all you must believe in is the shahadah and the 5 pillars of Islam.

Depends on whose perspective you are answering that question from...

For Sunnis for instance to be a Muslim is a lot more than just the Shahadah and 5 pillars...as a side note Mughal rejects the 5 pillars...calling ritual prayer nonsense for instance...

Acceptance of hadith to Sunnis forms belief...so rejection of hadith to THEM is disbelief...so from the Sunni position the Quranists are not Muslim...

Sunnis believe Muhammad is the final messenger...this is why they believe the Ahmedis to be non Muslim...

There are lots of other criteria that each strand have for belief...and I'm not here to debate who has the correct perspective...im a disbeliever after all...so let this be a disclaimer when the Quranists come and attack me on this...I don't really care...they can call themselves Muslim...the point being raised is Sunnis and Shia won't see them as Muslim...

The question was raised about what is mainstream...and that would be the majority i.e. Sunni and Shia...i disagree with Christianity too as Muslims do but we can accept that mainstream Christianity is Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox...

 

[OZGOD]

Depends on whose perspective you are answering that question from...

For Sunnis for instance to be a Muslim is a lot more than just the Shahadah and 5 pillars...as a side note Mughal rejects the 5 pillars...calling ritual prayer nonsense for instance...

Acceptance of hadith to Sunnis forms belief...so rejection of hadith to THEM is disbelief...so from the Sunni position the Quranists are not Muslim...

Sunnis believe Muhammad is the final messenger...this is why they believe the Ahmedis to be non Muslim...

There are lots of other criteria that each strand have for belief...and I'm not here to debate who has the correct perspective...im a disbeliever after all...so let this be a disclaimer when the Quranists come and attack me on this...I don't really care...they can call themselves Muslim...the point being raised is Sunnis and Shia won't see them as Muslim...

The question was raised about what is mainstream...and that would be the majority i.e. Sunni and Shia...i disagree with Christianity too as Muslims do but we can accept that mainstream Christianity is Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodox...

So what it is about [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] views that are not mainstream? Is it because they believe in the Quran only above the Hadith?

 

[shaykh]

So what it is about [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] views that are not mainstream? Is it because they believe in the Quran only above the Hadith?

Yep...

 

[CricketCartoons]

Islam was the most unified religion at its time. One God, one Book, one Prophet. Still it has so many divisions, and some bitter feuds. Goes to show that no matter what, humans have a tendency to form groups and follow tribal mentality.

 

[Mughal]

Very interesting perspective!! How would you interpret this ayat which relates to wudhu. The need for wudhu before prayer is something that has always confused me. I feel that it was more suited to the people who lived in the desert and actually needed to wash 3 or 5 times a day. Here it is: "5:6 O you who believe! When you intend to offer As-Salat (the prayer), wash your faces and your hands (forearms) up to the elbows, rub (by passing wet hands over) your heads, and (wash) your feet up to ankles. If you are in a state of Janaba (i.e. had a sexual discharge), purify yourself (bathe your whole body). But if you are ill or on a journey or any of you comes from answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact with women (i.e. sexual intercourse) and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands. Allah does not want to place you in difficulty, but He wants to purify you, and to complete His Favour on you that you may be thankful."

Dear venomousx, please see the provided link in post 53.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

You are right about one version of Islam interpretation at grass root level otherwise you can't really explain thousands of young men and women going to join ISIS even from western countries. Situation is somewhat similar to what Christianity had 1000 years back when it came to interpreting religious scriptures.

As far as I know, Saudis have issues with Shia but Shia can visit religious sights. While Googling, I came across only one issue. In July 31, 1987, pilgrims from Iran(Shia) rioted in Mecca causing the deaths of over 400 people, it was attributed to Shia and Sunny differences. But I don't see anything which says that Shias are not allowed right now or they were not allowed in any earlier years.

Dear Buffet, shia islams or sunni islams all have serious problems and the main reason is because they are mere make beliefs and useless rituals. So anyone can have any beliefs and take on any rituals that one feels comfortable with. When people fail in life due to fierce competition and rivalry they take comfort in imaginary friends because they have no real trustable friends they could rely upon. It is because we do not educate ourselves and each other about things in order to come together and work as one with support of each other. Rulers, money lenders and mullahs have set us on a path of life that isolates us from each other through rivalries and divisions. They have set us up against each other for their own personal gains at our expense. People have little sense how they are being fooled by people in positions of power whom they themselves have put in place.

deen of islam is basically a rule of law ie a concept that the constitution is supreme not personalities. Constitution is supreme because it helps people organise and regulate themselves for a set goal or a set of goals. This is why it is impossible for people to divide if they share a goal or a set of goals and if they organise and regulate for the set goal or goals. This is why when muslims were constitutionalists they were united but since they became make belief and useless ritual based people they ended up divided because they have taken up disorganised and unregulated lives that have nothing to do with real world issues and realities. All this because because rulers, money lenders and mullahs have masked rule of law with personality cults. This is why all day people sit and sing songs of greatness of certain people and think because they have done that Allah will be pleased with them and when they will ask him for things he will give them. A totally ignorance based approach to real life. They have taken up nonsense beliefs that Allah will send saviours for them with supernatural powers to save them so till then they should bear whatever is happening to them with patience. They think it is responsibility of Allah to fix their world for them so he will do it when he decides to do it. A totally wrong way of looking at the message of the quran in context of its purpose. The guidance is sent by Allah for people to put their own world right for the well being of themselves. If they do not put their own world in order Allah will not. After all who is responsible for making the word harmful and destructive? It is people themselves with harmful and destructive ambitions and desires whereby they end up having such harmful and destructive mindsets, attitudes and behaviours against each other. If the very same people started having constructive and beneficial ambitions and desires and developed mindsets and attitudes and behaviours based on thiose ambitions and desires the end result will be a beautiful world. The world can be what people make it for themselves and that is what the message of the quran is.

Shias and sunies both talk about khilaafah as if it was imperialism with another label. The difference is, is it imperialism by any family claiming to be muslims or has it to be family of the prophet only? Therefore the nonsense of both is clear because deen of islam is anti imperialism by its very nature. Even a prophet cannot impose himself upon people as their ruler. It is because concept of ruling people is anti islam in itself. People are supposed to be put in place as administrators by the community to serve humanity not rule each other. There is no concept of power struggle among ummah. All people are supposed to educate and train themselves for service of humanity and put forward themselves for whatever they can do for community and community is supposed to choose any of them and use them for whatever serves need of community. They are suposed to be put in place only for a few months and if they are seen to be up to scratch then be kept in place otherwise tey are supposed to be replaced.

The quran uses words like MISAAQ, MALAKAT, AIMAAN, NIKAAH, TALAAQ, KHALEEFAH, MALAK and IDDAT etc etc. These words have nothing to do with tow people getting married or divorced etc etc.

The mullahs have told us the quran talk about adam and his wife but in actual fact it does not. See what word ZOWJ means in arabic. Anyone who is a mate, a work colleague, a company or companion etc. Any two or more people that work as a team. Any two or more things that make a set in some sense. The question is why mullahs interpreted it as adam and his wife? Because they wanted to turn quranic message into a private beliefs system instead of a plan for a proper human community. Just a little bit of knowledge and thinking and people can see through falsehood of mullahs how they tried to clothe the truth with their falsehood.

The same is problem with story of fatherless jesus and parting the sea by moses ie all these are false interpretations of the quranic message in order to lead people onto a path that leads nowhere so that they keep going in circles.

This is why some works by some people among muslims are of huge importance and to push them aside false stories are spread by mullahs about those people so that people do not study their works and get ideas from them which bring their falsehood down. Such were the people like sir syed, farahi, iqbal, parwez etc etc.

Iqbal said amal se zindagi banti hai jannat bhi jahanam bhi ie it is what people think and do makes their world what it is, a paradise or hell hole.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

...as a side note Mughal rejects the 5 pillars...calling ritual prayer nonsense for instance...

Dear brother shaykh, please avoid quoting me like this. It is not true. I do not reject declaration of TOWHEED ie unity of Godhead and of humanity as one single community under rule of law of Allah through his final messenger Muhammad.

I also do not reject, salaah, zakaah, sowm or hajj. I have explained what these terms mean in the context of the quran. I reject false interpretation of mullahs who are agents of rulers and money lenders making fools of humanity on their behalf through misuse of name of Allah.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

Islam was the most unified religion at its time. One God, one Book, one Prophet. Still it has so many divisions, and some bitter feuds. Goes to show that no matter what, humans have a tendency to form groups and follow tribal mentality.

Dear CricketCartoons, deen of islam is still a unique unifying force but people have been misled by mullahs to believe that it is just another religion and not a deen.

I can challenge people on proving that it is still possible for people to remain divided after accepting isalm as addeen instead of mazhab. It is because once you undersatnd and accept islam as a program for a set number of goals with guidelines it is no longer possible to create divisions on that basis. The differences among people due to level of what they know do not create sects, it is because in a society based upon learning knowledge people educate each other constantly to raise level of knowledge of each other. At the moment it is difficult only because we have allowed some people from among us to set up an environment in our societies which is not education friendly so the result is an uninformed population of people that has no idea what is head or tail. Once people break this mould and come out for learning things properly they will turn to deen of islam in multitudes because people need fulfilment of their daily needs which can only and only be fulfilled when people will adopt deen of islam by giving up mazhab of islam.

regards and all the best.

 

[OZGOD]

What is Deen of Islam please?

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

http://quransmessage.com/articles/eating with your left hand FM3.htm

That was what I turned up on a Google search. Worth a look as it is quite a convincing argument.

The above article criticises those Ahadith that forbid eating with the left hand, giving it as one of the reasons that the Satan is not a human-being, thus he cannot eat etc., hence the Hadith that forbids eating with the left hand by asserting that the Satan eats with his left hand must be rejected. Great logic, but what the writer fails to realise is that these could well be just non-literal examples given to convey a message. Just because we find it funny or it doesn´t make sense to us doesn´t mean that they are not authentic. He quotes other Ahadith as well that physically represent the Satan.

Since the writer of the article seems all keen on the Qur´an alone as a source, I will dig out something from the Book itself for him:

".... on the Day of Judgment the whole of the earth will be but His handful, and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand.... " - Qur´an 39:67.

Does God have a right hand, Islamically? These are examples, non-literal ones.

All that I am trying to say is that everything from Hadith can´t be rejected just because it goes against the human intellect, understanding and common sense. Religions are a lot more complicated than that I am afraid.

By the way, I am more or less addressing the author of the article instead of you.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What is Deen of Islam please?

Deen is way of life, and mazhab is religion. Mughal says that Islam is not a religion, but a way of life.

 

[OZGOD]

Deen is way of life, and mazhab is religion. Mughal says that Islam is not a religion, but a way of life.

Oh ok that makes sense. For the devout, whether it be Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever religion you are, it should be a way of life. You live the teachings.

 

[Mughal]

Oh ok that makes sense. For the devout, whether it be Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever religion you are, it should be a way of life. You live the teachings.

Dear friend, you cannot live the teachings if you do not first find out what they actually are and whether they are worth living or not. If they are then by all means but if they are not then you should not live them and instead look for something that is worth it.

regards and all the best.

 

[OZGOD]

Dear friend, you cannot live the teachings if you do not first find out what they actually are and whether they are worth living or not. If they are then by all means but if they are not then you should not live them and instead look for something that is worth it.

regards and all the best.

What you are saying is faith comes through reason and knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The above article criticises those Ahadith that forbid eating with the left hand, giving it as one of the reasons that the Satan is not a human-being, thus he cannot eat etc., hence the Hadith that forbids eating with the left hand by asserting that the Satan eats with his left hand must be rejected. Great logic, but what the writer fails to realise is that these could well be just non-literal examples given to convey a message. Just because we find it funny or it doesn´t make sense to us doesn´t mean that they are not authentic. He quotes other Ahadith as well that physically represent the Satan.

Since the writer of the article seems all keen on the Qur´an alone as a source, I will dig out something from the Book itself for him:

".... on the Day of Judgment the whole of the earth will be but His handful, and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand.... " - Qur´an 39:67.

Does God have a right hand, Islamically? These are examples, non-literal ones.

All that I am trying to say is that everything from Hadith can´t be rejected just because it goes against the human intellect, understanding and common sense. Religions are a lot more complicated than that I am afraid.

By the way, I am more or less addressing the author of the article instead of you.

Well I agree, everything from hadith can't be rejected, but then everything doesn't have to be accepted either. There has to be some form of critical analysis ongoing, it's not as if these sayings have been carved on a stone tablet by some divine entity.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

Abrahamic religions Sounds like the owner of a London football club. You should get out of this thread along with your buddies before making yourself look even more ridiculous.

You're telling him that he looks ridiculous when you don't even know the term?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You're telling him that he looks ridiculous when you don't even know the term?

That's just a little banter between me and Shaykh, he calls me clueless and a troll and I reply in similar light hearted vein.

 

[CricketCartoons]

That's just a little banter between me and Shaykh, he calls me clueless and a troll and I reply in similar light hearted vein.

A lot of people see you as the best troll in the TP section. You may be modest about it, but that is the general opinion here.

 

[Jadz]

Deen is way of life, and mazhab is religion. Mughal says that Islam is not a religion, but a way of life.

CC, Deen does not mean 'way of life', rather it means -
religion
creed
faith
belief

Madhab means - amongst many things -
opinion
view
belief
ideology
teaching
doctrine
movement
trend
school
and so on.


Islam means
submission (to the Will of God)

Muslim means
one who submits (to the Will of God)

 

[Mughal]

What you are saying is faith comes through reason and knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes brother, trust cannot be built but upon experience and reason. If experience proves to be good and stands to reason then one takes it as a foundation to build upon. The better the society we build the more we trust it and the worse the society we build the less we trust it. The very same goes for the circle of family or friends and our world. By competing against each other as rivals and enemies we have corrupted our human society to the very core so there is so much hatred between people based on so many differences as a result and it will take a very long time to repair this damage but only if we started the process which we have not even thought of doing yet because we are busy creating more divisions and more hatred due to adopting ways of life that result in all this.

regards and all the best.

 

[Jadz]

Well I agree, everything from hadith can't be rejected, but then everything doesn't have to be accepted either. There has to be some form of critical analysis ongoing, it's not as if these sayings have been carved on a stone tablet by some divine entity.

Captain, it is Muslims who are required to employ the Qur'an as Al-Furqan - the Standard or Criterion, the means by which differentiation is made between true and false, good and bad, right and wrong.

The reason the Qur'an is not properly understood is because it is being interpreted according to Hadith, whereas it should be the other way around. As we know, there are no contradictions in the Qur'an - Q4:82 - whereas there are any number of contradictions in Hadith, in that they conflict with Qur'anic narrative, or with other Hadith, or the differing sectarian Traditions contradict each other.

Unfortunately, Muslims have abandoned critical analysis, independent thinking, and personal study, and handed over power to religious leaders. Now, this is why Muslims are following many different paths and ways, all depending upon scholar, sect and school of thought. So that whilst Islam is incredibly easy to understand and follow - the concept resting upon 'there is only One God' - Muslims have complicated their lives, by making that simple message complex.

We ought to bear in mind that there is no priest/layman distinction in Islam, unlike other religions where religious authorities effectively rule over the believing masses. Thus, each Muslim is required to acquire the truth for him, her-self. Celebrity scholars - treated like superstars and semi-divine beings - will not be able to save Muslims on the Day of Judgement.

 

[Mughal]

What is meant by words MAA MALAKAT AIMAANU KUM?

Word MAA means what or whatever or that which etc etc.

Word MALAKAT is from root MEEM, LAAM and KAAF. This root revolves around concept of management, taking care of, acting as a guardian or owner of something etc etc. In deen of islam Allah alone has the right of ownership of all things including people. People are granted use of things but only that use of things is approved which is legal according to deen of islam as already explained in my above posts on this thread. The very same root is origin of word MALAAIKAH which is translated as angles by mullahs and the very same word mean king or ruler or emperor. It also means slave or something in possession of someone or under care or guardianship of someone. People for whom someone is responsible as a leader of the team ie the manager or the managed. Words MAALIK, MAMLOOK and MUMLIKAT originates from same root meaning owner, slave and kingdom etc.

Word AIMAAN is from root YAA, MEEM and NOON. This root revolves around concept of propriety. Meanings of this word depend upon context in which this word is used. In the quran when it is used in constitutional and legal context it means some action that is legally right or appropriate in context of rule of law of Allah as opposed to an action that breaks the law. If it is matter of path one takes to some destination, it means the right path that lead to that destination as opposed to a path that lead away from the destination ie the opposite way. If one uses this word in context of directions then it means the right side of a reference point as opposed to left side of the reference point.


This phrase is repeated in the quran but nowhere in context of some people taking others for slaves. As for slave trading among muslims themselves, there is no such thing because in deen of islam business for profit itself is unlawful among muslims as explained already. This does not mean people who claimed to be muslims did not do these things in the name of deen of islam, kings, money lenders and mullahs who pretended to be custodians of deen of islam were actual enemies of deen of islam because they used cover of deen of islam to further their own personal objectives.

As for war captives, that is not just muslim decision and it cannot be rather it has to be a decision made between two people ie muslims and nonmuslims as to how they wish to deal with prisoners of wars in case there are wars between them. Muslims are not supposed to breach the agreement when it is in place between muslims and nonmuslims but if it is breached by nonmuslims then it is up to muslims to respond as they see fit but even in that case they are not allowed to transgress the set limits.

It must be understood clearly that according to the quran people either live to dominate each other as rivals and enemies or they live to support each other as a family. If people decide to live as rivals and enemies then bloodshed is inevitable but if they decide to live as a family then bloodshed is not possible unless by mistake or as a result of an error of judgement between people.

 

[Yossarian]

So what it is about [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] views that are not mainstream? Is it because they believe in the Quran only above the Hadith?

I'm still waiting for someone to define 'mainstream' in the context of my post #323

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on 'mainstream Islam'. Anyone know what that 'mainstream' actually is? Considering that there are so many factions / 'schools of thought' / sects / branches et al, in addition to the diverse nature of muslims coming from different regions of the globe, different societies, ethnic groups, cultures, local customs, speaking different languages ..... ?

And who defines which one out of the many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of permutations and combinations of the above this 'mainstream' represents?

And lastly, don't forget, all this started with one human being, The Prophet. Meaning that the only reason for the vast number of the aforementioned permutations and combinations that currently exist, and Muslims are split amongst, is the result of so called scholars having differing views and interpretations of the Qu'ran and the life of The Prophet.

And yet there is still something called the 'mainstream' ?

A certain poster on here keeps harping on about 'mainstream' amongst Sunni's. Considering that the Sunni branch of Islam (- and same goes for the Shia) is itself subdivided, with more sub-divisions within those sub-divisions, perhaps someone could elaborate as to which one of these sub-divisions of sub-divisions this 'mainstrean' actually represents?

For example, even in the small Northern town in England where I grew up, there are now well over a dozen mosques of varying sizes, with most of them having been originally established by the Sunni muslims of Pakistani origin. And yet they all differ greatly in numerous aspects of Islam, even in basic things like when is Eid, or the 1st of Ramadan, or whether to follow Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or the UK in regards to the appearance of the new moon ....

So who defines which one of them is 'mainstream' ? Which one is the biggest mosque? Or which one was established first? Or has the wealthiest benefactors? Or has the largest number of muslims who pray there regularly (- of course that could be simply down to the size of the muslim population in the vicinity!)?

And of course, it is the same in the muslim world at large.

 

[OZGOD]

To [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] point, I would be interested in hearing [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132843]Mughal[/MENTION] comments, though in the spirit of learning anyone who has an opinion is welcome to contribute. In a religion that is not centrally organised, what is mainstream? In Catholicism we know what mainstream is - the Pope's ex cathedra statements, as well as papal bulls by previous popes, as well as interpretations of Scripture as defined by the Vatican is basically the mainstream. As I am not Protestant or Orthodox I am unsure as to what mainstream means for them. But for Islam, where there is no head of church, no priestly caste, what is mainstream? The common agreements between the four schools? And how would this mainstream be communicated to the mass Muslim community?

 

[Yossarian]

To [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] point, I would be interested in hearing [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132843]Mughal[/MENTION] comments, though in the spirit of learning anyone who has an opinion is welcome to contribute. In a religion that is not centrally organised, what is mainstream? In Catholicism we know what mainstream is - the Pope's ex cathedra statements, as well as papal bulls by previous popes, as well as interpretations of Scripture as defined by the Vatican is basically the mainstream. As I am not Protestant or Orthodox I am unsure as to what mainstream means for them. But for Islam, where there is no head of church, no priestly caste, what is mainstream? The common agreements between the four schools? And how would this mainstream be communicated to the mass Muslim community?

Reminds me of the following joke.

A man out walking saw another man on a bridge about to jump.

1st Man, "Don't do it!"
Reply, "Nobody loves me."

1st Man, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
Reply from the jumper, "Yes."

1st Man, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
Reply, "A Christian."

1st Man, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
Reply, "Protestant."

1st Man, "Me, too! What franchise?"
Reply, "Baptist."

1st Man, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
Reply, "Northern Baptist."

1st Man, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
Reply, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

1st Man, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
Reply, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

1st Man, "Me, too!" . " Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
Reply, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

1st Man, "Die, heretic!" And he pushed him over the bridge.

 

[shaykh]

To [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] point, I would be interested in hearing [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132843]Mughal[/MENTION] comments, though in the spirit of learning anyone who has an opinion is welcome to contribute. In a religion that is not centrally organised, what is mainstream? In Catholicism we know what mainstream is - the Pope's ex cathedra statements, as well as papal bulls by previous popes, as well as interpretations of Scripture as defined by the Vatican is basically the mainstream. As I am not Protestant or Orthodox I am unsure as to what mainstream means for them. But for Islam, where there is no head of church, no priestly caste, what is mainstream? The common agreements between the four schools? And how would this mainstream be communicated to the mass Muslim community?

This basically...

One needs to ask what specifically makes a Sunni a Sunni...the four schools all adopt a specific criteria...their different opinions are not due to different criteria but due to different results...and this isn't often...for the most part there is consensus among them...

Sunnis use the Quran, Kutub Al Sitta (a specific set of hadith literature), and Ijma sahaba (consensus of the companions)...when determining their opinions...

Sunni scholarship uses these sources...if they don't then they aren't Sunni...

Because they apply the same methodology all the 4 schools see each other as legitimate and any disagreements between them are viewed as legitimate differences of opinion...

Considering the fact that Sunnis form a very clear majority of Muslims around the world it is fair to call Sunni belief mainstream or orthodox...

This is different of course from stating its correct...

Shia's are more diverse in terms of specific differences...but within Shia the majority opinion by a long way is Twelvers...the others are minuscule in comparison number wise...scholars within the Twelver strand again use the same criteria and methodology within their strand and any disagreements between Twelver scholars are viewed as legitimate differences of opinion...

A Sunni scholar doesn't recognize the legitimacy of a Shia scholars work and vice versa because they have adopted different criteria and methodology...

So its perfectly fair to state that Sunni is mainstream considering they are the majority of Muslims by a significant margin...

I think Mughal and Jadz will accept that their opinions aren't conventional...being mainstream incidentally isn't evidence of being correct but if one is looking for the most common position then it is Sunni and twelver Shia...

No Sunni or Shia would ever accept what Mughal and Jadz have brought up...

 

[OZGOD]

Is the Shia Quran the same as the Sunni Quran? In other words both sects just interpret it differently? What about the hadiths? Do the Shia have their own hadiths or is it the same deal?

I've become very curious about the Shia. It almost feels like the Shia are the Catholics of the Muslim world and the Sunni are the Protestants.

 

[Yossarian]

I suspect the vast majority of Muslim PPers posting on Islam related threads in this forum are Sunni, due to them mainly being of Pakistani origin and the majority of Pakistani's being Sunni.
And yet there are wide differences between them on virtually every Islamic topic in every Islam related thread that has ever been created.
So why is there a 'mainstream' 'consensus' mantra that keeps being pushed constantly? Perhaps an attempt to show that most, if not all, muslims are the same, despite outward appearances, due to there being a 'mainstream' and a 'consensus' and therefore should all be lumped together ? ie A subtle insinuation that there's not much difference between the likes of Isis, the Taliban, and the so called 'moderate' muslims ?

 

[shaykh]

Is the Shia Quran the same as the Sunni Quran? In other words both sects just interpret it differently? What about the hadiths? Do the Shia have their own hadiths or is it the same deal?

I've become very curious about the Shia. It almost feels like the Shia are the Catholics of the Muslim world and the Sunni are the Protestants.

On Yossarians point...Sunnis are the significant majority generally in most Muslim countries...the only countries that have a Shia majority are Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan...so yeah it is less likely to get a Shia response...

From what I do know about twelve's is most of their hadith narrations have been collected via a chain of their imams...they reject hadith from the companions of the Prophet like Aisha for instance who they despise...the likes of Abu Bakr, Usman and Omar are viewed negatively...and thus not trustworthy sources...

Also there are two different aspects of hadith...the chain and the meaning...Shia's judge authenticity more by the meaning of the hadith than the chain...now a Sunni position would disagree with this entirely...ie the fact that a narration agrees with the Quran doesn't mean the Prophet said it...matn alone is no evidence for authenticity...

Imo this is weaker than the 'chain' version where at least there is an attempt to determine whether the source is reliable...judging via matn is open to significantly more bias...although with the Sunni version you have criteria for the chains such as trustworthiness which is also subjective...

Much like the Sunni have collections of hadith...so do the Shia...there is some overlap cos they all had access to the same hadith...it's just they had different criteria for determining the legitimacy of these hadith...

I hope that makes sense...

As for the Quran...both have the same Quran...

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's a long story but I took on Islam because i was convinced of it when it was presented to me...but the things on which i was convinced then wouldn't work now...

I guess my problem was that i continued reading...and debating...and after a while i started being less certain of what i believed...a few aspects were of concern...i realized i couldn't prove Quran...and found its literary miracle claims far fetched...also came the realization that i wasnt convinced and that while i may officially believe in something i didn't deep down...and realizing that i was hell bound for being sincere made no sense to me...neither did thought about my purpose...

In addition it became very difficult to accept some of views professed in Islam...rationally i have always had arguments that agreed with my thought process however when i believed in Islam i could always make the argument that Allah knows better than I...as someone who doesnt believe i can now express my own thoughts...

Belief and disbelief has never been a choice...i'd love to believe in something but unfortunately i don't...

Thanks for the reply.

I don't believe what you have experienced is actually different to many people who believe in Islam or other religions. Reason and logic can only get you so far when it comes to being a Muslim. The Quran does use reason, logic and understanding but many verses are to inspire the individual to towards the truth.

Like yourself I always like answers to questions and have been through a similar experience. In fact before going to Hajj I was weak in my faith to say the least. Many Muslims say when you see the Kabbah you shed tears etc etc but it was just a building to me when I layed my eyes on it. However I still believed it was the 'house' of God so after completing my Umrah, the feeling I had made me certain beyond any doubt I was on following the truth. I'm not sure if you ever experienced this, it's a shame if you didn't because it could have held your belief even with underlying questions which you are not confident of their answers given. It's also important not to forget or ignore the many aspects of Islam which make sense when it comes to the big questions as to the origin, purpose and future of our existance.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Captain, it is Muslims who are required to employ the Qur'an as Al-Furqan - the Standard or Criterion, the means by which differentiation is made between true and false, good and bad, right and wrong.

The reason the Qur'an is not properly understood is because it is being interpreted according to Hadith, whereas it should be the other way around. As we know, there are no contradictions in the Qur'an - Q4:82 - whereas there are any number of contradictions in Hadith, in that they conflict with Qur'anic narrative, or with other Hadith, or the differing sectarian Traditions contradict each other.

Unfortunately, Muslims have abandoned critical analysis, independent thinking, and personal study, and handed over power to religious leaders. Now, this is why Muslims are following many different paths and ways, all depending upon scholar, sect and school of thought. So that whilst Islam is incredibly easy to understand and follow - the concept resting upon 'there is only One God' - Muslims have complicated their lives, by making that simple message complex.

We ought to bear in mind that there is no priest/layman distinction in Islam, unlike other religions where religious authorities effectively rule over the believing masses. Thus, each Muslim is required to acquire the truth for him, her-self. Celebrity scholars - treated like superstars and semi-divine beings - will not be able to save Muslims on the Day of Judgement.

Now this makes sense. There is the Quran, revered by all Muslims as the word of God beyond prophets, scholars and current day politics. If I was a critic I would definitely attack the source rather than use dubious traditions from centuries ago to make my case.

 

[hussain.r97]

What I would like to know more about though is the Shia Islam. It's a shame we don't have more Shia on this forum. I'd like to know what they think of Sunni Islam. Are Shia allowed into Mecca and Medina or are they prevented from entering because they are heretics like the rest of us non-Muslims? Is their interpretation of the Quran and Hadith roughly the same, aside from the succession?

I'm a Shia Muslim on this forum, so you can ask me any questions. The core beliefs of both Sunni and Shia islam are exactly the same, the differences start after the death of the prophet, that is basically when both sects came into existence. Most Quran and Hadiths are interpreted the same, with some exceptions.

From what I know, we have a lot of trouble going to Saudi Arabia, and often have to disguise ourselves as Sunni's to go there.

 

[hussain.r97]

Is the Shia Quran the same as the Sunni Quran? In other words both sects just interpret it differently? What about the hadiths? Do the Shia have their own hadiths or is it the same deal?

I've become very curious about the Shia. It almost feels like the Shia are the Catholics of the Muslim world and the Sunni are the Protestants.

The Quran is mostly interpreted the same, there are just some differences. Most Shia hadiths come from the Prophet and the 12 Imams. Each Imam has their own book of Hadiths. Here is one of Imam Ali's (1st Imam) books, is is called Nahj al-Balagha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahj_al-Balagha. This is only some of his scriptures, there a some more, while the rest got destroyed.

This is an example of 1 hadith interpreted in different ways by different groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_Twelve_Successors . Please note that the Shia majority are the 'Twelver' Shias.

 

[shaykh]

One interesting topic is the permissibility of child marriage or betrothal...

Parents choosing the partners of their children is nothing new...Muslim women generally have the freedom to decline a forced marriage...if they have hit puberty then it is imperative to seek their consent...adults can't be married against their will based on 3 of the 4 schools..Shafi gives the father rights over marrying his child...

What is the ruling with children?...children are not able to give consent...so logic suggests that one should wait till the child has hit puberty and then ask for their permission...in Islam however from the Sunni perspective all four schools are unanimous on the father having the freedom to betroth or marry their child...

After all in Aisha's case she was married as a child and consummated her marriage after she had hit puberty what was socially acceptable back then...

Umm Kalthoum who was Ali's daughter was a minor when he married her to Umar...

Interestingly there is a great deal of unanimity on the marrying of children...adults have significantly more rights...

This isn't unusual...throughout history children have been betrothed or married as children...this practice still happens in many places today and even in the West was normal just a couple centuries ago...

But again thankfully we have moved forward...

Its worth noting that a girl can get a divorce from her husband when she hits puberty but as mentioned in another thread she can only do that if a fault has been committed...since betrothing or marrying her off as a prepubescent is Islamically acceptable then this act alone is not an acceptable reason for khula...the only way the girl can get a divorce is through proving a fault...or through mutual consent...

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

Well I agree, everything from hadith can't be rejected, but then everything doesn't have to be accepted either. There has to be some form of critical analysis ongoing, it's not as if these sayings have been carved on a stone tablet by some divine entity.

Yeah, but I see that the modern day Internet scholars tend to reject a lot of Ahadith because it doesn´t make sense to them. The early age scholars adapted a method of science of Hadith (examining the chain of narrators, their reliability etc.) as well as on whether a said Hadith contradicts the Qur´an or not. So it´s not as if they kept on adding to the collections everything that they heard about.

Of course I can´t go on to examine each and every Hadith, but in this instance at least I have proved that the criticism by the author of that article is less based on the contradiction with the Qur´an, which didn´t seem to be there according to what I have pointed out, and more about how the ruling of not eating with the left hand made no sense to the author. His questions like "Why did God create left handed people?" hardly made any sense because such questions can be raised for many rulings found even in the Qur´an, or any religious scriptures. Religions have hardly ever been about "why" to begin with, dear sir.

 

[Indiafan]

Yeah, but I see that the modern day Internet scholars tend to reject a lot of Ahadith because it doesn´t make sense to them. The early age scholars adapted a method of science of Hadith (examining the chain of narrators, their reliability etc.) as well as on whether a said Hadith contradicts the Qur´an or not. So it´s not as if they kept on adding to the collections everything that they heard about..

Is this an ongoing process? i.e, are Hadiths still accepted and rejected based on current understanding of current scholars? Or is everyone just following the past scholars you talk about. I ask this because in lot's of instance in religion, there is a glorification of past where the thought is that scholars, etc of past ages were geniuses and current generation cannot improve on that, which is actually false in most other things like science and philosophy.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

I know Muslims don't have a problem with the Torah...the Torah which seems to borrow a lot from the Hammurabi code...

And herein comes the problem...anything remotely provocative from the Torah or the Bible is called innovation and corruption...

So I mentioned the Sodom and Gomorra story...if you have read Genesis then you will know that Lot a Prophet of God offers his virgin daughters to the townspeople and then ended up sleeping with both of them while getting wasted...just shows how dated this nonsense is...God saved the incestuous, drinking, fornicating Prophet and the girls that got him drunk ...nice moral story...

It's reading rubbish like this that provides me reason to dislike Abrahamic religions...

The fact that Christianity requires a man to marry his rape victim and is not allowed to divorce her...a practice which still existed in some Catholic countries until recently...

My dislikes have a basis...they aren't arbitrary...

As for Uthman I never claimed that the Muslims took the 'wrong' version of Lut...they just reformed it...and took out the part about Lot getting wasted...im not saying Uthman did this...im saying Muhammad reformed it...

Your final sentence implies a criticism but I don't see it as such...i have an open dislike for slavery, homophobia, rape which Abrahamic faiths have absolutely no problem with...

Let's look at jaahil Arabia

They buried daughters alive
uncles and nieces married each other
handmaids were forced to prostitution
drunken orgies and dancing girls were at every party
women were regarded as chattels
men could marry as many times as they wanted
women couldnt inherit
son's took their dads's widows as wifes
clans were in constant fight with each other


Very nice



Similarly most people in Ancient India converted to Islam to escape from the caste system so they could rise through the ranks, rightfully

 

[just saying]

^ Khadija (the first wife of the Prophet) was a successful business owner and one of the wealthiest women in Arabia. She infact employed the Prophet. All this occurred BEFORE Islam existed. None of the 10 wives of the Prophet that followed after Islam was started owned a business or had the same power as her.

Lets look at modern day Arabia:

All females must have a male guardian
Women cannot apply for a passport by themselves
Women cannot drive
Women cannot go to a football stadium with her female friends
Authorities would rather Women burn to death in schools than allowed to exit, if they dont have proper covering
Morality police on the streets enforcing proper coverings on women
The word of woman in a court of law has less value than a man
Men decide which countries their women can and cannot marry from
Women cannot vote
Husband has the right to beat his wife
Women sports and music are discouraged

Clearly women had more freedom and basic human rights in Pre-Islamic Arabia.

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

Is this an ongoing process? i.e, are Hadiths still accepted and rejected based on current understanding of current scholars? Or is everyone just following the past scholars you talk about. I ask this because in lot's of instance in religion, there is a glorification of past where the thought is that scholars, etc of past ages were geniuses and current generation cannot improve on that, which is actually false in most other things like science and philosophy.

There´s a reason why scholars like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi exist in this age. But again, this too is ultimately a clash of ideologies. Modernists accept every word that he speaks, the traditionalists believe that the early age scholars have done the work required and have examined all Ahadith efficiently.

 

[venomousx]

Yeah, but I see that the modern day Internet scholars tend to reject a lot of Ahadith because it doesn´t make sense to them. The early age scholars adapted a method of science of Hadith (examining the chain of narrators, their reliability etc.) as well as on whether a said Hadith contradicts the Qur´an or not. So it´s not as if they kept on adding to the collections everything that they heard about.

Of course I can´t go on to examine each and every Hadith, but in this instance at least I have proved that the criticism by the author of that article is less based on the contradiction with the Qur´an, which didn´t seem to be there according to what I have pointed out, and more about how the ruling of not eating with the left hand made no sense to the author. His questions like "Why did God create left handed people?" hardly made any sense because such questions can be raised for many rulings found even in the Qur´an, or any religious scriptures. Religions have hardly ever been about "why" to begin with, dear sir.

If Allah says He didn't leave anything out of the book, I think we should accept that. People come up with stuff like, "if we don't follow hadith and sunnah, how will we know how to pray etc etc etc" If God wanted us to pray in a certain manner, it would be included in the Quran. We are not meant to be robots.

 

[Indiafan]

There´s a reason why scholars like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi exist in this age. But again, this too is ultimately a clash of ideologies. Modernists accept every word that he speaks, the traditionalists believe that the early age scholars have done the work required and have examined all Ahadith efficiently.

Thanks Dhoni183 for the reply

 

[Jadz]

To [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] point, I would be interested in hearing [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] and [MENTION=30006]Jadz[/MENTION] and [MENTION=132843]Mughal[/MENTION] comments, though in the spirit of learning anyone who has an opinion is welcome to contribute. In a religion that is not centrally organised, what is mainstream? In Catholicism we know what mainstream is - the Pope's ex cathedra statements, as well as papal bulls by previous popes, as well as interpretations of Scripture as defined by the Vatican is basically the mainstream. As I am not Protestant or Orthodox I am unsure as to what mainstream means for them. But for Islam, where there is no head of church, no priestly caste, what is mainstream? The common agreements between the four schools? And how would this mainstream be communicated to the mass Muslim community?

OZ - the concept of 'mainstream' is a much later development in the life of the Muslim community, and did not exist at the time of Revelation, and shortly thereafter. Mainstream is, effectively, 'the majority' - and the Qur'an warns against following the majority, or believing strength is derived from it, or accepting conventional wisdom without critical thinking and independent verification.

What characterises Muslim societies is not 'mainstream' beliefs, but consensus upon matters and issues which directly, or indirectly, impact upon the community of believers. In the absence of consensus - ranging from social matters, to issues relating to governance, and even extending to serious events like war, and so on - there is nothing. This is because consensus rests upon wide-raging consultation, with every sector of society and all levels of it, whereby agreement is reached between all participating groups, or organisations or individuals.

Faith is intensely personal, and really only becomes public when congregations pray, fast or perform the Hajj pilgrimage together. Ritual worship is but one aspect of Islam, it also addresses all aspects of life, which is why consultation is required in order to achieve consensus, and thereafter create a system which meets the demands, and needs, of all community members.

So important is this process, that an entire Chapter is entitled 'Consultation' - Q42 Ash-Shura - and that Allah SWT describes believing communities as those who engage in consultation amongst themselves - Shura Baynahum.

Thus, believing societies do not impinge upon individual rights, or private affairs, or impose demands upon them, or compel them to accept 'majority' or 'mainstream' view or opinion, but rather, leave people to get on with their own lives. Islam, if properly understood, is incredibly liberal and tolerant, has but few laws, and above all else, reflects - at every instance - the Mercy of God.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

^ Khadija (the first wife of the Prophet) was a successful business owner and one of the wealthiest women in Arabia. She infact employed the Prophet. All this occurred BEFORE Islam existed. None of the 10 wives of the Prophet that followed after Islam was started owned a business or had the same power as her.

Lets look at modern day Arabia:

All females must have a male guardian
Women cannot apply for a passport by themselves
Women cannot drive
Women cannot go to a football stadium with her female friends
Authorities would rather Women burn to death in schools than allowed to exit, if they dont have proper covering
Morality police on the streets enforcing proper coverings on women
The word of woman in a court of law has less value than a man
Men decide which countries their women can and cannot marry from
Women cannot vote
Husband has the right to beat his wife
Women sports and music are discouraged

Clearly women had more freedom and basic human rights in Pre-Islamic Arabia.

What an ignorant post

Women in the sub continent are still being either killed in the womb if their sex is found out or killed as soon as their born
The dowry for husbands is too much, so daughters have to turn to prostitition to pay for their own dowry
We have huge numbers of rape in india simply because for women, men are considered their god, it is hugely disrespectful for women
Women who are divorced or widowed have to stay as such their whole lifes and are never allowed to marry again
Women are forced to marry dogs and trees to ward off evil spirits


You fail to mention Hadrat Aisha in your list of women, one of the most famous scholars in the history of Islam, many of the famous jurists in Islam learned from her
The first martyr in Islam , was a woman, Sommaya RA
Umm al khayr Fatima taught in the prophets mosque
Ibn al- najjar had 400 women teachers alone

http://productivemuslim.com/al-muhaddithat-the-women-scholars-in-islam/



The women who used to scour the women looking for corruption and malfestation in the marketplaces for hadrat umar ra was a woman

One of the most famous 'sufi mystics' was the wise Rabia al basri

The first islamic university was built by a woman fatima al fihiri


Even more lately, the most prominent activist in Egypt in the 70s and 80s was a Zainab Al Ghazali

 

[just saying]

^ All of the women you have listed, put together do not come close to what Khadija accomplished.

Life of women in Saudi Arabia in the 21st century:

[utube]0PXXNK-3zQ4[/utube]

 

[chacha kashmiri]

^ All of the women you have listed, put together do not come close to what Khadija accomplished.

Life of women in Saudi Arabia in the 21st century:

[utube]0PXXNK-3zQ4[/utube]

How many rapes of women have there been in Saudi in the last ten years compared to India in the last year
Why is Saudi used as the sole guide for how muslim women are treated, why don't we use the example of kashmiri widows instead


Pick up a book from Akram Nadwi, educate yourself

 

[just saying]

How many rapes of women have there been in Saudi in the last ten years compared to India in the last year
Why is Saudi used as the sole guide for how muslim women are treated, why don't we use the example of kashmiri widows instead


Pick up a book from Akram Nadwi, educate yourself

because you mentioned Pre-Islamic women from Arabia being mistreated, and I was making a point that they were better off than women in Arabia today.

 

[Mughal]

CC, Deen does not mean 'way of life', rather it means -
religion
creed
faith
belief

Dear Jadz, word DEEN is from root DAAL, YAA and NOON. It has many meanings but one of its meanings in the quranic context is a way of life for mankind advised by Allah as opposed to any way of life people adopt for themselves. This root has meanings you have stated but in addition it also has meanings like debt, loan, borrowing, judgement, law, custom, a code to abide by, constitution, tradition, practice, ruler, judge, controller, debtor, creditor, lender, borrower, punishment, reward, habit, to worship, conviction, slave, to be enslaved, to be owned, to compel, to submit, to own up, to sin, the teachings, obedience, reckoning, counting, calculation etc etc.

Following references may be found helpful.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/1/4/
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/256/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/19/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/39/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/9/29/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/9/36/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/37/53/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/56/86/default.htm
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/109/6/default.htm

In ancient languages roots were constructed using sets of letters which in turn were meaningful words presented as picture of things so each letter represents a concrete reality and properties of that reality as well as its uses and whatever purpose it served. Therefore a root ended up having many many meanings as explained by ancient authors of the quranic tafaseer and dictionaries. If one could get one's hands on such dictionaries all this can become very clear. For example, letter DAAL means door, letter YAA means hand and letter NOON means fish or in other words ancient people drew pictures of door, hand and fish in order to represent something we call DEEN. So word DEEN means door, hand and fish as well as anything like them in some sense for some purpose. This is how all languages came about. In short our alphabet sets have letters which were meaningful words that were used to label concrete realities.

Madhab means - amongst many things -
opinion
view
belief
ideology
teaching
doctrine
movement
trend
school
and so on.

Word MAZHAB is from root ZAAL, HAA and BAA. This root also has many meanings like you have stated but also gold, to go, to go away, to set out, totake away, faction, sect, to adopt a conviction, to disappear, to vanish, to go off, to clear off, to go from, to depart from, to leave, to go away with, to claim, to appreciate for oneself, to remove, to cause to vanish, to abolish etc etc. Letter ZAAL is alternate to letter DAAL, Letter HAA means window and letter BAA means tent or house so word MAZHAB has all the meaning present in these letters because each letter presents a concrete reality and its description both in sens eof its properties as well as its actions or uses or sense of purpose involved in its use.

Islam means
submission (to the Will of God)

Muslim means
one who submits (to the Will of God)

Word ISLAAM comes from root SEEN, LAAM and MEEM. This root also has many meanings eg peace, ladder, staircase, submission, to be at rest, safety, tranquillity, completeness, being free from obstacles, to become resigned to, to hand over, to recive, to accept, to stroke, finger bones, to give in, to greet, to salute, to spare, to bail out, to rescue, to save, to surrender, to devote oneself, to porfess the deen of islam, to end hostility, to be sound, not threatened, to be pure, to be clear, to be free of impurities or defects or faults, to be whole, to be sick, be heavy, be troubled etc etc. Letter SEEN is altered form of SHEEN meaning tooth, Letter LAAM means ox-goad and letter MEEM means water. So whatever these concrete realities represent are all present in word ISLAAM as its meanings. All we need to do is see what a tooth is, what are its qualities or properties or characteristics or what it does or is used for and how it functions for a any particular use or context.

My explanations will help people see how people brought about languages by use of words and how they gave them concepts and meanings and brought about grammatical rules. It must always be remembered that languages came long before people thought of writing books to explain grammatical rules or gave words meanings and wrote any dictionaries.

Actually if we observe a baby constantly after birth and see how he learns to talk, we can see how original people brought about human language. It was not the case that one day someone sat down to invent a language and after spending some days he came up with a perfect language. It took humanity many generations to take these very simple steps generation after generation.

regards and all the best.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

because you mentioned Pre-Islamic women from Arabia being mistreated, and I was making a point that they were better off than women in Arabia today.

So if "Khadija (the first wife of the Prophet) was a successful business owner and one of the wealthiest women in Arabia." why did she marry a shepherd and become the first convert to his new religion? As a person of such power and wealth it seems an odd choice to give up all that for nothing in return.

 

[shaykh]

Victors tend to tell history Chacha so the standard Islamic narrative is that pre-Islamic Arabia had women who lived like animals...Just Saying's point is a valid one...for women who lived like animals Khadijah did quite well...a woman in her 40s, divorced, who owned a profitable business and who had the choice to marry one of her employees Muhammad who was 15 years her junior...

Also this hadith suggests that women weren't animals too:

Then 'Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the ansar, we noticed that the ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the ansari women. Once i shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and i disliked that she should answer me back.She said, 'Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.' What she said scared me and I said to her, 'Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.' …

You and KKWC point out ownership rights like these were revolutionary...they really weren't...it was limited in Qurayshi society i.e. only open to the upper crust but was certainly not some revolutionary idea...

Ancient Egypt 3100 BCE and after
“Egyptian women were able to acquire, to own, and to dispose of property (both real and personal) in their own name. They could enter into contracts in their own name; they could initiate civil court cases and could, likewise, be sued; they could serve as witnesses in court cases; they could serve on juries; and they could witness legal documents.”

Biblical era, 1800BC and after
'Under Jewish law, women have the right to own property and sue others in court without a man representing them. Wives can’t inherit directly from their husbands – unless it is a gift or they have no children – but daughters can inherit if they don’t have brothers. The Book of Numbers, the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible, lays down an early law of personal finance: “If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.” Sons who inherit are expected to use the estate to support the women in the family.'

Ancient Rome
The pendulum swings back as freeborn Roman women are allowed to divorce, own property and inherit. Divorce is easy to get – presaging the Christian opposition to splitting up marriages – but the husband has the legal right to keep the children.

There are others but here is the point...plenty of societies allowed women to own property...all of these societies had their own gender issues...as did Islamic society...

In Islam it is harder for a woman to get a divorce than it is a male...she has to prove some kind of wrongdoing and has to forfeit her rights and give back her dowry...it is significantly easier for the male...Roman society allowed divorce a lot more easily for instance...

The reason we know females aren't allowed to rule in Islam is because there were existing societies which allowed females to rule...so what did Muhammad say about it:

'It was narrated that Abu Bakrah said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their queen, he said, “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them.”
al-Bukhaari, 4163.

So while there may have been some improvements on pre-Arabian society...the fact is the ideas weren't new...and in comparison to societies now Islam has fallen behind...

An Nisa 34 says it all really...and this is with Ibn Kathirs Tafsir...

'Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are Qanitat, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard. As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, and beat them, but if they return to obedience, do not seek a means against them. Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.) Allah said,

(Men are the protectors and maintainers of women,) meaning, the man is responsible for the woman, and he is her maintainer, caretaker and leader who disciplines her if she deviates.

(because Allah has made one of them to excel the other,) meaning, because men excel over women and are better than them for certain tasks. This is why prophethood was exclusive of men, as well as other important positions of leadership. The Prophet said,

(People who appoint a woman to be their leader, will never achieve success.) Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Such is the case with appointing women as judges or on other positions of leadership.

Historically there has NEVER been a single female governor of an Islamic province...

Its worth noting that for a religion that loves women so much this hadith kinda contradicts that:

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 1052)

Islam improved the life of women in some areas, and went backwards in some areas compared to societies at the time and even societies existent prior to Islam...

More importantly for a timeless creed it is certainly backwards compared to what we have now in Western societies...

 

[Mughal]

I think Mughal and Jadz will accept that their opinions aren't conventional...being mainstream incidentally isn't evidence of being correct but if one is looking for the most common position then it is Sunni and twelver Shia...

No Sunni or Shia would ever accept what Mughal and Jadz have brought up...

Dear brother shaykh, saying there are people who claim to be sunnies or shias or whatever is a fact and we all must accept it. However it seems to me that then you are trying to use that fact as basis to tell us that that is what islam is? It will be fine to say that that is what they say islam is. The question however is, is that what the actual islam is?

The quran distinguishes between people who have learned knowledge and people who remain ignorant, illiterate and uneducated. It tells us that if we followed the ignorant majority then they will mislead us despite the fact that it tells us that we should decide matter through mutual consultation and once we have decided upon any matter then we should follow it through. So ignorant majority is rejected because it has no leg to stand on but knowledgeable majority is accepted because it stands on proper foundation.

So it is not what people claim to be but can those who claim to be whatever they claim to be prove to be so? Which brings us back to the question that are their explanations of deen of islam in light of the quran and self evident facts solid enough to be labelled deen of islam? Or is the model they present of deen of islam good enough to be called deen of islam in the quranic context in light of real world realities?

Claiming to be a muslim is one thing but then turning round and saying what I believe is actual deen of islam is quite another matter because that requires a solid enough argument that stands to reason in context of what the quran claims to be. This is why if people who never read the quran in their entire life even once cannot be taken as reference for what deen of islam really is.

As for no one accepting my explanation as right for deen of islam that is fine but are the people you talking about educated and have read my explanation and other explanations of deen of islam on offer? If not they do not matter one way or the other till they give their well informed opinions. My work is only an attempt on trying to make sense of the message of the quran just like many others. if it makes sense to people they can accept it for what it is worth otherwise they should find whatever makes better sense to them and share that with people because that is the way we can help educate each other. People who are stuck with their make beliefs and useless rituals matter only if they somehow turn learners and thinkers not otherwise because the quran only addresses those who are alive therefore can hear its message. As things are most of the world is ignorant therefore people need to be woken up to become aware of importance of education before anything else only then message of the quran matters for them and they for the message of the quran.

regards and all the best.

 

[shaykh]

Dear brother shaykh, saying there are people who claim to be sunnies or shias or whatever is a fact and we all must accept it. However it seems to me that then you are trying to use that fact as basis to tell us that that is what islam is? It will be fine to say that that is what they say islam is. The question however is, is that what the actual islam is?

The quran distinguishes between people who have learned knowledge and people who remain ignorant, illiterate and uneducated. It tells us that if we followed the ignorant majority then they will mislead us despite the fact that it tells us that we should decide matter through mutual consultation and once we have decided upon any matter then we should follow it through. So ignorant majority is rejected because it has no leg to stand on but knowledgeable majority is accepted because it stands on proper foundation.

So it is not what people claim to be but can those who claim to be whatever they claim to be prove to be so? Which brings us back to the question that are their explanations of deen of islam in light of the quran and self evident facts solid enough to be labelled deen of islam? Or is the model they present of deen of islam good enough to be called deen of islam in the quranic context in light of real world realities?

Claiming to be a muslim is one thing but then turning round and saying what I believe is actual deen of islam is quite another matter because that requires a solid enough argument that stands to reason in context of what the quran claims to be. This is why if people who never read the quran in their entire life even once cannot be taken as reference for what deen of islam really is.

As for no one accepting my explanation as right for deen of islam that is fine but are the people you talking about educated and have read my explanation and other explanations of deen of islam on offer? If not they do not matter one way or the other till they give their well informed opinions. My work is only an attempt on trying to make sense of the message of the quran just like many others. if it makes sense to people they can accept it for what it is worth otherwise they should find whatever makes better sense to them and share that with people because that is the way we can help educate each other. People who are stuck with their make beliefs and useless rituals matter only if they somehow turn learners and thinkers not otherwise because the quran only addresses those who are alive therefore can hear its message. As things are most of the world is ignorant therefore people need to be woken up to become aware of importance of education before anything else only then message of the quran matters for them and they for the message of the quran.

regards and all the best.

All i have stated is yours is a fringe view...and the majority of people who claim to be Muslim would disagree with you...I haven't heard Muslims call salah in the form of prayer a useless ritual before...and im sure you would accept that most people don't carry your views...and no interpretations across the 1400 years of Islamic history have taken that view...

That said I'm not claiming Islam to be anything...i'm not saying to people not to listen to you...people are fine to make up their own minds...all i have said from the beginning of the thread is that for a non-Muslim trying to get an understanding of where the majority of Muslims get their ideas from...then it is Sunni and Shia thought...

I do personally disagree with your position as it makes no sense...and you havent convinced me otherwise...the Quran only position makes absolutely no sense to me and I have stated why...

 

[OZGOD]

I'm a Shia Muslim on this forum, so you can ask me any questions. The core beliefs of both Sunni and Shia islam are exactly the same, the differences start after the death of the prophet, that is basically when both sects came into existence. Most Quran and Hadiths are interpreted the same, with some exceptions.

From what I know, we have a lot of trouble going to Saudi Arabia, and often have to disguise ourselves as Sunni's to go there.

OK thanks mate. The ones I'm curious about are:

1. someone I think it was [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] mentioned that Shia is much more hierarchical. So who is the head of Islam for Shia? Is it the Ayatollah Khamenei?

2. is going to the mosque more formalised for Shia or is it largely the same process as for Sunni? Can you go to the same mosque that Sunni go to? How do you know if a mosque is Sunni or Shia?

3. Are Mecca and Medina considered to be holy cities for Shia as well? Are you required to go to Hajj as well even if you have to disguise yourselves?

Thanks!

 

[OZGOD]

OZ - the concept of 'mainstream' is a much later development in the life of the Muslim community, and did not exist at the time of Revelation, and shortly thereafter. Mainstream is, effectively, 'the majority' - and the Qur'an warns against following the majority, or believing strength is derived from it, or accepting conventional wisdom without critical thinking and independent verification.

What characterises Muslim societies is not 'mainstream' beliefs, but consensus upon matters and issues which directly, or indirectly, impact upon the community of believers. In the absence of consensus - ranging from social matters, to issues relating to governance, and even extending to serious events like war, and so on - there is nothing. This is because consensus rests upon wide-raging consultation, with every sector of society and all levels of it, whereby agreement is reached between all participating groups, or organisations or individuals.

Faith is intensely personal, and really only becomes public when congregations pray, fast or perform the Hajj pilgrimage together. Ritual worship is but one aspect of Islam, it also addresses all aspects of life, which is why consultation is required in order to achieve consensus, and thereafter create a system which meets the demands, and needs, of all community members.

So important is this process, that an entire Chapter is entitled 'Consultation' - Q42 Ash-Shura - and that Allah SWT describes believing communities as those who engage in consultation amongst themselves - Shura Baynahum.

Thus, believing societies do not impinge upon individual rights, or private affairs, or impose demands upon them, or compel them to accept 'majority' or 'mainstream' view or opinion, but rather, leave people to get on with their own lives. Islam, if properly understood, is incredibly liberal and tolerant, has but few laws, and above all else, reflects - at every instance - the Mercy of God.

So how that one get consensus in a religion where there is no hierarchy and no figures of authority (other than mullahs). I guess in the Islamic State the figure of authority is Caliph Ibrahim al Bagdadi, I'm guessing he is similar to a medieval Pope. But for the majority of Muslims around the world, how do you get consensus? Is it done at the local level, at the mosques?

 

[Mughal]

All i have stated is yours is a fringe view...and the majority of people who claim to be Muslim would disagree with you...I haven't heard Muslims call salah in the form of prayer a useless ritual before...and im sure you would accept that most people don't carry your views...and no interpretations across the 1400 years of Islamic history have taken that view...

That said I'm not claiming Islam to be anything...i'm not saying to people not to listen to you...people are fine to make up their own minds...all i have said from the beginning of the thread is that for a non-Muslim trying to get an understanding of where the majority of Muslims get their ideas from...then it is Sunni and Shia thought...

I do personally disagree with your position as it makes no sense...and you havent convinced me otherwise...the Quran only position makes absolutely no sense to me and I have stated why...

Dear brother shaykh, I did not claim either that my view is accepted by everyone and as for your disagreement with my opinion that too is fine because we each have our own bank of information to draw on and obviously you are not aware of the view that I have so no wonder you disagree because all information needs to be absorbed and thought through before it makes sense which needs time and personal interest in finding out. There are always things we do not know before we become aware of them the very first time. This is why I explained the fact that life is basically a journey of discovery for us. We are all born knowing nothing at all and then build our bank of information with time and try our best to make sense of things as we go along as it suits us. Not everyone goes to school nor through the whole education process. So if I do not know what you know and you do not know what I know it is not anything surprising rather it is part of the process of life. All we can do is hope that we keep learning and know better in future and wish each other all the best with all due regards.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

So how that one get consensus in a religion where there is no hierarchy and no figures of authority (other than mullahs). I guess in the Islamic State the figure of authority is Caliph Ibrahim al Bagdadi, I'm guessing he is similar to a medieval Pope. But for the majority of Muslims around the world, how do you get consensus? Is it done at the local level, at the mosques?

Dear friend, authority is derived in islam from the quran not people. The quran needs to be understood not from mullahs but from knowing its language. It is like mathematics that you have formulas to use to solve problems. So your teacher has to be someone who knows language of maths to the level you have the problems to solve. Likewise one need to study the language used in the quran to the level it is required by the text of the quran. Once you know it you will come to know what the quran is saying.

This is what scholar have been saying always. Unfortunately this video is in urdu not english. Here we are told what iqbal and jinnah thought about the quran by their disciple if you like.

regards and all the best.

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[Mughal]

 

[hussain.r97]

OK thanks mate. The ones I'm curious about are:

1. someone I think it was [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION] mentioned that Shia is much more hierarchical. So who is the head of Islam for Shia? Is it the Ayatollah Khamenei?

2. is going to the mosque more formalised for Shia or is it largely the same process as for Sunni? Can you go to the same mosque that Sunni go to? How do you know if a mosque is Sunni or Shia?

3. Are Mecca and Medina considered to be holy cities for Shia as well? Are you required to go to Hajj as well even if you have to disguise yourselves?

Thanks!

1. Yes, Shia leadership has an organized hierarchy. At the top we have Ayatollah Khamenei as the head. Then we have the Grand Ayatollahs (every Shia Muslim has to be a follower of one of the Grand Ayatollah's, I am a follower of Ayatollah Sistani). After that we have the Ayatollah's (there are even some female Ayatollah's). Then we have all the religious lecturers who go around the world to teach people and also become the Imam of a mosque, these people are students of the higher leaders. Ayatollah's even have their own websites where you can contact them http://www.sistani.org/english/

2. A Shia also goes to the mosque to pray just like a Sunni. Shia's also have more functions with lectures from scholars. I think Sunni's only have lectures on Fridays (Jummah). Shia have the Friday lecture plus lots of other things for significant events throughout the year. These days it's Muharram, so we go to the mosque every day for lectures and mourning.

Yes, we can go to the same mosque as Sunni's (if they allow us), I've been to a Sunni mosque a few times and even prayed with Sunnis, though I stand at the back when I'm praying with them as my style of prayer is slightly different.

There are subtle ways to find the difference between a Sunni and Shia mosque. You can look at the time everyone prays (prayer times are a little different, and Shia's pray 3 times a day (still 5 prayers)). A Shia mosque would have the names of Imams decorated (Ali, Hasan, Hussain etc). You could also look at the prayer style (Shia's pray with hands on their thighs, most Sunni's pray with their hands together in front of their stomach.

3. Mecca and Madina are both very holy as Shia's also do Hajj, and the Prophet is also the most important person in Shia islam. Hajj is only required if you can afford it financially. We are required to go once if we can afford it. But if your life is in danger by going there, you don't have to go, saving your own life is obligatory.

If you are interested in learning more about Shia's you can ask me. Also there is a really good lecturer called Ammar Naqshwani, you can see his lectures here http://www.sayedammar.com/
The lectures section has more general topics, while the videos section seems to have topics about Shia Islam itself.

 

[OZGOD]

1. Yes, Shia leadership has an organized hierarchy. At the top we have Ayatollah Khamenei as the head. Then we have the Grand

3. Mecca and Madina are both very holy as Shia's also do Hajj, and the Prophet is also the most important person in Shia islam. Hajj is only required if you can afford it financially. We are required to go once if we can afford it. But if your life is in danger by going there, you don't have to go, saving your own life is obligatory.

Regarding Mecca and Medina, why are Shias not allowed to go there? I would have thought that because it is a city holy to all Muslims that Shia would be allowed to do the pilgrimage. Bit like Jerusalem, it's controlled by Israel but they allow Muslims to go to the Dome of the Rock and for Christians to go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (where Christ was crucified). Is this a political thing because the Saudi are trying to reduce the influence of Iran?

 

[hussain.r97]

Regarding Mecca and Medina, why are Shias not allowed to go there? I would have thought that because it is a city holy to all Muslims that Shia would be allowed to do the pilgrimage. Bit like Jerusalem, it's controlled by Israel but they allow Muslims to go to the Dome of the Rock and for Christians to go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (where Christ was crucified). Is this a political thing because the Saudi are trying to reduce the influence of Iran?

Saudi Arabia is a Wahabi state, and Wahabi's believe Shia's are not muslims. Wahabi's have many misconceptions about Shia muslims. Non-muslim's aren't allowed to enter Mecca. It's easier to go to Medina than Mecca for us. Shia's in Saudi Arabia live in hiding. They are not allowed to mourn in the month of Muharram and not allowed to practise their religion.

To go to Mecca, you need a special visa which is only given to Muslims.

 

[DHONI183]

What Do You Know About Islam?

If Allah says He didn't leave anything out of the book, I think we should accept that. People come up with stuff like, "if we don't follow hadith and sunnah, how will we know how to pray etc etc etc" If God wanted us to pray in a certain manner, it would be included in the Quran. We are not meant to be robots.

I wouldn´t come up with stuff like that to justify either of the groups because it hardly matters to me anymore. I appreciate your stance and the courage to come out to openly reject Hadith be ready to be identified as belonging to the Qur´an-alone group. My problem with the author of that article was, he was trying to portray as if he can refute the Hadith regarding eating with the left hand with reasons and by using the Qur´an, although which may still be possible, but his attempts seemed to be clutching at straws.

I debate with people belonging to different ideologies according to their beliefs.

 

[OZGOD]

Saudi Arabia is a Wahabi state, and Wahabi's believe Shia's are not muslims. Wahabi's have many misconceptions about Shia muslims. Non-muslim's aren't allowed to enter Mecca. It's easier to go to Medina than Mecca for us. Shia's in Saudi Arabia live in hiding. They are not allowed to mourn in the month of Muharram and not allowed to practise their religion.

To go to Mecca, you need a special visa which is only given to Muslims.

I guess it's the same with Christians - my cousin worked in Riyadh for a while and he said that they had to attend mass in someone's house. It's a shame. What about Sunni in Iran? How are they treated?

Incidentally, what countries are majority Shia, other than Iran?

 

[hussain.r97]

I guess it's the same with Christians - my cousin worked in Riyadh for a while and he said that they had to attend mass in someone's house. It's a shame. What about Sunni in Iran? How are they treated?

Incidentally, what countries are majority Shia, other than Iran?

From what I know, Sunni's in Iran can practice their beliefs, but there is still some discrimination. There are Sunni mosques in Iran, but apparently there aren't any Sunni mosques in the capital, Tehran. This is apparently because the authorities say 'why build more mosques when everyone is muslim'. I'm not too sure about this though, maybe someone else could give you a better insight on this. What I know for sure is Sunni's in Iran are treated better than Shia's in Saudi Arabia.

From what I've heard, Iran is actually a very nice place, but is portrayed badly through the media, everyone who's been there always come back happy.

Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Azerbaijan and possibly Yemen are Shia majority countries. The Arab World, Pakistan and India have quite a large Shia population too. In fact, you will find more Syeds (descendants of the prophet, normally Shia) in the subcontinent than anywhere else in the world. When you go to Iraq for to visit shrines etc, poor people who ask for prayers ask if you're from the subcontinent before they ask you're Syed.