-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
I've enjoyed reading a good chunk of this thread too. I take a lot of Islamics and Middle Eastern history classes for my major at university but that's almost always in a secular historical context and the one professor that goes beyond that is an Ismaili so I don't really get much of a Sunni slant on anything (which is pretty problematic).Jirotrom said:
As for me, well my clique could never hold down an official thread of their own so I have to participate here.
Count Dookkake said:
Take a chill pill dude, I was referring to your tag and not trying to slander you. Maybe I shouldn't have, so I'll apologise.
It is a shame you think of Islam in that way, if you read some of my posts in the Islam thread you'll realise I was actually standing up for equality for women whereas others weren't.
I apologise for my joke, perhaps it was a bit tasteless, but if you read my post again you'll realise it was tongue-in-cheek.
Edit: Just realised, I got you confused with Doom_Bringer, sorry about that.
Instrigator said:
Well, if you think about, even the gospels don't match each other.
It can be argued that the Torah got it wrong since Isaac wasn't his only son. It could have easily been Ismael instead since he was born first.
Edited: Also, it wouldn't be convenient with a supposed switch from Isaac to Ismael, since it wouldn't really establish anything new. Mohammed (pbuh) would still be a prophet and his message wouldn't have been discreditted and the Jews are still since in the Qur'an as the chosen people, for at least a short while. Even if we assumed that a switch occured, there is no motive for it to be there.
Hadji said:
lo; Remember the hadith about the shepherds competing in the tallest buildings?
The prophet said that at this time, the Muslims will be the highest they have ever been in terms of numbers, and a few days ago ISlam was announced the biggest single denomination religion in the world. A day or so after the shepherd, started competing (I'm sure you heard about that it was even here on GAF)
:O
Catholicism... but for me it's more of an expression of my cultural identity than a religion. (I have an unresolved crisis of faith.) Though I will say what few moral beliefs I do have (that I don't necessarily follow very well) were shaped largely by my time with the Church.Warrior300 said:
I did 6 years in parochial school as a kid and sometimes I feel guilty that my parents wasted tens of thousands of dollars so consider my providing of non-expert opinions here a form of penance. :lol
Basically it means all you need is the Christian Bible to be a "good" Christian. (It's one of the main differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy / Catholicism.)Hadji said:
Since you know that the Gospels contain different sets of information, you can see how that position is somewhat problematic.
The Qur'an is a much more practical holy text (in the sense that many topics are expressly laid out) and you guys can see why it's necessary to have things like sunnah or hadith. Just imagine what it's like with a messy book like the New Testament. :lolWarrior300 said:
Karakand said:
Nice, catholic. I grew up around a lot of catholic friends, I always considered only catholics as the true Christians (like many muslims). Only found out about protestants when I was 14 or so
Can I ask you something?
In what respect do Catholics hold the Pope? What's his postition?
Karakand said:
Oh! I like you! =D
Actually, I've always had more respect for Catholics than Protestants because they wouldn't go around interpretting texts in order for them to seem more "real". I remember reading about the Eucharist and how both sects interpretted that.
What are your thoughts on transubstantiation?
Linkhero1 said:I believe all the minor signs have occurred or are occurring right now
My friend who is a sheikh in saudi, told me that there would be a major split very soon. That would be the next step.
Many Muslims would just forget about there faith,others will hold fast to it.
Sandman7 said:
A Caliph can't forgive nor reward, he is only a man nothing more.
The caliph has no divine authority, anyone can be a Caliph. The caliph is just like a president, only usually more humble
Allah refers to the whole human race as caliphs, i.e. those who preform the Law of G-d on earth. Humans are responsible for the earth and everything on it.
Hadji said:
No I meant :
Inni ja'ilu fil Ardhi khalifa.
When Allah says "behold I am about to create a khalifa( means generations succeeding one another/ or succesor) on earth".
when the angels ask Allah " Why do you create that which will shed blood, while we glorify your Holy Name?"
and Allah says " I know that which you know not"
Hadji said:
Abu-bakr used to be called Kalifatul-RasulAllah meaning sucessor to the Prophet, now about the verse, I think that it says something like one after another in the next part( My arabic is crap)
From a sheikh called Anwar Al-awlaki, very famous among the youth.
I'm not an arabic speaker, I can't even write it, although I can read it it.
But that's the way he said it to be
Warrior300 said:
Well, the word khalifa in the verse is a singular word not plural. It seems as if the verse is talking only about Adam (raa) and not all of mankind.
I heard some Anwar Awlaki stuff. I'm also aware that he is extremely popular with the youth. I'm personally not much of a fan though. I'm much more old-school. =p
Hey, if it makes drinking wine on Sunday morning socially acceptable, I'm all for it.Hadji said:
kidding!
Jokes aside, one has to accept many things as True in order to accept transubstantiation. I myself am unsure (for reasons already discussed) but if you believe Jesus could walk on water, cast out demons, raise the dead (including Himself!) or feed a huge crowd with a little bit of food I don't see why it's so absurd to believe He could alter the nature of bread and wine... or that this practice could continue after the Resurrection.
At the same time I can see the argument against it to some degree (Jesus often spoke in metaphors). But like I said earlier, you can argue almost anything in Christianity. :lol
I meant my explanation was bad (in that I cut out a lot of stuff to make sure you got the important stuff). :lolWarrior300 said:wow, so what do you think of it?
nevermind,
I'd take it that horrible means wrong
As for what I think of it... I think it's a flawed institution like most institutions runs by humans. It's been deplorable, a symbol for the fight against wrong (you still in here Instigator?
) and downright absurd. Jesus bowed out without creating an earthly kingdom and told everyone to prepare for the coming divine one. Well in the interim guys have had to get their hands dirty. Some of them remembered to be Christlike too and some of them didn't. I can't really do anything about that. If you had asked me this a couple of years ago I probably would have been more critical since I did a lot of my Christian service in high school around Catholic Worker but over the years I've kind of gotten more cynical and thus accepting of the nature of the institution. The only mass I've been to in the last several years was one when the previous Pope (John Paul II) died!
The Papacy is closer to the Imamate (the Shi'i alternative to the Caliphate) in nature. (In the sense that the role is a marriage of religious and secular political authority, not the cosmology stuff.)Sandman7 said:
I have no idea what your political thoughts are vis a vis the Taliban. My response was mainly directed at Mango Positive's assertion that Islamic modesty laws are solely targeted at women (they're only *mainly* targeted at women).Hadji said:
However I am curious as to what you think about this specific incident.
After all the Taliban enforced
* a Quranic directive for men to be modest
* used a definition of modesty derived from the Sunnah
* weren't harsh in their enforcement of the Shariah. Just threw them in jail and shaved their heads.
So I am wondering what exactly they did wrong in your view?
Karkand you already know how straightforward the Quran is compared to previous revelation and you also know the extreme amount of importance we give to the idea that the Quran is the unsullied perfect final word of god to his creation.
Firstly nothing human compiled like the Sunnah can hope to match that level of authenticity. I give the Hadith as much credibility as I give the New and Old Testament as there are no divine guarantees to their acceptability.
Secondly as the Quran is so practical in its nature the only thing the Hadith are useful for is filling in the relatively gaps left by it. The amount of hate and division and bloodshed these gaps have caused is frankly insane. And all due to *fallible* *human* *HISTORY*
Karakand said:Hey, if it makes drinking wine on Sunday morning socially acceptable, I'm all for it.kidding!
Jokes aside, one has to accept many things as True in order to accept transubstantiation. I myself am unsure (for reasons already discussed) but if you believe Jesus could walk on water, cast out demons, raise the dead (including Himself!) or feed a huge crowd with a little bit of food I don't see why it's so absurd to believe He could alter the nature of bread and wine... or that this practice could continue after the Resurrection.
At the same time I can see the argument against it to some degree (Jesus often spoke in metaphors). But like I said earlier, you can argue almost anything in Christianity. :lol
I meant my explanation was bad (in that I cut out a lot of stuff to make sure you got the important stuff). :lol
As for what I think of it... I think it's a flawed institution like most institutions runs by humans. It's been deplorable, a symbol for the fight against wrong (you still in here Instigator?
If you had asked me this a couple of years ago I probably would have been more critical since I did a lot of my Christian service in high school around Catholic Worker but over the years I've kind of gotten more cynical and thus accepting of the nature of the institution. The only mass I've been to in the last several years was one when the previous Pope (John Paul II) died!
The Papacy is closer to the Imamate (the Shi'i alternative to the Caliphate) in nature. (In the sense that the role is a marriage of religious and secular political authority, not the cosmology stuff.)
Can I ask you your honest opinion on Muhammad(saw)?
Baring in mind that he :
Taught us to love Jesus and respect Jesus. He saw him as a predecesor and his brother( I showed you the family tree).
We muslims, we can't deny any prophet, so whatever happens, we have to defend Jesus, and Moses, with our very lives.
What would be the reason why you ( and every one else) deny Muhammad(saw)?
I just want to see what the other people think, debating won't do anyone good, rather understanding each others views and thoughts will.
After all Muslims and Christian will be the only ones fighting off the anti-christ until Jesus comes back.
There is no contemporary Caliph, the Shia Ayatlollahs are the closest thing to a Papacy and there are a few major differences.
First there are more than a dozen Grand Ayatollahs around unlike the single head that is the Pope, secondly Ayatollahs are far more like Shiah PhDs in theology on steroids than the hierarchical Papacy. They have different views on things, for example Khomeni and Sistani have/had completely opposed views on how involved in politics the clergy should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah
First there are more than a dozen Grand Ayatollahs around unlike the single head that is the Pope, secondly Ayatollahs are far more like Shiah PhDs in theology on steroids than the hierarchical Papacy. They have different views on things, for example Khomeni and Sistani have/had completely opposed views on how involved in politics the clergy should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah
Azih said:
Was the underlined intentional?
I think the Shia system is quite good, you can follow whichever Ayatollah you want depending on how conservative or liberal you are, and trust me there is a very wide spectrum of views.
Just as a point of interest, how exactly do the 4 major Sunni schools of law update their laws i.e. how was it decided that e.g. smoking is not allowed when it first came out that smoking is harmful for you? Do you have a group of scholars who are the most knowledgeable in your school of law who make decisions or is their like a one person who decides everything? Sorry my question is a bit long-winded but I think you guys can understand what I mean.
And also, how do the law schools differ? I know Hanafi's are most numerous where I live, but which are the most liberal schools and what are the major differences between them?
DSWii60 said:
Personally, I don't follow a specific school of jurisprudence. Actually, I barely know anyone that does. That's probably because I like in the U.A.E. Most people in the G.C.C. don't follow a specific school and avoid taqleed.
I do know that pretty much every Sunni country has a mufti. However, the mufti isn't seen as a marj'i that we necessarily must follow. There are always conflicting points of views when it comes to jurisprudence and we just stick to whatever we feel is the most correct view. Hanafis are somewhat different though. They are the only group of people that I know that have members that practice taqleed.
The four schools of jurisprudence aren't really more liberal or conservative than each other. It would be hard to say who is stricter since the four imams came from a close time period and have somewhat of a similar religious background. They all studied from each other too, technically. I also can't say that there are any major differences. Fiqh is a very minor thing compared to aqeedah, so to me, it doesn't seem like their differences are really worth mentioning. If you want to take a detailed look at the differences, then I suggest "Al-Mughni" by Al-Nawawi.
By the way, in Shi'ism, once you choose your Ayatollah, can you disagree with them in certain matters, or must you stick with every fatwa they make?
Hadji said:
Thanks for the answer.
Once you have chosen your Ayatollah, you can disagree with him in matters that are not related to fiqh. Even in matters of fiqh you can either agree with the fatwa or you can be cautious. Let me explain what I mean with an example. Say a person has a doubt about his prayer, he could either finish his prayer and perform whatever action his Ayatollah recommends (e.g. Sajdah Al-Sahw - that's what we call it anyway) or he could end his prayer and then repeat again just to make sure.
Warrior300 said:
Well, I've received two answers from different people.
One is that people saw the Prophet (pbuh) praying, so basically, since it was an action, it should be accepted. Only problem with this argument is that the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) fall into hadeeth.
The second one, is RiZ III's opinion, which is that the method of prayer isn't important, because if it was so important, it would've been in the Qur'an.
Primethius
Banned
So I thought this was the best place to post this, because it's really general but does relate to the official topic at hand.
I'll be general because I really don't want to get into the details.
A girl I know is being forced to marry some guy this summer right after she graduates from HS. Of course she doesn't want to, she doesn't know the guy and won't see him until the marriage probably.
What exactly are her options at this point?
I'll be general because I really don't want to get into the details.
A girl I know is being forced to marry some guy this summer right after she graduates from HS. Of course she doesn't want to, she doesn't know the guy and won't see him until the marriage probably.
What exactly are her options at this point?
koshunter said:
Its Islamically wrong for a marriage to force two individuals to get married. She should approach her parents and tell them that its Islamically wrong what they are doing and support it with surrahs and hadiths. She should say that culture and Islam should not mix. Unfortunately in most cases it does not work that way.
If that doesn't work, she should be allowed to her future groom through the telephone or chat online with him. Another possibility is to just have an engagement, where they can go on a date with chaperon(an elder family member, ie. father/mother) ie. halal dating.
Primethius
Banned
Zapages said:
Well, the thing is that she doesn't want to marry him at any cost. Especially because she isn't ready to be married at this point, let alone a forced marriage.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
koshunter said:
she should run away.
koshunter said:
As mentioned forcing a marriage is wrong according to Islam. She could try explaining this herself but there's a good chance her parents won't take any notice of her. So she could try and get someone "officially" recognised for their knowledge of Islam such as an imam or a scholar to explain this to her parents for her.
If her parents are set on forcing the marriage, then she's facing the choice of losing her future or losing her family. If she chooses the latter then it's also likely she may have to run away as well.