|
Volkerball posted:Re: ISIS and the Khawarij, f you've got an hour to kill, I'm finding this really interesting. Al-Saqr or Fizzil might be better at writing up an effort post about this (I'll try later, though) but one of the major problems is actually that traditional Sharia jurisprudence, which accepts a diversity of opinions on religious issues as legitimate, has been increasingly attacked by dictatorships since the 1960s. The idea that it is legitimate for two Muslims to have different interpretations about a religious issue is considered dangerous since it removes the ability for the state to say "If you are a good Muslim you have to agree with us on this issue." This has been playing out in Egypt especially, with military governments putting pressure on Al-Azhar to only allow their scholars to give (super conservative) rulings that they agree with. Al-Azhar, which used to be one of the amazingly well-respected centers of jurisprudence by both left-leaning and right-leaning Muslims, now suffers from an increasingly bad reputation as Sisi's government calls on them to whitewash his behavior and kick out anyone who disagrees. They are mouthpieces of the state, and when they say "Oh, well ISIS is bad," they no longer have the respect or authority to make it stick since, like ISIS, they whitewash crimes if their side does them and deny the legitimacy of anyone who disagrees.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That and American Muslims were virtually absent from the political fight over gay marriage because the groups that fought against gay marriage hate Muslims just as much if not more. A lot of it has to do with the feeling that America is hostile to minorities in general, and that if they are able to stop other minorities from practicing their civil rights, it's only a matter of time before they turn their attention on us. Another aspect is that a lot of Muslims acknowledge that the lgbt community has been one of the biggest groups to stand up for the rights of Muslims, even though, yeah, a lot of Muslims are super conservative, so there's a sense of obligation. It's one of the reasons that ISNA supported ENDA. American Muslim leaders do get a lot of pushback for it, but a lot of it seems to come from British Muslims. There's quite a bit of beefing going on there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You know, I bet a lot of the appeal of Sharia law is that it's like, OK, this is in the book, and maybe there's some elaborations, but this poo poo is relatively fixed -- as opposed to "whatever, lol, I've got the army and so you can get hosed." In a sense it's kind of a constitutionalism, maybe. ToxicAcne posted:Yeah it's fixed and you can't bullshit because then you would be defying god. Sharia jurisprudence is literally built with the understanding it's legitimate to have contradictory interpretations and injunctions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:If Sisi and the gang represent secularism they're not very good at it. The only reason that Sisi is considered secular is because he is killing the Muslims that people want him to kill and people would feel bad about admitting they support a theocrat. He's pretty blatant about trying to twist scholars to his way of thinking so that they can give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Rakosi posted:I notice that the people in this thread that insist Islam is an inherently peaceful and non-violent doctrine haven't so far actually put forward any of their own evidence to back up their position, or tried really very hard to explain many of the more violent passages in Qu'ran or Hadith, or why a literal interpretation of those passages is wrong. Arguments of allegory used against the more violent passages usually, I feel, stem from religio-politically moderate/liberal convenience rather than any cited Qu'ranic precedence or law. That's because "inherently peaceful" is a myth. Islam accepts that violence sometimes occurs, and that most times it is unacceptable, but there are occasions where it is acceptable, such as self-defense. People argue that Christianity is "inherently peaceful" because of it's injunctions against all violence, but the reality is that, since Rome, the majority of Christians and various Christian traditions have followed that exact same attitude towards violence. If you go into a Lifeway Christian Bookstore right now, you will not find Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" arguing that people actually should the other cheek, literally. You will find Pat Robertson arguing that turning the other cheek is a good attitude, but we live in a world of violence and sometimes responding with violence is actually the ethical thing to do. The only reason that people think that Islam is "inherently violent" is because it's open about this same attitude and doesn't try to cover it up, which isn't surprising since Islam being pragmatic is something that has scandalized orientalists for like two hundred years (See: "Being a Muslim doesn't make you a good person, and there are going to be a lot of evil Muslims in hell," or "If you are starving God is not going to be mad if you eat a black forest ham."). quote:We all know the real reason why the majority Christian countries don't put adulterers to death nowadays is more because of political and social modern convention rather than Biblical precedence, and I'm arguing that when a normal, peaceful Muslim says killing apostates is murder and bad, they're founding that belief more in our liberal western social thought than the what they have got from the Qu'ran, to the extent that they sometimes actually ignore some very clear laws. This, on the other hand, is a little accurate, but also kind of dumb. Most Islamic traditions accept that morality, like any knowledge, can progress, and new developments can render obsolete old ones. That is why we have schools of jurisprudence that accept disagreements as legitimate. "But this ethical development came from a liberal western thought!" doesn't mean that adopting it makes someone less Muslim, or less serious about Islam, or less pious. If a scholar decides that examining sexual ethics through the lens of consent is a really good thing to do, he or she is well within his rights to do that, because, as Abu Hurairah is reported to have heard The Prophet say: quote:“The wise saying is the lost property of the believer, so wherever he finds it then he has a right to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Where were these so-called "moderate" Nazis? I'm not surprised that the man that thinks that bragging about shooting black people in New Orleans is morally praiseworthy also thinks that all Muslims are Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Jiro Kage posted:Even moreso, isn't it exclusive to the twelvers, narrowing it down even more? In addition, hasn't there been level after level of hierarchy added, with grand ayatollah being a fairly new creation? I don't believe Ismailis or Zaydis have them. With that being said, I believe that if you wanted the best comparison of Catholicism to an Islamic sect, you would probably look at not only the evolution but the actual governance of the Nizari Ismailis. In terms of the community, tithing, and central powerhead (Aga Khan), it does seem a lot alike. They even had a rather interesting parallel historical aspect and touched each other, so to speak, during the crusades. I forget which one, though. I mean, even if you are talking about Shia twelver Muslims, it's not like there is only one Marja, there are a bunch. I have some friends that used to be super active in Shia communities online, and there used to be some really hilarious profane (cussin') arguments whenever Fadlallah came up because he was considered a valid Marja to follow but his rulings were frequently more liberal than what Iranian Marja's tended to rule. It got to the point where, when Fadlallah died, his office refused to switch to a different living Marja and kept giving rulings in Fadlallah's style, it's kind of ghoulish and hilarious. The best part of the Shia Marja's in Iran is that you can straight up email the office of just about any of them asking for a ruling on something and get a response. When I was a kid I emailed the office of Sistani (iirc?) and got a ruling back on griefing in MMOs and trolling online forums. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
hypnorotic posted:What was the response?? It's permissible to strongly state views that you actually have knowing that it will make people freak out and get mad, but pretending to have opinions you actually don't hold in order to get a rise out of people is impermissible because it's a falsehood, causes strife, and doing things to make people angry violates the rules for joking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Iowa Snow King posted:What are the rules for joking? Taking into consideration that scholars disagree with each other and that I am not a sheikh (so take my summary with a grain of salt) most Imams that I have read at least hold that you shouldn't tell lies when joking and shouldn't joke in a way that insults the prophet, and shouldn't joke to excess so that people think you are a clown. Basically stick to dadjokes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:First, Christian theology is a hell of a lot more varied than Islamic theology. That isn't in any way an indictment of Islam, it's just obviously and demonstrably the case. It is way more philosophically homogenous than Christianity. This post is really wrong and I'm not quite sure why you think you are able to pontificate on what "Real Islam" is when you don't even know the role of the Caliph. The Caliph is not the determiner of religious positions, and Caliphs trying to seize spiritual authority from the Ulema has generally gone wrong. The Abbasid caliphate trying to seize religious authority with the Mihna is why the madhab they supported doesn't even exist anymore, and the 'heretics' they tried to wipe out - the Hanbali - are now the majority madhab in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:edit: I said he was the 'supreme religious authority'. I'll admit this is confusing. What I meant was that he supposed to be the undeniable spiritual leader of the Ummah, regardless of the present scope of his political rule. It's not confusing, it's straight up wrong. The reason the Mihna is relevant is because if - as you are claiming - the Caliph is the "undeniable spiritual leader" in charge of Islam, then the Abbasid Caliphs would have had no need to run an inquisition on the Hanbali in order to try to impose their favored madhab (Mu'tazila) on their subjects. Their declaration that the Caliph had the authority to declare what was orthodox and heretical - as opposed to the community of scholars ("But the Caliph is an Ulama" ignores the fact that the ulema is referring to the community of scholars so even if the Caliph had jurist training, what spiritual authority do they have except what any member of that body has?) - and attempts to enforce that through the Mihna ended in a jurist revolt and the rise of the religious scholars they tried to suppress. The reason the Abbasids had to declare that the Caliph had the ability to determine religious orthodoxy is that the Caliphs did not have that power and their attempt to make it stick failed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I mean, the problems aren't really the criticisms, they're the weird theorizing that comes after it. "Muslims tend to be really conservative about gay rights" is a criticism, "And therefore they are just waiting to throw the gays off buildings and you can never trust a Muslim because they are constitutionally forbidden from interpreting scripture by their God-King, the Caliph" isn't "criticizing Muslims" - it's just making stuff up because it's sexy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
Its plenty okay to criticize Muslims, but considering most arguments presented by US groups criticizing Muslims stem from racism, and Islamaphobia is justified by groups who see Muslims as largely all terrorists based solely upon their religion and their race.
|
PT6A posted:I think the problem here, that I finally figured out in another thread, is it makes no sense to non-religious people like myself, who weren't raised religious, why you would identify as being the member of a certain religion if you don't agree with its beliefs. Because neither "liberal" nor "conservative" (these are bad terms, but we'll go with them) Muslims agree that we are holding to a religion when we don't agree with it's beliefs. We agree with the straight path: we disagree about a variety of things that are said to make up that path. This is not a flaw: Disagreement between scholars is a mercy. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
bitey posted:This explains a lot. Every other translation I've started to read stopped me cold at the "God hates Jews" part on page 1. The Muhammad Asad translation is the one CAIR passes out in the US. It was written by a Jewish convert (Muhammad Asad, formerly Leopold Weiss) who joined up with Bedouins in order to get a "Feel" for the language, and his footnotes give multiple perspectives from different scholars on the meaning of verses. Just to illustrate a bit of the difference, let me quote what Asad has for the last part of al-Fatihah: quote:Some commentators (e.g., Zamakhshari) interpret this passage as follows: "...the way of those upon whom Thou has bestowed Thy blessings - those who have not been condemned [by Thee], and who do not go astray": in other words, they regard the last two expressions as defining "those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings". Other commentators (e.g., Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) do not subscribe to this interpretation - which would imply the use of double negatives - and understand the last verse of the surah in the manner rendered by me above. As regards to the two categories of people following a wrong course, some of the greatest Islamic thinkers (e.g., Al-Ghazali or, in recent times, Muhammad Abduh) held the view that the people described as having incurred "God's condemnation" - that is, having deprived themselves of His grace - are those who have become fully cognizent of God's message and, having understood it, have rejected it; while by "those who go astray" are meant people whom the truth has either not reached at all, or to whom it has come in so garbled and corrupted a form as to make it difficult for them to recognize it as the truth (see Abduh in Manar I, 66 ff). (Most of the Dawah groups around here use Pickthall, though.) Edit: His notes sometimes get criticism because he believes certain miracles were metaphorical and it used to be (maybe still is?) banned in Saudi. Interestingly, he also ended up being one of the ideological founders of Pakistan. Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:First and most probable: Arabian Poetry. Knowing about pre-Islamic religion does a lot to explain certain trends in our religion, but it's definitely undertaught except for "They used to bury daughters alive." Arguments about iconoclasm make a lot more sense when you know about the standing stones. You also get to the fun standing-stone-deities that we know of, like the two stones representing a couple that became divine after they were caught (and executed for?) having sex in the Kaaba.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:man nobody nice hates on sufism sufis are chill af Sufism has been hella co-opted in a lot of places.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms? By getting rid of the idea that in order to be a good citizen you have to be non-praciticing. The idea that you have to be completely secular and forsake prayer, fasting, zakat, etc in order to be a good citizen is basically what gives them a fertile recruiting ground. "You see that all the Muslims around you don't take God seriously, so why not join us?" This is the biggest difference between Muslims in the U.S. and Britain. There are Muslims that argue for gay marriage, for instance, in both countries. In the U.S. a lot of influential community leaders were able to give pro- or neutral- speeches about gay marriage at our biggest conference. In the UK activists complain that making such arguments gets them into heat with the community. The difference is that U.S. Muslims accept traditional frameworks that allow disagreement and even the pro-gay marriage Muslims are mostly practicing and devout, while a lot of the "progressive" Muslims in the U.K. argue that practicing is itself a sign of extremism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This is a ridiculous statement. It's really not. Tarek Fateh in Canada argues that having a beard or wearing hijab is a sign of extremism and Islamism. Maajid Nawaz, who runs an organization in Britain that is typically cited as being for "progressive Muslims" argues that going to mixed-race Masjids is a sign of extremism (because it shows that you are dangerously sympathetic to other Muslims based on your shared religion) and also nitpicks such dangerous habits as calling yourself a "British Muslim."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:"Practicing"? Elaborate, would you? Your attempt to draw a line between "Westernized Muslims" (thinks beards and mixed-raced Masjids are signs of terrorist sympathy) and "Non-Westernized Muslims" (everyone else) is really dumb. The Muslims in the US who argue for gay marriage are not "non-Westernized" because they have beards or go to mixed-race Masjids. They are very westernized. The difference is they don't try to stigmatize being a Muslim. Maajid Nawaz brags about how he isn't practicing - he doesn't pray, he doesn't do zakat, he goes to strip clubs, etc. Going to a mixed race Masjid is not, in fact, "a material signifier of an oppressive social system." The fact that you think it is is  . If anything, demanding that everyone only pray with others of their race lest they be branded an extremist is the sign of an oppressive social system, not the free mixing of people of different ethnicities.edit: Tarek Fatah is against prayer because al-Fatiha is recited during it. 
Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 19:15
|
|
again, I blame the KKK a lot more for making the capirote a socially unacceptable fashion choice for the Spanish Catholic church than I blame the civil rights movement.
|
SurrealityCheck posted:Surely this is an argument for making Islam more radical? As in, mandatory explosion-powered death machine with every niqab, sick wheelies get bonus points? I watched someone try to do dawah for two hours last week and this post was significantly more effective and less gross tbh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I wonder how often a woman would be in a situation to arbitrate the application of Sharia law? Depends on the time period. There used to be religious institutes that trained women in Sharia and produced alimah. In the past five or so years traditionalist American Muslims have been forming new institutions to train them, with the reasoning that they know what being a woman is like better than a male scholar, so they would create more just and thorough rulings. A lot of middle eastern countries already have women as judges in sharia courts, but that's mostly interpretative.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
bitey posted:It may be naive to think people are being sincere instead of just trolling; but dammit, I'm trying to get something out of this. I am unironically a practicing Muslim.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Wearing long sleeved shirts isn't in the same category, and indeed there are valid reason you would wear them. It's still coercive that women felt they had to, but it's not extreme enough to warrant intervention (the nature of that intervention itself would have to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate cases, ie- it's automatically too much work for too little a payoff). A corset- it depends on the corset, I'd have no difficulty banning egregious cases. Wait is this a serious argument for banning "looking Muslim"? If "this piece of clothing identified someone as part of an affiliation" is enough to justify banning them, when will we ban football jerseys? Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 14:28
|
|