Ask me/us about Islam

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me/us about Islam

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

Yes. The vast majority of Muslims accept at least some of the hadith/sunna. And to be honest, I don't totally disregard them. Some of them are quite beautiful and espouse a message that I think fits with the merciful interpretation if Islam:

Not much of a question but here we go.

I think we have to remember that the hadith began being written or collected into volumes nearly 200 years later. Naturally even the "Sahih" (Authenticated chain of narration (isnad)) will not be precise and differs from each other in the same volume or even between volumes from other Imams. It is the reason why the Qur'an (words of Allah) is the final authority on an issue and there is consensus (ijtihad) made among the scholars where the Qur'an doesn't directly address an issue of Shariah.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2015 08:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 14:20

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

PT6A posted:

In your opinion, do you feel like "Saudi Arabia is loving crazy" is a sufficient excuse to not do the Hajj? Obviously it's a matter of personal conscience, but given the disasters that have happened this year, and in other years, and the fact that Saudi Arabia observes a particularly hard-line version of Islam as compared to many of the Muslims in the rest of the world, I think I'd still have reservations about going there even if I were an observant Muslim.

On a similar note, the wording of the regulation you quoted seems to imply that someone born Muslim (I suppose born to at least one Muslim parent) would automatically be considered Muslim. Religiously speaking, is it considered that a child born to a Muslim parent is Muslim, regardless of whether they have confessed the shahadah upon becoming old/mature enough to understand what it means? In general, how is the Qu'ranic statement that there should be no compulsion in religion reconciled with the extremely dim view many Muslims, and many Muslim nations, take on the subject of apostasy?

Im concerned about going anywhere in the middle east atmo. Rather not become cattle for the ISIS slaughter while trying to do something good and decent. I have a family that depends on me.

As far as apostasy, only one thing makes one become a Muslim and violating that one thing takes you out. There is no justification in Islam for someone to be killed for it. That is the First Pillar of Islam.

Extremists suck.

The Prophet Muhammad said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Oct 2, 2015

# ¿ Oct 2, 2015 08:58

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

This is something I've started trying to talk about in posts in this thread a couple times but then had to just stop myself because I get so loving angry. And the people who do it are often people who will just ignore any statistics or facts you offer, point at people like the Taliban and say "that's how they do it so all Muslims do it." Even people who are the first ones to scream about logical fallacies. It's loving bizarre and consequently infuriating because with the majority of people I see who are like that, there is literally no way to change their mind.

They're usually the same ones who say "BUT THE QUR'AN SAYS DEATH TO SO AND SO YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE" then hand-wave away things like Leviticus talking about killing gays because that's different somehow. Motherfucker, if you're going to say I have to be a literalist, you better be one yourself. I still won't be, but at least you won't be a hypocrite.

There is a level of belligerent ignorance that people engage in and I find that there are different types. One is those who are from "competing religions" who want to spread their message to the world. Second, is those who are involved in a political struggle for control of territory where Muslims live. Third, is anti-established religion sentiment.

Im not suggesting that many muslims dont engage in this same dogma but I am identifying that there is a feeling of "competition" among some and as a result Islam is often misrepresented intentionally in order for those religions, political entities and social commentators to gain converts for their cause.

The media has changed in modern times and is influenced by many of these kinds of commentators. It used to be that the media was nationalized or not-for-profit in much of the west. Today it is commercialized. That means there is a larger market for "clicks" on the TV channel or internet site from the viewers that made them successful and this will take priority, determining how they report. Its easy clickbait to report on the Taliban blowing up a school than to report on Muslim, Christian and Jewish interfaith cooperation to resolve differences, or to report on how Muslims are trying to integrate as positive members of society, etc. That said, it can be most easiy seend by watching the news and getting a report in 1 hour that is 90% shootings, rapes, robberies and tragedies in your local city, state or country. That is what holds people to the television, not positive story telling, which they sometimes do but not often enough.

Most working class people might come home and watch the evening news for an hour or so, maybe hear tid bits during the day, but they dont have the time to sort through issues that dont concern them. So, what the media reports is directly reflected in a persons knowledge filtered through their preconceived prejudices. They make up their minds and thats where they stand.

I spent a lot of time teaching on this topic with most people coming in with an idea of Islam that they saw on television and very hostile to it. What they believed is that Muslim countries are not modern, but deserts. Muslims were desert dwellers who the majority lived in the Middle East and all dressed like the Taliban. They were people who wanted to kill us in a grand scheme to take over the world by force. After they left the class their ideas had done a complete 180 degree turn around. The Muslim world did not fit the mould that they saw in Hollywood films or in the news. Shocker eh?

On the internet its important to pick your fights and have patience for that one person that is intelligent and open minded enough to learn some facts and decide for himself. The rest are just lemmings leading each other in a delusion that they are comfortable remaining in, for now.

I apologize for the WoT.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2015 05:44

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

BattyKiara posted:

Amon Khonzu, did you ever see the film called "Reel bad arabs"? About how Arabs in general, but especially muslims are stereotyped in Hollywood? If you have, any thoughts?

I had not seen it prior to it being mentioned here, but I just watched half of it in my free time.

It is funny, I remember watching a lot of those old black and white movies as a child and growing up with similar views of Arabs, often confusing it for real culture and even the religion of Islam. Based on Hollywood films and soundbyte media reports, I used to hold these views growing up until I learned about the culture, religion and people.

There are 2 main groups Hollywood historically dehumanises, Arabs and Native American Indians.

Hollywood itself is perhaps not intentionally choosing scripts that dehumanize Arabs or Muslims, but the writer's guilds who put out these scripts are of a selection of people who hold these views and write according to their "preconceived" ideas and prejudices. Its more likely that Hollywood companies are choosing from the pool of scripts that they feel would make them the most money. Some anti-arab films that have very strong US patriotic sentiment sell very well, like Rules of Engagement, Argo (Americans often confuse Persian for Arab), American Sniper, etc. All very good films based on a true story, but very rarely is the deeper history that created the situation depicted in the film ever discussed, nor is there much focus on the positive contributions of Arabs in these conflicts. The viewer is often left with a deep sense of patriotism (a good thing) and a deep sense of hatred for the "enemy" (Arabs/Muslims).

Another thing that isnt often discussed in these films, perhaps because there is no need to identify religion as it is assumed, is that not all Arabs are Muslims. There are Jewish, Arab, Zoastrian, Christian and other types of Arabs.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Oct 4, 2015

# ¿ Oct 4, 2015 10:36

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

counterfeitsaint posted:

What do you think about Islamists or "political Islam"? I mean specifically "the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". I'm sure that fringe christian analogies exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say the concept of theocracy is far, far more widespread in the Muslim world than anywhere else.

There are 2 main differences in opinion on the issue of governance. The answer is complex but please bare with me.

1) Sunni
2) Shi'a

The Sunni make up roughly 83% of the population of Muslims in the world. In the case of the majority of the Muslim world which is Sunni, a theocracy cannot exist. The first Caliph (Abu Bakr) was elected by the people. Sunni believe in what is called "selection". One person, one vote. No electoral college business like in the modern day US political system. Men and woman from as early as 13 (age of accountability) are equal in the choice of governmental leadership (a Caliph). A state ruled by a Caliph resembles more of a pseudo-monarchy (can even be similar to what Britain currently has). There is a Caliph (leader, prime minister, president) and there is a series of consultative bodies. These are to include a religious consultation system from the top down (similar to a supreme court and lesser courts but without lawmaking authority) in whom the Caliph, legislators, governors, court judges and local leaders are to use for opinions (fatwah) on issues that are religiously unclear. These decisions make up Shar'iah, but the purpose of a fatwah is not to make a decision for the political leader. It only gives him opinion of the religious scholars. Shar'iah is not the same from region to region, nor is it the same from century to century. About 10% of Shar'iah is 100% unchangeable and that is matters regarding religion (5 pillars, 6 beliefs, etc). The other laws of Shar'iah can change depending on the necessity of accommodating the time, place, technology and people's needs. Shar'iah is not God's law but man's law based on God's revelation, though some of it contains laws given by God (such as the law requiring Muslims to establish prayer).

So, the governmental structure the Sunni aspire towards is not a theocracy but an elected government with consultative bodies, though in recent days with the rise of illiteracy (some countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan have as great as a 70% illiteracy rate) and extremism in Muslim countries, there is a common misconception that a Caliphate will/should institute and type of 100% unquestionable Shar'iah that would be God's law and as brutally repressive as the current dictators they have lived under for many decades prior to their seizing power. The example of which was mentioned above in the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban.

The Shi'a represent maybe 17% of the Muslim population in the world, mostly populated by Persians from Iran. The Shi'a get their name from Shi'at ul-Ali (followers of Ali). They believe that after the Prophet Muhammads death, the Caliphate should have been given to a blood relative of the Prophet, Ali instead of holding an election.

The Shi'a concept of government can be viewed as a "theocracy" or "monarchy" mixture due to their belief structure, however does not have to resemble one. The Shi'a believe in 12 Imams who are ordained by Allah to rule as Caliphs. 11 have already come, but the last one, Imam Mahdi, who is related to the Prophet Muhammad, is yet to come. He will come during close to the Last Days during a time of great tribulation and fight the Anti-Christ (ad dajjal) until Jesus (Isa) returns in his second coming. Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) will take over being Caliph and Al-Mahdi will step aside. Prophet Isa then defeats the anti-Christ and establishes God's law on earth.

Side note: Both Shi'a and Sunni believe that Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) will in the End establish God's law on Earth for a period of time (as do Christians). Shi'a and Sunni believe that Prophet Isa will live out the remainder of his life on earth and die a normal death.

So, most Muslims in the world do not desire a theocracy. Shar'iah is man's law based on Allah's revelation. Allah entrusted man to rule the earth in Justice for all human beings (including non-Muslims of all types). Islam is supposed to be a social justice movement. Sadly, today it is often not carried out as one, but quite contrary to it's original intent.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Oct 4, 2015

# ¿ Oct 4, 2015 17:11

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

MrNemo posted:

Bear in mind in theological terms in Christianity, frequently people would say any description of God in terms we understand is allegorical at best. Christian talk of God 'loving' humanity is an attempt to explain God's feelings in a way we understand. Some prefer saying something like God's perfect love to try and make that a bit clearer or retreat into negative theology (we can't say God's love because love is human, so God's feeling that isn't human love). Generally the attitude is that that way of talking isn't right (but isn't quite wrong) but it helps convey the Message so it's acceptable. Of course in many, many cases people just anthropomorphise away without ever thinking about it more deeply.

Tendai thanks for making this thread! I've just moved away from a Muslim country (Malaysia specifically) where there's all sorts of fun regarding religious issues that I won't drag into your thread because it's a specific practise of Islam that's very tied into the Malay majority ethnic identity. What I am curious about are the historical origins of Islam and scholarly understanding of Islamic history. The great History of Byzantium podcast lead me onto this and specifically the interview episode with Tom Holland, which inspired me to read In the Shadow of the Sword. His thesis regarding Mohammed himself is that he's historically analagous to Shakespeare. We have a few pretty strong dates for a few major events but otherwise there is 0 academically acceptable information about his life. Simultaneously we have a huge amount of supposition, hearsay and general folklore (for want of a better term) about him that is frequently put forward or taught as verifiable and certain historical fact.

He generally argues that Islam hasn't been subjected to the same level of rigorous academic scrutiny as Christianity has been since the 19th century and as a result what is known and taught in Islamic history generally relies on oral histories written centuries after the fact without documentary evidence. He discounts the Qu'ran as a particularly good source of historical information because it almost never talks about geographical locations and when it does it rarely gives any information about them (Holland himself argues that sites such as Mecca were moved for political reasons, claiming there's evidence of a tradition in Arabic culture of shrines and holy sites being movable).

I'm worried this might come off as agressive, Holland in all the writing I've read of his tries to point out that he's not attacking the religious veracity of Islam but obviously it's hard to avoid doing so with a religion that invests so much importance in a written work (Holland also claims the Qu'ran was assembled from different versions, somewhat akin to the New Testament) and a single historical origin. Basically he argues against the idea that Islam emerged as a religion fully formed from the mouth of Mohammed and that it's teachings and scripture have remained unchanged. It's not an area I know much about and some parts of his thesis, like early Muslim communities following still many of their old pagan beliefs (because they were Arabs who heard about this great new religion thing and how much conquering and booty was agoing and wanted in without really understanding it) is something which appeals to me as fitting in with how such phenomena usually appears in history (c.f. Pagan kings in England converting to Christianity and happily showing off how they'd built an altar to pray to Jesus alongside all the other ones). I don't know if he's overly critical though or what kind of historiography there is in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) world regarding Islamic history. Holland basically dismisses the entirety of the Hadith as historical documentation, which gives me some pause in thinking he's entirely right.

According to the history of Islam, one of the close followers of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, then became the first Caliph (leader) of the Islamic Republic. Abu Bakr took immediate steps, after the death of the Prophet to insure that the Qur�an was preserved in it�s original form and didn�t suffer the same fate as the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. He ordered that all of those who memorized the Qur�an from the Prophet be tested for accuracy and they recited the entire Qur�an. He ordered Muhammad�s formal secretary, Zaid Ibn Thabet, to collect all the writings. All current writings that did not match the words of the Qur�an exactly were gathered up and destroyed. All of those who recited the Qur�an without flaw worked on putting the Qur�an in compiled written form for the purpose of spreading the faith. The final version was established by Caliph �Uthman around 650 A.D. The Shi'a and Sunni (100% of Muslims worldwide) recognize this Arabic Qur'an as authentic and there are no other "versions".

Carbon dating confirm the earliest known book of the Qur'an to be "68% probability of a date between 640 CE and 765 CE". The Prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE. The complete edition we have is a word for word copy and probably a copy from one earlier edition of 5 sent to 5 main cities in early Arabia.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/samarqand.html

The earliest parchments we have are even earlier and match the Sumarkand Kufic Quran.
http://www.livescience.com/51638-quran-manuscript-oldest-known-copy.html

So, there are no "versions" of the Qur'an. They are all the same Arabic text dating back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death and put in a single book form 18 years later. All of today's Quran's match word for word, letter for letter the original Qur'an.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Oct 5, 2015

# ¿ Oct 5, 2015 02:27

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Noctis Horrendae posted:

http://www.dailystormer.com/moslem-vs-muslim/

Is this just an urban legend?

If not, whoa. Whichever European came up with "Moslem" must have been the smuggest gently caress ever.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/524

Yeah, the hair on my neck raises to hear media people use the incorrect word "Moslem". IMO, it sounds uneducated, ignorant and offensive.

Root word in Arabic for Moslem is "zlm", which means polytheist or idol worshipper. Root word for Muslim in Arabic is "slm", or monotheist or worshipper of the One God.

I don't lose patience for people that I come across who do still use the word. Sometimes if there is an opportunity I will teach them, otherwise I ignore it. Generally it tells me from what angle or history they are approaching the topic and it clues me in on how to address any issues that they may have. Its not their fault and in most cases no offence is meant. Its just part of the norm of their culture.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 03:26

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

cebrail posted:

Does anyone have a credible source for the discriminatory origin of the word moslem? Because I'm 95% sure it's indeed a different spelling of the same word, based on the persian pronounciation instead of the original arabic and most of the few google results saying otherwise are deliberately offensive right wing crap.

Well, its more of an Arabic lesson to understand completely.

The word in question, Muslim

has its root word in Quranic Arabic SLM, meaning "peace, safety, tranquillity; completeness; being free from obstacles; to submit to" SLM is the word that is also the root of ISLAM. the "Mu" added before the word SLM signifies "one (a person) who". So Mu-SLM is "one who is at peace and submits to Islam". The plural for this for many people who are Muslim is MUSLIMUN.

"But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]." Qur'an 3:64

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=64

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/dictionary-of-quranic-usage/slm-SIM_000846

"Moslem" (pronounced Mozlem)

has its roots in this word "Z-L-M". Used in the Qur'an, ZLM refers to wrongdoers, criminals and polytheists. So the addition of "Mu" before ZLM to say Muzlim (or commonly pronounced Mozlem when people use the spelling Moslem) means "one who is a wrongdoer or polytheist. The plural for this for many people who are polytheists or wrongdoers is ZALIM.

"And (remember) the Day when the Zalim (wrong-doer, oppressor, polytheist, etc.) will bite at his hands, he will say: "Oh! Would that I had taken a path with the Messenger" Quran 25:27

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=25&verse=27

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/dictionary-of-quranic-usage/zlm-SIM_001091

Its important to note that even Modern Arabic speakers even make this grammatical mistake since Modern Arabic and Quranic Arabic are very different. The "O" sound for example in MOSLEM doesnt exist in Quranic Arabic but it is pronounced in Modern Arabic. Few countries speak Quranic Arabic today. Yemen is one of them. In parts of Sudan it is still spoken as well. Its most likely the word Moslem (Mozlem) originated from Modern Arabic speakers and why people like to try to justify it as a correct pronunciation, because even some Arabs (mostly secular) incorrectly pronounce the term.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Oct 6, 2015

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 11:00

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

P-Mack posted:

Is "musselman" offensive or just ridiculously archaic? (I'm still ordering the musselman curry from the Thai place near me either way.)

I dont see that as offensive. Just a bit old fashioned

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 16:35

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

BattyKiara posted:

Mosque cats are a thing? Aw...

One muslim woman I worked with claimed it was "more islamic" to adopt than to have your own children. Which lead to a very animated debate with another woman. I only overheard parts of this quarrel, which sort of ended with a screaming match.

Are there any rules about adoption, or was this completely unrelated to religion? This happened in UAE, where I worked for 6 months. I may possibly do another 18 months there, not decided yet.

The Prophet Muhammad "adopted" Zaid Ibn Thabit, whose father died when he was 6. He became his personal secretary and authenticator of the final printed version of the Quran after Muhammad's death.

Adopting children is a very noble thing in Islam and considered charity, though we dont (often refuse to) call it adoption due to what "adoption" means for much of the cultures of the world. Adoption in the west gives adoptive parents the legal right to change the child's name, culture and identity. Oftentimes the adopted kids have a yearning to find out who they are and are prevented from discovering their origin until well after they grow up. In Islam, children have the right to know who they are, where they come from and keep their original names. We cannot erase their history or culture, nor prevent them from knowing at an early age where they came from. In saying this, we are to love and care for them just the same as our own kids.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 7, 2015

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 02:53

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

PT6A posted:

This is interesting, and I can certainly understand this viewpoint. The only people I knew who were "adopted" (that I know of) were officially adopted by their stepfather, who married their mother. They knew who their biological father was all along, and, to put it mildly, they don't want the faintest connection with him. To them, their dad was the guy who always took care of them growing up, etc, basically treating them as his own children. Do you think that the prohibition or discouraging on adoption in the western sense could be seen as unfair to people who feel this way?

How are stepchildren generally handled, either according to Islamic doctrine, or according to the law in various Muslim countries?

Good questions.

Step children are financially maintained by their non-custodial parent, the same as in the west. That said, the step parents (and natural parents) have the responsibility of taking care of them and love them the same as their own kids. I cant speak specifically to different country's local laws, but more to Islamic law that I have learned, as a step parent, from various scholars from multiple countries, including my own in the USA.

On "adoption", Islam gives children the rights that I specified. If they chose not to exercise those rights, its up to them as long as it is not sought by, encouraged or coerced by the adoptive parents. However, they cannot change their name because it is their identity. For better or worse children are to be taught how to deal with their past and be raised with the qualities in life to deal with their future based on who they are. Identity is very important.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Oct 7, 2015

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 03:45

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

flakeloaf posted:

I have a few questions about dogs that stem from my poor understanding of both the Quran and Islamic culture.

My understanding of Mohamed's issue with dogs is how Medina was lousy with them, and feral dogs sharing space with people can lead to some pretty filthy diseases. Mohamed knew this, so he said something along the lines of "Can someone please do something about these pestilential dogs already?" and the people did. On the other side, the Surah of the Cave seems to tell a story about a time when Allah guided a small band of people and their dog to safety from a city of nonbelievers; surely if the dog were a problem He would've mentioned that?

Now, there definitely are parts of the world where feral dogs are still a problem so a cultural revulsion to the creatures is totally understandable, but that's a far cry from claiming that pet/service dogs themselves are somehow offensive to Muslims, isn't it?

The Arabs in ancient Arabia were shepherds. They often owned and used dogs for herding sheep. There are hygienic guidelines regarding dogs because they can carry disease and parasites. So, there was a restriction set in place to limit dogs to those who herd animals, farm or hunt with them. Note that in those days they did not have handicap helper dogs or law enforcement dogs, etc., so the restriction wouldn't include these professions since the non-religious portions of Shari'ah based on these guidelines can evolve according to time, place, necessity and technology.

"that the Messenger of Allah said: Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day." Sahih Muslim

Those who handle dogs cannot pray any of the 5 mandatory formal prayers (salat) without rigorous washing prior to the prayer.

Today, domestic dogs are much cleaner and modern veterinary medicine has made it possible to curb the diseases we can get from domesticated animals. Still there is the possibility of getting some diseases from dogs, though rare. So, it is generally accepted by the scholars and community that dogs should only be kept by necessity, but not live in our house and share our living space. Some Muslims even extend this to mean that we can even have a guard dog if it is necessary.

As far as it being "offensive" to Muslims, there are two things. First, most Muslims are not offended by dogs. They cannot pray formal prayer if touched or licked by a dog and must wash rigorously to insure complete cleanliness, which is a pain in the backside at times. The dog is not impure or unclean, but the saliva is. The Second is the flip side to the first. Muslims from Muslim populated countries have culturally been kept away from contact with dogs all (or most) of their lives and naturally may not know how to react around them, are often perceived to be afraid of them, may have misconceptions about domesticated dogs and may even show a level of disgust at how people can be licked by a dog, have them in the house or even (as many westerners do) sleep with them in the bed. It is not a religious mandate by the Prophet to have this attitude but has developed into the cultural norms of many Muslim dominated countries.

Concerning feral dogs, most western countries have problems with these animals, especially when they are allowed to get out of control and roam in packs. Sometimes people are even attacked and killed by them.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Oct 7, 2015

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 13:39

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

Out of curiosity, since I don't know this, do you know what the standard idea is for if someone HAS no history? Baby left on a doorstep scenario, that sort of thing. I know that's kind of a weighty, ask-an-imam question but do you have any idea of what kind of the general idea is? Raise them as your own? Try to find out? A combination?

In a Jon or Jane Doe situation, I think, the matter of opinion among scholars might be split. However, I have no specific knowledge. I think, personally, it would be better for them to be given a proper name and identity than a random one, to avoid a sense of abandonment. I say that because, based on my knowledge of parents and children's rights, the parents have the right to give them an identity and the children have the right to have one to grow up healthy emotionally. If the parent abandons that right, then someone should step in to insure the rights of the children are met.

I could be wrong on that, but it is my take.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2015 17:16

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

edit. Sorry.

wrong section.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Oct 8, 2015

# ¿ Oct 8, 2015 03:25

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

BattyKiara posted:

Are there any rules about sex inside marriage in Islam? Like "forbidden" positions or practices? As a muslim woman, how do you feel about the whole plural wives are OK but plural husbands is an absolute NO! ?

Some reasons why plural wives are tolerated but plural husbands are forbidden....

First, we have to understand that there is a time and context to the allowance of this idea. In ancient times (and even today), it was the man's duty to financially support the family, not he woman's. A man's money belongs to his family (and wives) but her money belongs to her and her husband cannot lay claim to it for any reason. When there were (are) wars, the men would bear most of the burden of fighting, leaving many women without husbands responsible to support them and their kids. Add to this that a man and a woman, not married to each other, are not allowed to live in the same household if they are not directly related.

Rather than keeping women on the streets as beggers, marriage was one way to provide charity. A marriage contract does not have to include sexual relations between the two parties and can have a simple intent to provide financially in the same household. Of course, if at a later date they two decide to consummate the marriage that is up to them.

Second, is probably the more important reason which is that of the rights of the children to their identity, which i spoke of earlier in this thread. Children born to a woman who has had multiple male partners would not naturally know which man they belonged or is responsible for supporting them, whereas there is no confusion where there is one male and multiple wives.

Regardless of the reasons for marriage, a man cannot take a second wife unless he can first secure agreement with his first wife to allow it. After which, he has to treat all wives and their children equally, financially, emotionally and every other way possible.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 16:48

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

Oh cool, thank you for your insights! In the US at least, we REALLY do not hear much in the media about Islam in SE Asia, which is ridiculous considering that Indonesia and Bangladesh together have just over 20% of the worldwide Muslim population. Have you done the Hajj or is it something you're interested in? Would you say that the second group you mentioned (religious but not pushy or showy) are probably the majority as opposed to the more aggressive "ISLAM IS THE LIGHT LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT IT" types? In the "average" Muslim family is arranged marriage a thing and if it is, is it more cultural or more religious based? Sorry, this is a lot of questions! Like I said, we do not hear much in the US about Islam as it's practiced and how it works in day to day life in SE Asia, unfortunately.

~

What he (she?) is talking about with dust is tayammum, which is something I totally forgot about till now. It's always made sense for me in terms of where Islam originated; if you have to conserve your scarce water to drink in the middle of the desert, it makes sense that there would be an alternative. When I first converted everything said "YOU CAN ONLY USE NATURAL WATER" and it was Alaska in the winter so I used melted snow It was significantly more pleasant once I found out that well water and other things were okay. I can't imagine if I was doing ghusl (the post-sex/menstruation/birth/orgasm bigger-than-wudu wash that he mentioned) trying to use melted snow.

Quite honestly I'm so used to the practice now that not washing pretty rapidly post-sex would probably just strike me as being kind of gross.

Imagine ordering delivery from halal McDonalds or halal KFC.

A lot of fast food is halal in Singapore.

Singapore is 17% Muslim but a large number of places are halal and the grocery stores often have a halal section.

Religious practice is protected and every major religious holiday is a national holiday. woot \o/

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 17:01

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

JustinMorgan posted:

Forgive my ignorance but what IS sharia law? I have a bunch of lovely right wing people on my Facebook who post things like "Ban sharia law in the US" but I don't really understand what it means?

Shari'ah is a collection laws that govern Muslims personally, socially and/or nationally. It is developed based on the Qur'an, assorted Hadith and in consultation with experts in technology, medicine, economy and many other facets of modern life. Roughly 10% of Shariah is religious law that cannot be changed, such as the 5 pillars of Islam, our 6 basic beliefs and things related to religion. The rest of Shari'ah is not religious and can evolve based on the times, necessity or people who submit themselves to Shari'ah, such as civil and criminal law.

Perhaps unlike Christian Canon Law, Shari'ah is not "God's law", but contains laws that are based on God's revelations. In Islam, there cannot be a theocracy. God does not rule the earth, but has placed man (beginning with Adam) on the earth to rule in justice. The aim of Shari'ah is to be a guide towards that goal.

Shari'an isnt much different than any western legal system, with the exception that it is based on the religion of Islam.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Oct 14, 2015

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 02:09

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Flagrant Abuse posted:

So what does Islam say about body modification? Even basic stuff like tats and piercings.

Body modification outside of necessity (like tattoos) is generally considered forbidden. Ear piercings (even nose according to some in South East Asia) are allowed for women, but other piercings also are generally considered forbidden. If someone already has them, however, they are not required to remove them or modify them, except if it is something incredibly vulgar.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 14, 2015

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 02:14

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Flagrant Abuse posted:

What is generally considered "necessary"? If someone has some kind of disfiguration but it doesn't actually impede their functioning, would that qualify? What some something like gender dysphoria, where the medical community says one thing but large parts of the general public, especially those who are religious, say something else? Hair transplants for balding people? Hair dye, whether to cover up grey or to make it rainbow or something?

Necessity can be as you asked in your question, a disfiguration that has a profound negative impact on someone's quality of life or function. Hair dye is not considered a permanent alteration or disfiguration of your body and is allowed. Temporary tattoos are allowed also. Henna tattoos are quite popular among Muslims during the 'Eid festivals.

As far as "who decides" what the threshold is for this allowance it can be debatable. In some Muslim countries the laws may be more clear. We in non-Muslim countries use scholars for consultation and respect their wisdom, but ultimately there is no clergy in Islam. That means that if I feel it impacts my life to the level that I need to change something, it is ultimately my decision and between Allah and myself. I am responsible for my own actions and have to live with the consequences, not some scholar.

Some examples for legitimate body alteration, can be plastic surgery to repair scarring caused by accidents, transplants (internal and external), etc. Cosmetic surgeries such as hair transplants are probably more a grey area and more dependent on the reason why you want to do it. Generally, vanity for women is more acceptable (they get to wear things forbidden for men) but for men it is something that is often discouraged, but yet some do it. In the end, where the decisions are not made clear for us, it is a decision between us and God.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 07:52

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Bolocko posted:

Have to interject: this reeeally depends on what you mean by "Standard Christianity", and I think it may be one of those cases where some vocal American Protestant minorities and misteaching/misunderstanding of Catholic/Christian theology are distorting the message. For most, I think, the act of sex is neither shameful nor sinful but in fact a beautiful gift from God, provided it's within the correct boundaries (i.e. married husband+wife & w/o contraceptives (depending)).

Here is a piece of Muslim literature on the subject for ya, translated by Sir Richard Burton 1889

quote:

The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight by Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Nafzawi is a fifteenth-century Arabic sex manual and work of erotic literature.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/garden/

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Oct 14, 2015

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 08:00

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

ashgromnies posted:

Can you go into some of the specifics of the 10% that's held in common?

Its important first to understand that Shari'ah is not monolithic. It may be very different for different people, in different times, different countries and different circumstances. However, as I said, roughly 10% of the laws of Shari'ah are both universal and cannot change.

Things that cannot change in Shari'ah are like the 5 pillars of Islam.

Lets take the Shahaddah (first pillar of Islam). "There is no god but The God. Muhammad is his Last Messenger." Shari'ah would dictate that anyone who wants to become a Muslim confess and conform to this as the entry point of the religion and have at least 2 witnesses. It also would dictate that violating the ideology of the Shahaddah is how one would ultimately become a disbeliever.

To establish Salat (formal prayer) not just in our personal lives but communal lives. Shari'ah would dictate that a community of believers (typically 3 or more) establish communal prayers rather than exclusively staying at home to pray formal prayers. It also allows shortened formal prayers for the sick or travellers.

The Zakat (2.5% wealth tax on unused income). Shari'ah would dictate that it is mandatory as part of a pillar of Islam, it is 2.5% of residual wealth, taxable on all Muslims financially able, it is not to go to support the mosque or collections institutions but go directly to the poor.

These are 3 of the 5 pillars, but I think without going through the rest that I can make my point. These are religious mandates that cannot change as they are central to the faith and mandated by Allah and are core elements in Shari'ah regarding the "religious" aspects of a Muslim's life. Shari'ah may expound more in detail on these items according to the group of Muslims it is servicing (depending on madhab or "school of thought"). Everyone's Shari'ah (or law) encodes these ideals into "pillars" that make up the faith and define those who follow the faith. They are held in common among all sects of Muslims and despite other stark differences, these do not change across the board regardless of time, technology, or group of people.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Oct 14, 2015

# ¿ Oct 14, 2015 15:59

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Shari'ah only is fully enforceable in a Muslim majority land and only if Muslims desire it.

We have shari'ah councils in the west but they are only consultative, not legally enforceable.

Shari'ah always demands that we abide by our oaths of citizenship in all countries (whether born into it or immigrated to it), even non-muslim ones. So, we must abide by all of the laws, unless they are laws requiring us to violate the core tenets of faith (5 pillars, etc). The hijab ban in France, may be repressive and intolerant of a modesty requirement (standard) for Muslim women, but wearing a hijab is not a pillar of Islam in the end.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Oct 16, 2015

# ¿ Oct 16, 2015 01:21

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

P-Mack posted:

Are you supposed to do the shortest great circle route. i.e. due north if you're in Alaska?

Figure the shortest aeronautical route towards Makkah.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 05:31

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

ashgromnies posted:

I guess I'm asking stuff like, Abu Bakr vs Ali, what about the return of the caliphate, etc.

Basically the major questions that divide Muslims and lead to intra-faith conflict. I'm not familiar with all the doctrinal differences but I understand that Shia and Sunni are fairly different overall. What are/where do you stand on the issues that divide the two?

I would add this to speak for myself.

When I "reverted" to Islam, I was taken to the Masjid (Mosque) by 2 Shia women, and introduced to the Sunni scholar. When i asked about the differences, I was told not to worry about the differences (even though they are stark at times). the more important thing was that I am on the path to discover Islam.

I became Muslim and followed the Sunni path. Educated myself with scholars from the Iqwan (Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt and Algeria), the Jamaati Islami (Pakistan), the Salafi (Saudi Arabia) and many others. These are major movements among the Sunni and, though theologically different, the Shia are still considered Muslims by the majority of these Sunni movements. In these groups, I never felt the need to hate or dislike the Shia, quite the opposite. I still maintain a strong loyalty to the Shia women that helped me become a Muslim and will always use that as a prime example of how Muslims need to be unified across religious sectarian lines.

I think that based on my experiences and Islamic education that this is pretty mainstream and can be most notably seen in the West (where pan-arab/persian politics doesnt apply), Islamic universities like Al Azhar (among many other mixed universities) and during hajj.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 05:51

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

goose fleet posted:

Since it controls the territory that Mecca and Medina are on, does Saudi Arabia try to project itself as the center of the Muslim world?

I think there is some sentiment like this among some Saudi groups and politicians, but this is not particular to these Muslim Arab groups from that region. It probably stems from their culture from the days before Islam as Pagan and Christian Arab tribes (Quraish) used to take turns maintaining the Ka'abah and viewed it as having special status for their tribe.

In Islam, God plays no favourites, except in acts of righteousness. So, He has no favourite people or group, all are equal in His eyes. Ultimately, the Saud's know this.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." Qur'an 49:13

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 06:25

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

HEY GAL posted:

at least our holy cities aren't full of fuckwads, rome's full of italians

lol. Sorry i was just reading back in the thread. I got a laugh from this. Im Italian heritage (2 sets grand parents).

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 15:32

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Per posted:

Would you like to try living in a Muslim-majority country like Egypt or Malaysia or wherever (for a while or permanently)?

I am considering it. I have an opportunity to live in the UAE, but even though i share the same religion, i think the culture differences may be a huge hurdle for me and my family.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 15:35

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Mo Tzu posted:

One of my brother's friends is Muslim, and my brother drives him to mosque a lot for prayers. One time my brother asked me to come with him, but I wasn't sure if I should since I am a transgender woman. I don't "look" transgender, so it's not so much a safety issue as one of respect. What should I do if I do ever decide to go with them?

Ill give you my opinion based on my experience guiding non-muslims in the community. Even though being transgendered may not be acceptable for Muslims, it should not make the mosque closed to you for visitation as a non-muslim.

Note that men and women are seperated for prayers. Some talks or events may be seperated or may not. If your brothers friend knows you are transgender, he should act as a guide for you through this practice if for some reason you are to be seperated based on gender.

As a non-muslim observer while prayer is happening, you will likely observe from behind and not expected to join prayers anyhow. Often, when i had non-muslim visitors, men and women, i kept them together in the mens hall but in the rear of the mosque to observe because it can be intimidating not to be near your guide and have easy access after prayers through the crowds or to ask questions.

If no one knows you are transgender, save your brother, there is no need to tell people as it may create confusion among ppl who have not resolved the possibility of a transgendered person visiting beforehand.

The mosque is open to non-muslim visitors of all kinds. That includes transgender people. No one should expect you to pretend to act like a muslim except to come to the mosque dressed modestly. As a woman, you may be asked to cover your hair, or maybe not. It depends on the ppl there, but that is normal.

If i can help further, please let me know.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 15:59

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

This talk (the whole of it, not just the food) actually makes me wish there was at least a study center of some kind near me Now that I'm not a dumb shy 20 year old.

I know you didnt ask, but just incase you havent thought of it and are interested

Im not sure where you are, but you can always delve into online courses if not local seminars.

I have old friends who have started up this set of seminars but they are local (not online courses) and may or may not be near you. Its very successful and I know some of the scholars who are great people.

http://almaghrib.org

Or, even though this is a UK set of online courses, they are online and many of them can be taken at anytime in your timezone. some courses are free. I dont know these people but a few friends recommended this to me.

http://www.tayyibunonline.com

Here is another very good online one, I may have met some of them at events but dont know them personally.

http://www.islamiconlineuniversity.com

These are free courses here:

http://www.islamiconlineuniversity.com/diploma

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 17:46

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

About 9000 feet up in northern New Mexico. Not a big Muslim area

And okay that's really cool, thank you for those! I'm going to check into them. It's mostly the social interaction side that I'd like now, I feel like I've had too much time focused on study and introverted thought and not enough time being all "hey cool these people are like me!"

lol. I hear you there.

I've travelled through Northern New Mexico. Beautiful countryside and very rural

# ¿ Oct 20, 2015 18:04

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Hazzard posted:

Apologies for any mistakes. I've been hearing an awful lot about Islam for all sorts of people and the muslims who speak on everything I've seen are crazy. The BBC does not bring on moderates very often.

There's the Niqab, Burka and other veils to varying degrees. Is this a cultural thing? Everyone wearing them says it's religious, everyone who doesn't seems to say it's cultural. Does it come down to some cultures have decided those pieces of clothing are a symbol of faith and that's where the enforcement in some countries springs from?

I'm also curious about consumption of alcohol and pork. I've heard stories of muslims coming to Europe, accidentally drinking or eating something they shouldn't and then deciding "oh well, too late now" and never bothering with some aspects of Sharia again.

Also, Sharia Law means law law doesn't it? How standardised is it? Is it like Leviticus in that it's written in the respective holy book adhere to it to varying degrees?

No problem, no need to apologize

It is both a religious and a culture thing.

The Shari'ah on women's dress indicates that a woman should cover all of her body except her hands, face and feet, according to most scholars.

However, the Prophets wives wore face veils (niqab). People (typically in the Gulf States) interpret this to mean that all women are required to wear face veils, but this is not true since only the Prophets wives were required to wear them, not the rest of the women in his time.

The Burka is a cultural dress that existed among the Pashtune tribes before Islam came to South Asia (back then Afghanistan, Bangledesh, Pakistan was all India prior to British colonialism). When Islam came there, it was by conquest of India. The cultural dress of the Burka naturally fit in with the expectation of their Arab (Guld State) rulers and the Pashtunes kept the dress wear. Today, the Pashtunes (Afghanistan and Pakistani Taliban) interpret their cultural dress as mandatory for women.

You find similar "one piece" design styles on the full face veil that cover women head to toe including the face in Iran and Sudan.

Alcohol and pork are forbidden in Islam, with the exception being in very extreme circumstances where there is no food. If a Muslim in the west accidentally ingests anything that is forbidden, he can simply stop and comply with the Shari'ah, Allah is Most Forgiving and Most Merciful according to the Qur'an provided that we try our best. I have accidentally ingested these things. I didnt feel the need to throw my hands up and say "wtf, I might as well abandon my religion and put bacon on my cheese burger".

The same is true for my wife and many of my friends that have had the same thing happen to them. I suspect that those are just "wive's tales", as even the non-practicing Muslims that I have known over the years will not touch pork for the life of them, even though they aren't following the faith.

i know this will be too technical, so I apologize before hand. If you need further clarifications, im happy to answer.

Shari'ah is an Arabic word that means "Law". To say "Shari'ah Law" is like saying "Law, Law" in two languages. Every country, state, city and local authority has a Shari'ah, so do most religions that I know of.

1)Islamic Shari'ah is 100% standardized as far as the core tenets of Islam, 5 pillars, 6 beliefs etc.
2)The differences are in the breakdown. There are 5 Madhabs (schools of thought based on early scholarly works), some say there are 6 madhab which Muslims use break down the core tenets based on theological thought. For the Sunni the scholarly jurisprudence come from these people, Imam Hanafi, Imam Shafi'i, Imam Hanbali and Imam Maliki. For the Shi'a, the jurisprudence comes from Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (Jafarri jurisprudence). Some say the 6th school of thought is the Zaidi Madhab (sect of Shi'a from Yemen) based on the Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali. All of these (Sunni and Shi'a) are valid Muslim juristic schools of thought to use to interpret into Shari'ah, according to most modern scholars today, though sunni and shia scholars may differ on who is the more "original or proper" followers of Islam.
3)After our scholars filter their ideas through one of these trains of thought, decisions are encoded in shari'ah based on locality by a Shari'ah Council. So, Shari'ah on a topic in one country may be different in another based on local Shari'ah councils decisions made from consultation with the Qur'an, Madhab, Hadiths, precident set by other Fatwah, modern technology, needs of the people in that country or region, etc.

So, on the issue of standardization, the core tenets of Islam (5 pillars, 6 beliefs), absolutely standard and unchangeable. Less standardized depending on what school of thought you are following, location you are living, technological advancements, and needs of the people.

It is not in a book. It is evolving, living text and often found in huge volumes of books.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Oct 21, 2015

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 11:02

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

HEY GAL posted:

This isn't Muslim, but Buddhist temple cats are a thing like mosque cats are, and here is a Taiwanese kitten who was rescued from the walls of a temple and will beccome a temple cat when it is grown:
http://lovemeow.com/2015/10/orphaned-kitten-rescued-by-monks/

heh, cool. I did a religious/cultural event photoshoot at the Buddhist Temple here on Buddha's B-Day celebration for their community (free of charge ofc

) and they had a temple cat and temple dog heh

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 13:16

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

Once again Amun has swept through and said everything I would say

So sorry!! lol

# ¿ Oct 21, 2015 16:13

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

ashgromnies posted:

Wait, so the coverings are part of the "5 pillars/6 beliefs" of Sharia?

Clothing requirements derived in the shari'ah (the Law) of a nation, territory or community are not part of the 5 pillars or 6 core beliefs which are required to be a Muslim and not wearing a hijab does not take one out of Islam. However, Shari'ah does tell us that we must accept and believe in the 5 pillars and 6 beliefs to be a Muslim.

Clothing regulations are derived, like many other rules (and the 5 pillars/6 beliefs), from the Quran and hadith on how men and women should dress to have a modest society and (unlike the 5 pillars and 6 beliefs) subject to various interpretation on how it is to be implemented. Shari'ah covers everything, from the 5 pillars and 6 beliefs to clothing, from washing your body, brushing your teeth and using the toilet to making mandatory formal prayers (salat), from economics of a nation and its people to civil and criminal disputes, etc. However, not everything in Shari'ah is religious (though initially based on elements of religious text to verying degrees as well as, technology, cultural norms etc) nor part of the 5 pillars or 6 beliefs.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Oct 22, 2015

# ¿ Oct 22, 2015 13:55

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

Tendai posted:

Belief in al-qadar. This particularly is a hard concept to explain because Islam believes in a sort of predestination but also in free will. It's a philosophical thing that even I have a hard time wrapping my brain around. The way I saw it put on another site is a pretty good explanation:

1) Allah knows everything. He knows what has happened and what will happen.
2) Allah has recorded all that has happened and all that will happen.
3) Whatever Allah wills to happen happens, and whatever He wills not to happen does not happen.
4) Allah is the Creator of everything.

Yep, exactly. I call it the �Foreknowledge� of Allah to explain it to people in the classes I used to teach. This is part of the belief that God is in charge of everything. Mankind has freewill to do good or bad and choose his destiny however,

1. Allah knows everything, what will happen or has happened;
2. Allah has recorded all that will happen and has happened;
3. Whatever Allah wills to happen happens;
4. Allah is the Creator of everything.

Thusly, God has created us and knows what decisions we will make given a certain set of circumstances.

For a Muslim it basically means that everything that happens to them has a purpose.

Since this also gives us a sense of patience when something bad happens, that it is part of God�s plan, and we should be patient with bad events, prayerful and thankful for good events.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2015 15:17

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

flakeloaf posted:

No matter what you call his name, I'm of the opinion that you can't believe in a god without also accepting that he has a sense of humour. And also that he really likes beetles.

Did you mean... one that really likes "The Beetles" or just beetles? LoL

# ¿ Oct 22, 2015 16:50

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

JustinMorgan posted:

In countries where Sharia law is the law of the land, what is the court system like that decides if you have broken the law and what your punishment is? What would be considered a minor or serious crime and how would the punishment correspond to that? In countries (like the US) where Sharia is not the country's formal law system how would this differ?

In most modern Muslim countries, there are 2 court systems, often confused by westerners and especially the western media. There are civil courts and there are Shari'ah courts. Civil courts are court systems whose legacy is in former colonial rule established by the British, German, French, Italian, Dutch and other former European colonial empires. Then you have the Shari'ah courts whose legacy is in the former Islamic Empire which was established since the death of the Prophet and built upon for centuries by many Caliphates since and in many cases influenced by colonial rulers. Many of the laws are still evolving and there is often conflict between the two.

It is difficult to group them all under one umbrella because former colonial law was particularly brutal when dealing with and suppressing local Muslim populations. The Islamic Shari'ah was also tainted by many brutal colonial laws imposed by European empires as a means of suppression as well as many subsequent Muslim Caliphs who were more interested in suppression and self preservation than establishing Justice in the land based on early Islamic principles. The same holds true today among the monarchies, dictatorships and republics of the governments in Muslim countries today.

Shari'ah courts are not the only court system that deals with the very same court cases. It can depend on a number of factors, but mostly all cases initially go to a civil court. However, people can choose to submit their cases to a Shari'ah court. To my knowledge, this is commonly done in marriage and divorce cases. In some of the extreme cases judgements are made and punishments, like say adultery or murder etc, are often meted out in ways contrary to Islamic teaching. This is because of the history or the governing parties that dates back from unjust Caliphs, colonial rulers from (medieval-Christian) Europe and the modern ruling parties set in place by colonial Europe as a condition of state independence (puppet governments).

In the USA and other countries where non-Muslims rule, Muslims are required by the Shari'ah in those countries to abide by their "Oaths of Citizenship". The fatawah made (rulings) by the scholars tell us that this includes Muslims who are born citizens, naturalized citizens, temporary residents and the like. Abiding by our oaths (in all areas of our lives) is paramount. The only time we have the religious right to disobey or stand up to our governments is if they try to get us to abandon Islam, ie to become non-Muslim. So, we can establish Shari'ah courts in the USA or non-Muslim nation, but we are to abide by its laws regardless, unless they require us to accept that there are more Gods than One God, God does not exist, or God has partners (violation of the first pillar of Islam that makes one a non-Muslim). Shari'ah is never 'Imposed' but is willingly submitted to. Some laws in the USA for example give us the ability to establish a sort of proxy shari'ah authority to a limited extent.

For example, Muslims believe that marriage is a contract between God and the couple, not the state and the couple. So, typically what is supposed to happen is the Shari'ah defines the terms, contract is drawn up for the couple, the couple gets married in a "nikkah" ceremony and should there be a divorce the Shari'ah defines how property is divided and insures the rights of any kids are cared for, alimony etc.

So, what often happens in non-Muslim countries like the USA (if the couple desires to do this), the two people getting married will have 2 marriage ceremonies, one civil (US Law) and one religious (Nikkah). According to Shari'ah by having a Nikkah we have the same rights as a civil marriage in the USA, however it is not enforceable especially in matters of a divorce. So, we have a civil marriage in addition to the nikkah to insure that the same laws are legally enforceable. We can further write up a "General Contract" for the nikkah that is legally binding according to US law, that further refines the agreement the two have together according to Shari'ah requirements in the case of a divorce. This contract is written up within the parameters of the US law and cannot contradict it (such as in the case of particulars of child custody; particulars of financial support or whatever), but where US law allows it can be agreed on and enforced (typically property rights).

tldr; Muslims must abide by their Oaths of Citizenship and the laws of the land, unless that country legislates that we deny God, the nature of His Oneness or any other aspect of the first pillar of Islam.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Oct 23, 2015

# ¿ Oct 23, 2015 06:22

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

pidan posted:

Hi everyone, I'm one of the people popping over from the liturgical christianity thread.

The question of veils is just about the single most discussed question about islam in Europe. So I've read up on it a bit. It seems the Koran does not say very much about it, from what I know there are two places that refer to how women should dress:
- one says "women, be modest, don't show off your [jewelry] and pull your headscarf over your [chest]"
- the other tells a story about how the prophet's wives (or maybe muslim women in general) were being molested in some city, so he advised them to pull their coat over their head.

In the first, it's not super sure what is meant by the words I've put in brackets, and various people interpret "jewelry" to mean any beautiful part of the woman, possibly including her face. The second part has a more complex explanation, dealing with how honorable women were maybe traditionally confined to the house in that city. So the muslim women were prescribed a form of dress that physically made them less accessible and also marked them as under the protection of the muslim community, so people would not mistake them for stray women.

While I see how you could arrive at "mandatory headscarf" from that, it's not really in the text explicitly. The "only show face and hands" thing is from hadith. Then again, there's also at least one hadith where it says it's honorable for men to veil up as well.

I think the people who say they're doing it for religious reasons mostly live in countries where most women are not muslim and do not wear veils. It sets them apart, makes them recognizable as muslims and makes them feel more pious. On the other hand, women who come from countries where it's mandatory or super common tend to just do it out of habit.

Am I totally wrong about any of this? I'd really like to ask Tendai, you've said that you consider the hadith optional, do you believe that covering the hair is mandated in the Koran, or is it one of the hadith things you agree with?

Hi Pidan.

Regarding your question. I will post this translation which is consistent with other scholars who translate the verse to help. I can't speak for Tendai, though

Quran 24:31 "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss." - Yusuf Ali Translation

I take this to be primarily addressing a woman's beauty, not jewlry. Although what is beautiful about a woman is often accessorized by their jewelry. Attracting members of the opposite sex is reserved for a woman's husband and we are not to encourage adultery or fornication (inappropriate sexual conduct). You are right that this is not only for women, although this verse specifically addresses women's beauty.

In the previous verse, Allah instructs men first, Quran 24:30 "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."

Men and women have an 'awrah' (area of modesty; intimate parts) which is to be covered. Hijab means "to cover" and does not specifically refer to a woman's headscarf. So, men and women are to wear "hijab" to cover their "awrah". It also is a source of identity and social protection in addition to a standard of modesty. A man wearing a beard is religiously mandated in the hadith as a source of "identity" (Sahih Muslim and others), women covering themselves properly is a social protection from aggressive men (stalkers, rapists, unwanted sexual advances, impression of lewdness, etc).

The phrase, "they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear" is important and guides us to what is "necessary". In ancient Arabia during the time of the Prophet the men often worked hard jobs (few office worker then lol) and needed to be able to not be hindered by full upper body covering. So their "necessary" awrah is from their navel to their knee (and some ppl say their beard is their hijab as well). Most women relied on their men to provide and didn't work except to care for the household and kids. So their awrah was everything except "what is necessary". Scholars commonly interpret this to mean the exposed portions of a woman's body can be "face, hands and feet" are all that is "necessary".

EDIT to add: Just as a qualifier, I am married to a Muslim woman who does not wear a headscarf or veil.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Oct 23, 2015

# ¿ Oct 23, 2015 07:21

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

waitwhatno posted:

Yes, the all-loving creator of the universe, the maker of billions of galaxies, cares whether your ankles showed during prayer or not. Of course!

Some people are just too dumb to live, whether they are religious or not.

Some people are just stupid. There is stuff like this a lot and having been involved in 3 major religions myself (along my path to Islam), I have seen this idiocy in all of them.

All I have to say, when people start acting like God's mouthpiece is, "And all of them are coming to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone." Quran 19:95 So, the particulars of these things is none of their drat business.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Oct 24, 2015

# ¿ Oct 24, 2015 14:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 14:20

Amun Khonsu: Sep 15, 2012; wtf did he just say?; Grimey Drawer

MrNemo posted:

I would say the co-worker who told her that wasn't really trying to be a dick, it was more of a 'oh man it's really great that you're being more devout but based on what you're wearing you weren't properly clean for the prayers so what you did today doesn't count. It really sucks because I can see you're trying really hard!' He seemed to be more sympathetic and didn't want her to miss out on doing her full prayer obligation (i.e. she'd have to do another day of fasting to make up for it). It was more a consequence that clearly that's the tradition he'd grown up with (and didn't seem to be alone by a long way) that if you're not fully kosher (for want of a better term in my head) then the prayers don't count and if you're not praying the fasting doesn't count. It wasn't malicious, I don't think any of the Malays I encountered acted that way with their faith, but it was common that they were incredibly strict on the form of worship above the intent.

Also on the double standards thing, nothing will ever eclipse seeing an Arab guy and his wife in Kuala Lumpur. She was a couple of paces behind him in a full Niqab in 30c heat and high humidity. He was up fron in shorts, flip flops, a couple of gaudy necklaces and a sleeveless t-shirt with 'Free Mustache Rides' on it.

Im sure it wasnt malicious (it did cause her harm since she was in tears) but telling ppl that their prayers dont count is a judgement against the intention (niyyah) of a person, a judgement that only Allah can make. In my opinion, judging the niyyah of a person is a form of shirk because then we place ourselves in the role of Allah to make a judgement on what only he would know.

"He knows what is in the heavens and on earth; and He knows what ye conceal and what ye reveal: yea, Allah knows well the (secrets) of (all) hearts." Qur'an 64:44

One of the common judgements the majority of scholars make (even the most strict ones that I know) regarding people who have the honest intention to fulfil a duty to Allah, and fail to fulfil a requirement or prerequisite of that duty (ignorance, accidental or even forgetfulness), is that it still counts.

Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 24, 2015

# ¿ Oct 24, 2015 17:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me/us about Islam

«‹›5 »