Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:How do you think we were created? Do you believe that everything that happens is random and jut a matter of chance? And finally, how do you cope? especially when there is so much injustice done, how do you rationalize that?

OP here. I believe that human beings evolved over millions of years from less complex organisms to what we are today. I do believe a that life is very random. I work a lot with statistics and numbers so I see this often in my professional life. Maybe it's biased my personal life as well but I doubt it. I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with randomness and the idea that there is someone controlling everything and looking out for them is incredibly reassuring. Is that reality though? I would argue no, it's not.

How do I cope? Injustice, sad to say, is a part of life but so is successful, beauty, love, friendship, etc. You've got to take the good with the bad. I'm very fortunate in that I have a lot of love from family and friends that's helped me in times past when things have been hard.

Thank you OP for answering. I also love science and statistics, who knew? The problem comes when one tries to take the scientific method and apply it to things it wasn't meant for, like philosophy or religion. In Islam we accept divine revelation as a source of proof as well because we believe in the truthfulness of the Messenger (saws) to deliver the message of God.

Even if you don't believe in divine revelation, the Qur'an itself commands humans to ponder over Creation and to reflect over it, and to let that guide them to Allah. It even provides arguments against atheists. For example, in Surat Toor and other places. There is another place where Allah offers 4 possibilities for the provenance of Creation - will update the answer if I find it.

Lastly, if you apply Bayes Rule to find the probability that everything came into being just on its own and try to find the posterior probability of every single coincidence and complexity and start multiplying them together, you have a vanishing probability of everything just happening on its own. You can make it as small as you like when you keep adding events to the chain. This is a probabilistic proof so it doesn't count as an absolute proof.

"We cannot prove to an atheist the existence of Allah. In fact we cannot prove the existence of Allah to anyone. We can at most find evidence to support our claims, but in the end it comes to "belief".

An analogy occurs in mathematics, where people ask, can we prove all the correct statements? The answer is no and it is proven by Godel's incomplete theorem. That an axiomatic system capable of arithmetic is either complete or consistent. In plain words there are always statements that are true but we cannot prove. To believe in Allah is to take as an axiom the existence and uniqueness of Allah. It is the basis upon which we do rational reasoning, and we do not do reasoning on that, if you already chose your axiom. But then of course different people choose different axioms. An atheist's axioms are by definition different. Therefore the Qur'an itself is a miracle, but only if you believe so."

Now going back to the Injustice question, I guess I didn't phrase it correctly. What I wanted to know was how do you accept the inequalities, injustices in this world if you do not believe in a Higher Being? For instance, as a Muslim, I believe in Allah, and because of that belief, I also believe in divine judgment and divine justice. I believe that we will each have our day in court, where all of our deeds will be measured. Everybody will be rewarded for every atom of good and every atom of evil they have done. So when I see an evil person, who has an amazing life in spite of all the evil they ar doing, and it looks to the outside world that they are getting away with it, I am comforted in knowing that there is divine Justice and one day they will have to respond to those deeds. So, what I'm trying to understand is for someone who doesn't believe in that, how do you rationalize, explain to yourself why bad things happen to good people, and why good things happen to bad people? Do you just believe that it's still all random, and life is just unfair? Thank you

I think they apologized for legal reasons. The Mayor of Paris announced that she was going to sue Fox over the no-go zones.

"When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Mayor Anne Hidalgo told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday. She added that “the image of Paris” had been harmed, and the “honor of Paris” had been harmed."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/20/paris-mayor-anne-hidalgo-muslim-no-go-zones

How ironic in the wake of all the freedom of speech debate, the mayor of Paris will sue to defend the honor of Paris. Just goes to show that everyone has their sacred figure, for some it is a prophet, for others a city....

Also, "Le Petit Journal," which is something like "The Daily Show," sent two comics into the streets of Paris dressed up as Fox News reporters. As "John and Mike". The video was funny with the threat of couscous & kebab lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/le-petit-journal-fox-news_n_6512700.html

How do you think we were created? Do you believe that everything that happens is random and jut a matter of chance? And finally, how do you cope? especially when there is so much injustice done, how do you rationalize that?

Everybody applauded til Obama mentioned the Muslims, and then there was the big awkward silence.......
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/01/21/muslims-one-state-union-can-bring-cheer/

I wondered if any president ever said anything other than "The State of the Union is STRONG" and just what did they say when they said otherwise. So did some research while I watched'':
1960's: Lyndon Johnson said the union was “free and restless, growing and full of hope.” John F. Kennedy declared that “the state of this old but youthful Union, in the 175th year of its life, is good.” Coolidge said in 1928: “No Congress of the United States ever assembled, on surveying the state of the Union, has met with a more pleasing prospect than that which appears at the present time.”
1860's (civil war times): James Buchanan declared in December 1860, four months before the Civil War began, that “the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction.” Andrew Johnson said in December 1865, the year of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination: “Candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us.”
The bleakest assessment in modern times came from Ford, who amid the recession in 1975 admitted: “I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good: Millions of Americans are out of work. Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions more. Prices are too high, and sales are too slow.” It wasn’t what his audience wanted to hear, but, as Kusnet would say, it had the benefit of being accurate.
.....off to bed.... Good night

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am married to a warrior. If you aren't one or don't love one, you will never understand. You are sheep! They are shepherds. Then there is the wolf! I don't want the wolf in my woods. I thank God for the shepherds. You should too! If it were not for them, we would have beheadings right here in the good ol USA! If it were not for them, you would not be able to voice your very ignorant opinion on this forum. BAAAAA

A warrior? Give me a break.

I agree. Liberals hate that they are dependent . Bringing it up hits a nerve of cowardice.

warriors "give you a break" daily. You are a jerk. And utterly clueless!

You have NO idea what these guys go through so you can sit on your ass and shoot off at the mouth! THEY PROTECT OUR FREEDOM! Michael Moore sure as hell isn't protecting anything but you people flock to him like he is God. That is what is wrong with our country, I bet your tune will change when/if you need our WARRIORS right here in the US!!

+1 . The movie has triggered a racist outpouring from people who watched it, totally turning me off from wanting to see it. The propaganda must have worked!

You, again! This is not the first time and I bet it won't be the last that you are following me from thread to thread bringing your grievances about Muslim women's equality and women's captives and again talking about a version of the facts that only exists in your head. Give it up! That ship has sailed, move on!

To all accusing me of proselytizing, promoting my version of x or y, with your limited vision, steadfast opinions and misplaced assumptions, you really are not qualified to determine what my motivations are, why I choose to engage in some debates and not in others, or why I am here. May I remind you politely that you do not know me, you are not in my head and you don't have a magic ball. You think things are a certain way due to the factors you focus on because you judge every single one of my posts based on your own prejudices. You distort things that I say, you misquote me, you misquote the Qur'an, you create your own narrative of who you think I am, what I say and replay it on every single thread, maybe you wish that I would just disappear, maybe you wish to silence me and have me hide behind my hijab or niqab and bow to your glorious ideas of western supremacy and eastern savagery. You want to promote your false narrative of evil Islam and oppressed brainwashed Muslim women who need to be saved by western freedom and values as if we Muslim women, were all passive victims of our beliefs, religion and circumstances. No wonder I puzzle you, no wonder you accuse me of being a Man because I could never be a free woman. No wonder you want to see me gone, because I show you the face of Islam you have been trying to burry for so long, I am a proud Muslim woman who loves, adores Islam, I am free, I choose Islam every single day, I love the Qu'ran and the state it has elevated me to. Every single thing that is good in me, in my life is thanks to this Qur'an and Al Islam. Every single fault, dilemma, bad character of my humble self that I try to combat is being combatted by this amazing Qu'ran and the teachings of the Man who was sent as a mercy to the world, Prophet Muhammad (saw), the perfect man. Yes, dear poster (s), I know you would have loved me so much more, had I come here and bash Islam for all of my misery, all of my limitations, and every evil in the world, you would have marched and protested with me. You would have embraced me with open arms and allow me in your "club" never questioning what my motives were or might be. But I am the opposite, the face of Islam you and every media outlet tries to hide, as if we do not exist, as if educated women like us who choose Islam every single day and have a genuine love of this religion do not exist, as if we can not advocate for ourselves based on our ideals and values, as if I must be the exception and not the norm, worse I must actually be paid to post on this forum, because clearly, I must not exist. You even accused me of being multiple people, I read you and I laugh but then I am sad for you, sad that you actually believe this and this is your reality, and I am sad because I too think that you are brainwashed. You desperately want to hold on to your false narrative, because otherwise, you might just have to change your worldview. I remind you of this whenever you read me, and that is why you want me gone.Let me be clear, you are wasting your time. I am not going anywhere and I will discuss and interject in any thread that sparks my interest, be it on Politics, Religion, Israel's policies, Islam or otherwise. Your words will not chase me away. One more thing, the fact that you think that a parenting forum would be the #1 choice for someone wanting to convert people to Islam is ridiculously crazy! To the PP who defended me, thank you for being open minded, your understanding and humanity.

Now that this is out the way, let's go back to more important things. Like a great Western 1st lady once said, "great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people". Don't make this discussion about me, it was about an interesting take on radical Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Actually, no. She is someone who loves her religion, but you all are unable to understand that love of Islam does not equal to approval of the way it is practiced today, or the way of life in Muslim-majority countries. You all keep trying to make her answer for every injustice every Muslim ruler has ever perpetrated, and it doesn't make any sense.

Thank you PP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Wow, Saudi Arabia is not a caliphate....You do know that is is a Kingdom with a King, right??

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

Because those are the rules that a caliphate has to follow, there are written rules, just like the Constitution of the USA. You cited ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate, keyword, self-proclaimed, a caliphate can not be self-proclaimed, the people have to accept the caliphate and Choose him. You can not self-proclaim your caliphate if the Muslims reject it. More than 120 Muslim scholars around the world released a statement denouncing ISIS and rejecting its caliphate. The statement said, "It is forbidden in Islam to torture, to attribute evil acts to God, to force people to convert to Islam, to deny women and children of their rights. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur'an – or part of a verse – to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur'an and Hadith teach related to that matter." By virtue of the rejection of the Muslim Ummah of its caliphate, ISIS can not and is not a Muslim caliphate despite what they say

Anonymous wrote:The caliphate was tolerant of other religions partly because the Muslim conquerors had expanded so fast, across North Africa and into Asia, that they were minorities, or at least not overwhelming majorities, in many of the lands they had conquered just a few hundred years ago. It would have been political suicide to try to impose a strict form of their religion on everybody under those circumstances, even if they had wanted to. Also, it was pragmatic to allow talented non-believers to rise in government. Much of this need for restraint no longer exists today.

Yes to the flowering of literature and sciences, much more than Europe before the Renaissance. Historians no longer talk about a European Dark Ages, because there is lots of evidence that intellectual pursuits continued throughout, but much of the learning came from trade with Muslims.

That's not true. The caliphate was tolerant of other religions because they Wanted to be, and above all because that is what is dictated by the Qu'ran. They were not minorities over a course of centuries, they could have dictated whatever laws they wanted had they chose to do so. Umar's treaty when he conquered Jerusalem is seen today by far as one of the most progressive treaties in History and one of the first and most significant guarantees of religious freedom in history. Part of it reads:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety which the servant of God, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem.

The people of Jerusalem must pay the taxes like the people of other cities and must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of refuge. The villagers may remain in the city if they wish but must pay taxes like the citizens. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing is to be taken from them before their harvest is reaped.

The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem under Umar in 637 was clearly an important moment in the city’s history. For the next 462 years, it would be ruled by Muslims, with religious freedom for minorities protected according to the Treaty of Umar.

The Caliph is not appointed by God rather he is elected by the people and assumes authority through the bayah contract. Without this bayah he cannot be the head of state. This is totally opposite to the post of a King or Dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion and force. Non-Muslims are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract) in the Caliphate, which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship.

Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said:

The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam. [Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi, Al-furuq]

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem , it protected the holiest Church in Christianity. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I am sure the niqbis of the world are biting their nails over your opinion on how they choose to dress....

Again that word "choose," because you can't imagine that some wearers don't have a choice. Actually, the ones who are forced to wear it probably appreciate that somebody, although not you, is concerned on their behalf.

Stop your lies, just because you are too narrow-minded to imagine that millions of women actually CHOOSE to wear a niqab doesn't mean the rest of the world uses your thought process. I have stated many times, that SOME women are forced to dress a certain way EVERYWHERE in the world be it a Niqab, a Hijab, a Miniskirt, or a Bikini. Get a grip and stop thinking the world revolves around what is normalized in your head.

I am interested in knowing where, in this world, women are FORCED to wear a miniskirt or a bikini?????

They're not.

In fact, I wore shorter skirts (not minis) through my early 30s- pre-kids. I CHOSE to wear them and then I CHOSE to stop wearing them.

Muslima - What's your comeback for this?

Not Muslima, but I'm guessing what "forced" you stop wearing them is that you no longer looked good in them.

I can still pull it off now, as my body is in good shape -better than it was pre-babies. However, as a working mother of two, I'm not out socializing much. And minis - while cute - are not the typical office "uniform," which is where I spend many, many hours.

So yes, I CHOOSE not to wear them - but for different reasons.

Yeh, Im sure you made that choice

There are women with whom I work who do indeed wear some shirt skirts - oftentimes with tights and boots. younger crew, I'll admit - But there are some older women with great legs who manage to pull it off.

not many, as I've said b/c it's not typical office attire
but if you have the body for it . . .

so yes, MY choice for not wearing it
but others choosing TO wear them


You're losing it, Muslim. You can't defend yourself w/o writing a few stupid quips (if you can even define them as such) or quoting from your texts. Most others have provided some evidence to support their sides - including me.

But you can't compete. Furthermore, you're not changing anyone's mind here. Good arguments include finding weak spots in the opposing side. You haven't done that. You simply post an angry message or add some silly comment followed by this -

I hardly think you're gifted in rhetoric.

You really are taking this seriously, aren't you? The only time you feel important is when you argue on an anonymous forum? What you don't understand is I stopped wasting my time answering to you when I realized you miss a few screws , hence the smileys You will see those whenever I have nothing else to add to idiotic arguments. Now, don't you have anything else to do, like raise those perfect daughters of yours? I have important things to take care of in real life, so I will return to those and have Real conversations with people who are actually important and are making a change in the world. Happy Sunday!

Depending on the context and what suits her purpose at the time, Muslima will either tell you that the Quran is the source that should be relied on over the hadith, or that most of the Quran is up for interpretation and nobody shouldn't refer to it without years of study and consulting scholars.

This is not accurate. The Qu'ran is and remains the primary source for All Muslims. The hadiths are secondary, and yes you can not quote a random verse of the Qu'ran without the context or citing the paragraph to refer to the story being told. I recognize all hadiths that are sahib and I accept them as that, sahiH hadiths, but the Qu'ran is the primary source of everything I question, unless the answer is not there, and then i refer to the hadiths.

And some hadith are viewed as more reliable than others. Depending on the context and what suits her purpose at the time, Muslima will either tell you that the hadith are reliable (yesterday's kharawij discussion) or that the Quran is the source that should be relied on over the hadith.

Again false, stop misrepresenting me. The Qur'an is and remains the primary source, so of course it should be relied on over hadith, but the hadiths that are sahih do not contradict the Qur'an so your point is moot. I accept all SAHIiH Hadiths hence why i quoted the hadith about the Khawarij .

Anonymous wrote:And the quran quotes from hadith, yes?

No, it doesn't. The Qur'an is the revelation of God through Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (saw). Revelation that was done for 23 years and written down and organized in a book that Muslims call the Qu'ran. The hadiths are not a revelation from God, there are the accounts of the life of Prophet Muhammad (saw), things he did, said, during his lifetime recorded hundreds of years after his death through a process of authentication of each and every one of them. Some were deemed authentic, some fabricated, and some weak.

And hadith is considered spurious at best, as primary sources provide no support for its content. Instead, other sources contradict its messages.

Some hadith are deemed authentic, when the chain of narration was verified. Some are weak and some are fabricated. I only cite the ones that are unanimously recognized as sahiH i-e authentic

just a side note - My internet isn't free; we pay a fee for it use. Do you?

Go to the library!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:I am sure the niqbis of the world are biting their nails over your opinion on how they choose to dress....

Again that word "choose," because you can't imagine that some wearers don't have a choice. Actually, the ones who are forced to wear it probably appreciate that somebody, although not you, is concerned on their behalf.

Stop your lies, just because you are too narrow-minded to imagine that millions of women actually CHOOSE to wear a niqab doesn't mean the rest of the world uses your thought process. I have stated many times, that SOME women are forced to dress a certain way EVERYWHERE in the world be it a Niqab, a Hijab, a Miniskirt, or a Bikini. Get a grip and stop thinking the world revolves around what is normalized in your head.

I am interested in knowing where, in this world, women are FORCED to wear a miniskirt or a bikini?????

They're not.

In fact, I wore shorter skirts (not minis) through my early 30s- pre-kids. I CHOSE to wear them and then I CHOSE to stop wearing them.

Muslima - What's your comeback for this?

Not Muslima, but I'm guessing what "forced" you stop wearing them is that you no longer looked good in them.

I can still pull it off now, as my body is in good shape -better than it was pre-babies. However, as a working mother of two, I'm not out socializing much. And minis - while cute - are not the typical office "uniform," which is where I spend many, many hours.

So yes, I CHOOSE not to wear them - but for different reasons.

Yeh, Im sure you made that choice