Message
Anonymous wrote:
No one objects to uncovered faces when security is an issue (i.e. at ID checks, security checks, airline check-ins, ID pictures etc.), but security issues are up to the security personnel to handle. Women who cover their faces have no issues showing them for people charged with security. You are not that person, and no one has an obligation to uncover before YOU.
That is your opinion. There is a lot more to security than Transportation Security. There is a reason that tinted windows aren't allowed in a lot of states. Same thing.
Your opinion is a valuable one , but the US government and the governments of the majority of countries in the world do not agree with you, so niqabis will still wear their niqabs and go on with their day. If that frightens you, too bad!!!
Anonymous wrote:As this discussion indicates, there are many Islams, depending on how you interpret Quranic verses, whether you take the Quran literally, and which (if any) hadith you think are authentic. Muslima has her Islam. However, it's not so easy to say "Islam says X about blasphemy and violence and those other people doing Y are bad Muslims." Those other people may think they are good Muslims.
I do not have my own Islam. I didn't create my version of islam. There are different interpretations of certain verses, agreements on authenticity of hadiths but it is wrong to say that there is no way to say x version of Islam or Muslims are wrong. There are accepted rules, that learned scholars have agreed on. The interpretation of Islam that I follow, is that accepted by the majority of Muslims in the world. It is not the only interpretation but that doesn't mean all interpretations are right. We can prove theologically how something is wrong or unIslamic. I have always been amazed by critics of Islam who attempt to prove to us that our religion requires us to be blood-thirsty killers. Have they ever considered what would happen if we believed them?
The ones who are caught go to jail as well. That's what INS does....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
Definition: The collected reports of what the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said and did during his lifetime
During the first few decades after the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) death, those who directly knew him (known as the Companions) shared and collected quotations and stories related to the Prophet's life. Within the first two centuries after the Prophet's death, scholars conducted a thorough review of the stories, tracing the origins of each quotation along with the chain of narrators through whom the quotation was passed. Those which were not verifiable were deemed "weak" or even "fabricated," while others were deemed "authentic" (sahih) and collected into volumes. The most authentic collections of hadith (according to Sunni Muslims) include Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Sunan Abu Dawud.
As the transmission of Ahaadith went on, it became evident that the Hadith was being invaded by many forgeries. Therefore, scholars of Hadith formulated numerous methods of evaluation by which genuine Ahaadith could be sifted out of the mass of forgeries. These methods belong to either of the two disciplines essential for investigating the authenticity of Ahaadith: Fann-i-Riwaayat and Fann-i-Daraayat. Fann-i-Riwaayat, which has many branches, involves investigation of the complete chain of narrators going back to the original narrator of a particular version of the Hadith in question. This science, thus, investigates the bonafides, the moral character, truthfulness, and power of memory of the narrators.
Fann-i-Daraayat, on the other hand, investigates the authenticity of a Hadith by determining whether or not its subject-matter is acceptable.
A Hadith is accepted only when its authenticity has been established on the basis of both Fann-i-Riwaayat and Fann-i-Daraayat. Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Moreover, it should not be contradictory to any of these bases, and should have been transmitted by reliable sources'. A Hadith which meets these criteria is accepted as a bonafide record of the Sunnah and of information pertaining to Islam. However, the following points must be kept in mind which stem from these criteria:
1. No Hadith can present anything as religion which does not have its basis in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Therefore, whatever a Hadith presents would either be an explanation of a principle found in these sources or a branch emanating from that principle.
2. A Hadith must not be against the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. In short, the Hadith in question must conform with the entire fabric of Islam.
3. A Hadith must have been transmitted by reliable sources.
The first two of these points relate to Fann-i-Daraayat and the last to Fann-i-Riwaayat.
Unfortunately, the scholars competent to analyse Ahaadith on the basis of these criteria are few, and the untrained eye is often confused while studying the Hadith. There are three mawjor reasons for this confusion:
1. Almost all the available written collections of Ahaadith, including the most revered ones, contain those Ahaadith which were analysed primarily on the basis of Riwaayat. Most Ahaadith, therefore, have to be analysed further on the basis of Fann-i-Daraayat before they can be accepted or rejected.
2. In most cases the context of a Hadith is not clear or is even left out. The reason is that a typical Hadith is what is called Riwaayat-bil-Maa'naa, which refers to such a Hadith the narrators of ir own words to convey the meaning.
Riwaayat-bil-Maa'naa has also led to complete distortion of the actual subject-matter in many cases. Occasional alteration in the text by mistakes in copying has also added to these problems.
3. Placing a Hadith in its right context is not the job of a layman. It requires a sound understanding and appreciation of the classics of Arabic literature of the Prophet's time and training in various disciplines necessary for understanding and analyzing any segment of the whole corpus of the sources of religious knowledge. In short, analysis, in the true sense of the word, of this historical record---the Hadith---is the job of a scholar. Unfortunately, this confusion pertaining to Ahaadith has given rise to some adverse reactions. People who have shown such reactions can be classified into two categories:
1. There are those who have reacted by formulating the erroneous premise that the Hadith can in no way be a reliable source of religious knowledge. This reaction went beyond all proportion when they confused the Hadith with the Sunnah and then refused to accept even the Sunnah as an original source.
2. On the other hand are those who tried to defend the status of the Sunnah as an original source but in the process lost sight of what they were actually defending. They too have come to regard the Sunnah and the Hadith as one and the same thing. Therefore, they consider those Ahaadith which have already been evaluated on the basis of Fann-i-Riwaayat as an unchallengeable source of knowledge even where the possibility of further analysis on the basis of Fann-i-Daraayat clearly exists.
Source:
http://www.islamawareness.net/Hadith/authenticity1.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her
First the story, doesn't go as you say and second, this is called the story of Asma bint Marwan. It is already a known fact among many scholars of Hadith that the story is not reliable at all. The story is reported by Ibn Ishaq and by Ibn Sa’d through al-Waqidi. It is not reported in any Hadith collection that is considered more reliable. The chain of narrators that is reported by Ibn Ishaq includes Muhhamad ibn al-Hujjaj that is known as Hadith fabricator.
-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:
Ibn Sa'd ? Al-Waqidi ? 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl ? Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars. Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:France did this right. I'd like to see us do the same for illegals who step up to the plate in extraordinary ways.
The first step in "doing it right" would be not to use the pejorative phrase "illegals" when describing people.
If you come into a counrty without papers or documentation, you have entered tbe country illegally. Your are therefore, am illegal. Its simply truth
I'm sure you have done something illegal at least once in your life, so by this logic, you are also illegal.....
Anonymous wrote:As our moderator likes to tell us, there are many different Islams. Muslima's, which I prefer, is one reading. But, you can call yourself a good Muslim and read it very differently.
It would be unfair to say that "everybody who doesn't interpret the Quran my way is a 'bad' Muslim." Best is to read the Quran yourself and come to your own interpretation.
I don't agree with this part. Just like you can't read a medicine book and be a doctor, or read a book of law and become a lawyer. There are many things in the Qur'an that you won't understand or know just by reading it, because the Qu'ran doesn't talk about context, time and is not chronological. Sometimes to understand the meaning of one verse, you have to go to a completely different chapter. Stories are started in one chapter but only parts would be in that chapter, and you will need to go to 5, 10 other chapters to get the rest of the story. So if you just read the Quran from page 1 to the end, you will not understand it at all , and you won't even know what some of the chapters are talking about. It is not written like a novel and it is written in parables, it is almost like a coded book, really. This is why we have scholars, doctors in Islam who spend years, lifetimes studying the Qur'an, its arabic, its meanings, its contexts. I'm a Muslim, I have read the Qur'an and I study the Qur'an but there are many many things about the Qur'an that I have no idea about, so when I read them I have to ask a learned scholar. My sheikh that I trust have studied the Quran and hadith for more than 15 years. He has degrees in Qur'an and Hadith sciences, and believe me, you can tell the difference between him and an amateur, just like you could tell the difference between a doctor and an amateur giving you medical advice. When people start coming up with their own interpretations, that's when you get AlQaida and ISIS. To really, really understand the Qur'an, you have to study it, not just read it.
Anonymous wrote:If OP's question is basically asking why the Paris attackers conducted the massacre at CH, there are several different issues.
1. Graven images (pictures of Mohammed). The Quran doesn't say a single word about this. It does speak to not worshiping idols/statues. But it doesn't say "you can't draw a portrait, sympathetic or unsympathetic, of Mohammed."
2. Blasphemy. You can look at this as Muslims who speak ill of their own god or prophet, which gets into debates about apostasy and appropriate punishments for it, that are irrelevant for OP's question. Another common interpretation of blasphemy is when non-believers mock your faith, in which case you need to look at ...
3. Non-believers who "oppress" Muslims or simply don't share the faith. This oppression could take the form of outright violence against Muslims, or ISIS or the Paris assassins might interpret it as disrespect. These are the quotes above.
Muslima gives blasphemy perspective (although it's worth pointing out that Mohammed was hardly a social outcast: in his own community he was a very wealthy man and a leader). If you want to understand the motives of the Paris attackers, they are taking the broader perspectives at (3) towards non-believers who oppress Muslims.
That part is not accurate. The prophet (saw) came from a Noble lineage, he was a leader, and a statesman but live a humble life. Him and his family went days when they didn't even have food on the table, they would share one single date. He did marry Khadijah, a wealthy woman and I guess you can say he became rich then , but all that money was spent to the cause of Islam. There was a Muslim boycott by the pagans in Mecca who refused to do business with them and trade with them. The Muslims lost everything and lots of them died of hunger, even Khadija r.a died during that period. The Meccans offered the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealth and fame in return for him to stop preaching Islam but he refused.
?Aisha (ra) said: “Verily, we, the family of Muhammad saw, would go an entire month without lighting a fire. It was only dates and water.”
Masruq (ra) said: “I visited ?Aisha and she requested some food for me. Then she said, ‘I do not get full from food except that I want to cry and then I cry.’ I said, ‘Why?’ She said, ‘I remember how the Prophet (saw) was when he left this life. I swear by God that he never had his fill of bread and meat together twice in one day.’”
Anas (ra) said: “One time the Prophet saw was brought dates and I saw him eating them while leaning on something because of the severity of his hunger.”
Ibn ?Abbas (ra) said: “The Prophet (saw) and his family would go to sleep while hungry for several nights because they could not find anything to eat for dinner. And most of their bread was from barley.”
Amr Ibn Al-Harith, a brother in law of the prophet (pbuh), says that when the prophet died, he did not leave a cent, a slave man or woman, or any property except his white mule, his weapons and a piece of land which he had dedicated for the good of the community (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari)
Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph after Abu Bakr) states that: I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep? I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger. His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes. (Bukhari)
So here we observe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) definitely did not live in a palace nor slept on luxurious beds.
Anonymous wrote:Quran 4:89
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper
It doesn't make any sense to quote a Quranic verse without the context or by ommitting the paragraph or knowing when or why it was revealed. It just is ridiculous and these are the things that terrorists do to recruit prole to their causes. They cite random verses of the Quran to uneducated people who take them literally and don't know any better.
Here's the entire passage :
4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them
This verse only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims. And in the event of a battle, the same laws of war are in place and a Muslim who transgresses limits should prepare for the punishment of God. In response to a question on verses 4:88-89, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi quotes the verses in their full context and then asks the following:
Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:I actually recognize my friends who wear a niqab, I must be a genius ~
I'm glad you recognize your friends--I'm sure their mannerisms and voices are familiar to you. That's not the point, and I feel sure you know it.
Hopefully, they come in different skin tones.
Attention to detail, you get to know the characteristics and attributes of those around you : their voices, the way they arranged their niqab, their eyes, their demeanor, their pace, their smiles, and even the type of abaya, handbag and shoe they wear.
with a niqab
With a burqa, however, you don't see eyes or a mouth So you'll have to rely on your other senses - touch and sound.
How ridiculous these garbs are!
Let's bring back the corset while we're at it and collapse a few lungs.
I'm sure, they have their ways of recognizing each other. The corset is Back, haven't you heard? There is a whole movement about it. .....
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....
Maybe, but what I hear from you, and others, is mostly about how awful the cartoons are, and how it's so very wrong to blaspheme. It's analogous to a situation where a man kills his wife, and all you did is talk about how she shouldn't be surprised that this would happen since she cheated on him or some such nonsense. It's simply irrelevant. IT should just be blatant, unequivocal condemnation. THat's it. Because make no mistake, they aren't stopping with killing blasphemous cartoonists. They're killing girls for going to school. These people aren't people I need to understand. These are just people I need to stop. And part of stopping them is showing them that there will be a strong, fearless, united opposition to their goals.
Then you haven't been reading all of my posts. I have already condemned them, i am discussing beyond that point. There won't be any discussions or conversations if the only thing that people say is "we condemn x, or y", we need to go further than that and understand why things are the way they are .
Anonymous wrote:I find it very odd how we're totally elided the categories of what should be legal versus what we think is moral. I don't see the Pope saying that blasphemous speech should be illegal. But that he thinks it's immoral. Fine. I don't care. And I don't care if Muslims say that blasphemous speech is immoral. Fine. But NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. That's all.
The rest of this discussion is nothing but apologist, liberal-guilt-ridden, hand wringing. And I am a liberal! But come on.
I say "Je suis Charlie" not because I like their cartoons. Not because I ever have had a desire or impulse to mock another person's religion. I'm a person who doesn't even make fun of other people much at all, much less about something they really care about. But because once they are targeted for execution based on their words and ideas, I will align with them. Because the extremists have been very clear: they want an Islamic State. They want me, you, and everyone else, to have to bow to THEIR version of THEIR religion. And the penalty for not doing so will be death.
So, my answer (and a lot of people's answer) is: No. No. We are all apostates from that point of view. I am definitely an affront to their view of Islam. Because I believe in free speech. Because I believe in equal rights for men and women. Because I believe in equal rights for homosexuals. And because I would rather die than live in a society where we have state-mandated religion. Like many before me, I would fight for that.
We have a lot of problems. But lack of empathy for those who would kill cartoonists is not one of them.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that one.....
Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
The one verse in the Qu'ran talking about what to do when Islam is mocked states:
"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them". Qu'ran 4:140
Allah tells to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) over and over again in the Quran- when they insult, you don’t get angry:
‘Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee’ [sura al- Imran: 184]
The Qur’an records that he was called crazy, a victim of deception, a liar, and a fraud. Through this all, the Prophet Muhammad never retaliated or called for these people to be attacked, seized, or executed. This is because the Qur’an says to “overlook their annoying talk” and to “bear patiently what they say.”
" They lied against you, other messengers were lied against too; its ok, you are not the first one. And have patience with what ever they say, and leave them with noble (dignity)."[sura muzammil: 10]
The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was constantly mocked during his life, people stoned him, one woman used to throw trash at him, the Makkans insulted him . Allah took the most insulting things that were said about the prophet (saw )and gave the most intellectual responses in the Quran. This is our religion. Two thirds of the Qur'an is a conversation with the people who didn’t even believe in it. What was prophet (saw) doing? Reciting it to people who don’t even believe. And they were insulting it back, criticizing it back; and there was a discussion happening, without anybody trying to kill anybody else.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The report I sae is already making him out to be the victim. He was a nice boy who loved his mom and kitty cat. FBI cohersed him to do this. I wonder how different that report would have been if he were black.
Just think, if he were Middle Eastern it would be Breaking News every hour on the hour and the top story for debate/discussion of every political commentary program on all the major networks. DOMESTIC TERROR PLOT UNCOVERED!!! POSSIBLE LINK TO ISIS!!! But he's not Middle Eastern so...eh, who cares.
+1 Not all terrorists are equal...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:I actually recognize my friends who wear a niqab, I must be a genius ~
I'm glad you recognize your friends--I'm sure their mannerisms and voices are familiar to you. That's not the point, and I feel sure you know it.
Hopefully, they come in different skin tones.
Attention to detail, you get to know the characteristics and attributes of those around you : their voices, the way they arranged their niqab, their eyes, their demeanor, their pace, their smiles, and even the type of abaya, handbag and shoe they wear.