Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a christian from pakistan. Our family fled in late 90s due to the muslim violence. I was a teenager. The muslims would kill anyone that was different. We were treated like animals.

Don't worry, they are still doing it, but they are running out of Christians to kill, so they are turning to Shia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a christian from pakistan. Our family fled in late 90s due to the muslim violence. I was a teenager. The muslims would kill anyone that was different. We were treated like animals.

Don't worry, they are still doing it, but they are running out of Christians to kill, so they are turning to Shia.

How did such a once great religion run off the rails?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you in some ways. However, I do think it is a disservice to call people islamaphobes. You do agree that For a long time now, the extremists have tainted the Muslim religion into things that it may not totally represent. And I'm not just talking about ISIS. I'm talking about the treatment of women, the stonings, the fact that i had a patient last week who wouldn't talk unless her husband gave her permission to. I like to think I'm educated enough not to view all Muslims in a negative light, but you also have to understand why so many do.

Instead of finding people who say Muslims aren't all the negative things as they are depicted to be, you may have a better shot of finding examples of people who go against the stereotype. Not just scholarly articles or people talking.

The thing is, that woman's husband could bring you a dozen rulings from decreed sheikhs explaining, with full chain of evidence, that what his wife did was proper and correct.

I understand that. My point is that it is not islamaphobic to think that is so incredibly backwards that when a woman shows up in the ER with obvious pain, she couldn't tell me how bad her pain was without her husbands permission. It is not Isis you are fighting against with why people think Muslims are "bad" it's more like the examples that you see of how they treat women. And I don't think it makes me an islamaphobic to say I was very disturbed by the dynamic I saw between the two of them or that I think the treatment of women who've been raped is backwards and disgusting.

Muslima wrote:This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to dissipate more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As such, the Islam practiced by some people in Muslim countries is not necessarily pure Islam or true Islam. It is influenced by a deeply entrenched, patriarchal belief system. Thus, examining the work of scholars from these countries in particular will not accurately explain true Islam. However, this is what these islamophobes will do and want the public to do, because it simply supports their cause for exclusionary practices, prejudicial and racial profiling, and their own deeply held philosophical religious beliefs.

Oh it's not pure or true Islam, is it. First you tell us to talk to Muslims, then you say people in Muslim countries don't practice pure or true Islam. Are people in Muslim countries aware they don't practice pure Islam? Are scholars in these countries aware that they apparently cannot accurately explain true Islam?

I'm gonna write to Al Azhar and tell them there's a chick on DCUM who thinks they got their deen all wrong.

You know why people quote these rulings? 'Cause they are there. You don't like the fact that they are there? Then make them not exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to dissipate more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman.

It's not a narrative. It's what she saw with her own eyes.

And I do think the word you're looking for is "reinforce." Not "dissipate." Dissipating more stereotypes would actually be a good thing. But never mind, I don't get hung up on typos, unlike some people we all know.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I agree with you in some ways. However, I do think it is a disservice to call people islamaphobes. You do agree that For a long time now, the extremists have tainted the Muslim religion into things that it may not totally represent. And I'm not just talking about ISIS. I'm talking about the treatment of women, the stonings, the fact that i had a patient last week who wouldn't talk unless her husband gave her permission to. I like to think I'm educated enough not to view all Muslims in a negative light, but you also have to understand why so many do.

Instead of finding people who say Muslims aren't all the negative things as they are depicted to be, you may have a better shot of finding examples of people who go against the stereotype. Not just scholarly articles or people talking.

The thing is, that woman's husband could bring you a dozen rulings from decreed sheikhs explaining, with full chain of evidence, that what his wife did was proper and correct.

I understand that. My point is that it is not islamaphobic to think that is so incredibly backwards that when a woman shows up in the ER with obvious pain, she couldn't tell me how bad her pain was without her husbands permission. It is not Isis you are fighting against with why people think Muslims are "bad" it's more like the examples that you see of how they treat women. And I don't think it makes me an islamaphobic to say I was very disturbed by the dynamic I saw between the two of them or that I think the treatment of women who've been raped is backwards and disgusting.

What I think is backwards is for you to think that a religion of 1.6 Billion people won't allow women to speak to a physician without their husband's permission. This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to dissipate more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman. For crying out loud, one of the youngest doctors in the world today is a 20 year old Muslim woman, I doubt she waits for her husband's permission before consulting with her patients. The Qur’an itself is not only egalitarian but decidedly anti-patriarchal, as is Islam as it was practiced by our Prophet SAW, who was in many ways a feminist. Whenever Muslim women have been oppressed, it was due to patriarchal laws that have no place in Islam. Since the Qur’an was revealed to a patriarchy and has been interpreted a lot by adherents of patriarchy since its revelation, it is the readings of the Qur’an and the interpretations by patriarchal Muslims that appear to be oppressive, not the Qur’an itself, whose teachings are neither framed by nor concerned with patriarchy, as proven by its strongly egalitarian essence and emphasis of equality & justice !

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As such, the Islam practiced by some people in Muslim countries is not necessarily pure Islam or true Islam. It is influenced by a deeply entrenched, patriarchal belief system. Thus, examining the work of scholars from these countries in particular will not accurately explain true Islam. However, this is what these islamophobes will do and want the public to do, because it simply supports their cause for exclusionary practices, prejudicial and racial profiling, and their own deeply held philosophical religious beliefs.

Oh it's not pure or true Islam, is it. First you tell us to talk to Muslims, then you say people in Muslim countries don't practice pure or true Islam. Are people in Muslim countries aware they don't practice pure Islam? Are scholars in these countries aware that they apparently cannot accurately explain true Islam?

I'm gonna write to Al Azhar and tell them there's a chick on DCUM who thinks they got their deen all wrong.

You know why people quote these rulings? 'Cause they are there. You don't like the fact that they are there? Then make them not exist.

Stop being so dense!I slam calls on Muslims to think, reflect and ponder. Muslim jurists and thinkers employ their intellects in comprehending and interpreting the divine message expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This, for a variety of reasons, has resulted in a wide range of interpretations that have enriched the intellectual debates throughout the Muslim history. Of course, not all of these interpretations are correct, acceptable, or even excusable. This is called in Islam Ijtihad whose details and rulings are to be found on the books of Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence). Not every scholar can practice ijtihad, he has to meet certain conditions and he has to be aware of the details of the issue being discussed.This is the reason behind having different interpretations of some issues. The differences we find in Islam have to do with the details of the Shari`ah not the basics. The basics of Islam were, are, and will remain the same. There is no difference among the scholars on the number of obligatory prayers, the amount of zakah to be paid by every Muslim, and the obligation to fast during the month of Ramadan and to perform Hajj once in a lifetime.

Human beings are diverse and different in their mental capabilities, world views, perceptions and thoughts. All these are catalysts to having multiplicity of opinions and judgments. When the constitution of the USA, which was written only about 200 years ago by humans, is interpreted by the Supreme Court, the judges differ in their interpretations and it is usually 5/4 or 6/3 division. So why do you think all Muslim scholars would have a consensus on everything from a book that was revealed 1400 years ago?

We cherish the intellectual freedom of our religion, and the lack of papal hierarchy. There are several benefits for healthy disagreement and variety of opinions that have always existed in our Ummah since the time of the Sahabah. Of those benefits is to protect the religion from human fallibility when people agree on something wrong, and of them is to stimulate the great intellectual discourse with the subsequent intellectual vitality which all resulted in this great fiqhi heritage of ours. But of course because of this, you will for the most part always find a kind of extremism within some Muslims and also laxity in others, and that is a much bigger problem in my view.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As such, the Islam practiced by some people in Muslim countries is not necessarily pure Islam or true Islam. It is influenced by a deeply entrenched, patriarchal belief system. Thus, examining the work of scholars from these countries in particular will not accurately explain true Islam. However, this is what these islamophobes will do and want the public to do, because it simply supports their cause for exclusionary practices, prejudicial and racial profiling, and their own deeply held philosophical religious beliefs.

Oh it's not pure or true Islam, is it. First you tell us to talk to Muslims, then you say people in Muslim countries don't practice pure or true Islam. Are people in Muslim countries aware they don't practice pure Islam? Are scholars in these countries aware that they apparently cannot accurately explain true Islam?

I'm gonna write to Al Azhar and tell them there's a chick on DCUM who thinks they got their deen all wrong.

You know why people quote these rulings? 'Cause they are there. You don't like the fact that they are there? Then make them not exist.

Stop being so dense!I slam calls on Muslims to think, reflect and ponder. Muslim jurists and thinkers employ their intellects in comprehending and interpreting the divine message expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This, for a variety of reasons, has resulted in a wide range of interpretations that have enriched the intellectual debates throughout the Muslim history. Of course, not all of these interpretations are correct, acceptable, or even excusable. This is called in Islam Ijtihad whose details and rulings are to be found on the books of Usul al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence). Not every scholar can practice ijtihad, he has to meet certain conditions and he has to be aware of the details of the issue being discussed.This is the reason behind having different interpretations of some issues. The differences we find in Islam have to do with the details of the Shari`ah not the basics. The basics of Islam were, are, and will remain the same. There is no difference among the scholars on the number of obligatory prayers, the amount of zakah to be paid by every Muslim, and the obligation to fast during the month of Ramadan and to perform Hajj once in a lifetime.

Human beings are diverse and different in their mental capabilities, world views, perceptions and thoughts. All these are catalysts to having multiplicity of opinions and judgments. When the constitution of the USA, which was written only about 200 years ago by humans, is interpreted by the Supreme Court, the judges differ in their interpretations and it is usually 5/4 or 6/3 division. So why do you think all Muslim scholars would have a consensus on everything from a book that was revealed 1400 years ago?

We cherish the intellectual freedom of our religion, and the lack of papal hierarchy. There are several benefits for healthy disagreement and variety of opinions that have always existed in our Ummah since the time of the Sahabah. Of those benefits is to protect the religion from human fallibility when people agree on something wrong, and of them is to stimulate the great intellectual discourse with the subsequent intellectual vitality which all resulted in this great fiqhi heritage of ours. But of course because of this, you will for the most part always find a kind of extremism within some Muslims and also laxity in others, and that is a much bigger problem in my view.

You think calling names makes you more convincing or something?

First, no one here is debating on how much zakah to pay so let's not even bring this up. Also, there is no obligation to perform hajj if you can't afford it.

If you really cherish the diversity of opinions in Islam like you say you do, why is your friend getting apoplectic because I point to the opinions of conservative scholars rather than her preferred one? If you truly believe in robust intellectual discourse, you ought to be happy that in that tent of yours there is room for both Hamza Yusuf and Abdulaziz Bin Baz. Stop calling people Islamophobic because they don't agree with your interpretation or point out that other interpretations, delivered by equally degreed and learned scholars, also exist.

And well yes, not everyone can practice ijtihad. In fact, some Sunnis would say the gates of ijtihad have closed centuries ago, and there is no more need for independent thought, only for regurgitation of consensus. So I do believe the intellectual freedom you mention isn't embraced by the entire establishment with equal fervor. One almost gains a measure of respect for the Shia for never buying into that.

Anonymous wrote:Forgive me but before you start in on the middle ages and what not, let's be clear that I am speaking about the year 2014. Most people and religions have evolved from their barbaric roots.

Forgive me again and call me ignorant. I know the basics about the Koran but I am not interested in Muslima going on and on and on and on and on and on for paragraphs on end about intricacies of a book that I have no other interest in than the basics.

Again, it's 2014. Every other religion has EVOLVED and no other is as barbaric or has spawned such radicals as Islam. That's something to consider.

Anonymous wrote:Because you don't seem to GET IT Muslima. No one here REALLY wants to learn about your beloved book. It may be un-politically correct of me to say that, but it's the truth. No one it coming to DCUM to hear you preach the Koran. Correct me if I am wrong, people. No one wants to hear your rambling on about it.

What I'd really like to know is the following:

1. You claim that Islam is such a "peaceful" religion, how do you justify the actions of the radicals?

2. You claimed to live in DC. I think that's a lie. I don't think you live in this country at all.

Try to keep your reply succinct. Your laborious ongoing paragraphs are mind-numbing (as are your attempts at humour and sarcasm).