Re. the "Ooooo, Christians have a hell of a time" sub-topic.
I am at a loss to explain how people can miss those threads where posters express negative feelings about Islam way way over and above any antipathy they have for Christianity.
Please show me a thread where multiple posters have alleged the Christianity is an intrinsically evil religion in its most commonly practised forms today, resulting in terrorism, religious war, a massive disregard for the rights of women to be free and equal, and pretty low expectations as regards freedom of speech.
Why do people feel that hanging the sign "religiously predicated opinion" means people should bite their tongue if they disagree?
A neo-con gets a certain reaction due to how they express their opinions. A socialist gets a certain reaction due to hw the express their opinions. Christians and Muslims get certain reactions, guess what; according to how they express their opinions. Look how Merry gets a different reaction to other Muslim posters, say Hado for example. Look how LittleToe gets a different reaction to other Christian posters.
And it is not just about how the opinion is expressed; a smiley "you're going to hell" ala Westboro Baptist Church doesn't sweeten the pill.
I don't really see that much bias towards Christians here after one factors out Christian topics maybe being of interest to more posters due to our common past.
In any case, the meek shall inherit the Earth, in the words of Mrs. Big Nose "Oh, it's the meek! Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."
What-A-Coincidence
I don't see what point you are trying to make with the cut & paste job. It shows either you are totally unaware many Christians can be classified as cultists if you play the same game in reverse, or are aware of this but seek to traduce Islam because of some bigotry on your part.
Maybe next time you can display further stunning displays of impartial analysis by cut and pasting 'Why you should hate Jews" off a Fascist website? I am sure it will be as fair and unbiased as the trash you've inflicted on us regarding Muslims. Not that I'm saying you hate Jews, just the bias of your sources renders your 'argument' worthless.
Merry
Abaddon, I always feel a mixture of dread and delight when you show up.
Now you're making me blush... ;-)
Yes, menstruation is natural and not fearful, but I would argue that it is dirty. Not in the sense of bad, shameful, evil, or contaminating to men, but in the most natural sense. Before prayer, men and women are both required to cleanse themselves after sleeping, defecating, urinating, vomiting, bleeding or oozing from a wound, etc. So why is it unfair for women to not be able to pray until after they stop bleeding (both menstrual and post-partum) and are able to cleanse themselves? As well as showing respect to Allah, from my own experience I would say it is a kindness and a mercy to be exempt from fasting and from salat prayer at those times. And we can still make du'a prayer. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/impur.htm
The problem is that the superstitions about women's menstruation are pre-Islamic. They are pretty musch universal in culture after culture. To me this is a sure indication we're dealing with patriarchal misogyny as the founding principle behind the law, rather than Allah's will, whatever claimed provenance Islamic scripture has.
And seeing it from a reverse angle doesn't work well for me; if it WAS a kindness and mercy, then women who suffered badly from menstration would be exused if they wanted but those whowanted to attend could attend. One could say the exclusion of black people from academia in the past was a kindness and a mercy, saving them all that hard study and work. But as black people were denied equality by such actions, and didn't have the option TO attend, such a characterisation doesn't stand scrutiny.
The misogyny of it is really made apparent by non-menstruating women not being able to stand with the men and worship.
And female Imams; if women are equal, why don't we them?
I think it is because there is no Prophetic tradition that can be pointed to for having women lead men in prayer (many agree that they can lead other women in prayer, and some say they can also lead unqualified men in prayer within their own households) and there are some proofs for why they should not.
But no one would expect there to be female examples in the time of the Prophet; the culture wouldn't stand it.
I think one area causing our difference in analysis is perhaps the presumption of inspiration. I don't see the Qur'an as being more-or-less inspired than the Bible or the Guru Granth or the .
They all contain factual errors. I know you posted a nice link to a site promoting Islamic Creationism, but without going too much off topic, although tending towards the OEC (Old Earth, no six 24-hour days Young Earth nonsense as you frequently hear from Biblical literalists) side of Creationism (which is very similar to that advanced by JW's, as it happens), it still falls far short of being a convincing argument and is error ridden;
The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt.
Harun Yahya in "Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism" (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002)
This is utter nonsense; evolution does not rule out the existence of god. And any characterisation that evolution is a theory in crisis is totally without merit. It is accepted as largely accurate by the vast majority of scientists, has NEVER ben falsified as a theory (despite this being easy to do), is a fantastic tool to explain how things are the way they are in nature, and as a vast level of supporting evidence across multiple scientific disciplines.
What I have read so far of Islamic Creationism reveals they make much of how impossible it is form the Universe to spring from nothing, but assume god either spring from nothing or was always there. Neither belief is provable, so the mockery of non-theistic theories of origin aC being unprovable is inappropriate. And although some Muslims try to argue the Flood (which really, really, really did not happen as it says in the Bible) was local, the Qur'anic account implies otherwise, and thus supports an event we know didn't happen.
Noah said: `O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth! For if Thou dost leave (any of them), they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.'" S. 71:26-27
Thus I have substantiatable reasons to take Qur'anic (or any other 'holy' writings) as uninspired, prone to error and illogicity as they are.
You seem to feel the Qur'an IS reliable.
If you are interested we can talk about these topic (evolution and whether the Qur'an is inspired) in another thread.
I have not done much research on it as it has been a non-issue for me.
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant when Imention your involvement with Wicca and Paganism. Wicca to hijab is a very very long way. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop as this is such a strack change
There are some who are pushing for [female Imams]. I wonder why.
Because they are unwilling to let HUMAN tradition stop them from being involved in their Spiritual calling?
Is it for the sake of Allah or for their own sake? By asking these questions I do not believe I am judging women for wanting this or wanting not to wear hijab.
You unavoidably do pass an implicit judgement (by, for example, questioning their motives) even if you are a nice enough human being not to make it explicit.
Islam has never advocated a liberationist philosophy.
Yeah, well neither did Christianity until the 19th Century. The liberationist (if by liberationist you mean someone for the disestablishment of the church, as distinct from liberal) philosophy stems from secularism and humanism.
But Islam HAS had historically the latitude for different versions of itself, even in the same geographical locale. Thus rather than branding change in line with modern values as 'liberationism' or some-such, I see a historic precedent for latitude of belief that would make the hijab issue a non issue.
Our fulfillment does not lie in our liberation, rather it lies in the conquest of our soul and its base desires That conquest only occurs through our enslavement to God.
Is that Sunni Allah or Shia Allah? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm making a point. Yes, I can agree your religious experience is about conquering your base nature and submitting to god. But you are not so much enslaving yourself to god, but enslaving yourself to one particular tradition of god that cannot hold itself above others and demonstrate it is better. If it is about god then the idea of Sunni Allah or Shia Allah, hijab Allah or non-hijab Allah, all becomes human vanity and symbolism and irrelevant to your core task, submitting to god internally as you experience god.
Our enslavement to God in turn means that we have to suppress many of our souls’ desires and inclinations. Therein lies one of the greatest secrets to unleashing our real human potential. This is so because it is our human potential that separates us from the rest of this creation, and it is to the extent that we are able to conquer our physical nature that we realize that spiritual potential.
Now is the time to give ourselves to our Lord, totally. The trials and tribulations we are currently witnessing will only intensify as we move closer to the end of time
Oh please not the Mahdi. Please, do two things for me. Find the Qur'anic reference to the Mahdi. You probably already know I know that you almost cetainly know there isn't any.
Second, ponder on why you are now believing in what you were brought up to believe. You come from a background with Millenialist beliefs. You have adopted a school of Islam with similar beliefs. "The world is a terrible place and will end soon. God/Allah will make it better". Do you see a pattern here? Maybe you have been drawn to a 'solution' you LIKE or are subconsciously drawn to, rather than one which is obviously 'true' in comparison to other beliefs.
How much submission is here in going after your own desires? I'm not saying that to be mean, but to trigger self-analysis.
The quotation about female Imams is rife with error; just as evolutionism has nothing to do with the god existing or not, so to feminism has nothing to do with god existing or not. It very elegantly tries to turn the tables so the discussion is not about equality with men but about having value to god, but neglects the fact that many traditional Islamic ways show god does not value men and women equally; not as different equals (which is what they are), but as different in-equals.
I feel that I have always been equally certain about my beliefs, jumping in with both feet so as to gain the fullest experience, while yet continuing to question and explore and challenge from 'within' that experience. Unfortunately hindsight cannot be applied to the present. I do believe in looking before you leap, but, for me, it can't be all looking and no leaping.
You're very honest to answer like this. And I hope that whilst one cannot apply hindsight to past choices, one can use the experience of past choices to reflect on present ones, and to realise the role one's own inclinations can have in one's choices and susceptibilities.
Like I say, if it's about your subconscious yearning for something clear-cut and certain that promises an end to the problems of the world, then it ain't submission to god but a form of shirk, with your own desires being the idol (even if you're not aware of it).
For me this is the chief pitfall of any spiritual search; as it is search without external proof or validation, but one which lies on internal resonance, the risk is that as there IS no external counterpart to validate our beliefs as we have worshipped god as we would like him to be, not as god may be.
As something pretty close to an atheist I find that the traditional concepts of god are either unprovable and/or massively human in their inhumanity and awfully limited by the limited primitive beliefs of their followers.
"My" Allah doesn't care about 'hats' on women, or ham on plates, or about this theory of origin or that theory of origin. It cares about the love in your heart.
I think you have love in your heart, but just wish you didn't have all the baggage you associate as being necessary for a relationship with god based on what some bloke said.
As we actually don't know if some bloke DID say it, and even if he did whether it WAS inspired or not, you heart is as reliable as a pile of Bibles or stack of Qur'ans as long as you cherish other's lives as your own (which is as much enlightened self-interest as humanitarianism).
People say not believing in god makes one one's own god. But putting a belief in a god without proof means we are doing exactly that; elevating opinion to the level of deity. It is ironic that both theists and non-theists commit the same 'sin' at the end of the day.
All the best Merry, a pleasure discussing things with you.
