Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Welp, we got merged. Even though I'm pretty sure this thread was like 20 pages back or whatever.

Aw well. -.-

Anyway, I'm headed to bed. If you have any questions, just write "torcularis" somewhere in the post and I'll do a search if the thread has made any significant progress by the time I wake up... Though I think that this merge has only harmed the chances of getting people who don't understand Islam in here.

[The Archregimancy]

Transnapastain was perhaps unaware that we already had a discussion thread for Islam.

Granted, it would have been a gravedig to revive it since it hadn't been posted in since January, but I've nonetheless taken the liberty of merging the two threads so as to avoid confusion / inadvertent profusion of Muslim discussion threads.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the thread topic, I stress - we just want to avoid proliferation of these religion-themed discussion threads.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Aw well. -.-

Anyway, I'm headed to bed. If you have any questions, just write "torcularis" somewhere in the post and I'll do a search if the thread has made any significant progress by the time I wake up... Though I think that this merge has only harmed the chances of getting people who don't understand Islam in here.

Will do, miss. =)

I'm off to sleep too.

[Camelza]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I voted "Bad" for couple main reasons. None of my opinions are belittling or what not. My opinions derive from my extensive study of the Quran (Muslim holy book) as well as living in a country with a 100% Muslim population for 10 years as well as a country with a 60% Muslim population for 5 years.

1) Mohamed (their leader) is a hypocrite:
married/slept with a 6 year old (what does that make him? starts with the letter "P"), was a warlord, using his sword against those who refused to convert; personally killing 400 Jewish men and boys (what does that make him? starts with the letter "M").

2) Deceitful:
Claims to be "the" religion of peace but contains 109 verses justifying attacking, killing, terrorizing and enslaving non-muslims. More verses justifying the killing of apostates (those who leave islam), homosexuals, adulterers and so on. Justifies lying, deceiving non-muslims in order to spread islam (like saying it's a religion of peace...ironically).

And for those who are going to say that I read wrong because of translation, well I read it in Arabic, which I speak fluently.

None of what I said is bias, it is offensive because I am shedding light on it, but once again, not bias. I am readying to provide proof for what I said with the verses from the Quran as well as its' context.

1. She was 6 when they were betrothed, and 9 when she entered his household. Yes it's young but it was also a far different time and you cannot claim he had sexual preferences for children when he married many other women much older than she. I would also like a source on him killing anyone.

2. Present me with some of those ayahs and I will refute them.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Well, I know Shiites still practice mutah... And they allow tattooing... Other than that I'm not totally sure.

[Camelza]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Well, I know Shiites still practice mutah... And they allow tattooing... Other than that I'm not totally sure.

Well, Shiites seem a little bit more liberal.

[The Archregimancy]

I voted "Bad" for couple main reasons. None of my opinions are belittling or what not. My opinions derive from my extensive study of the Quran (Muslim holy book) as well as living in a country with a 100% Muslim population for 10 years as well as a country with a 60% Muslim population for 5 years.

1) Mohamed (their leader) is a hypocrite:
married/slept with a 6 year old (what does that make him? starts with the letter "P"), was a warlord, using his sword against those who refused to convert; personally killing 400 Jewish men and boys (what does that make him? starts with the letter "M").

2) Deceitful:
Claims to be "the" religion of peace but contains 109 verses justifying attacking, killing, terrorizing and enslaving non-muslims. More verses justifying the killing of apostates (those who leave islam), homosexuals, adulterers and so on. Justifies lying, deceiving non-muslims in order to spread islam (like saying it's a religion of peace...ironically).

And for those who are going to say that I read wrong because of translation, well I read it in Arabic, which I speak fluently.

None of what I said is bias, it is offensive because I am shedding light on it, but once again, not bias. I am readying to provide proof for what I said with the verses from the Quran as well as its' context.

1. She was 6 when they were betrothed, and 9 when she entered his household. Yes it's young but it was also a far different time and you cannot claim he had sexual preferences for children when he married many other women much older than she.

Those individuals who disapprove of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha on the grounds of modern attitudes to the sexualisation of children are free to characterise the relationship as child abuse if they so choose. But using it to imply paedophilia? Muhammed's first - and only non-political - marriage was to a woman 15 years his senior, with whom he had several children, so accusing the Prophet of a sexual preference for children is a gross misrepresentation.

Though I suppose Khadijah does prove that they had cougars in 7th-century Arabia.... (joke! joke!)

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

1. She was 6 when they were betrothed, and 9 when she entered his household. Yes it's young but it was also a far different time and you cannot claim he had sexual preferences for children when he married many other women much older than she.

Those individuals who disapprove of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha on the grounds of modern attitudes to the sexualisation of children are free to characterise the relationship as child abuse if they so choose. But using it to imply paedophilia? Muhammed's first - and only non-political - marriage was to a woman 15 years his senior, with whom he had several children, so accusing the Prophet of a sexual preference for children is a gross misrepresentation.

Though I suppose Khadijah does prove that they had cougars in 7th-century Arabia.... (joke! joke!)

LOL. Yes, Khadijah was the successful business-cougar of her time, wanting to get it on with the much younger man she sent to do an errand.

And we should also keep in mind that the source of the 9 years old estimation is based on Bukhari, but other, probably more credible sources, say she was 14 or 15 if she was born in the year of the Call, and Khadijah died ten years later, Aisha entered into nikah at 10 years old and became the wife of the Prophet pbuh at 14 or 15.

But it's almost 7 am, I'm going to bed now!

[Grenartia]

Those individuals who disapprove of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha on the grounds of modern attitudes to the sexualisation of children are free to characterise the relationship as child abuse if they so choose. But using it to imply paedophilia? Muhammed's first - and only non-political - marriage was to a woman 15 years his senior, with whom he had several children, so accusing the Prophet of a sexual preference for children is a gross misrepresentation.

Though I suppose Khadijah does prove that they had cougars in 7th-century Arabia.... (joke! joke!)

LOL. Yes, Khadijah was the successful business-cougar of her time, wanting to get it on with the much younger man she sent to do an errand.

And we should also keep in mind that the source of the 9 years old estimation is based on Bukhari, but other, probably more credible sources, say she was 14 or 15 if she was born in the year of the Call, and Khadijah died ten years later, Aisha entered into nikah at 10 years old and became the wife of the Prophet pbuh at 14 or 15.

But it's almost 7 am, I'm going to bed now!

Before you do, can you explain the underlined for those of us who are uninitiated?

[The Archregimancy]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

The initial division came about between those who preferred that the Caliphate pass to Muhammed's family ("Shia" is a contraction of "Shīʻatu ʻAlī", or 'faction of Ali', the Prophet's cousin, son-in-law, and fourth Rashidun Caliph). Shiites accepted the first three Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr was in any case Muhammed's father in law), but after Ali's accession to the postion and then subsequent murder in 661, Islam split between those who recognised Ali's son Hasan as Imam, and those who followed Muawiyah, founder of the Ummayad Dynasty.

So yes, the split occurred over whether or not the Caliphate should be held by right by Muhammed's family.

But talking about the Shia as a theologically united group in opposition to the Sunnis is deeply misleading, since there are important subgroups within Shia; the primary groups, the Twelvers, Zaidi, and Ismaili are distinguished primarily over the number of imams they recognise after Ali, but also differ on such important issues as the extent to which the imams were divinely guided.

Nonetheless, there are identifiable differences between the broader groups under the Shia and Sunni umbrella. For example, the Shia and Sunni use different (though overlapping) collections of Hadith, and where the Sunni call to prayer is "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God", the Shia append "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God, and Ali is his caretaker and God's helper" - sort of (though not really) an Islamic filioque.

Also, there's a third branch of Islam quite separate from the Shias and Sunnis - the Ibadis; who must always feel like the Orthodox do when people implicitly assume all Christians are Catholics or Protestants. Oman is now the only country with an Ibadi plurality/majority, but isolated communities also exist in North and East Africa.

[DogDoo 7]

LOL. Yes, Khadijah was the successful business-cougar of her time, wanting to get it on with the much younger man she sent to do an errand.

And we should also keep in mind that the source of the 9 years old estimation is based on Bukhari, but other, probably more credible sources, say she was 14 or 15 if she was born in the year of the Call, and Khadijah died ten years later, Aisha entered into nikah at 10 years old and became the wife of the Prophet pbuh at 14 or 15.

But it's almost 7 am, I'm going to bed now!

Before you do, can you explain the underlined for those of us who are uninitiated?

Bukhari is a collection of hadiths, basically a collection of things that the prophet is alleged to have said (essentially hearsay). The year of the Call is the hijira, the year 0 in the Islamic Calendar, when Muhammed teleported to Jerusalem in order to establish Islam as merely the continuation of Judeo-Christian tradition.

[Grenartia]

Before you do, can you explain the underlined for those of us who are uninitiated?

Bukhari is a collection of hadiths, basically a collection of things that the prophet is alleged to have said (essentially hearsay). The year of the Call is the hijira, the year 0 in the Islamic Calendar, when Muhammed teleported to Jerusalem in order to establish Islam as merely the continuation of Judeo-Christian tradition.

Gotcha.

[DogDoo 7]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

The initial division came about between those who preferred that the Caliphate pass to Muhammed's family ("Shia" is a contraction of "Shīʻatu ʻAlī", or 'faction of Ali', the Prophet's cousin, son-in-law, and fourth Rashidun Caliph). Shiites accepted the first three Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr was in any case Muhammed's father in law), but after Ali's accession to the postion and then subsequent murder in 661, Islam split between those who recognised Ali's son Hasan as Imam, and those who followed Muawiyah, founder of the Ummayad Dynasty.

So yes, the split occurred over whether or not the Caliphate should be held by right by Muhammed's family.

But talking about the Shia as a theologically united group in opposition to the Sunnis is deeply misleading, since there are important subgroups within Shia; the primary groups, the Twelvers, Zaidi, and Ismaili are distinguished primarily over the number of imams they recognise after Ali, but also differ on such important issues as the extent to which the imams were divinely guided.

Nonetheless, there are identifiable differences between the broader groups under the Shia and Sunni umbrella. For example, the Shia and Sunni use different (though overlapping) collections of Hadith, and where the Sunni call to prayer is "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God", the Shia append "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God, and Ali is his caretaker and God's helper" - sort of (though not really) an Islamic filioque.

Also, there's a third branch of Islam quite separate from the Shias and Sunnis - the Ibadis; who must always feel like the Orthodox do when people implicitly assume all Christians are Catholics or Protestants. Oman is now the only country with an Ibadi plurality/majority, but isolated communities also exist in North and East Africa.

Ahmadis...do you consider them to be Muslim?

[Camelza]

Okay, here's my question: what's the difference between Shias and Sunnis? ...I've heard it was something about a succession issue ove the caliphate, but is there any big theological division too? Like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

The initial division came about between those who preferred that the Caliphate pass to Muhammed's family ("Shia" is a contraction of "Shīʻatu ʻAlī", or 'faction of Ali', the Prophet's cousin, son-in-law, and fourth Rashidun Caliph). Shiites accepted the first three Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr was in any case Muhammed's father in law), but after Ali's accession to the postion and then subsequent murder in 661, Islam split between those who recognised Ali's son Hasan as Imam, and those who followed Muawiyah, founder of the Ummayad Dynasty.

So yes, the split occurred over whether or not the Caliphate should be held by right by Muhammed's family.

But talking about the Shia as a theologically united group in opposition to the Sunnis is deeply misleading, since there are important subgroups within Shia; the primary groups, the Twelvers, Zaidi, and Ismaili are distinguished primarily over the number of imams they recognise after Ali, but also differ on such important issues as the extent to which the imams were divinely guided.

Nonetheless, there are identifiable differences between the broader groups under the Shia and Sunni umbrella. For example, the Shia and Sunni use different (though overlapping) collections of Hadith, and where the Sunni call to prayer is "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God", the Shia append "There is no god except God, Muhammad is the messenger of the God, and Ali is his caretaker and God's helper" - sort of (though not really) an Islamic filioque.

So, it is more of a political division along with some different traditions/practices, but not an ideological schism. ...thanks for the information!

Also, there's a third branch of Islam quite separate from the Shias and Sunnis - the Ibadis; who must always feel like the Orthodox do when people implicitly assume all Christians are Catholics or Protestants. Oman is now the only country with an Ibadi plurality/majority, but isolated communities also exist in North and East Africa.

I remembered that one about Oman and it's African colonies(Zanzibar, if I'm not mistaken) being Ibadi. I also remember that Oman was ruled by Ibadi imams in the past, though I don't know anything other than that on the subject.

[The Archregimancy]

Ahmadis...do you consider them to be Muslim?

I'm not sure that's really my decision to make.

But from the perspective of an outsider non-Muslim, I suspect that there are some analogies between how Muslims view Ahmadiyya and how Christians view the LDS movement.

So, it is more of a political division along with some different traditions/practices, but not an ideological schism. ...thanks for the information!

I'm not sure that it's useful to split the concepts of political and ideological schism in this case, particularly given the theological and ideological underpinning within Shia Islam for considering Ali and his successors to be the rightful imams of Islam. This has both ideological and political implications.

Similarly the Great Schism of 1054 within Christianity was both a political and an ideological schism; so why try to distinguish between the two elements?

[DogDoo 7]

Ahmadis...do you consider them to be Muslim?

I'm not sure that's really my decision to make.

But from the perspective of an outsider non-Muslim, I suspect that there are some analogies between how Muslims view Ahmadiyya and how Christians view the LDS movement.

Or how Jews view the Jews for Jesus

They're cool, there's a community of them directly adjacent to my neighborhood. But I'm always having spirited discussions with them over whether or not they are Muslim. Although unlike the Druze, they celebrate Ramadan.

[Czechanada]

1. She was 6 when they were betrothed, and 9 when she entered his household. Yes it's young but it was also a far different time and you cannot claim he had sexual preferences for children when he married many other women much older than she.

Those individuals who disapprove of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha on the grounds of modern attitudes to the sexualisation of children are free to characterise the relationship as child abuse if they so choose. But using it to imply paedophilia? Muhammed's first - and only non-political - marriage was to a woman 15 years his senior, with whom he had several children, so accusing the Prophet of a sexual preference for children is a gross misrepresentation.

Though I suppose Khadijah does prove that they had cougars in 7th-century Arabia.... (joke! joke!)

Khadijah was always an interesting anomaly given the alleged pre-Islamic status of women.

[Camelza]

Ahmadis...do you consider them to be Muslim?

I'm not sure that's really my decision to make.

But from the perspective of an outsider non-Muslim, I suspect that there are some analogies between how Muslims view Ahmadiyya and how Christians view the LDS movement.

So, it is more of a political division along with some different traditions/practices, but not an ideological schism. ...thanks for the information!

I'm not sure that it's useful to split the concepts of political and ideological schism in this case, particularly given the theological and ideological underpinning within Shia Islam for considering Ali and his successors to be the rightful imams of Islam. This has both ideological and political implications.

Similarly the Great Schism of 1054 within Christianity was both a political and an ideological schism; so why try to distinguish between the two elements?

Well yes, sure ...what I meant was that there isn't a big religious division and that they believe(more, or less) the same dogma.

[Czechanada]

This thread reminds of the Sociology of Islam course I will be taking.

[Benuty]

This thread reminds of the Sociology of Islam course I will be taking.

Just where do you go?

Hell the farthest course I was ever able to take was " 101 Islamic History".

[Anollasia]

Hope everyone had a nice Eid.

Question: How is Eid celebrated in other countries? In Turkey children get candy (sort of like Halloween without the costumes).

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Hope everyone had a nice Eid.

Question: How is Eid celebrated in other countries? In Turkey children get candy (sort of like Halloween without the costumes).

Well in America, if you're from an immigrant culture you use that culture. But if you're a first or second generation Muslim you make up your own tradition. For some it's just stuffing your face (hopefully saying Bismillah) and for some it's praying a lot and some have a "party" and invite everyone.

[Kemalist]

As a non-believer, I'll try to be objective. I don't think Islam is evil and backward as some fanatic euroskeptics claim (Geert Wilders and such), but not modern age-appropriate, of course.

I judge Islam based on its historical and cultural conditions. Mohammad can be considered a progressive leader because the society he grew up in was much more backward back then. Islam does not see men and women as equal for sure; but Mohammad relatively increased women's rights at least compared to the standards within his own society where families used to burn their baby daughters.

Also; there is one thing I appreciate about Islam. It focuses on social justice and equal share more than any other religion. It heavily condemns corruption, as well as lying, gossiping.

To sum it up; Islam was a progressive religion at its time, but it does not fit the standards of the modern age.

I have a specific stance about hijab/headscarf and alcohol issue in Islam. Alcohol is not banned, and hijab is not mentioned in Islam. The only reason why Hijab is associated with Islam is it belongs to the Arab customs which Islam came out of. I'd like Muslim women to get rid of those clothes and more dress in a modern way.

[Shaggai]

Those individuals who disapprove of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha on the grounds of modern attitudes to the sexualisation of children are free to characterise the relationship as child abuse if they so choose. But using it to imply paedophilia? Muhammed's first - and only non-political - marriage was to a woman 15 years his senior, with whom he had several children, so accusing the Prophet of a sexual preference for children is a gross misrepresentation.

Though I suppose Khadijah does prove that they had cougars in 7th-century Arabia.... (joke! joke!)

Khadijah was always an interesting anomaly given the alleged pre-Islamic status of women.

Not that much of an anomaly, if I remeber my History class right. Women had fewer rights than men, but definitely more than they now have in that area. I think she wouldn't have been able to build that business on her own, but once she was married she and her husband could do that, and once she was widowed she was perfectly allowed to continue. Once Islam came along, it generally protected the rights of women, and I think made them more equal. Then during either the Abbasid or Umayyad caliphate, women started to lose rights. Scholars decided that some of the verses that protected the rights of women meant different things, the idea of the harem (a separate part of the palace for women) came in, and the tradition continues to this day. Just goes to show that almost anything can be interpreted to suit one's own beliefs. If you go in looking for proof that the Quran or the Hadith denies women rights or tells you to kill the infidels, you will find it. If you go looking for proof that it empowers women, at least for the time period, and tells you to refrain from killing infidels, you will find that. If you look for proof that Islam is evil, you will find evidence. If you go looking for proof that Islam is peaceful and tolerant you will find evidence for that. Therefore, everyone should interpret it peacefully, because that is the most moral, ethical, and just plain useful interpretation. All problems solved, assuming you can get people to agree with me.

Alright, that is an insanely massive and improbable assumption. Still, we can at least try, right?