A Common Word

[men0wjv]

Della/Chatto: sorry to labour the point over who and what a secularist is, but I believe definitions are important. I have read that there are quite a few definitions. If we take it to mean ‘this world’ as the Latin root (saeculum) suggests then it is as you say. Cupitt elaborates it is to transfer something ‘from the the sacred to the secular (this worldly) realm.’ However It has manifested in many different forms and so this definition has come under criticism. Bryan Wilson called it: ‘the process whereby religious thinking, practices and institutions loose significance.’ However this too is criticised because there are all sorts of problems with measuring the loss of ‘significance.’ A more agreed upon definition seems to be the struggle to ‘maximise the autonomy of individuals and markets.’

It is a sort of umbrella term for the modern age. Whilst there is a lot of good out there, the alarming change has been the removal of the sacred from our lives. Mans ability to manipulate like never before has such potential, but as Cardinal Ratzinger (as he was then) points out our moral energy has not increased proportionally (great link Chatto). M. L. King succinctly notes: ‘Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.’

As Muslims we agree that one of the surest ways to be veiled from God is love of this world. So how did this happen and where did it come from? Interestingly a number of sociologists and the respected theologian A. McGrath (himself a Protestant) have argued (convincingly) that the source is Protestantism. Protestantism (including people like Luther) declared that the natural world was not in any way sacred and God can only be known through Scripture. The medieval times had viewed the world as sacred, as a direct link between God and the world. Protestantism encouraged people to view God as increasingly absent from the World, as a result leading their lives ‘etsi Deus non daretur’ (as if God did not exist). The jump between ‘as if God did not exist’ and ‘God did not exist’ is a small one. Therefore one can conclude that Protestantism game birth to atheism - if that is not a oxymoron

Whether we can label our enemy as secularist, I’m not entirely sure, but certainly the denial of the sacred and the freedom of individuals to have unlimited freedom to do what they want (NB by want I mean subserviance to ones whims and desires - as Buddah said ‘desire is the root of all evil’) without any recourse to any ethic is definately alien to both our traditions and something we can join together to oppose. Fr. Prof. Hans Kung has gone to great efforts to form a ‘global ethic’ which perhaps is the way forward?

inJESUS: Clearly our definition of what One God is differs and ultimately you can have your way and I can have mine. People idlely quoting from the Qur’an without recourse to relied upon orthodox scholarship is as dangerous as (and similiar to) ‘solar scriptura.’ Perhaps most worrying of the mistakes of the ignorant is making the specific general. This is why the Prophet Muhammad (saw) clearly said that "whoever interprets the Qur’an by his personal opinion shall take his place in the Fire’ (Tirmidhi). It would do well for extremists (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) to take note.

BlestOne: Im not quite sure what you mean by ‘… yet so very far apart on issues like social justice.’

 

[men0wjv]

PS: The argument Ratzinger made that the modern concept of freedom is not clearly defined is brilliant! As a result it leads to many contradictions owing to the resultant prohibition of condemnation. Rather like the roads, if people have unlimited freedom there would be chaos and many accidents; contradicting it’s very purpose. There needs to be some measure of order and defining limits of freedom to allow everyone to achieve the desired freedom of getting from A to B safely and in good time. A good book called ‘The Myth of Democracy’ by T. Lindbom has similar assertions and compliments (Chatto’s link) Cardinal Ratzinger On Europe’s Crisis of Cultre nicely.

Now that the problem has been highlighted our efforts should be toward defining a solution. As Ratzinger also said, we do not think that the Enlightenment and modernism is wholy bad it just needs redefining and the bringing of God back on the agenda. Veluti si Deus daretur (As if God exists) is the way foward because there (is most likely) no way back.

God knows best

 

[Ruthie]

I’ll be keeping an eye on this thread. I’m happy to see a Muslim like you, Men0wjv. I hope we can all continue to be charitable!

I’m not sure what BlessedOne means by social injustice… but me…

Keep in mind that I am far from expert about Islam, and that I have, naturally, been influenced by stories of atrocities. Our media is biased in favor of the sensational and gory.

The social injustices that jump to my mind are:

The special tax on non-Muslims;
The forbidding of Christians and Jews, in several Muslim countries, to build new places of worship, to read the Bible in public, and try to make converts;
The sentence of death, in places, for Muslims who convert away from Islam;
And the *many *abuses of women at the hand of Islamic governments, which are to a certain extent (as far as I know) enshrined in Sharia law. (I am no scholar, where Islam is concerned.)

I am also repulsed by the apparent permission for the sexual abuse of children, as defined by Mohammed’s marriage to a 9 year old girl.

I do not include acts *outside *of the law by individuals, since persons of any faith can be misled by their own lack of understanding. I believe that folks like Osama bin Laden have used their faith as an excuse for their behavior, by twisting it to support their desires. Whether such people do it consciously or not is not mine to know. God does!

God bless all people,

Ruthie

 

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/peace

… in several Muslim countries, to build new places of worship, to read the Bible in public,

I live in Bangladesh - a Muslim majority country. Our national TV channel starts with the Quranic verse & commentary ; then they telecast verses from other holy books for few minutes . Say like this , one day A Buddist will read from tripitok , the next day A Hindu leader will read from Geeta , A Bishop will read from Bible . I wonder , if in non Muslim countries they invite Imams ( Muslim religious leaders ) & give them a chance to recite from Quran on the national media ?

Also , Christmas is a national holiday here . I don’t know if Eid is a holiday in non-Muslim countries ?

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

… permission for the sexual abuse of children, as defined by Mohammed’s marriage to a 9 year old girl.

this has been discussed in the forum several times. The last I answered about it is in this thread

Women Converts to Islam…how to find a spouse?

post no #31

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=284244&page=3

 

[men0wjv]

Ruthie: I appreciate the very tactful manner in which you presented your questions We are subject to much negative media attention: some our own doing, some through misunderstanding and some malice. Just to give one example. A group of journalists went to Pakistan and asked a representative what the kids learnt in the medrassah (lit. Arabic for school) and the man replied al Qaeda. The story was published and started an international crisis in which Pakistan was on the brink of invasion. Of course what most people do not know is that the representative was referring to a book called Al Qaeda (lit. Arabic for the base) which is used in the subcontinent to help people pronounce the Quran correctly. Sad but true. Of course Catholicism also gets it’s share of negative media attention. This is one reason why I think I am drawn to it; refusal to change its teachings merely on the base of prevailing popular opinion. We are two groups that wont just role over and die and submit to the modern ‘secular’ world view. This reminds me of a saying by Jiddu Krisnamurti: “It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”

What is worth mentioning is that we should always remember that Islam has survived 1400 years and has been one of the most influencial civilisations in mankinds history producing some of the finest arts and sciences. Clearly if a brief study was enough to uncover gross miscarriages of justice and abuses then it would have been totaly rejected before it even got started. For the questions you mentioned there are answers, you may not be entirely convinced but they are certainly more plausible than what you have mentioned (not saying you hold these views personally of course). It might also be worth noting that there is not one country in the World today that still governs by Shariah! It died out with the collapse of the Ottoman empire in the 1920’s. Therefore no ‘Muslim’ country is entirely representative of Islam.

Firstly I would like to start with a brief overview of the Shari’ah (Divine Law). Fiqh (mans efforts to understand Shariah) has been the feather in the Muslim’s cap; it arguably gave birth to modern scientific method owing to its methods of deriving objective conclusions from detailed evidences. Yet many today think it an abomination? It is all a lack of understanding, though one may disagree in some elements any scholar worth their weight can see that it is a very sophisticated and just system.

Shariah is based on The Qur’an (Muslims believe to be the word of God) and The Sunnah (lit. the way) referring to the words, deeds and opinions of Muhammad. The following verse elaborates:
‘You who believe! Obey God, and the Messenger and those in authority amongst you’ [4:59]
The verse starts ‘You who believe’ meaning that it is only talking to Muslims (i.e. non Muslims are not subject to the command) and then defines the levels of authority. I have mentioned the first two, the last one: ‘those in authority amongst you’ refers to the scholars of Islamic Law. Shariah is pervasive and enters every sphere of our lives because every second of our lives can be worship. Everything thus takes one of five rulings: Wajib (obligatory), Mustahab (recommended), Mubah (permissible), Makruh (disliked) and Haram (impermissible). Unlike some extremists suggest Islam does not class everything as Haram.

The aims and objectives - mentioned by the Great Scholar Imam Al Shatabi - are to preserve five things (in order):

1. Religion. Establish and maintain religion. This does not just mean Islam interesingly.
2. Life. Preservation of life does not only entails prohibition of murder (suicide bombers take note!) etc, but also on the obligation to eat etc.
3. Intellect. It is obligatory for men and women to be educated to preserve their mind. Also this is why alcohol is prohibited because it veils the intellect.
4. Lineage. Things like marriage was legislated and fornication prohibitted, we all need to know our parents.
5. Wealth. Not only does this entail the prohibition of theft, but also the legislation of trade.
   Now these all seem fairly plausible don’t they? All the rulings in Islam can relate to one of these five.

Ok that’s the starter now on to the main (sorry a long reply).

 

[men0wjv]

The special tax on non-Muslims

This special tax known as jizya is rather like a poll tax. It is levied for non Muslims who live in Muslim lands and practice a different religion. Paying it guarantees protection from the state and forfiets ones obligation to serve in the military. Many forget Muslims are also taxed by the state, but it is called zakat for Muslims.

build new places of worship, to read the Bible in public, and try to make converts;

Admittedly I am not as sure on this particular aspect of Islamic Law and I will find out, but what I can offer is the following.
During the reconquista in Spain (this isn’t a dig at all it just happens to be a good example) Jews were invited to Morocco and Turkey where synagogues were built for them. They still live there and have good relations with the Muslims. Clearly there is not an absolute prohibition then. Also places of worship of other faiths have always traditionally been preserved hence the existence of Coptics in Egypt etc.
A friend who lived in Saudi said that prohibition was put on new places of worship being built because it was causing disturbances in the community. Churches were offereing medical supplies on the proviso that Muslims convert etc (these Christians are not representative of the whole of course, but this is one particular incident). Whether then this is just a law in Saudi or whether there is this law in traditional Islamic schlarship I do not know, but I will investigate and return with my findings.

The sentence of death, in places, for Muslims who convert away from Islam;

This is only applicable in an Islamic state (none exist today). This is because the state is built on Islam so if one rejects Islam and (NB the and) rejects the community it is comparable to treason - which carries a death sentence in every county (I think? Well it does here in the UK). Of course we absolutely prohibit vigilantiism. If one did want to leave the fold of Islam he would first talk to a Qadi (judge) this would continue for a while and any doubts would be discussed. Later if one was still adamant that one wanted to leave Islam one would be given the choice to ‘say you believe’ or be executed. Anyone would just say I believe, because we do not pry into peoples private domain, only God judges the hearts. You could argue this ruling is just ‘legal fiction’ to encourage people to stay as Muslims in keeping with preservation of religion.

And the many abuses of women at the hand of Islamic governments, which are to a certain extent (as far as I know) enshrined in Sharia law.

Are there abuses of women in ‘Muslim’ countires? Yes, absolutely! Are they sanctioned by Islam? No, absolutely not! Women have absolutely the same legal status as men. What is different to Western norms is that women and men are specifically defined as different, so we do not say equality, but rather equity. To give an example: A man inherits twice that of a woman. This sounds awful on the face of it, but when you contextualise it in an Islamic system, it is the man’s absolute obligation to provide for his sister etc. The woman’s money is absolutely her own, so where she to spend anything other than on herself it would be an act of charity whereas the mans spending would be considered just fulfilling his obligation.

I am also repulsed by the apparent permission for the sexual abuse of children, as defined by Mohammed’s marriage to a 9 year old girl.

The first thing is to note that Muslims werent good at keeping records of ages. There are many conflicting narrations as to the age of Aisha when they married. Some say 18, which clearly is no problem to us. However, the strongest evidence does suggest 9. A friend of mine who studies History at Oxford said that one of the biggest scandals in History is interpretting a different people by your own standards, because they clearly are different places and times that require different actions accordingly. Another friend once pointed to some women in Saudi and asked how old they were, the answer was 9. They couldn’t believe because they were fully adult in every way. The early onset of puberty in hot climates is well documented. We may then ask about her mental maturity. Many cultures consider full adulthood 14 or 12 (compared to our 18 or 21). In Mauritania their education system is completed at 14. We may interpret this as backwardness, but yet they are educated to PhD level if not beyond. People travel from all over the world to Mauritania to study, primarily Arabic and Fiqh. We know Mary mother of Jesus was also very young by our standards, but in her society she was not viewed as such at all. You may still not be convinced, which is your porogative, but if I was to say that Aisha became one of the most highly respected leaders and scholars in all of Islam’s history and never once spoke out against it or that her father happily agreed to the marriage, can we still interpret this as peadiophillia? Not plausibly.

Just a couple of verses for thought:

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” (Qu’ran, 49:13)
*
“For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!” *(Qur’an, 16:93)

I hope this helps. All that is true is from God and His Messengers and only the mistakes have been mine.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

… the man replied al Qaeda. The story was published and started an international crisis

Oh my God , this could be used as one of the funniest joke ever.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[inJESUS]

This special tax known as jizya is rather like a poll tax. It is levied for non Muslims who live in Muslim lands and practice a different religion…

with humiliation.

 

[men0wjv]

MuslimWoman: Thank-you for your comments. May I just say they seemed a little defensive. Ruthie was very gracious in how she articulated her questions. She did so very respectfully, showing a sincere desire to learn and not any malice. I know your intentions are good and God bless you, but the way we present things is very important. Reading my posts I’m sure you see I am no expert but we need to make sure we don’t get our backs up and enter into argumentation - which we should remember is something our Prophet completely left.

I hope this comes across nicely, it was certainly intended to. If I have insulted you in any way please forgive me and know that it is just my inability to articulate my thoughts rather than an intentional dig. Jazakumullahu kharyan

 

[dzheremi]

I live in Bangladesh - a Muslim majority country. Our national TV channel starts with the Quranic verse & commentary ; then they telecast verses from other holy books for few minutes . Say like this , one day A Buddist will read from tripitok , the next day A Hindu leader will read from Geeta , A Bishop will read from Bible . I wonder , if in non Muslim countries they invite Imams ( Muslim religious leaders ) & give them a chance to recite from Quran on the national media ?

Western media generally does not work like media in your country. We have national TV channels (plural), but they are privately owned, and hence are not required by anything other than market forces to play any given program on religion or anything else. In the USA there is also Public Broadcasting, funded by the government and member stations as a non-commercial alternative to the national commercial networks. This is where they sometimes do play Islamic programs, in the form of documentaries or other things. Strictly religious/scriptural programming is more rare, but I have also seen that.on public access programing (presenter-purchased television), mostly Christian but also sometimes Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist.

Eid is not a national holiday here. Why would it be? Neither is Hannukah, Good Friday, Passover, etc. Not every holiday can be national, since there are too many and we need to still try to be productive during the year. Two things you should remember about America specifically (I can’t speak for other western countries) is that not only are we only NOMINALLY a Christian-majority country (e.g., many people do not celebrate Christmas as the religious holiday it truly is), but also we have every religion here. If Eid is made a national holiday when we have only a small percentage of Muslims (0.06%), then why wouldn’t we also nationalize Buddhist holidays like Vesak or the Buddhist New Year, since the numbers are something like 0.05-0.09%? And then all the Hindu days, when they are only a little bit less than the Muslims? It would possibly not end, with each group demanding that if the other guys got theirs, then their religion deserves the same. (source for percentages in this paragraph)

Besides, recognizing Christmas as a national holiday means very little if every other day of the year Christians are treated as second class citizens.

I feel that way about America sometimes, too, so please don’t think I’m just picking on Bangladesh.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

**

…the way we present things is very important. **

ok , don’t worry , I won’t take part here anymore. When I first came here , my intention was to have a nice discussion with Catholics. After spending some time here , I forgot about that & now a days , u may say that I am running out of patience. Hope that won’t happen to u .

Best of luck .
http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/barakallah.gif

 

[Sam_777]

Hi men0wjv and welcome to CAF,

I find your posts very polite, but I disagree with you on these:

With Islam we do not consult angry civil engineers who have not studied Islam at all (like the heretic Osama Bin Laden), but instead refer to those who have sat at the feet of scholars who can trace their lineage of learning back to the founder (similar in some ways to His Holiness The Pope),

Osama Bin Laden is not heretic at all, in my opinion he is the most devoted Muslim nowadays, he was living in a very wealthy environment here in SA, his father and brothers (until now) have many successful businesses and are generating Billions of dollars per year, so imagine a person who has all of those and yet he choose to follow Islam literally, he abandoned all of that, he abandoned his father, his mother, and all his friends to live a miserable poor life for the sake of Allah.
And regarding his lineage, all Saudis are from Ishmael descendants, where the founder Muhammed came from, so he has a well authentic lineage.

What is worth mentioning is that we should always remember that Islam has survived 1400 years and has been one of the most influencial civilisations in mankinds history producing some of the finest arts and sciences.

Also we should remember that Buddhism and Hinduism have survived more than that, does that make them from God The Most High!

It might also be worth noting that there is not one country in the World today that still governs by Shariah! It died out with the collapse of the Ottoman empire in the 1920’s.

Not at all, Saudi Arabia officially announcing that Quran is the country constitution (1) (2), and since I have spent all my life here, I assure you that Shariah is fully implemented in all of our life aspects, you only have to live here to notice that.

Now I have a request (if possible), could you please share with us your Islamic background, and whether Arabic is your native language or not.

 

[chatto]

Sam, I can empathize with your situation, and surely living as a Christian in Saudi Arabia will give you a truly unique perspective on how Islam is interpreted, and more importantly implemented, in your country.

It will be important for us who aren’t in that situation, though, to understand the precise nature of it i.e. the situation in Saudi Arabia. It is not a situation that is repeated globally, just as the Catholic Church, while being Universal, is not uniform the world over. Indeed, I have been told that Saudi Arabia is the Islamic equivalent of what an ‘Evangelical kingdom’ would be in Christendom, where the ruling faction are ‘Celiphi’ who believe they follow a truer version of the religion than everyone else, disregarding their own heritage, Tradition, and even doctrine, to promote (vigorously and obviously with massive financial support) their own version of their faith. This combination of doctrinal error, disregard for the ancient faith and aggressive promotion, all legitimised by wealth, must be familiar to any Christian who knows anything of the Evangelical movement, particularly in the United States. It’s just the same as Bob Jones using stacks of cash to set up a respectable ‘shop front’ (Bob Jones University) and using it to push his own theology, only in Saudi Arabia, it is state-wide.

As for other religions coming from God, I would reflect on the notion that “all life, all holiness comes from [God]”, and nothing in this world can exist except that the Almighty wills it to be so. The Church states that “it does not reject anything which is true or holy in these religions” as we must acknowledge that God has communicated some of His truth to all peoples in all places, until He revealed the whole Truth in Christ. The religions do not have the fullness of the Truth, but that is not to say that they do not, in some mystical way beyond our understanding (such is the will of God) come from Him.

 

[inJESUS]

Sam, I can empathize with your situation, and surely living as a Christian in Saudi Arabia will give you a truly unique perspective on how Islam is interpreted, and more importantly implemented, in your country.

It will be important for us who aren’t in that situation, though, to understand the precise nature of it i.e. the situation in Saudi Arabia.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree. That doesn’t make sense.

To say that we don’t reject what is true or holy in other religions is correct. Why would we? Where we agree, we agree. To say that all life and holiness comes from God is also true, of course. But then what of what is untrue? Where does it come from? Not from God, who does not create or teach untruth.

I am all for inter-faith dialogue, but not at the expense of truth.

 

[men0wjv]

Hello all and peace be upon you on this special day of your faith,

I see I have quite a lot to answer for I may not answer absolutely everything, otherwise I will be typing all night.

inJESUS:

with humiliation

I assume by this you were referring to the verse 9:29, which ends:
‘… until they pay the tribute [jizya] readily, being brought low.’
The Arabic which Picktall here has translated as ‘being brought low’ is ‘wa hum saghirun’. Some have tried to say this means in total humiliation. Perhaps a literal interpretation might be better as ‘utterly subdued.’ As mentioned before, it is as dangerous as sola scriptura to just idly interpret verses of the Quran. Therefore to understand the verse we have to ask what the greatest Qur’anic commentators have said? Tabari - arguably the greatest - one of the most respected and oldest commentators said the following:

“The legitimate interpreters differ as to the meaning of the word, “al saghirun,” which Almighty God uses at this point “wa hum saghirun”]. Some of them say that he [the Jew or Christian] pays it [the tribute] standing while the recipient is seated. Imam al Tabari also says, “Others say [it means] that they bring it themselves, walking, even if they dislike this.” In addition, he mentions, “Some say that its mere payment is humbling,” owing to accepting Muslims as rulers.” [Al Tabari Vol. 6 pp 350]

These exegetical understandings are reflected in the writings of the jurists. For example, the scholars agree that anything which would be deemed offensive to a Muslim is forbidden to visit upon a protected Jew or Christian. Anything that would demean, belittle, or oppress a protected non- Muslim is strictly forbidden. This prohibition emanates from the prophetic tradition, “As for one who oppresses a protected non-Muslim or belittles or burdens him above his capability [if he employees him] or takes anything from him against his will, I will be his disputant on the Day of Resurrection” (Abu Dawud).

I cannot stress enough how important it is to refer to the ‘tradition’ of Islam as it has been passed on from generation to generation. Unlike the Salafis (NB the spelling Chatto ) who deny this and just go straight to the text styling themselves as a Mujtahid Mutlaq - one able to derive ruilings directly from the sacred texts. Though Osama bin Laden may well be sincere, he is grossly mistaken as are his Salafi brethren who are unanimously agreed by the authorities as heretics… Did he or like minded people study at Al Azhar (Cairo) or Al Qarawin (Fez)? No! He is someone who thinks he knows better than 1400 years of scholarship. Rather like a Catholic ‘correcting’ the Pope and Curia - something unacceptable.

It is a good question Sam_777 to ask of my credentials. I would say that I am a parot. Though I am not fluent or even barely literate in Arabic I have been fortunate enough to study under a number of Orthodox scholars (who hold ijaza) and have a close group of scholarly friends that I regularly consult. All that I have written is just repeating the words of orthodox scholars, namely because I have absolutely no authority to make such statements. My closest friend and main source for Islam was fortunate enough to study at Al Qarawin - unlike bin Laden - for 7 years and specialised in Arabic and Maliki Fiqh. You may still feel uncomfortable accepting my words, which you have every right to do. I could point you in the direction of authorised scholars if you wish… I suppose I could reference everything I say if that would help? I have not already done this just because I am already spending too much time in front of the computer

I believe Chatto has nicely cleared up the Saudi Arabia question, which lets not forget was founded on the teachings of Muhammad ibn abdul Wahab who was called a ‘false prophet’ by the authorities of his time. For futher information listen to ‘This is Jihad’ by Al Azhari scholar Sh. Nuh Ha Mim Keller at: masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/default.htm

My mention of Islam’s 1400 years of survival was just to illustrate that this is testimony that it must at least make some sense because if it was really that easy and obvious - as some suggest - to find faults then no one would have accepted it and it would not have lasted as long. The same argument could be given for Catholicism over say Gnosticism or Arianism.

I hope this helps

 

[dzheremi]

It is interesting that this discussion has come to a person who is admittedly not fluent in Arabic arguing the meaning of Arabic words and phrases with two Arabs!

Perhaps a common word is not so easy to come by, despite our best efforts on all sides…

 

[narrowpath]

Salaam/peace

I live in Bangladesh - a Muslim majority country. Our national TV channel starts with the Quranic verse & commentary ; then they telecast verses from other holy books for few minutes . Say like this , one day A Buddist will read from tripitok , the next day A Hindu leader will read from Geeta , A Bishop will read from Bible . I wonder , if in non Muslim countries they invite Imams ( Muslim religious leaders ) & give them a chance to recite from Quran on the national media ?

Also , Christmas is a national holiday here . I don’t know if Eid is a holiday in non-Muslim countries ?

Are you kidding? readings like that could never happen here, muslim, christian, buddhist, etc, etc. It might it isn’t “acceptable”, and, god forbid, might even offend people!!!\

 

[men0wjv]

Hmm… this thread feels a little like it may be turning into polemics. May I ask if we can return to ‘veluti si Deus daretur’, which is really where I wanted the thread to go. It is a shame that it did not spark the same host of responses as the Islamic apologetics has. If people want to get into polemics then there are plenty of other threads to do that on or you could pose your questions to the orthodox scholars at www.sunnipath.com. May I ask that we look into our hearts and contemplate on what we really are trying to achieve with this thread. If it is a genuine desire to know and understand then this is the thread for you, but if not then it is best that you go else where.

Ruthie was right to ask about some of the ‘hot’ topics in the public sphere. For any further dialogue to take place, these need to be clarified. I believe I have answered them to a suitable level of depth, of course you may not accept them but this is how classical Islamic scholarship has understood them.

It was also right to clarify from what authority I speak from, but I believe this has also been suitably clarified. Although I will give the benefit of the doubt to some of the more recent comments and assume there is just a desire for clarrification, which by God’s Grace I may be able to do.

I am English and have a decent level of the English language. I find Shakespear difficult. When I read it I can get some understanding. If I do not understand a word I look it up in a dictionary. If I can’t find the word because modern English is different from Shakespearian English I have to consult very specialised dictionaries. Yet I may still not understand what was meant because I am ignorant of the context, various bits of history, and certain idioms are no longer in use. To get a complete understanding I have to refer to commentaries and experts of Shakespear’s works. Is this not at least in some way comparable to most Arab’s ability to understand the Qur’an?

My wife has the famous clinical medicine book by Kumar and Clarke written in English on her shelf. Am I now able to argue on a level playing field the subtle aspects of clinical medicine with my wife (a doctor)? I clearly do not understand the technical language fully, which of course the authors assume the reader knows (it being a Doctor’s book). Is this not at least in some way comparable to most Arab’s ability to understand the Shariah?

Without recourse to reliable experts who one can comprehend only disaster awaits any interpretation.

I have my limitations - like all of us - but I have been fortunate enough to study to a level where I can at least understand what experts claim concerning Islam. By the Grace of God I also have some ability to assess the strength and plausibility of a legal opinion or Quranic commentary. I do not have the ability (or the time) to look in detail at every verse or legal ruiling exhausting all possibilities. Therefore I refer to the scholars of Islam, as indeed my religion exhorts me to do. They have already pain-staikingly done the research that we can now reap the benefit from. As Newton said: ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.’ Yes experts do make mistakes from time to time and this is why you must also have the ability to critique their findings, but this is the exception and not the rule.

Did you have the time to examine all the evidence concering the DaVinci code to know it was total and utter rubbish? A brief review of the ‘pro code’ literature is enough to see it’s weakness if one has the ability to understand what a proof is and basic knowledge of Christian scholarship etc. There are people that have been sucked into the trap because they do not have this ability and this is why they should hold to the Church so that their experts can highlight it’s misgivings.

I believe there is not much more to say on the subject.

I’m not sure why we have so many people who want to defend Saudi Arabia??? Coming to Chatto’s rescue I would like to point out that the following shows little understanding of fiqh:

can you cite an example where the Saudi sharia laws disregard the Quran or Sunna?

Usul ul fiqh (the roots of Islamic jurisprudence) is not just the Qur’an and Sunnah, but many others, one of the most important being Ijma’ or scholarly consensus. The proof for ijma’ is self evident which anyone can find. Salafis (Saudis included) reject ijma’. Therefore they have peculiar rulings concerning talaq - the three fold divorce. The companions of Muhammad by scholarly consensus agreed that saying ‘I divorce you’ three times in one sitting is a valid divorce. The Salafis deny this because they reject ijma’. They therefore are not following the Shariah because they have rejected the clear Quranic and hadith injuctions validating ijma’ and not only that but overiden the consensus of the best generation - the companions (in the Islamic tradition). Lets leave the finer points of fiqh and usul ul fiqh to the experts who say Saudi does not follow the Shariah.

Now can we please turn our attention to benefitting mankind. I’m sure you all empathise with me. How upsetting is it when someone finds out that you’re Catholic, all they want to discuss is scandals of child abuse comitted by priests?.. As if one of the most beneficial movement in the World’s history only has that to offer?