Ask Me Anything: Muslim Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter shazirah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today not a few States that successfully use ecclesiologies structure in militaristic-Patriotic direction.
Interestingly, the Pope is very careful with his words regarding the term “religious war”.
In one of his spontaneous interviews, he says-“The war of interests , the war for money, the war for natural resources, the war for domination of peoples, not the religious war. Religion want peace.”

 
Augustinian said:
The Japanese people believed their emperor was Almighty God during WWII, gave them quite the motivation to continue the fight.
Click to expand...
Agree with you absolutely. Hence religion is just a tool.
Getting rid of organised religion does not solve the problem. A communist leader will make himself into a god like figure.
 
Azerbaijan is the only other country with a true Shia majority. Iraq is split about half and half with Shia having a slight majority, and so is Lebanon. Shia make up something like 10% of the world Muslim population the last time I saw figures with most of them concentrated in Iran.
 
Wahhabis are basically an ultra-conservative branch of Islam that rejects almost all of Islamic philosophical thought after about the third generation of scholars after the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) death, and they believe in rigidly enforcing religious rules at the state level. It’s not all that common outside of the Peninsula because it’s essentially been protected by the Saudi government. I don’t know much about the situation in eastern Europe and the satellite states, but I looked into it and what I’ve found is that it’s actually Salafis that are on the rise in that area rather than Wahhabis strictly speaking. There are important differences, but they do share most of their core tenants. Ultraconservativism tends to thrive in areas that have a lot of social and political instability. I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as to say that your average Wahhabis and Salafis and ISIS are exactly the same thing, but ISIS is sort of the extreme of that end of the ultraconservative spectrum.
 
Last edited:
I missed that question in your previous post. If a woman has a higher sexual drive than her husband, her husband is required to step up his game, so to speak. Men don’t have the same physiological restrictions on sexual expression that women do. Women menstruate, endure pregnancy and postpartum gynecological and psychological issues, breastfeed, etc, all of which can interfere with desire and ability for sex. The only biological impediment that men usually have is impotence or age. Women have an equal right to satisfaction under sharia law. If her husband can’t satisfy her, then the woman is allowed to divorce and find someone that she is more compatible with. Women aren’t allowed to have multiple husbands at one time because it confuses paternity in a way that men having multiple wives doesn’t and it doesn’t really add anything to the relationship fertility-wise.

Equality isn’t served by “sameness”. Western society has pushed the virtual interchangeability of genders to a somewhat ridiculous point in my opinion and it often ends with women’s biological and psychological needs and imperatives being sacrificed to prove some point about equality. Islam tries to level the field by accounting for difference rather than forcing sameness and it works out pretty well most of the time.

I’m half-Syrian, half-Iranian, and grew up in Jordan before we moved to the US. At present I have US and Jordanian citizenship and I’ve been trying to relinquish my Iranian citizenship for years but they won’t let me.
 
I’ve heard that Chechnya has no orphanages.
If a child or several children become orphans, they are taken by relatives or close people, it is a tradition.
I am interested, is it local traditions or is it common in Islamic States when orphaned children are taken by a family of loved ones, and there are no orphanages?
 
Last edited:
Muslims are especially encouraged to care for orphans. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was himself an orphan raised by his grandfather and uncle. Islamic cultures tend to have strong family associations and Muslim families tend to be larger than Western families, and so if a child’s parents have died or they can’t afford to care for their child, in almost all cases there will be a relative there to step in. The system has sort of broken down in places like Syria and Iraq because there have been so many war casualties and so much social disorder that sometimes children’s next of kin can’t be identified. Saudi Arabia has a particular problem right now determining how to integrate anonymously abandoned children, but from what I’ve seen in the news recently they’re making some progress in a good direction. Orphanages where they exist usually care for children who have no known family ties. Adoption is practiced differently in the Middle East than in the West, but we’re encouraged to take in orphans whenever possible to ensure that all children are adequately cared for.
 
Last edited:
It seems that even television encourages motherhood, and hints business women that children are above all else

 
Television (when there is no debauchery, no porn culture) is great for society.
Still, I believe that the problem of marriages without love, marriages without brides consent in Eastern/African countries its a big and serious problem.
If the girl marries not for love, then it is a misfortune of life is a miserable existence.
If the woman whole life hate of her husband, this will affect the children. And if a child is like a husband, she may not like even a child.
Marriage not for love but by parental arrangement is a big problem which is the way TV should give a lot of attention.
 
Last edited:
People marry for all sorts of reasons regardless of their specific culture - money or because they want children or because they just don’t want to be alone, in addition to affection. Forced marriage is never okay, but it doesn’t just happen among Eastern cultures either. People joke about “shotgun marriages” here, but coercion has always existed in Western cultures, too.

From the existing data, it’s not clear that “love” marriages are any more successful than arranged ones, and just because a marriage is arranged doesn’t mean that it isn’t a loving relationship. Almost all of my family members have had arranged marriages. My grandparents have been together for decades and they adore each other. They were originally set up by a matchmaker. My parents met through family friends, but they went through the appropriate processes of arranging marriage even though they knew they already liked each other. Of course there are less than ideal situations, there always will be. Best practice in arranged marriage means that you understand the commitment you are undertaking from the beginning and you have more experienced people involved in the process with you to help and advise. The Western dating process by comparison is pretty slipshod. I wouldn’t want to participate in it.
 
Poverty, hopelessness, those are the reasons why the unhappy marriages occur.
A happy and loving family is very important.
In developed Muslim countries, if a husband brought another bride to the house, could the wife stop him and prevent such a union from entering the marriage life in trio?
 
This just yet Another Western cultural value which the west is imposing on the rest of the world without the evidence that it is a good thing for all countries. (Just like democracy).
I’m not saying it is a bad thing but one really need to look at the results and the inidividual society cultural values and what fits. One size does not fit all.
The result I see is low birth rate in the west but still high birth rate in Muslim communities. (I know there are other factors involved)
 
Ideally, that’s a possibility that should be discussed ahead of time before the marriage. Most majority Muslim countries include some sort of legal protection for existing wives and regulate multiple marriages very carefully. A number of countries allow women to stipulate in their marriage contract that no additional wives are permitted and some require the existing wives, especially the first wife, to give legal consent. Many countries also require some sort of approval from a governmental or religious authority to certify that the man is of good character and financially capable of supporting more than one wife. A few countries have banned the practice altogether because their dominant religious tradition considers multiple marriages a practice that was allowed in early Islam to accomodate the tribal system and pagan converts but which was meant to phase out over time. There are very few places in which multiple marriages are allowed no holds barred.

As an edit, I should note that monogamy is still the more righteous choice in Islam. Polygamy is supposed to be available only under particular circumstances and with great oversight. The last stats I saw on the subject were that polygamist marriages form less than 0.1% of marriages within Islam. It’s just not feasible or desirable for the majority of people.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but democracy is better than dictatorship and authoritarianism.
What is the superiority of the people if the power elite is all in gold and luxury and the people in poverty?
This is not a healthy society if criticism of the government you go to jail where you physically bullied under torture.
A society where there is all-permissiveness of the elites, where there is immense opulence and immense poverty is not a healthy society.
A society where women dream to flee to the West, like people flee from hell to heaven, it’s not a free society.
Modern youth is a new paradigm of people, and it seems that young people in the Islamic world are increasingly attracted to Western values.
Why do so many Muslims dream of moving to Europe?
Why do those who can’t get to Europe are fleeing to Turkey, or to Russia? (from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgistan)
Does this mean that the old form of government is bursting at the seams, and the new generation does not want to live under mulah’s rule?
 
Last edited:
I don’t pretend to have a solution. But I just don’t think the West should portray democracy as a panacea.
The Arab spring turned out to be an Arab winter.
Quite frankly I’d rather live in a first world without democratic rights than a third world with democracy. That’s just my opinion.
 
Yes, there is neo-colonialism, wars for resources, financial and economic interests of super-States.
But the people just have to fight, and the strugle is a duty not only of believers but also of all people of good will.
People must fight against social injustice, against the arbitrariness of the authorities and corruption justice, against the enslavement of women.
Societies must receive positive signals from advanced systems and say goodbye to the old traditions of old systems.
Here the change is guided by education, and the real desire of people to change their lives.
For example, in the family of European Union probably will soon be two new Muslim countries - Bosnia and Albania, where life is gradually improving for the better.
But do not forget that everything was much worse in these two countries.
There was poverty, hopelessness, the powerlessness of women, often in a criminal and patriarchal atmosphere.
Now the life of citizens is gradually improving. People become richer, protected by the law.
Turkey, for example, borrowed from the French a lot of ideas that I think went only for the benefit of Turkey.
(Not for nothing in the Turkish dictionary about 5000 French words.)
What I really think is that there is an opposition among young people in Muslim countries that wants to change towards Western values and ideals.
 
Last edited:
Athanasiy said:
there is an opposition among young people in Muslim countries that wants to change towards Western values and ideals.
Click to expand...
Where’s the evidence?
Every authoritative government initially began with people supporting it.
The problem in Middle East is that there are just too many different interest groups living in poorly drawn borders country as an aftermath of the Sykes Picot. You ask one group — the progessives to fight. Are you asking the Islamists to fight for what they want as well?
That’s why democracy doesn’t work in these countries.
The West have created all these problems in the first place and now they act as if they are the good guys knowing what the solution is? Give me a break!
 
When I upline the oppositions among young people I mean those who want change.
Changes in rights, in justice, in social spheres.
Modern young people are educated. Young people can see, compare and analyze.
Clergy can specialize in theology, but in addition to theology there is a modern dynamism of life that requires change.
And I think there’s a lot to learn from the West here.
 
I’d rather listen to what the Muslim people want rather than the west. That’s why I’m grateful for Shazirah opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top