M
mamlukman
Guest
I don’t think Siddiqui is thinking of India–although India would quality as another country in need of Shari’a. He has been in the US for a long time, and lives in California.
- Status
T
TruthBearer
Guest
This exist among the Shia, but NOT among the Sunnis, the largest Islamic sect.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Sunnis believe that it is allowed to deny faith under compulsion, threat, and fear of death, as long as the heart remains firm in faith,.[29]
Sunni jurisprudence does not use the term taqiyya,[30] yet it is de facto practiced as such according to Islamic law against sinners.[31][32] Protecting one’s belief during extreme or exigent circumstances is called idtirar (إضطرار), which translates to “being forced” or “being coerced”, and this word is not specific to concealing the faith, for example, under the jurisprudence of idtirar one is allowed to consume prohibited or Haram food to protect one’s life, e.g. starving to death.[33] Some Sunnis also disagree with some of the Shi’a’s view of Taqiyya.[30]
Additionally, denying one’s faith under duress is “only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory”.[5] Al-Tabari comments on sura XVI, verse 106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323, xxiv, 122): “If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, in order to escape his enemies, no blame falls on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe.” This verse was recorded after Ammar Yasir was forced by the idolaters of Mecca to recant his faith and denounce the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Al-Tabari explains that concealing one’s faith is only justified if the person is in mortal danger, and even then martyrdom is considered a noble alternative. If threatened, it would be preferable for a Muslim to migrate to a more peaceful place where a person may practice their faith openly, “since God’s earth is wide.”[5] In Hadith, in the Sunni commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, known as the Fath al-Bari, it is stated that:[34]
أجمعوا على أن من أكره على الكفر واختار القتل أنه أعظم أجرا عند الله ممن اختار الرخصة ، وأما غير الكفر فإن أكره على أكل الخنزير وشرب الخمر مثلا فالفعل أولى
Which translates to:
There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license [to deny one’s faith under duress], but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that [instead of choosing death].
T
TruthBearer
Guest
And how would this have an effect on dialogue between Sunni Muslims and Catholics unless Catholics plan on bringing GUNS to the meeting???
M
mamlukman
Guest
Thank you. A very detailed response.
TruthBearer–you’re right that’s it’s more usual among Shi’is, but as you see here, it’s practiced by Sunnis as well.
The whole issue–like a lot of issues–is not 100% clear. In other words, how “threatened” do you have to feel? Can it be used in cases where Muslims are not denying their faith entirely, but just some aspect of it (like whether they advocate Shari’a law for the US)?
I’ll liken it to another thread I’ve been posting on. The issue was whether or not you should eat meat on a Friday in Lent if you’ve been invited to a friend’s house and they have prepared a meal that has meat for the main course. I personally would happily eat the meat. Other Catholics would say I was sinning, and they would refuse to eat the meat. The point is that we both consider ourselves good Catholics. The same here–some Muslims would put the duty to tell the truth over taqiyya; others wouldn’t. But they don’t wear T-shirts announcing who is who.
TruthBearer–you’re right that’s it’s more usual among Shi’is, but as you see here, it’s practiced by Sunnis as well.
The whole issue–like a lot of issues–is not 100% clear. In other words, how “threatened” do you have to feel? Can it be used in cases where Muslims are not denying their faith entirely, but just some aspect of it (like whether they advocate Shari’a law for the US)?
I’ll liken it to another thread I’ve been posting on. The issue was whether or not you should eat meat on a Friday in Lent if you’ve been invited to a friend’s house and they have prepared a meal that has meat for the main course. I personally would happily eat the meat. Other Catholics would say I was sinning, and they would refuse to eat the meat. The point is that we both consider ourselves good Catholics. The same here–some Muslims would put the duty to tell the truth over taqiyya; others wouldn’t. But they don’t wear T-shirts announcing who is who.
M
mamlukman
Guest
How would this affect the dialog??? Are you kidding me??? You’ve got one side who may or may not be telling the truth and the other side is telling the truth. How can that be a dialog???
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Yeh, why not, and perhaps someone from the Westboro, and an elder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
T
TruthBearer
Guest
I am serious. ** I use to be Muslim, and Islam is not what you are trying to make it.** Islam is not inherently evil. I use to be Orthodox Christian as well.
There are some really good Muslims in the world and there are some really good Christians in the world.
There are good people and there are bad people. Every evil deed comes from a bad heart, every good deed comes from a good heart.
Those with a good heart, will express their religion with goodness. Those with bad hearts will express their religion with evil.
Catholics do not have a pretty history. But it is not a reflection of the core teachings of catholics, but bad people who ran the church at that time.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
That is debatable.
No doubt.
Agreed.
What if good become bad and bad become good, the only arbiter is one’s conception of God and the writings attributed to this God, and of course the interpreter?
I disagree. I think Catholics in the general broad sense have a very pretty history. But this begs the question, who are the bad people running Islam and why are they allowed to run it?
T
TruthBearer
Guest
It is practiced if you bring a gun to discussion.
I’ve seen Christians who pretended to accept Islam when ISIS came to their town, in order not to get killed. It seem like what is practiced by Sunnis is also practiced by Christians.
T
TruthBearer
Guest
It is not debatable, you are expressing your perception of Islam, based on your limited knowledge of Islam as a complete religion.
Good people can be convinced to do evil things, which is what bad clerics do.
History doesn’t disagree with me.
There is an Orthodox Sunni Islam and there exist Protestant Islam (Wahabism, Salafism). Orthodox Sunni Islam, traditional Sunni Islam, was deeply crippled by colonialism.
What caused protestant Islam to spread? Saudi Oil.
Protestant Islam gave birth to unqualified Islamic leaders.
M
mamlukman
Guest
I agree with everything you said except the first statement: “Islam is not what you are trying to make it. Islam is not inherently evil.” But Islam can be used to justify evil acts, from marrying 6-year-olds to killing thousands of Yazidis to trying to overthrow Western governments. Please read that carefully. When al-Baghdadi or Osama Bin Ladin talked about their plans, they quoted the Qur’an and Hadith. When the Iranian religious police arrest and beat women whose clothes they don’t like, they are doing it in the name of Islam. When the Charlie Hebdo terrorists killed all those people, they shouted “Allahu Akbar! We are doing this to avenge the insult to Muhammad!” And so on.
I am NOT saying that all Muslims are evil. What I am saying is that Islam can be used to justify evil actions. That is perfectly clear every time you turn on the TV. It’s undeniable.
But then a lot of Muslims–including you I suspect–would say, “That is not real Islam. You don’t understand real Islam.” First, the assumption that a non-Muslim can’t possibly understand Islam is false and illogical. I suspect I know more about Islam than 99% of Muslims. Second, the “real Islam” issue brings up something I have been posting about for a long time. There is no central authority in Islam. I could elaborate on that for pages, but I won’t. What, exactly, is “real Islam”? The point is that you could come along, convert to Islam, and then you can say “Here is what Islam means to me.” And that would be 100% correct–it is your personal understanding of what Islam is. That doesn’t mean that all–or any–other Muslims agree with you. And it doesn’t tell me much at all about what you believe, frankly. I call it “fantasy Islam” or “designer Islam” because it allows Western converts to explain away any aspect of Islam that they personally don’t believe in, even if 90% of Muslims do believe it. Usually converts dismiss any problems by saying “Oh, that’s culture, that’s not religion.” Really? How is religion not part of culture?
Back to the thread–someone else noted this at the beginning. If you want to “dialog” with Muslims, who do you talk to? If no one’s in charge, it’s hard to negotiate. Who represents “real Islam”? And how would anyone know? You, I hope, would say that al-Baghdadi doesn’t represent “real Islam.” Al-Baghdadi in turn would execute you as an apostate.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I haven’t expressed any perception of Islam, except that much of stated is debatable.
Which sect represents this so-called “orthodox/traditional” branch? If it doesn’t exist or only represents a tiny sliver, does it really matter?
Also, the so-called “protestant” sects of Shia Islam are generally peaceful, why are they violent when emanating from Sunni?
Also debatable.
What qualifies?
T
TruthBearer
Guest
The Bible was used by American Christians to justify the type of slavery. I am pretty sure, I could do research and find other examples. It is what pro black Muslims (The Nation of Islam) used to recruit its members, claiming Christianity was a white man’s religion.
When the uneducated take control of the religion chaos emerges.
A part of the problem of the Middle East, what you are seeing there is years and years of living under oppressive leadership and dictatorship. It is difficult to teach people who have been oppressed to have mercy, and to show restraints. If an ignorant charismatic person stands up say, we must kill them all, here are the verses and the hadith that support me. And an Islamic scholar tells them no. Most people are going to follow the charismatic person. Are you going to follow God or are you going to follow some scholar. God says this, and the scholar say this? This is the same problem that Catholics have with converting protestant. Are you going to follow the Bible or the Pope?
You take that same charismatic person to Indonesia, where Orthodox/traditional scholarship exist, and they are not living in oppressive conditions, the charismatic leader, will have very difficult time finding followers.
It is possible for a non-Muslim to understand Islam properly.
There is central authority in Islam, the scholars.
Colonialism is the major real for the dismantlement of the scholars authority. The scholars endowments were taken away, their authority was taken away etc… The scholars have not full recovered from it. Orthodox/Traditional Islamic scholars still exist, they just don’t have the same influence they once did in the past.
I am not aware of any Islamic scholar that supports al Baghdadi in anyway.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
almost everyone on here would chastise American protestantism as a tiny, deranged form of Christianity, at the time isolated from the wider world. However, even in that form, there were prominent leaders and sects supporting abolition. Are their prominent voices speaking against the form of Islam you say is not representative?
maybe you don’t understand the equivalence you are making - the Popes group is by far the majority and if including those others who agree with the vast majority of Papal practices, there are very few that actively oppose. The ones that do, a few are clearly nuts.
perhaps Indonesia is on the fringe, but even there oppressive laws are enacted.
which scholars
you seem to be promoting a state sponsored form of Islam, one that the government endows certain beliefs and suppresses others. Other than it being a view we would not disagree with, how is this scholarship?
M
mamlukman
Guest
We agree. Except when Muslims say “the Bible” I like to correct them when necessary and say, “the Old Testament.” Yes, the Old Testament was used to justify slavery. Not the Gospels. And yes, Black Muslims in the US were racists in the opposite way–white people were descended from apes, going to Hell, etc.
Whoa. When is the last time they had a consensus? 632 AD? And who decides so-and-so is a scholar? See the problem? (also see below, Al-Baghdadi)
I would buy that with qualifications. They lost some authority simply because a lot of Muslims became Westernized. The colonial powers instituted civil law. But I will not blame all the issues on “colonialism” or “the West.” When I lived in Saudi Arabia, everything from the weather to traffic accidents were “the fault of the West.” That’s part of the problem–the problems are mostly internal, not external. Muslims have to admit that.
But al-Baghdadi claims to be a scholar himself–PhD in Islamic Studies from some Islamic university in Baghdad. I’m sure he has followers who are Imams, scholars, etc. who back him up.
T
TruthBearer
Guest
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I disagree. Debate doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
May you also have a blessed day.
T
TruthBearer
Guest
It doesn’t matter what part of the bible they are using, the point is that Christians are making these justifications.
I was a Sunni Muslim, so I am more familiar with this sect, as oppose to Shia Islam.
Sunni Islam has an incredible intellectual tradition. Within in Islam, there are many types of consensus. And there are many debates between the scholars as to which consensus are binding and which ones are not.
Protestant Islam, exist because they are those who wish to break away from the certain consensus.
Within, traditional Sunni Islam (Orthodox Islam), there are scholars that represent, each established school of thought (madhab). And have done so for hundreds of years. Literally over a 1,000 years. There are 4 madhabs of Fiqh (Islamic Law). Each madhab have an unbroken chain of transmission (of religious teachings in particular Islamic Law) back to Muhammad (their Prophet). There are 2 (some say 3) madhabs of Aqida (belief). This is within Sunni Islam.
The scholars determine who is a scholar. So if someone claims that so and so is a scholars, I would ask, who did he or she study with and is such and such a person reliable scholar.
Within Traditional Sunni Islam (Orthodox), a four year degree or a PHD doesn’t make you an Islamic scholar. You could be considered a student of religious learning (Talibul Ilm) with a four degree or a PHD, not necessarily a scholar. There was a someone who received a four degree in Islamic Law from the University of Medinah. And he decided he wanted to study Islam traditionally in Syria, with the Shafi scholars there. And started with book 1 when he sat in front of those scholars.
The problem with University education is it is based on the western methods of teaching. And as one scholar I studied with when discussing this very topic with him, told me, the problem with University educated, so-called Shaykhs, is they haven’t completed one book of fiqh, from cover to cover.
Having spent time with both, both types of Shaykhs. The one who studied at the University, lacked depth, in terms of understanding the religion. And this is with every subject of the religion.
There are multiple reasons.
al Baghdadi is not a scholar. And I don’t know any Islamic scholar who considers him such.
Even within Protestant Islam (Wahabism, Salafism), I am unaware of anyone that consider him a scholar.
Here is a letter written to al Baghdadi, which was signed by various Islamic scholars, from both traditional Sunni Islam and Protestant Islam, which pretty much saying in the beginning that he is not qualified to issue legal rulings (ie he is not an Islamic scholar.)
lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
I’ve asked his supporters on other forums, if they could name a recognized scholar that support him, and they was unable to provide a single name.
- Status