Understanding islam?

[attybarker]

Sorry if it is complicated, but they really do not have a single uniform Canon Law.

This is one of my most important reason fro choosing to be Catholic and choosing not to follow any other of the Christian faiths (or non-Christian, for that matter). I believe it is inappropriate to pick and choose different pieces of what God tells us to do, based upon the personal feelings of a group of current leaders. I believe that my faith should not be voted upon by an annual meeting of elders, or any other popular, current, politically correct whim.

It may be harder to follow or understand a faith that does not follow the current most politically correct point of view. However, that is the struggle… faith would not be FAITH if it were easy, prove-able, subject to change based upon the current post popular opinion. Faith is not about popularity.

I LOVE it that it takes more than an act of Congress to change my religious traditions, and my leaders’ interpretation of the important principles that I need to follow. Even within our structure, there is room for interpretation. But the basics are still the same. In MY faith, it is not appropriate to accept big changes to the basic principles unless these changes were made by a single (rare) leadership council.

Unfortunately, the basics in Islam are not the same, from group to group, and it IS acceptable to change. A popular movement, even one that is violent or oppressive, can take hold easier if the faith allows or encourages changes to the faith based upon the whim of a single leader (or small group of leaders).

Either way, it is hard to discuss faith with a group of people who claim the same faith by name, but disagree on the basic principles. If one group interprets a passage to mean that Christians and Jews must be respected, and another group of the same faith interpret it to mean exactly the opposite, those of us who are outsiders can NEVER gain enough information about what your faith’s beliefs are that we can discuss it with authority. You can each, between yourselves, argue your own faith and disagree, but if one of us were to say the same things to you, we’d simply be told we were wrong (and being from a different faith, our statements would be dismissed as coming from a source that has no authority)…

Which, again, makes the choice to enter into the discussion futile, and certainly inappropriate for a two people who want to live in the same room for the next year, peaceably. Honestly, the best tactic in that situation is to agree to disagree on matters of faith, and learn how to treat each other with respect, which may mean choosing not to speak about it rather than even try to enter the conversation.

 

[judynurse]

It is very nice to see people making friends accross divides.

Just one correction here, if you don’t mind. I think you mean between Shias and Sunnis.

Sufi is a contemplative strand of Islam. They originate from and are generally classified as Sunnis though they normally see themselves as transcending politics and the Sunni-Shia divide. Sufism was very influenced by Coptic monks who converted after the Arab conquests, hence the love for contemplation and mysticism.

Due to their emphasis on the more mystical aspects of God, rather than the doctrinal aspects of the faith and as such, they are more open to other religions.

If I am not mistaken, the mosque proposed for Ground Zero is a Sufi mosque. The whirling dervishes of Turkey are probably the most commonly known Sufis.

Or maybe you are already aware. If so, forgive my assumptions.

Thank you! I was indeed confusing the Shia & Sufi. Sounds like the Sufi are non-aggressive and do not believe in killing non-Muslims (with or without offering conversion), but are more interested in contemplation and study.

 

[TheSufi]

The problem with this whole discussion is that while we could provide many quotes of Islamic scholars as well as directly from the Quran, that Muslims should not be violent, should befriend and respect other faiths… there are many Muslims who have studied and believe differently, who have interpreted those same quotes in a way that suggests they should be struggling against Christians.

I understand one meaning of Jihad is “struggle”. This can be the internal struggle to follow or understand one’s own faith, or it can be (as many these days have interpreted it), “holy war”… or rather, it’s read to endorse violence in the effort to convert others.

Our Catholic faith pushed through a time in history when we also felt it was important to evangalize the world, by force if necessary. Even though the Crusades were over 700 years ago, we still find ourselves acting apologetically over them. Non-Catholics during the 12th and 13th centuries who encountered a well-intentioned but crusading Catholic neighbor who argued every point they tried to make during an innocent conversation, would have been well-advised to not discuss religion with the neighbor, just to keep peace in the neighborhood.

People who believe their faith justifies treating other people disrespectfully are mistaken, but it’s nearly impossible to change their belief. The bigger their transgressions against others, the more tightly they must hold onto these mistaken beliefs, because to do otherwise would be to admit to serious transgressions (and in many cases, atrocities against mankind). Once they’ve taken a violent action, they are caught, and cannot easily change their belief system.

It does not matter how many Muslims weigh in with quotes about how nice Muslims are and how much they respect other faiths… if the particular Muslim that the originator of this thread has to live with happens to be disrespectful and argumentative, there is no point to trying to argue his faith with him, no point in trying to justify our faith to him, no point in discussing faith at all unless the originator of this thread is prepared for an uncomfortable atmosphere in the room.

Just as you have protestant Christians, you also have protestant Muslims.

 

[TheSufi]

The problem with this whole discussion is that while we could provide many quotes of Islamic scholars as well as directly from the Quran, that Muslims should not be violent, should befriend and respect other faiths… there are many Muslims who have studied and believe differently, who have interpreted those same quotes in a way that suggests they should be struggling against Christians.

I understand one meaning of Jihad is “struggle”. This can be the internal struggle to follow or understand one’s own faith, or it can be (as many these days have interpreted it), “holy war”… or rather, it’s read to endorse violence in the effort to convert others.

Our Catholic faith pushed through a time in history when we also felt it was important to evangalize the world, by force if necessary. Even though the Crusades were over 700 years ago, we still find ourselves acting apologetically over them. Non-Catholics during the 12th and 13th centuries who encountered a well-intentioned but crusading Catholic neighbor who argued every point they tried to make during an innocent conversation, would have been well-advised to not discuss religion with the neighbor, just to keep peace in the neighborhood.

People who believe their faith justifies treating other people disrespectfully are mistaken, but it’s nearly impossible to change their belief. The bigger their transgressions against others, the more tightly they must hold onto these mistaken beliefs, because to do otherwise would be to admit to serious transgressions (and in many cases, atrocities against mankind). Once they’ve taken a violent action, they are caught, and cannot easily change their belief system.

It does not matter how many Muslims weigh in with quotes about how nice Muslims are and how much they respect other faiths… if the particular Muslim that the originator of this thread has to live with happens to be disrespectful and argumentative, there is no point to trying to argue his faith with him, no point in trying to justify our faith to him, no point in discussing faith at all unless the originator of this thread is prepared for an uncomfortable atmosphere in the room.

Warfare are part of religions in which Prophets were king or leaders of nations, like Moses, David, Solomon, and Muhammad.

While Islam does not have the hierarchy of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, we do have a tradition that has been handed from generation to generation through an unbroken chain of how Islam is suppose to be practiced. So there is a system in place. There is an Orthodoxy in Sunni Islam.

Just as you have protestant christians, we too have protestant Muslims, who seem to emphasize or take verses out of context to justify, their own selfish desires.

Protestant Islam, known as Wahabism, or Salafism… have established Universities and their scholars. They don’t represent traditional Orthodox Sunni Islam.

Protestant Islam is a reaction to European colonialism and imperialism, which they destroyed many of the traditional Sunni Islamic educational systems. And this gave birth to uneducated Muslims, who wanted to seek revenge against the oppressive regime, and looked through the Quran and hadith to justify their hatred toward Europe.

This protestant form of Islam is over 200 years old. And Saudi Oil, is the greatest blame for their spread. So the West is responsible for the creation and spread of Protestant Islam.

God willing, traditional Sunni scholarship is growing, but they do not have the Saudi billions of dollars supporting them. It is mostly spread through word of mouth. We are slowly taking back out religion, and it is not going to happen over night.

And God knows best.

 

[dronald]

Warfare are part of religions in which Prophets were king or leaders of nations, like Moses, David, Solomon, and Muhammad.

While Islam does not have the hierarchy of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, we do have a tradition that has been handed from generation to generation through an unbroken chain of how Islam is suppose to be practiced. So there is a system in place. There is an Orthodoxy in Sunni Islam.

Just as you have protestant christians, we too have protestant Muslims, who seem to emphasize or take verses out of context to justify, their own selfish desires.

Protestant Islam, known as Wahabism, or Salafism… have established Universities and their scholars. They don’t represent traditional Orthodox Sunni Islam.

Protestant Islam is a reaction to European colonialism and imperialism, which they destroyed many of the traditional Sunni Islamic educational systems. And this gave birth to uneducated Muslims, who wanted to seek revenge against the oppressive regime, and looked through the Quran and hadith to justify their hatred toward Europe.

This protestant form of Islam is over 200 years old. And Saudi Oil, is the greatest blame for their spread. So the West is responsible for the creation and spread of Protestant Islam.

God willing, traditional Sunni scholarship is growing, but they do not have the Saudi billions of dollars supporting them. It is mostly spread through word of mouth. We are slowly taking back out religion, and it is not going to happen over night.

And God knows best.

Yeah, it wasn’t until 200 years ago that Islam began to spread by force. If you look at the entire history of Islam before 1800 you’ll see that Islam was entirely peaceful and never tried to force it’s Religion on anyone. Look at Islam from the year 650-900, you’ll notice Muslims were being persecuted like crazy, but through love and prayer it kept spreading.

 

[Servant19]

Yeah, it wasn’t until 200 years ago that Islam began to spread by force. If you look at the entire history of Islam before 1800 you’ll see that Islam was entirely peaceful and never tried to force it’s Religion on anyone. Look at Islam from the year 650-900, you’ll notice Muslims were being persecuted like crazy, but through love and prayer it kept spreading.

Hallelujah!!!

You’ve seen the Light my friend

All the major global religions have had periods of glory (usually the initial centuries) and a period of decline

 

[TheSufi]

Yeah, it wasn’t until 200 years ago that Islam began to spread by force. If you look at the entire history of Islam before 1800 you’ll see that Islam was entirely peaceful and never tried to force it’s Religion on anyone. Look at Islam from the year 650-900, you’ll notice Muslims were being persecuted like crazy, but through love and prayer it kept spreading.

Neither Islam nor Christianity has a pretty history
In every instance, if one is honest. Christianity also spread by the sword. I would say Islam’s spread to the west of Arabia, you’ll find instances of force (but one would have to evaluate each situation to see if it was a true spread by force or whether it was an initiation from local peoples who were being oppressed, they ended fighting the oppressors) , not so much Islam’s spread to the east, of Arabia. I know Islam’s spread to Malaysia and Indonesia was spread through trading. It was through the honesty of Muslim traders
That Islam spread there.

I am not saying it didn’t happen. But it seem like it happened to nations west of Arabia.

 

[jimkhong]

Neither Islam nor Christianity has a pretty history
In every instance, if one is honest. Christianity also spread by the sword. I would say Islam’s spread to the west of Arabia, you’ll find instances of force (but one would have to evaluate each situation to see if it was a true spread by force or whether it was an initiation from local peoples who were being oppressed, they ended fighting the oppressors) , not so much Islam’s spread to the east, of Arabia. I know Islam’s spread to Malaysia and Indonesia was spread through trading. It was through the honesty of Muslim traders
That Islam spread there.

I am not saying it didn’t happen. But it seem like it happened to nations west of Arabia.

Good to bring about that balanced view. It is true that the acts of our fathers are not necessarily those act we would like to know them for or carry out today. In particular in respect of Islam, the Christianity that Mohammad encountered in his days as a merchant was one riven by Catholic-Orthodox disputes with Monophysite Coptics & Syriacs, and with some strands of Gnosticism still preaching in those days.

TheSufi, I am interested in your idea of a Protestant Islam arising out of a lack of education. Would the lack of education still be the case today? In my last employment, I worked for a Saudi senior RM (so, very educated and professional), conservative but not Wahabist. He and I had many interesting discussions on Islam and Islamic history. I found his hatred of Shia Farsis ostensibly justified by some website, etc - which means no evidence from a Western jurisprudence point of view.

I also found it disappointing that many educated Muslims seems to stop thinking rationally when religion is mentioned. For instance, in my country (which is only 60% Muslim), you cannot check out pork products (even if it is canned) out of the normal supermarket checkout but must use a non-Halal checkout. Or that non-Muslims are not allowed to use the word Allah, even if that is the name for God in the local language. These are educated Muslims (not educated in madrassah, I must add). How do you think education helped or hindered this situation?

Also, can you tell me if you or most other Muslims would object if I were to to add “s.a.w.” at the end of references to the Prophet? or “s.b.t” to references to Allah? I am talking about on a forum like this. While I am motivated by a desire to respect, my reflections do not indicate that they are inconsistent with my faith (though some Christians may object to scalling down peace and blessings upon Mohammad), especially that God is all compassionate and all merciful.

 

[jimkhong]

Yeah, it wasn’t until 200 years ago that Islam began to spread by force. If you look at the entire history of Islam before 1800 you’ll see that Islam was entirely peaceful and never tried to force it’s Religion on anyone. Look at Islam from the year 650-900, you’ll notice Muslims were being persecuted like crazy, but through love and prayer it kept spreading.

Not really true, Islam spread in this early years by the sword. Mohammad marched from Medina to Mecca at the head of an army, though Muslim traditions are replete with acts of mercy by the conqueror. The socio-political setup in conquered Christian lands were, while a lot more enlightened than Christian attitudes towards religious minorities at that time, did offer a lot of social, political and commercial benefits to conversion. This means many conversions were not for religious reasons. Under some regimes, Christian children were forcibly incorporated into military corps as slaves or orphans and converted. This continued well into the Ottoman Turk period.

While one can debate how much force was involved in reducing the Christian minorities in Egypt, Syria and Iraq to 10% of the population today, Turkey was clearly Islamised by conquest. It was originally Christian under the Byzantine emperors until the Turks were driven to populate the land after being pushed out of Central Asia by the Mongols int he 13th century. Islamisation policies can be rather brutal (but again, probably better than policies of contemprorary medieval Christianity) and the last remaining Greek Orthodox were expelled in 1923, leaving the Patriarchate of Constantinopole in the sorry state that it was in.

As theSufi said, it may not be pretty. But it is factual and we, too, have stories not as pretty as well.

Still, Islam initially spread into India, West Africa, east coast of Africa and South East Asia due to trade, and were largely peaceful. The Mogul empire, while clearly favouring Muslims in India, encourage much inter-religious dialogues. It was the unfortunate politcal machinations of Indian politicians while seeking independance that torn the subcontinent apart.

 

[Reuben_J]

It not just knowing arabic, but also know why the verse was revealed, and its intent.

From one perspective the verse doesn’t apply to you at all. But again, it could apply to you, considering that you actively write against Islam. You appear to be an active enemy of Islam, whose intent is to belittle Islam and its message. And God knows best.

You have just proven my point. You said that this poster appeared to be an active enemy of Islam because he was actively writing against Islam. This is very subjective of course and a matter of personal interpretation. To you discussing and questioning Islam made him an enemy; to the others it may only just an inter-religious dialogue. In the same vein, one can say that you are an enemy of Christianity when you wrote against her belief.

The point is who will decide that a person is the enemy? Surely, in this situation, it is personal, in a personal encounter. And Quran Al-Mā’idah 51 will guide a Muslim whether to take him as a friend or not. There are other Quran verses that will take a stronger stand against the enemy of Islam. The whole idea here is that there are Quran verses that open for unfriendly and elitist attitude against the non-Muslims. Finally it is a matter of who are doing the interpreting.

***Al-Mā’idah 51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

---

 

[TheSufi]

You have just proven my point. You said that this poster appeared to be an active enemy of Islam because he was actively writing against Islam. This is very subjective of course and a matter of personal interpretation. To you discussing and questioning Islam made him an enemy; to the others it may only just an inter-religious dialogue. In the same vein, one can say that you are an enemy of Christianity when you wrote against her belief.

The point is who will decide that a person is the enemy? Surely, in this situation, it is personal, in a personal encounter. And Quran Al-Mā’idah 51 will guide a Muslim whether to take him as a friend or not. There are other Quran verses that will take a stronger stand against the enemy of Islam. The whole idea here is that there are Quran verses that open for unfriendly and elitist attitude against the non-Muslims. Finally it is a matter of who are doing the interpreting.

***Al-Mā’idah 51
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

---

It is a matter of who is interpreting the Quran, just as it was a matter who interpreted the bible, Like when the Christians enslaved africans in America, justifying it through the bible, Cursed be Canaan a servant of servant shall he be. It is the same thing, of how Southern Baptist can be Pro-Life, when it comes to abortions, and anti-life when it comes to killing iraqi women and children. Perhaps, it based on the verse in the bible, when Jesus, said, **Think not that I come to send peace but a sword. **

People can interpret scripture however they like, but it doesn’t make all interpretations right, which is my point.

It doesn’t make every interpretation correct.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is a matter of who is interpreting the Quran, just as it was a matter who interpreted the bible, Like when the Christians enslaved africans in America, justifying it through the bible, Cursed be Canaan a servant of servant shall he be. It is the same thing, of how Southern Baptist can be Pro-Life, when it comes to abortions, and anti-life when it comes to killing iraqi women and children. Perhaps, it based on the verse in the bible, when Jesus, said, **Think not that I come to send peace but a sword. **

People can interpret scripture however they like, but it doesn’t make all interpretations right, which is my point.

It doesn’t make every interpretation correct.

The interpreting of the Bible especially if it involves in doctrine is to be found in the Church Teaching Office, the Magisterium. Catholic Christians are clear on what the Church teaches. One very visible comprehensive teachings that any Catholic can refer to is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[TheSufi]

The interpreting of the Bible especially if it involves in doctrine is to be found in the Church Teaching Office, the Magisterium. Catholic Christians are clear on what the Church teaches. One very visible comprehensive teachings that any Catholic can refer to is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Well, perhaps that is ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world of human beings, who have personal desires, goals and outlooks, which sometime does not conform to that which is ideal. And thus people make incorrect interpretations, while still believing in Jesus to fulfill their personal desires, goals and outlooks.

And this gave birth to protestant Christianity.

And we too have protestant Muslims.

 

[jimkhong]

The interpreting of the Bible especially if it involves in doctrine is to be found in the Church Teaching Office, the Magisterium. Catholic Christians are clear on what the Church teaches. One very visible comprehensive teachings that any Catholic can refer to is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Reuben, If you expect theSufi to accept your understanding of what the Catholic authority says is the correct interpretation of the Biblical verse and not any other interpretation, why not accept what the Sufi’s understanding of what his Islamic authority says is the correct interpretation of the Quranic verse and not any other interpretation.

It is his scripture and it is up to him to interpret it.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben, If you expect theSufi to accept your understanding of what the Catholic authority says is the correct interpretation of the Biblical verse and not any other interpretation, why not accept what the Sufi’s understanding of what his Islamic authority says is the correct interpretation of the Quranic verse and not any other interpretation.

It is his scripture and it is up to him to interpret it.

I know, but thanks Jim. I told theSufi that his interpretation may be different from the Imams whom he said ignorant just because they interpret differently. I did not say his interpretation is wrong. My whole point was that the said Quran verse opens to various interpretations simply because the language of the verse is very obvious. We have to remember that the Quran is full of exhortations and usually the situation on how a verse is proclaimed is not included as the verses are arranged haphazardly (probably similar to the Bible Book of Proverbs). There are so many verses exhorting to be unfriendly to non-Muslims that it is difficult not to believe them.

A good example - even theSufi himself considers another poster to appear to be an enemy of Islam simply based of what he has been discussing and this would qualify this poster in theSufi’s interpretation as one who is not be a friend as the verse teaches.

 

[TheSufi]

A good example - even theSufi himself considers another poster to appear to be an enemy of Islam simply based of what he has been discussing and this would qualify this poster in theSufi’s interpretation as one who is not be a friend as the verse teaches.

Our religion isn’t taken from books. It is taken from the men who possess knowledge of our religion. I said “appears” because he openly attacks Islam but I would never act upon my personal interpretation, but rather I would ask a scholar if “so and so” should be considered an enemy.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, perhaps that is ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world of human beings, who have personal desires, goals and outlooks, which sometime does not conform to that which is ideal. And thus people make incorrect interpretations, while still believing in Jesus to fulfill their personal desires, goals and outlooks.

And this gave birth to protestant Christianity.

And we too have protestant Muslims.

Granted that there are different sects of Islam. Whose sect are the Imams who teach hatred of the non-Muslims based on their understanding of the Quran? Why do they come to this conclusion? Can you categorically say that they are wrong and have no basis whatsoever in their interpretation? Can you question the situation they experienced which gave rise for them to declare that a certain group became enemies of Islam?

What do you do with the enemy of Islam? What does the Quran tell you if a non-believer is an enemy of Islam? How does one becomes an enemy of Islam?

 

[TheSufi]

Granted that there are different sects of Islam. Whose sect are the Imams who teach hatred of the non-Muslims based on their understanding of the Quran?

There are different Christian sects as well. Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah Witnesses etc… So many Christian sects, and they don’t all interpret the bible the same.

Just as you don’t consider all these other sects to be correct, i do not consider those other sects to be correct either.

 

[TheSufi]

TheSufi, I am interested in your idea of a Protestant Islam arising out of a lack of education. Would the lack of education still be the case today? In my last employment, I worked for a Saudi senior RM (so, very educated and professional), conservative but not Wahabist. He and I had many interesting discussions on Islam and Islamic history. I found his hatred of Shia Farsis ostensibly justified by some website, etc - which means no evidence from a Western jurisprudence point of view.
.

Not easy to explain, in a few words.

 

[Reuben_J]

Our religion isn’t taken from books. It is taken from the men who possess knowledge of our religion. I said “appears” because he openly attacks Islam but I would never act upon my personal interpretation, but rather I would ask a scholar if “so and so” should be considered an enemy.

And which scholar would that be?

I am not trying to be argumentative nor do I am forcing you to say that you change your interpretation of the verse. I am merely saying that such verse is game for an alternative interpretation. From a non-Muslim perspective, you theSufi would probably the Muslims we prefer, but you by no means represent Islam as a whole. By the way, how big is your sect in proportion to the Islamic world? Even among the Sunnis, there are independent Imams who wield strong influence over Muslims and yet they are from the same Sunni sect.

I know this is an ugly topic which I would rather not discuss but then, here it is, in a thread and such hard talk and scrutiny can’t really be avoided if one really have to be honest about it and not just merely politically correct.