Islam - What's your view on it?

[Imari]

They both read the exact same holy book. The Quran. They just aren't agreeing on a couple of parts of the book.

No, my understanding is that they agree on the Quran. They disagree on hadith. You make it sound like the Quran is the whole religion, whereas there's actually a whole lot of supporting material that goes along with the Quran as well and that's what they disagree on.

This is not Christianity where there's just one book. Islam has far more material than that and in general applies far more discretion in using and interpreting what they do have.

They also disagree on the legitimate successors of Mohammed, which is the major source of the schism. The whole thing is rather more involved than simply disagreeing on a couple of part of one book.

You said pretty much the same, my approach is just a bit more blunt.

No, I didn't.

I don't agree with what you're saying, that people should abandon their beliefs, or find new ones. Don't lump me in with you, because I disagree.

I think that what you're suggesting directly violates the "don't be a dick" rule.

 

[Dennisch]

You make it sound like the Quran is the whole religion,

No, but it's the main thread in their lives. The Hadith is what came afterwards, and yes, a lot of the problems stem from the many variations of Hadith.

They also disagree on the legitimate successors of Mohammed, which is the major source of the schism.

And that comes from different interpretations of the Quran.

That is what I know from my inlaws. Full fledged, head scarf wearing, going to the Mosque, Turkish inlaws. They rarely use anything but the Quran. The other stories cause too much confusion amongst Muslims.

I think that what you're suggesting directly violates the "don't be a dick" rule

Because I disagree with your rose tinted solution I'm a dick?
I am very happy with my multicultural friends and family.
I am just very clear in my views on religion. They can't agree with each other, so why should I take it seriously?

 

[Imari]

Because I disagree with your rose tinted solution I'm a dick?
I am very happy with my multicultural friends and family.
I am just very clear in my views on religion. They can't agree with each other, so why should I take it seriously?

Lol. Suggesting that people simply don't be dicks to each other is rose-tinted, but suggesting that they should abandon their beliefs is totally reasonable, huh?

You can't have this both ways. You're either happy to accept your multicultural friends and family the way they are, or you think that they should give up their beliefs. The latter is a dick move if they're not hurting anyone.

You can think what you like, but I think that you're kind of a douche.

 

[Dennisch]

Lol. Suggesting that people simply don't be dicks to each other is rose-tinted, but suggesting that they should abandon their beliefs is totally reasonable, huh?

You can't have this both ways. You're either happy to accept your multicultural friends and family the way they are, or you think that they should give up their beliefs. The latter is a dick move if they're not hurting anyone.

You can think what you like, but I think that you're kind of a douche.

But I can, that's the benefit of being me. And unlike you, who should go to tumblr and stay there with his hurt feelings, my inlaws accept that there are people critical of their religion.
But it looks like that is something your brain can not comprehend.

And another thing. Learn to read. My suggestion was ON PAPER a great idea. Real world solutions rarely work out so that everyone is happy.

You are one of those annoying persons who screams racist, bigot, whatever, as soon as you encounter something that doesn't suit you, and start name calling. But in fact, you are just as narrow-minded as the average racist out there.

 

[Imari]

You are one of those annoying persons who screams racist, bigot, whatever, as soon as you encounter something that doesn't suit you, and start name calling. But in fact, you are just as narrow-minded as the average racist out there.

The irony is overwhelming.

 

[FoRiZon]

But I can, that's the benefit of being me. And unlike you, who should go to tumblr and stay there with his hurt feelings, my inlaws accept that there are people critical of their religion.
But it looks like that is something your brain can not comprehend.

And another thing. Learn to read. My suggestion was ON PAPER a great idea. Real world solutions rarely work out so that everyone is happy.

You are one of those annoying persons who screams racist, bigot, whatever, as soon as you encounter something that doesn't suit you, and start name calling. But in fact, you are just as narrow-minded as the average racist out there.

Question: Would you be also critical to other religions?

 

[Dennisch]

Question: Would you be also critical to other religions?

Of course.

 

[ToyGTone]

"Causin havoc and being brainwashed with being dicks to each other because of small difference"

First of all, there's much more difference than what you call it small.

Second, since when problems with.. let's say Saudi Arabia with Iran became religion related? Because based on what I have seen, it's not or at least (to be more realistic) not the main problem. It's more of politics or even racism.

I live in a country with both of these type of religions exist and I see that there's people who are friends to both of these Islam types or even part of their family's. Yes there are some who are being an annoying d:censored:s to each other because of that but doesn't mean every single one does that.

Thirdly, why would a single country law represent the whole region? Both Male and female have education here. Both of them are equally same. We have far less restrictive laws and rules compared to them...etc. as I said earlier, there are difference between this and that country. Government doesn't represent a religion...

Even if Saudi Arabia had crap rules, does it mean the citizens who are living there are okay with that?

 

[ECGadget]

"Causin havoc and being brainwashed with being dicks to each other because of small difference"

First of all, there's much more difference than what you call it small.

Second, since when problems with.. let's say Saudi Arabia with Iran became religion related? Because based on what I have seen, it's not or at least (to be more realistic) not the main problem. It's more of politics or even racism.

I live in a country with both of these type of religions exist and I see that there's people who are friends to both of these Islam types or even part of their family's. Yes there are some who are being an annoying d:censored:s to each other because of that but doesn't mean every single one does that.

Thirdly, why would a single country law represent the whole region? Both Male and female have education here. Both of them are equally same. We have far less restrictive laws and rules compared to them...etc. as I said earlier, there are difference between this and that country. Government doesn't represent a religion...

Even if Saudi Arabia had crap rules, does it mean the citizens who are living there are okay with that?

On that, I do recall one Imam of the grand mosque in Makkah being arrested for speaking against the government.

As for @Dennisch, I don't agree with everything he says but he is a good guy (right?) and as he answered, I believe he would be equally critical of any religion

 

[ToyGTone]

On that, I do recall one Imam of the grand mosque in Makkah being arrested for speaking against the government.

What I'm saying is, if a person got arrested just for speaking about the government (which's to me a really dumb reason to arrest that person), does it mean that the religion said to arrest or murder anyone who speak about government?

 

[ECGadget]

What I'm saying is, if a person got arrested just for speaking about the government (which's to me a really dumb reason to arrest that person), does it mean that the religion said to arrest or murder anyone who speak about government?

That's exactly the point I was making 👍

 

[mister dog]

You can think what you like, but I think that you're kind of a douche.

Nice going, someone has a different view than you and you resort to this kind of stuff. Bit childish don't you think?
Not the first time i see you doing this also.

 

[Imari]

Nice going, someone has a different view than you and you resort to this kind of stuff. Bit childish don't you think?

Maybe so, but a spade is a spade.

Look at it this way, Dennisch has attempted to lump me in with his views, assuming that his views and mine were near identical. I strongly disagreed, and so he flip-flopped to labelling my views as "rose-tinted".

Add to the fact that his view that the whole problem would be solved if only everyone thought the way he did is exactly one of the problems that I think is causing the most damage, and is why I replied in the first place. Of course, Dennisch missed that completely in assuming that I was simply copying him.

Everyone would be completely happy if everyone else just believed the same as them. If we all agreed with ISIS, then none of this would be a problem. Or if we all agreed with the Pope, or with the Scientologists. However, suggesting that people should give up their beliefs, which for many people are a fundamental part of who they are and how they define themselves, is a dick move. Especially when someone is specifically suggesting that people should give up their beliefs and join their own cause.

You know those guys that come up to you on the street and ask if you want to join Jesus? Dicks. Terrorists who threaten to kill anyone who doesn't join their belief? Massive dicks.

So yes, I'm a dick too for getting fed up with his 🤬 and snapping back. But seriously, 🤬 people who think that the solution is that everyone should become just like them. That's not a solution, not on paper, not in your mind, not anywhere.

People get to think what they like, which is why I phrased that particular insult the way that I did. Dennisch is welcome to think that the world would be a better place if everyone was a little Dennisch, and I'm welcome to think that it's a fairly horrible thing to think.

But then, I live in a country where the government actually took the native people's children away from them so that they could be raised into the ruling culture, with the intention of thereby suppressing and ultimately removing the perceived negative aspects of the native culture. I think that's :censored:ed up, and I have strong reactions against any suggestions that are even superficially similar.

 

[Touring Mars]

and I'm welcome to think that it's a fairly horrible thing to think.

Indeed you are, and saying so like this is fine - but saying so the way you did earlier i.e. by specifically calling someone 'kind of a douche' is not, so please remember that difference. Hopefully you can see the difference between criticizing a point of view and personal attacks... I don't think I need to say any more than that, but please don't let unnecessarily personal comments get in the way of a good debate.

 

[Dennisch]

@Imari

It's clear you missed, or misunderstood my points just as much as I apparently missed yours. You were clearly offended by my views, but that's your problem. Seeing that you think I'm a douche or a dick for not sharing your views makes it clear that we are done talking.

 

[LeMansAid]

I agree with you here. Let's run with the hijab and niqab example as you've used that one and it is a good one to run with. In Islam, through the teachings of Muhammad, it is encouraged for women (and even men actually to certain extents) to cover up. This much is true. However, in Islam that is never forced upon anyone. Fast forward a millenium and we see a time where this religious action turns into some cultural system in which males force females to wear a scarf and cover their faces. Do not do that and you are punished in some which way. This is not Islam, but to those who do not know (both Muslims and those who are not Muslim alike) this can easily be confused as Islam. It is at the end of the day to do with Muslims, and it is about an Islamic dress, so how can it not be? And it is from this that we end up with all these misconceptions, misdeeds and scaremongering. Sadly some of the scaremongering is from those who actually DO know better but just run with it.

Bringing that to what you say about actively seperating culture from religion, you're completely right. But this is starting, and has been becoming more active for a few years now. The issue however is that people tend to hold a lot of pride. And when they are told they are wrong, they do not like it and quite often fail to listen or even care. And until we can get through to those people, we're not going to be able to split culture and religion effectively enough. Don't get me wrong though. Islam says nothing about not having culture. Culture is important. But it is also important to stop cultural practises that are wrong, and make a clear definition between religion and culture.

At this point I doubt that the cultural and the religious will be disassociated without Muslims making clear gestures of clarification. Simply no longer wearing the "religious" garb for example will likely not get the job done. That's effectively merely saying to the world "Look, I've become westernised", when what's truly needed in helping to address Islam's image problem is an attitude and actions that say "Look, I've rid myself of false Islam".

It's started but it may take some time, especially when you have the likes of PM David Cameron spewing out things against Islam for who knows what reason.

That suggests a very low opinion of the wider Muslim population's ability to effectively compartmentalise. Even if it's not so often articulated as such, I think the "We will/will not do this, because they did that" approach from many Muslims is a big deal to a lot of non-Muslims. What David Cameron, or anyone else, says should have no bearing on the likelihood of the application of right and wrong, and the poorly concocted rationale can operate on many different levels - from the seemingly harmless and inconsequential, to the downright despicable and far reaching. As a people who are to some degree struggling to be seen as a coherent part of modern society, even the "seemingly harmless and inconsequential" versions should be banished wherever and whenever possible. You mentioned pride, and I think that is key here. There appears to be a tendency to stubbornly dig heels in over topics like the niqab, as a childish show of misguided defiance. Sadly, there is nothing to be won there, and it only serves to further alienate, and paint Muslims as unreasonable and out of step. Worse, the low level versions can readily be associated with militant Islamists - not in actions, but in attitude. Think about the "We will/will not do this, because they did that" some more.

 

[ECGadget]

At this point I doubt that the cultural and the religious will be disassociated without Muslims making clear gestures of clarification. Simply no longer wearing the "religious" garb for example will likely not get the job done. That's effectively merely saying to the world "Look, I've become westernised", when what's truly needed in helping to address Islam's image problem is an attitude and actions that say "Look, I've rid myself of false Islam".


That suggests a very low opinion of the wider Muslim population's ability to effectively compartmentalise. Even if it's not so often articulated as such, I think the "We will/will not do this, because they did that" approach from many Muslims is a big deal to a lot of non-Muslims. What David Cameron, or anyone else, says should have no bearing on the likelihood of the application of right and wrong, and the poorly concocted rationale can operate on many different levels - from the seemingly harmless and inconsequential, to the downright despicable and far reaching. As a people who are to some degree struggling to be seen as a coherent part of modern society, even the "seemingly harmless and inconsequential" versions should be banished wherever and whenever possible. You mentioned pride, and I think that is key here. There appears to be a tendency to stubbornly dig heels in over topics like the niqab, as a childish show of misguided defiance. Sadly, there is nothing to be won there, and it only serves to further alienate, and paint Muslims as unreasonable and out of step. Worse, the low level versions can readily be associated with militant Islamists - not in actions, but in attitude. Think about the "We will/will not do this, because they did that" some more.

Again, I agree for the most part here. I don't see any problem with someone wearing religious garb of any form of course, but the distinction of wearing it because they WANT to rather than what people believe in being FORCED to wear it needs to be made. Problematically, anyone who doesn't want to listen won't hear that people wear it because they want to and will only see oppression etc. Like you said, it's about ridding ourselves of a false Islam rather than just bending to the will of others and 'westernising'. Let's be honest though, westernising isn't wrong at all anyway. Part of being 'westernised' is to have that freedom to wear what you want. So choosing to wear a scarf is all good.

As for the second part, this is somewhat interesting. It isn't about what people say as, like you said, this should not have a bearing on the application of right and wrong. But it is something that alienates people. I mean I am sure Mr Cameron does things in what he believes to be the best interests of everyone, but for those who have little education in Islam (the possibility of those who convert to Islam crops up here, as well as those Muslims who may have grown up in rough areas of the UK where they need to be tough as nails to just avoid being beaten) words like that can start driving them towards wanting to take some form of action. It may not be going all out and joining ISIS, but they may do things like go and beat someone up who may have said something about Islam they don't like. Ironically, that would mean that they are going against Islam anyway but they do not know, or choose not to know, this. The whole 'eye for an eye' idiom comes into play here too, but in a very sad way. It's a shame more people don't know that the end of that is 'makes the world go blind'. And then of course there are other problems. We have people like Mr Hitchens who think they know Islam and talk about it by citing references to the Qur'an and whatever else they may find, not really bothering to try and understand it. And then you have people who just take the first search result on a search engine as their answers to everything and act from that, Muslim or not. I believe the Imams where I live have nicknamed the search engines 'Mufti Google' when it comes to people searching for things. This of course leads to more confusion and animosity between people to. Somehow we need to learn to live together and talk rationally. Not just you and I, or a percentage here and there, but the wider communities. Thankfully I have seen it happening in recent years, and I hope it continues where people stand together against danger of any form without prejudice towards anyone else.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@ECGadget where do you get that David Cameron spews out things against Islam? Every time I've seen him talk about ISIS etc, his view seems to be the opposite of that, clearly stating that they don't represent Islam or Muslims.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

@ECGadget where do you get that David Cameron spews out things against Islam? Every time I've seen him talk about ISIS etc, his view seems to be the opposite of that, clearly stating that they don't represent Islam or Muslims.

His handling of the proposed initiative to teach Muslim women english has been fairly clumsy, although no worse than that in my opinion (plus some of the backlash has been stretching it a bit). And I agree on ISIS, I've never heard him say anything different. @ECGadget I know Dave spews out plenty of things but I'd also like to know what you think is the Islam-specific spew

 

[ECGadget]

@Spurgy 777 @TRGTspecialist sorry, I should have been a little clearer. Some of the comments he says are (and I am sure he does not mean them that way) perceived to be against Islam. A notable example was the one about the Muslim women etc. He could have said about women in general as we have loads of Polish, Chinese, Indian, African of all religions who live in the UK with poor English who should equally have been mentioned. Just to note, I agree that all people in the UK should learn English to a degree, so Mr Cameron is right about the education. It was just the way in which he handled it that could be perceived in that way.

 

[Dennisch]

Rouhani visits Italy.

I'll admit. That smile on his face made me giggle.

 

[Blitz24]

While I understand that his religion doesn't allow for those kind of images isn't it a bit ridiculous for Italy to bend over backwards to accommodate to him?

 

[Dennisch]

While I understand that his religion doesn't allow for those kind of images isn't it a bit ridiculous for Italy to bend over backwards to accommodate to him?

It is. He is the visitor. He is the one that should respect the culture.

 

[Blitz24]

It is. He is the visitor. He is the one that should respect the culture.

Which is a big problem. If the tables were turned he wouldn't do the same for Westerners visiting his country.

He's more likely to have them arrested for even suggesting it so why are we catering to an individual who doesn't respect others?

 

[Dennisch]

Which is a big problem. If the tables were turned he wouldn't do the same for Westerners visiting his country.

He's more likely to have them arrested for even suggesting it so why are we catering to an individual who doesn't respect others?

Because European politicians like to bend over and receive.

Edit.

I'm sure someone will burst into the thread and tell us we're wrong for thinking like that.

 

[Blitz24]

Because European politicians like to bend over and receive.

Edit.

I'm sure someone will burst into the thread and tell us we're wrong for thinking like that.

Reciprocity needs to be adhered to in this case. If one side refuses to honor the other then the other side is being played.

 

[LeMansAid]

Again, I agree for the most part here. I don't see any problem with someone wearing religious garb of any form of course, but the distinction of wearing it because they WANT to rather than what people believe in being FORCED to wear it needs to be made. Problematically, anyone who doesn't want to listen won't hear that people wear it because they want to and will only see oppression etc. Like you said, it's about ridding ourselves of a false Islam rather than just bending to the will of others and 'westernising'. Let's be honest though, westernising isn't wrong at all anyway. Part of being 'westernised' is to have that freedom to wear what you want. So choosing to wear a scarf is all good.

Motivations for wearing the niqab, etc. will be complex. Given the opportunity to not wear it after having been forced to, a woman may feel disproportionately exposed without the clothing, due to conditioning. There would also be the distinct possibility of women wanting to make a statement in defiance of Islam's detractors by choosing to kit up. Neither of those motivations would indicate a genuine want, and I doubt that too many women would choose to wear these garments without external and/or unusual forces at play. Susan Carland, wife of Australian modern Muslim poster boy Waleed Aly, wears a hijab - and I very much wonder why. She presents as the face (pardon the pun) of progressive Islamic women, but has described the motives of Muslim women wearing the hijab as "A positive expression of their spirituality", and has said "It helps them feel closer to their Creator". That, for me, is pseudo-religious nonsense that ultimately creates separation (from non-Muslims) for separation's sake. That, at it's core it's "I'm doing this, because they're doing that" - an act of thinly veiled (pardon the pun again) defiance against those that have and do deride the wearing of the attire, and the religion as a whole. I think she and others should be saying "Wear it if you want, but know that there is nothing inherently Islamic about it", and stop the little defiance games.

Nothing at all wrong with westernisation, I was just saying that merely blending in to a western environment doesn't provide any cue cards to clarify the lies that conflate culture and religion. Both forms of change are good, but there's added value to active vs passive progression, and people in the public eye have all the more power that they could wield in fighting directly FOR Islam instead of AGAINST it's knockers.

As for the second part, this is somewhat interesting. It isn't about what people say as, like you said, this should not have a bearing on the application of right and wrong. But it is something that alienates people.

That but is a problem for me. As was the but and particularly the especially in "It's started but it may take some time, especially when you have the likes of PM David Cameron spewing out things against Islam for who knows what reason". Sure, it's recognising the realism of the challenges, but it's also validating pointless defiance. It's not that the but's not justified, it's just that it's not helpful.

 

[ECGadget]

Motivations for wearing the niqab, etc. will be complex. Given the opportunity to not wear it after having been forced to, a woman may feel disproportionately exposed without the clothing, due to conditioning. There would also be the distinct possibility of women wanting to make a statement in defiance of Islam's detractors by choosing to kit up. Neither of those motivations would indicate a genuine want, and I doubt that too many women would choose to wear these garments without external and/or unusual forces at play. Susan Carland, wife of Australian modern Muslim poster boy Waleed Aly, wears a hijab - and I very much wonder why. She presents as the face (pardon the pun) of progressive Islamic women, but has described the motives of Muslim women wearing the hijab as "A positive expression of their spirituality", and has said "It helps them feel closer to their Creator". That, for me, is pseudo-religious nonsense that ultimately creates separation (from non-Muslims) for separation's sake. That, at it's core it's "I'm doing this, because they're doing that" - an act of thinly veiled (pardon the pun again) defiance against those that have and do deride the wearing of the attire, and the religion as a whole. I think she and others should be saying "Wear it if you want, but know that there is nothing inherently Islamic about it", and stop the little defiance games.

Nothing at all wrong with westernisation, I was just saying that merely blending in to a western environment doesn't provide any cue cards to clarify the lies that conflate culture and religion. Both forms of change are good, but there's added value to active vs passive progression, and people in the public eye have all the more power that they could wield in fighting directly FOR Islam instead of AGAINST it's knockers.




That but is a problem for me. As was the but and particularly the especially in "It's started but it may take some time, especially when you have the likes of PM David Cameron spewing out things against Islam for who knows what reason". Sure, it's recognising the realism of the challenges, but it's also validating pointless defiance. It's not that the but's not justified, it's just that it's not helpful.

They are definitely complex reasons, especially for those who were once forced, there is no doubt about that. But the headscarf and niqab IS a part of Islam, just not when it is forced upon someone. Now if someone wears a scarf as a fashion statement then of course they are missing the point, or wear one and say walk around in a skimpy top or minimini skirt etc. The idea behind it (puns galore) is as Ms Carland said, it's about expression of spirituality but for each person it is an individual thing. Same as people wearing the islamic dress etc. I don't wear an Islamic dress except at a funeral, or going to the mosque on friday or stuff like that, and that is my choice. If someone questioned me about that, I'd tell them straight it is my choice. Which is what the Muslim women need to do.


Moving onto the second part, I disagree again, being in the community here it does alienate people. Now that does not mean people should use that as an excuse, because of course it is not. Mr Cameron is not a bad guy. He sometimes says things that alienate, other times he says things that bring communities together. But neither of them should affect how a Muslim behaves. They should be an example whether people embrace or alienate them. But I agree that it is not helpful. Buts are only helpful when you need to sit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I doubt that too many women would choose to wear these garments without external and/or unusual forces at play.

That's true of most women's clothing in one extent or another, no?

FOR Islam instead of AGAINST it's knockers.

Nothing wrong with knockers

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's true of most women's clothing in one extent or another, no?



Nothing wrong with knockers

Only a slight difference between choosing which pair of pants or which skirt or which blouse to wear VS whether or not to cover yourself head to toe voluntarily.