But is it not an act of condoning the disbeliever when the decision is not forced upon the non-religious?

What do u mean by condoning? That the disbelievers will still be going to the same heaven as you?

None of the abrahamaic religions subscribe to this as far as I know.

But islam and judaism don't have a great machine for missionary work as christians do. I see alot of destitute people here in east africa convert to christianity or being reborn as 'saved christians' in exchange for material well-being, but no destitute muslim have yet converted, they seem to have a greater sense of solidarity in the community and ritual of life.

I mean by simply watching and not doing anything about it.

^ The muslims we know are doing just that, doing no missionary work whatsover on the disbelievers.

You hear from the media or forum sites like these, sensational stories about atrocious punishments meted out to disbelievers or apostates in the name of islam. Whilst we should not doubt the veracity of these incidents, it is by no means an indictment of the religion of islam as being one of the sword, and not of the letters. Call me an appeaser or a dhimmi, but the truth is, in my society, we live side-by-side muslims. And we do not allow freedom of speech to come into the political-social sphere as to stir up communal religious hatred. Islamophobia is something that must not be fanned by the bigots amongst us. We are no longer living in the paradigm of the Dark Ages, but a society where our increasing inter-connectedness is gonna have to force us to find spheres where we live in open understanding and peace, not under fears and phobia.

There are irate groups of muslims who view themselves as being repressed in an unjust society (be it in Southern Thailand or Saudi arabia or the Palestine or the streets of Paris) who are currently taking out their frustrations in anger as anti-christian jihadists of the medieval age, but they are by no means representative of the ordinary muslims I know and live with who live work eat sleep and play juz like you and me. I still say that more talk about trade and less talk about religious differences is what will get us ahead. So folks who indulge in religious doctrines to prove an anti-religion stance are trolls, or worse, bigots without realizing it themselves.

tangawizi, regarding destiny.

Imaam Ali said what means: It is a matter between 2 matters - not jabr and not tafweeD.

jabr = having no will

tafweeD = having a will which is not under the will of anyone.


So regarding destiny, the person has a will which is under the Will of God, as mentioned in the Qur'aan in Surat at-Takweer, Verse 29 which means: [You do not will anything except by the will of Allaah, the Lord of the worlds.]

Ahlussunnah believe exactly what Imaam Ali said.

The person's actions are voluntary - meaning he directs his intention towards them in order to do them. He is not a feather which is moved by the wind. The person's deeds are voluntary -Unlike what jabr says.

Those who believe in jabr are rejected and those who believe in tafweeD are rejected. Both these extremes contradict the basics of the beliefs of Muslims and a Muslim must stay where Imaam Ali indicated destiny is.

There are many other proofs for this, some I mentioned in one of the posts replying to nomad and I also have other proofs.

If you would like to carry on with the topic of destiny I would be happy to show you what I have of information.

But note that the topic of destiny refers to the person not being a table or a feather -God creates will in him. It does not refer to whether or not he can be forced or encouraged by another human to do something.


As for sufism, there are sufis and sufi claimers.

Here is some info:


INTRODUCTION

Sufism is very much a part of the Religion of Islam. Indeed, the leader of all the Sufis was Prophet Muhammad, who was sent by Allah to teach the people the matters which, if performed and practiced in the proper way, would lead to their success in this life and in the Hereafter. Unfortunately, many things which are in fact contradictory to the teachings of the Prophet are today labeled Sufism. There are some, who under the guise of being Sufis, spread falsehood and misguidance and dare to label it Sufism. On the other hand, there are groups, like the Wahhabis and those who follow them, who categorically deny Sufism and claim it is not even a part of the Religion.

It is our intention to shed light on the methodology of the true Sufis and encourage others to follow their path while exposing those fakes, the "Sufi-claimers," and warning against their misguidance.....

For more information and to read on please visit the following link:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...UFICLAIMERS.htm

When I said what I said I was referring to both immediate and later punishment.



Are you saying that you refuse to tell such people that what they are doing is wrong and try to stop them when they do something wrong?

Don't you protect your loved ones from evil people when those people try to harm them?



Not only is the evil-doer guilty, but the one who is silent about it when he is able to prevent it is also in the wrong.

Many times people get away with the evil they do in this life.

The Day of Judgement is the day of Justice.



When you see someone doing something evil to others, e.g. stealing their money - even if it is not your money that is being stolen, you should feel threatened. As long as you allow evil ideologies, they will be able to spread and get you eventually.

For example, allowing such people as bin laaden to propagate their incorrect methodologies leads the evil to spread. It does not make sense to allow such people as bin laaden to have a voice in society because that will lead to the community's destruction - just as it was destroyed by hitler and pinochet.




It IS an obligation upon all the accountable persons to embrace the Religion of Islaam.

That means if they do not and then die on that state they will be punished for not fulfilling that obligation.

I can not force someone to become Muslim, I can only encourage them.

If I am able to force them to do what is better for them then I would.

For example, in government, people are forced to abandon drug use and prostitution. This force is because the government has the power to force - and this is in the interest of the betterment of the people.

Hence meaning there is no such thing as "no compulsion for religious beliefs". THEREFORE contradicting with 2:256.

No because I said if the threat is clearly present then I will act.

"I have no jurisdiction and responsibility over someone else's thoughts UNTIL the ACTIONS commited by that individual (or expected actions) begin to threaten my own physical and mental state"
Is that clear?

There's no implication here about anybody condoning an act of destruction or evil.

Which is why I said I will be compelled to challenge anything that threatens my well-being. What you highlighted concerns with our knowledge and awareness about the environment, an ignorant person who is unable to see the threat will obviously be accused of reckless conduct by a more informed group of individuals. So do you disagree with the fact that indeed I SHOULD have the right to enforce other people's personal beliefs and customs? Because that's basically my point. If you have concerns with it, BE SPECIFIC about where/what exactly do you find erroneous. For example, do you have a problem with the description on the laws of nature (survival), or something else? Say it then I will address you in more efficient terms.


I think you haven't fully grasped my point. In your example, if Hitler's evil theory of domination was diverted or prevented from widespread distribution, then it can be thus considered as an act of nature with which a backward mentality is discarded by the social rejection of the idea. But the ISSUE here is about acquiring the appropriate WISDOM for recognizing the bad idea in the first place. By the time Hitler's forces had gained significant ground in public support, it was already too late. Meaning, individual resistance or challenge to the Nazi body would have been met with swift isolation and subsequent termination. Same thing as with Bin Laden. If Bin Laden's followers had acquired the WISDOM to see through the flaws of their own judgement, then they would ALMOST be gurranteed to abandon his preachings. Once an individual recognises the lack of efficiency and worth in what they are doing.... that is the key. No one WANTS to allow Bin Laden having a strong public voice. However those who support the man differ only through their wisdom and knowledge, ie the productivity of their ideas.


So you are trying to draw parallels with non-believers as drug addicts or prostitutes in the context of believers being hailed as the general norm?

And how old was your grandfather at time of marriage? In his 50s?

====
Yadda yadda yadda...If life in the West is so morally terrible, then why aren't we converting in droves?

====
We can such men pedophiliacs. You would call them 'husbands' if all they have to do is marry the child.

====
Real world examples please. And in a consistent pattern at that.

Absolutely not. As it is, I am a freer man than he living under under a theocracy. I value civil liberties and basic human rights more than I do money. And by the way, Bill Gates, without the assistance of Allah, at one time, has an estimated worth more than the foreign cash reserves of Saudi Arabia.

====
Simply having access to education is not enough. This is women under Islam if male Islamists have their way...



This is what women in the secular West can be...



I doubt that Lt. Col. Eilleen Collins, COMMANDER of STS-93, will be converting anytime soon.

====
No problems at all. If you want to see women as little more than semenal wastebaskets, you are free to do so. I am just calling it as it really is.

====
Aisha's age can be disputed. But that is not the main point, which is that despite what you claim, as applied, Islam is not very good for women.

====
Who says you have to?

Prostitution? What about muta? I call that prostitution, muslims call it 'marriage'. A mockery if there ever was one.

====
Youngster, your line is even more stale considering the fact that much of what you enjoys from the secular West, such as the computer and the Internet you are using, has Western women's signatures all over it. We are not perfect, but our societies are much more conducive for women to achieve than yours are.

====
If that is the best 'logic' you have, then it is no wonder that the Islamic world has not produce anything scientifically significant for nearly a thousand years.

====
YAAAAWWWWNNNNN.....

====
I can accept any religious FACT of whoever worships what. If Allah exists, prove it. Otherwise, what is FACT is only that you believe that Allah exists, not that Allah does exists.

====
So what if they are rejected. Can you prove they do not exists, other than the UNSUPPORTED claim and circular logic that they do not exists?

====
More mindless conspiracy nonsense.

And what does that nonsensical answer has to do with my comment above?

====
And what are you muslims doing here, if not 'missionary' and propagandist work? Looks like someone just cannot handle being challenged.

====
What is 'lame' here is your answer. Here is what samsparky effectively called nonmuslims back on page 19...Like I said, muslims, like the typical religionists, gave themselves the divine right to call nonbelievers anything they wish.

====
Who created men? Nature and evolution did.




====
And I had a few beers with the angel Gabriel a couple years ago and the dude told me he never met Muhammad. Ever.

====
Of course tangawizi is not 'evil' since she pretty much threw out critical thinking and cowardly backed down whenever a muslim acted offended. If challenging your religious beliefs qualifies a person as 'evil', then you would be justified in joining Osama bin Laden. Get to it, young man. Your jihad awaits.

====
Avoiding the question because it is too tough, I see. Assuming that an almighty creator exists for now, if this being created something (H20 molecule) that can exists in 3 different physical states, then who are you to place a limitation on this being? I can say that if you cannot answer this question, that would make the Christian Triune God the true God by default. You have a physical body, an intellect possible by your brain and something you called a 'soul' that cannot be seen or heard. So why is it impossible for an almighty being to have 3 or even more forms, physical or not?

====
And where have I ever, in this discussion, said samsparky or anyone else 'evil' and that she and they are going to hell?

====
If all I have is ramblings, then it should not be much of an effort for you to discredit me, correct? And yet so far, I am unimpressed. And why should I go there? What make you think I have never been there? And why should I leave this forum for you to go unchallenged?

My sentence was actually about the explanation of 2:256 - I was explaining that it does not refer to no compulsion for Religious beliefs in general - but rather as explained by those who carry the explanation of the Qur'aan from the chain of knowledge that goes back to the Prophet's time, the no compulsion is about a specific person and that is the christian or jew who agrees to pay the jizyah to the caliph (when one is present).



So in other words you are a mute devil watching injustice around you while you are able to speak up and make a difference - but only speaking for your OWN benefit and no one else's --------> selfish! is THAT clear?



By saying you will be silent about all injustices except those that harm you directly you are condoning all acts of evil that are not done to you.



I am saying that yes - when you see someone believing or doing the wrong thing you should not be a silent devil, you need to try and fix it even if it does not have anything to do with your own selfish desires to survive and only survive and help no one else. Your self-centered mentality leads me to think maybe you don't care about anyone except yourself. Did you have a hard life or something? need counselling?



It wasn't rejected by everyone - so are you saying those who did not reject it were ok to do so. Many people died on the hands of hitler - did nature bring them back?

These untied ends and unjust acts that hitler did not pay for - The Day of Judgement is coming where the true justice will be served.



If the Nazi body wanted out then there would be no nazi body to terminate them. The nazi body was in by choice because they accepted the evil ideologies. Their choice does not make it ok.



And so the people who have the knowledge and wisdom should tell those in the wrong that they are in the wrong.



Actually, I did not mention non-believers. A believer who commits sins might commit one of those and must be forced to avoid drugs and prostitution if there is a situation where we are able to stop him or her for his or her own good.

Now I will mention non-believers. In contrast with sinful Muslims, non-believers - those who refuse to acknowledge their own Creator Who gave them everything - will dwell in hellfire forever if they die on this state. So, for their own good, they should be advised to believe in the Creator so they would not end up in Everlasting Hellfire.

7 days - more than 550 views and yet No one else feels I need to explain something

alHamdu lillaah

On to our topic



________________________________________

Allah made it obligatory upon every Muslim to fast the month of Ramadan.

Allah, ta^ala, said in the Qur’an:



Ya ayyuha-lladhina amanu kutiba ^alaykumus-siyam.

Ayah 183 of Suratul-Baqarah means: {He (Allah) made fasting obligatory upon you.}

Fasting the month of Ramadan was made obligatory during the month of Sha^ban in the second year after the immigration.

Fasting the month of Ramadan is a great obligation and among the most important matters of Islam. The Muslims look forward to this month because it is the month of goodness, obedience, and blessings. It is also the best month of the year, and in it is the best night of the year, that is, the Night of Qadr.

Fasting is abstaining from anything that invalidates the fast during the day, along with having made the intention during the night. It is an obligation upon every pubescent, sane, and able Muslim to fast. However, it is not valid from the menstruating and postpartum-bleeding women.

Fasting has two integrals:

1- The intention in the heart every day. One intends in his heart, for example: "I intend to fast tomorrow to fulfil the obligation of fasting Ramadan this year, faithfully and seeking the reward from Allah.”

The time of the intention is from sunset until the Fajr prayer begins.

2- To abstain from anything that invalidates fasting, from the appearance of the true dawn to the sunset.


The invalidators of the fast are many. Among them:

1- Eating, even if as little as a sesame seed and drinking, even if one drop of water or medicine, while remembering that one is fasting.

2- Droplets in the nose or ear invalidate the fasting if the medicine reaches the cavity of the body. Likewise, the enema, and penile and vaginal douche. The eye drop, on the other hand, does not invalidate the fast. Similarly, hypodermic, intramuscular, and intravenous injections do not invalidate fasting.

3- Losing consciousness (e.g. fainting) for the whole day from Fajr to sunset. Also, losing sanity even for one moment.

4- Vomiting: Placing one's finger or what is similar down one’s throat to cause oneself to vomit invalidates the fast. If one involuntarily vomits and does not swallow any of it, then one’s fasting is not invalidated.

5- Apostasy of any type: beliefs, actions, or sayings.

Whoever invalidates his fast by eating, drinking, or intentional vomiting is sinful. He is also obligated to make up the invalidated days immediately after Ramadan and the ^Id day. However, he is not obligated to pay money to the poor Muslims as expiation.

Note:

It is unlawful (haram) to fast the two days of ^Idul-Fitr and ^Idul-Ad-ha, and the three days after ^Idul Ad-ha, known as the days of Tashriq.

Supplication:


Allahumma laka sumtu wa^ala rizqika aftart.

Which means: O Allah, I fasted seeking your reward, and by your sustenance I break my fast.

Also, when he broke his fast the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, used to say:


Dhahabadh-dhama’u wabtallatil-^uruqu wathabatal-ajru insha’ Allah.

Which means: “The thirst is gone. My veins are dampened and the reward has been earned, by Allah's will.”

(Related by Abu Dawud.)

Revision Questions & Answers:

1. What month did Allah make it obligatory to fast?

Allah made it obligatory upon every Muslim to fast the month of Ramadan.

2. State an ayah that indicates that it is obligatory to fast.

Ayah 183 of Suratul-Baqarah means: {He (Allah) made fasting obligatory upon you.}

3. When did Allah reveal the obligation of fasting?

Fasting the month of Ramadan was made obligatory during the month of Sha^ban in the second year after the immigration.

4. What is fasting?

Fasting is abstaining from anything that invalidates the fast during the day, along with having made the intention during the night.

5. Who is obligated to fast?

It is an obligation upon every pubescent, sane, and able Muslim to fast. However, it is not valid from the menstruating and postpartum-bleeding women.

6. What are the integrals of fasting?

Fasting has two integrals:

1- The intention in the heart every day.
2- To abstain from anything that invalidates fasting, from the appearance of the true dawn to the sunset.

7. When is the time of the intention? What does the one who wants to fast intend?

The time of the intention is from sunset until the Fajr prayer begins. One intends in his heart, for example: "I intend to fast tomorrow to fulfil the obligation of fasting Ramadan this year, faithfully and seeking the reward from Allah.”

8. List some of the invalidators of fasting.

The invalidators of the fast are many. Among them:

1-Eating, even if as little as a sesame seed and drinking, even if one drop of water or medicine, while remembering that one is fasting.

2-Droplets in the nose or ear invalidate the fasting if the medicine reaches the cavity of the body. Likewise, the enema, and penile and vaginal douche.

3-Losing consciousness (e.g. fainting) for the whole day from Fajr to sunset. Also, losing sanity even for one moment.

4-Vomiting intentionally: Placing one's finger or what is similar down one’s throat to cause oneself to vomit invalidates the fast.

5-Apostasy of any type.

9. What are the days in which it is unlawful (haram) to fast?

It is unlawful (haram) to fast the two days of ^Idul-Fitr and ^Idul-Ad-ha, and the three days after ^Idul Ad-ha, known as the days of Tashriq.

For more detailed information about the above topics please visit the thread:
http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php...19.new.html#new

Because you have been dismissed as having nothing new to say except to parrot standard muslim propaganda.

You are the mr propaganda who repeats posting of his same old pictures - just like the media - to give people misleading ideas and ill-educated, misunderstood stories.

Because of people like you, misunderstanding occurs.


And you are the only person who tried to say why no one else questioned my answers to you. An expected
answer from a loser.

Anyone want to tell us why they didn't have any questions? Was I the one posting to myself and ignoring everyone else's statements? or was nomad?

ZAKAH OF FITR

The Zakah of Fitr is due on every Muslim who is alive part of Ramadan and part of Shawwal. The due Zakah for each is a sa^ or four times the fill of two cupped, average-sized hands of the most common staple food of that country. It is an obligation upon the Muslim to pay the due Zakah for himself and his Muslim dependents if on the day of the Feast of Fitr (^Id-ul-Fitr) and the night after it he has enough to meet his debts, clothing, lodging, and sustenance, and the sustenance of those whom he must support.

The man must pay for his wife, his non-pubescent children, his slaves, and his poor Muslim parents. He may not pay for his pubescent children or solvent parents without their permission. It is permissible to pay the Zakat of Fitr any time during Ramadan, even the first night, however, it is recommended to pay the Zakat during the day of the Feast, and before the prayer of the ^Id, because this mends the hearts of the poor people before the prayer. It is prohibited to prolong spending the Zakah of Fitr until after the sunset of the day of the Feast without an excuse.

________________________________________

RECIPIENTS OF ZAKAH

For all types of Zakah, the intention is obligatory upon setting one's Zakah aside. Zakah must be paid to the Muslims among the eight categories of people deserving of Zakah mentioned explicitly in the Qur’an.

It is neither permissible nor valid to pay Zakah to other than those eight types of people specifically mentioned; that is why it is not valid to pay Zakah for every charitable project.

Integrals of Fasting

To make a specific intention to fast the following day

The Prophet said:

من لم يبيت الصيام قبل الفجر فلا صيام له

"The fasting of a person is not accepted if one does not have the intention before dawn to fast the following day"

To abstain from:

1. Sexual intercourse

2. Masturbation

3. Inducing vomit

4. Apostasy

5. And inserting any substance into the head or the body cavity through an open inlet.


Invalidating the fasting of one day of Ramadan by engaging in sexual intercourse without an excuse is sinful. One must make it up immediately, and fulfill an expiation which comprises of:

-To free a Muslim slave
-If unable to fast 2 consecutive months
-If unable to feed 60 poor Muslims, each 1 handful of wheat or the most common staple food in that town


Types of Apostasy

Apostate beliefs
Apostate actions
Apostate sayings


1. Apostate beliefs

Examples:

-To have the doubt in Allah, His messenger, the Qur’an, the day of judgment,

-To ascribe to Allah what is known by necessity does not befit Him such as being a body

-Intending to blaspheme in the future


2. Apostate actions

Such as:

-Prostrating to an idol, the sun, the moon, or the devil.

-Throwing the Holy Qur’an in the garbage.

-Wearing the religious attire specific to the blasphemers


3. Apostate Sayings

Such as to say:

-something happened without the destining of Allah.

-I do not acknowledge Allah, the Angles, the Prophet, the Qur’an, the Islamic law, or Islam.

-to cuss a Prophet or an angel


Important Remarks

-Swallowing one’s pure (tahir) saliva while in the mouth is permissible

-One’s fasting is valid as long as one does not become insane, even if it were for a moment, and if one does not lose consciousness the whole day.

-Before breaking the fast, one has to make sure that the sun has set.

-Lustful kissing, gossiping, tale bearing, lustful looking, and lying do not invalidate the fast. Committing any of these sins against a Muslim take away the reward of fasting.


Recommended Acts


-For the person who is fasting to say upon breaking the fast:

"O Allah, I have fasted fulfilling your order and seeking your reward and I broke my fast with the sustenance You provided. My thirst is gone, my veins are moist and by Your Will, I will be rewarded for my fasting."


-When breaking the fast at someone else's place, it is Sunnah to make du^a for that person by saying

"May Allah grant you the reward of giving a meal to a fasting person to break the fast, may the pious people eat at your house, and may the Angels make du^a for you."

Let's post some views of muslims around the world who have made an impact and contribution towards integrating islam with modernist thoughts and political systems. Here's the first one from King Hussein of Jordan who passed away some years unfortunately, but who with his direct lineage to the Prophet could have been a voice of leadership not just in the arab world but muslim world:

---

This interview, which appeared as the final chapter in a book about modern Islamic trends and movements, provides an in-depth look at King Hussein’s conception of Islam. The interviewer takes particular interest in the views of King Hussein because he is a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and has fashioned Jordan into a Muslim country that is a model of tolerance and democracy.

In the interview, His Majesty stresses the need for Islam to adapt to today’s world through ijtihad, the process of reinterpreting the Qur’an (the Muslim holy book) and hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) for modern usage. When asked about Islamic extremism, the King replies that the leaders of these movements are using a distorted version of Islam to deceive the young, who are idealistic and desperate from oppression and lack of opportunity. True Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

This interview is particularly interesting because His Majesty offers a rare description of his level of personal piety, and gives his opinion on controversial issues including the Salman Rushdie case and the role of women in Islam. Also noteworthy are His Majesty’s comments about the Hashemite line of succession after himself and his brother, Crown Prince El Hassan.





On August 6, 1997, I interviewed King Hussein in the royal palace in Amman. The slim, dark-haired youth who was crowned forty-five years ago had emerged into a solidly built man, wearing a patriarchal, snow-white beard. The King underwent surgery for cancer five years before but has since been pronounced cured. At our meeting he looked extremely fit. We spoke at the end of a long working day, and he was dressed in jeans and a short-sleeved plaid shirt. Having stopped smoking, the King sucked on hard candies as he talked.

The following are excerpts from the interview:

Milton Viorst: What was the role of your forebears, the Hashemites of Mecca, during the centuries since the death of the Prophet?

King Hussein: My forebears were always the keepers of the holy flame in Mecca and Medina. But their great role in Arab history was to connect with the yearnings of the Arab people to lead the Arab Revolt, a reaction against the Turks who were trying to destroy Arab identity. Their objectives were unity and freedom, and a chance for the Arabs to take a place alongside other nations.

Milton Viorst: Do you, as a Hashemite, retain a role in Mecca and Medina?

King Hussein: No, sir, I have no role to play except that of a Muslim in a Muslim world. My family gave up a lot, losing their place in the holy cities, in the struggle for the Arab people. What happened after the Arab Revolt was a big price for them to pay. But now I'm a Jordanian, and I'm trying my very best to make this country a positive example in the Arab world.

Milton Viorst: Sharif Hussein's goal was also to form a united Arab state. Is that vision lost forever?

King Hussein: I believe that the Arab world is never going to be a united nation, as had been hoped in the Arab Revolt, but something in a more modern context, similar to Europe. It is the only way. We have developed within each part of the Arab world our own identities, and unity in the future must be a unity of sovereign equals.

Milton Viorst: Have you shifted your family's sense of proprietary responsibility to Jerusalem?

King Hussein: My family was involved in Jerusalem from the time that the Arab Revolt and the Sykes-Picot agreement and all the other surprises tragically took place, leading to Sharif Hussein's being exiled in Cyprus and eventually coming over here and passing away.

Milton Viorst: Do the Hashemites have a responsibility there now?

King Hussein: Yes, the responsibility to ensure that anything that can be done, will be done to bring an end to the unfortunate struggle that has been the history of the children of Abraham. I think that Jerusalem should become the symbol of peace between the followers of the three basic monotheistic religions. It should be above the sovereignty of any country or the control of any side. Jerusalem, east and west, could become the capital of both Palestinians and Israelis. It could be two capitals. It could be whatever they choose in the future. But we will always have ties with Jerusalem. My great-grandfather was buried there. My grandfather fell there. Jerusalem is as important to us as any of the holiest sites in the Muslim world. Solving the problem of Jerusalem will symbolize the coming together of the children of Abraham, and until this happens we will do our duty, to help and push in that direction.

Milton Viorst: Does that mean you consider yourself, as a Hashemite, a link between Jews and Arabs, the children of Abraham?

King Hussein: To look back on my family heritage is one thing, but to think of the realities of the day is more important. Of course, I'm drawn to a very large extent to this heritage and I'm proud of it, but the difference between success and failure in the world or today is clear thinking and ideas, and ideals that people can gravitate around. So rather than talk of statues to the past, all of us, including myself, should put all our efforts into the future of the generations to come. This is my philosophy.

Milton Viorst: Do you, do the Hashemites, have responsibility for leadership of Arabs beyond the borders of Jordan?

King Hussein: I've stood for what I believe is for the best interests of Jordan, and also for the whole region. But I don’t know about leadership. The Hashemites have a duty to supranational service but not in the sense of acquiring control. Nor do I seek it. I think that those who have sought that kind of control have brought enough damage to the Arab world. I believe that the Arab people themselves can decide what they want.

Milton Viorst: What is the condition of the Arab community in our times?

King Hussein: It is fragmented, no doubt about that. It is fragmented by religious belief and along nationalistic lines. But we are all Arabs, and we have the same language, so there is much that unites us. We must concentrate more on repairing relations between peoples than relations between leaders and governments.

Milton Viorst: Can Arabs be twenty nations and one people

King Hussein: I suppose we can and should be. But I don’t think that we can be described as one people at this stage, when we have no central control.

Milton Viorst: But, after the Prophet’s era, there never was central control.

King Hussein: That’s true. But it was a far more coherent society then.

Milton Viorst: Can't you do anything to make it more coherent now?

King Hussein: I think of myself as someone who has tried to identify with the aspirations of the Arab people and to guide them to a collective life that makes sense. Most of us are Muslims and, as a devout Muslim, I am troubled by much in the Arab world that is portrayed as Islam or Islamic. In fact, I get very irritated when I see so many distortions of Islam carried out in the name of Islam. It is a problem I’m trying to do something about.

Milton Viorst: What traditional Arab values do you consider vital to preserve?

King Hussein: We still have many sound tribal values—chivalry, hospitality, courage, shame—but they are changing, in some cases sadly, as we open up to the rest of the world.

Milton Viorst: What values might it be useful to shed?

King Hussein: When ijtihad—the possibility of reconciling faith and present-day life—stopped a long time ago, that was the beginning of a very sad deterioration that has continued over the years and has opened the way to all sorts of fringe movements and splits. We need to do whatever we can to repair that mistake. I am trying to get the leading figures in the Muslim world who have the minds and the faith and the vision to come together to reaffirm the moderation of Islam. Islam is called wasatiya, which means "centralist." This is in the Quran. It is where we should be now.

Milton Viorst: Don't the fundamentalists say that theirs is the real Islam?

King Hussein: I have read the Quran time and again, and with the passage of years I have learned that very little in Islam is rigid. I don't like the term "fundamentalism" and I wish it had never come into being. But Islam is not fundamentalism. It was very open as it spread throughout the world. It made major contributions. Then, in the tenth century or so, Islam changed course and went into decline.

Milton Viorst: What serious differences have you with other schools of Islam?

King Hussein: Take the so-called fundamentalists, for example. They want to consider the Prophet a messenger who delivered the message, and that's that. Their main challenge is to destroy everything that came down through the Prophet and the Prophet's descendants. That has been their drive ever since the outset; to destroy the links of Muslims with their history. They take a very extreme attitude at the universities they sponsor, influencing the students they produce. It has produced extremism, limited mindsets and a very clear lack of vision, far from the true teachings of Islam which make it unique. Islam is suitable for every time and for every people.

Milton Viorst: Do you mean by "the true teachings of Islam" the Islam that was before the close of ijtihad?

King Hussein: Yes. The true teachings of Islam as they came in the Quran and as the Prophet conveyed them.

Milton Viorst: Are your ideas like those of Abduh or the Mu'tazilites?

King Hussein: I have my own way that I identify with, not with any particular school in a particular way.

Milton Viorst: Would you agree that the Muslim decline can be dated from the ninth century when Islam missed the chance to become the religion of reason and moderation by crushing the Mu'tazilite movement?

King Hussein: That is essentially correct, and we must do what we can to change that now.

Milton Viorst: Whom do you regard as an appropriate teacher of Islam today?

King Hussein: I don't think such a teacher is yet there. Unfortunately, teaching and learning in the Muslim world have declined as a result of political changes. Al-Azhar in Egypt used to be the pinnacle of reference to Muslims, at least for Sunnis, but since the Egyptian revolution there has been an erosion. Now there is an attempt to revive it, which I hope succeeds. Similarly, Najaf and Karbala, for the Shi'ites, should be centers of learning and light. But, unfortunately, changes in Iraq have caused so much persecution, so many human losses, that the hub has moved to Qom in Iran. These two centers have to return to what they were.

Milton Viorst: What is the difference between Najaf and Qom?

King Hussein: Najaf is the heart of Shi'ism. Qom represents the heart of a political ideology. Since Shi'ite theologians cannot live and study in Najaf, Qom has taken a more important position.

Milton Viorst: Are there any alternatives to Al-Azhar for the Sunnis?

King Hussein: Al-Azhar is moving but maybe not fast enough. The sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Tantawi, who seems to be a very able man and we were pleased to see him, attended the last meeting of the Aal Al-Beit Foundation. We started Aal Al-Beit University in the same spirit as the foundation. There should be more encouragement of enlightened, Muslim yet modern, institutions that hopefully will prepare people to open up and to preserve Islam.

Milton Viorst: Are you thinking at Aal Al-Beit University of restoring the traditions of openness and reason of the Mu'tazilites?

King Hussein: Yes, along with many other good universities and centers of learning, recently created or revived, that want to help bring the Muslim people together and resolve their difficulties.

Milton Viorst: Do you think of yourself as an Islamic model?

King Hussein: I would never think that I had it in me to be an Islamic model. But I have seriously thought time and again of quitting everything I'm doing to concentrate on theology. It hasn't been possible but it's often crossed my mind.

Milton Viorst: Would you be willing to describe your own level of piety?

King Hussein: I made the hajj many years ago. I don't drink. I say my five prayers every day. But that's something I don't talk much about. It's between me and God.

Milton Viorst: If you had the opportunity, what theology would you teach?

King Hussein: I believe the answers are there in our Quran, certainly in the overall sense. Take the question of peace, for example. There's so much in the Quran on peace, as there is on submission to one God, the attributes of God, heaven and respect for the other two monotheistic religions. These are teachings we don't much hear about, but they affect me in my political life, supporting my firm belief that I'm doing the right thing. It's along these lines that so much can be taught.

Milton Viorst: What is your position on amending the shari’a?

King Hussein: In fact, we tried here to base Jordan's civil law on the shari’a. Years ago, we got some of the best brains in Jordan and the Muslim world to sit together and bring about this civil law. We believe we succeeded and many Muslim states now copy it. It's a unique contribution that Jordan has made. Yes, there was much to preserve but also a need for changes in the shari'a.

Milton Viorst: Do you think of yourself as an Islamic monarch?

King Hussein: I'm an Islamic monarch in believing that Islam embraces all, that it gives people their freedom, that it does not differentiate in the way it treats people. Maybe this is a different concept from what others in this part of the world hold. But I believe I'm a Muslim in advocating tolerance, in believing very strongly that Jordanians are one people with equal rights.

Milton Viorst: What is an Islamic state?

King Hussein: An Islamic state is a state based on the morality that comes through faith and religion. We believe that Islam completed the two great Abrahamic religions, that the Quran is the most valid and clear word of God. There is no book like the Quran. It's so rich. But it must be subject to interpretation in every era to deal with the world. You can't just hold it up at any point in time and say, "That's it." Nobody has the right to do that.

Milton Viorst: How about the sunna, the hadith?

King Hussein: The sunna is also important but much that is in it, as you know, is not verified. The hadith are in some cases certain and in some cases not. Occasionally, you find a hodgepodge of ideas that make the meaning hard to grasp.

Milton Viorst: You say that Islam today is misinterpreted. Is it, in some cases, being deliberately abused?

King Hussein: The faulty teaching of Islam has left the door open to exploiters, people who have tried to use it in a non-Islamic way. Islam is not "today." Islam is an afterlife. You work throughout your life for the afterlife. And what I see is people working for today, using Islam to gain their own objectives.

Milton Viorst: Don't Muslims recognize this exploitation?

King Hussein: The problem is that Islam has not been competently taught to our young people. Often the least qualified students, unable to master other subjects, have ended up learning Islam and becoming sheikhs. The best minds should be encouraged to study Islam. That's what we are trying to do in Jordan. We want our best people to bring an Islamic revival, in the proper sense.

Milton Viorst: Isn't this a futile effort, since the Arabs place so much effort on preserving Islam unchanged?

King Hussein: Yes, but the damage has taken place over a very long time, and will take a long time to correct. We're not seeking leadership. We're seeking a collective effort to reform Islam. We are trying, and with some success.

Milton Viorst: Let me ask you about some Islamic concepts. What about bid'a, the notion that innovation and creativity are sinful?

King Hussein: This is totally alien to Islam, as I see it. I'm not saying there should be no limits, but if we're talking about limiting creativity, I'm against it. When ijtihad was closed, that was the beginning of the end. Hopefully it will be ameliorated.

Milton Viorst: What is your concept of shura?

King Hussein: My concept is that it is another word for democracy. It is incumbent on us as Arabs to share in shaping our future, honestly and openly in dialogue. But what we see in our part of the world is intolerance to ideas and to dialogue: "I am right and you have to accept that." That is alien to Islam and to its future. I think others are looking and listening at what we are doing here in Jordan. You can't stop the clock. It has to move ahead.

Milton Viorst: Is there much controversy over drinking in Jordan?

King Hussein: Being a Muslim, you are advised not to drink and you shouldn't drink. But it doesn't mean that you have a right to impose that on non-Muslims. Such tolerance, in fact, is our religion.

Milton Viorst: How many Jordanians would you estimate would like to have a ban on alcohol or a required hejab in the society?

King Hussein: I can't give you any figures, but anybody in Jordan who believes couldn't possibly subscribe to these demands, because without openness and without all working together there's no future. Some of these people are linked to ideologies or to forces within the area that would like to see the destruction of Jordan. But a lot of politicians and others underestimate the majority of Jordanians, who solidly oppose that sort of thing.

Milton Viorst: Don't many Muslims regard restrictions on behavior as what Islam is?

King Hussein: Yes, but unfortunately they are moving about on the surface, the superficial things in Islam, not the substance.

Milton Viorst: Hasn't that been the problem with Islam for a long time?

King Hussein: Yes, it has.

Milton Viorst: Do you have a position on the hejab?

King Hussein: My personal position is that there are certain rules that are cited in the Quran and refer only to the family of the Prophet. But, more important than the hejab, I am totally against the idea that a Muslim woman should not have the same opportunities as a Muslim man to learn, to open up, to work, help shape the future. To close Islam down to a sexist approach is totally intolerable and ridiculous. It's not Islam.

Milton Viorst: Doesn't the Quran provide some confused guidance on women, saying they are subject to men?

King Hussein: I think Islam reveres men and women alike. The Quran speaks very much of the rights of women and mothers. If you take the period of the Prophet and the birth of Islam, women were a very important part of it. Restrictions against women didn't exist then and there is no reason why they should exist now.

Milton Viorst: Are you saying restrictions have been imposed since the early years of the Prophet?

King Hussein: Yes, I think they have been imposed in a subsequent period. Islam brought with it the ban on killing a female baby. It brought with it enlightenment. The Prophet said in a hadith: "Take half your faith from Aisha," his wife. So how can Islam be belittling of women and their role? During that period they were poets. Women fought in battles. You'll find true Islam if you go back to its origins, an open and not a closed Islam.

Milton Viorst: How do you read what the Quran says about polygamy, about taking four wives?

King Hussein: I read two verses. One says four wives, but another requires you to treat them equally, and says you won't be able to treat them equally. What does the Quran mean? It means that polygamy is not the right thing. No, I do not believe in polygamy.

Milton Viorst: What position do you take on the imperative for jihad?

King Hussein: Who has the right to call for jihad? The concept of jihad is all-encompassing. Islam requires that you improve yourself, in anything you do. It's not just battle and fight. Jihad, as war, should have ended with the Prophet, who alone had the right to call for it. So I believe that extremist movements in the name of jihad are wrong. Muslim life has a certain sanctity. If you commit suicide, no one is permitted to come to your grave and pray. So when you see suicide attempts portrayed as jihad, leading to heaven, I believe this is an abomination of Islam.

Milton Viorst: Since all Muslims read the same texts, how do you think so many went astray? How did the suicide bombers in Jerusalem come to believe that this is what God wants them to do?

King Hussein: I believe the impact of the extremist leaders on the young, on the unnurtured, has been almost criminal. I have read the Quran so many times, and each time I read it something becomes clearer, and with the passage of years I always find something new. When you think of idealistic young people, wanting to do so much, if you couple that with oppression and lack of opportunity, you find fertile ground for extremism. I've seen it so many times. And I've seen how people have started out and how they have ended up. Many who have the opportunity to think things out eventually mature and settle down. This, I suppose, is a part of life. What we need to do is to speak openly about Islam, and defend it and present it properly and prevent its abuse.

Milton Viorst: But the Muslim Brotherhood is not a small phenomenon, and its justification of jihad in the name of Islam has become popular and widespread. How does it get away with that?

King Hussein: At a certain time, Islam was considered a possible weapon in the struggle against Communism and colonialism, and it was encouraged to be such. Afghanistan is just an example. It's a shame to every Muslim that Afghanistan has ended up as it has.

Milton Viorst: But is it a shame to every Muslim? There are so-called "Afghans" in Algeria, in Egypt, probably here in Jordan, certainly across the river in the West Bank. They are very dangerous.

King Hussein: Yes, they are. And what sort of distorted minds they have, what sort of distorted visions! They engage in money laundering and drug trafficking and other criminal activities in the name of Islam. I don't know how. I think that a lot of people have been mentally abused, to the point where this is the result.

Milton Viorst: Some of them are probably very smart people . . . .

King Hussein: Yes, those who run these things and lead people astray. Much blame lies with them. But it also lies with Islamic governments and officials who were not watching while their schools and universities were teaching Islam in the wrong way.

Milton Viorst: It is a tragedy of our time that Arab civilization, lacking dynamism and creativity, is falling increasingly behind other cultures. In this book, I ask whether Islam, in its orthodox form, is to blame. As you see it, why is Islamic civilization not moving forward?

King Hussein: I think there are many reasons: Let me just take our prayers, five times a day. Islam imposes a ritual to recite parts of the Quran, learning them by heart without necessarily understanding what they mean. I doubt whether there are many people who have really read the whole Quran. And it's only if you do that you understand what Islam is truly about. So there is this superficial approach. To pray you have to recite verses, in many cases not knowing what they mean. But with deep understanding of the Quran, Islam becomes a dynamic movement, opening up every opportunity. It is not rigid at all.

Milton Viorst: Men and women who have Islamic educations, even in Jordan, say that schoolwork is all memory, without analysis or examination.

King Hussein: I agree with them.

Milton Viorst: How are the children to learn that Islam can open up this world to them, which is what you say they must learn?

King Hussein: That is what we are trying to deal with as best we can. Sadly, we inherited a situation that prevailed before, of memorizing rather than understanding. The absence of discussion, of debate, is among our greatest weaknesses. In Jordan we went all out on schools and universities, building everywhere, but our standards dropped considerably from the days of limited schooling. So now we are concentrating on quality, and on openness, and dialogue. But to bring all that about requires time and sustained effort and stability. It also requires peace, because without it you are not sure what any day will bring. So when we speak about peace and the need for it, it is really one of our top priorities. And anyone who fights it—and there are some in Jordan—would have us remain where we are, or sliding backward.

Milton Viorst: Do you think the next generation of Jordanian children will have a different frame of mind from their fathers and grandfathers?

King Hussein: We are trying, we are trying.

Milton Viorst: But isn't there a strong Islamic component in the administration of Jordan's schools, holding back change?

King Hussein: There was, and there probably still is, but we're trying to depoliticize the schools and teach Islam as it should be taught.

Milton Viorst: In Islam, there is always a line—symbolized to me by Khomeini's fatwa punishing insults to the Prophet—beyond which speech and thought cannot go. Do you draw a line, and where is it?

King Hussein: In general, I believe the judgment that we receive comes after our death, based on what we have done in this life. It has to do with the Almighty, and also with the judgment of people after we are gone. I'm not for excess in anything, including so-called freedom. But I would never appoint myself a judge; to say that because I disapprove of how someone has behaved he is no longer a Muslim. That is something that is beyond me or anyone else. Yet I don't understand how anyone in his proper mind would insult the Prophet.

Milton Viorst: When you say someone is not a Muslim, doesn't it trigger the Islamic law on apostasy? Many of the great interpreters say that Islam requires putting to death anyone who would leave the religion. How would you deal with that?

King Hussein: I have so many other problems before I ever reach that one.

Milton Viorst: But many Muslims applauded Khomeini's fatwa, and justified the murder of Farag Foda in Egypt, on these grounds.

King Hussein: I don't think that individual leaders have the right to determine who lives and who dies. There are many ways of examining these matters. I do not stand with much that is decreed, and sometimes followed up by action, along these lines. I've read what Rushdie has written and it was very deeply offensive and very deeply objectionable. But I would not sanction murder and wouldn't expect anyone I know to do that.

Milton Viorst: So you apply your principle that God will judge Rushdie in the afterlife?

King Hussein: Of course.

Milton Viorst: Leaving aside insults to the Prophet, do you feel there is a line that can be drawn in political speech?

King Hussein: No, as witnessed by what you hear and see in Jordan.

Milton Viorst: Well, a Jordanian went to prison recently for what he said, though you pardoned him soon afterward. There is also a press law which, I am told, is designed to limit free speech.

King Hussein: I don't know that it's designed to limit free speech but it is certainly designed for the judiciary to address distortions of truth and morality. I believe this would happen anywhere in the world. We opened up here in Jordan without having time to develop codes for preserving our coherence and our unity and our dialogue as they should be. So we had to look at certain—not restraints, people can write whatever they feel like writing—but if they infringe on certain areas in a blatant way . . .

Milton Viorst: What areas?

King Hussein: For example, attacking people in a manner that is incompatible with the truth, false accusations. There is no restraint. But undermining the very roots of a society is not what freedom is about. Freedom is your freedom to do whatever you like without infringing on the freedoms of others. That is precisely the line we are trying to draw. Are people in Jordan telling you there is no freedom? There is freedom. Too much at times.

Milton Viorst: Shifting the subject, how would you describe the Islamic movement in Jordan?

King Hussein: It's passing through an interesting phase, a dialogue between moderates and extremists. The extremists, who want to take us back to the distant past, are a very small number. In fact, politicized Islam is a very small percentage of Jordanians. The dialogue might heat up, but it is still essentially political.

Milton Viorst: Are there really people who believe the society can go back to the rashidun?

King Hussein: There may be some. That's freedom of thought.

Milton Viorst: Why do Muslims find the distant past so appealing?

King Hussein: I think it's the search to stabilize oneself. Again, my hope is that going back to the proper teaching is the answer. We Muslims can't live without faith, without our beliefs. But where do you receive them from? During the years of crisis in Jordan, things were left without the proper attention. We never thought we would have an Islamic problem. So there was not as much watchfulness as there was against other elements that were trying to undermine this country. The Islamic movement lived with the protection of the regime and then became a political movement. Now it is divided between moderates and extremists, who would like to exploit it. And the instability in the region is a factor, including lack of progress on the peace front.

Milton Viorst: Do you think Jordan is endangered by the Islamic radicals?

King Hussein: I don't think so. We will be able to talk over things and work them out in the best interests of the people of Jordan.

Milton Viorst: How democratic are these Islamic parties?

King Hussein: Their thoughts are not clearly defined, and I believe there is some danger. When we returned to parliamentary life after the long absence, I said it would probably take us about twenty years for things to jell up, and unfortunately I have been proven right. At a certain point we had twenty-three parties. If you want to have a system based on political parties, you need people who have thoughts and ideas and plans and programs that they can present to the voters. This has not yet happened. As for the Islamic parties, how they would behave if they came into power is unclear to me. We are bound by the national charter, which we've all agreed on, including the political Islamic movement. But if you take the whole spectrum of the opposition parties, which are trying to ally with the Islamic movement, it may come out to 10,000 out of 4 million-plus Jordanians. So political parties are not convincing as yet to the grass roots, because they lack experience and the ability to look forward. It will take time before we reduce to three or four parties to run in elections.

Milton Viorst: What is the future of fundamentalism in the Arab world?

King Hussein: It grows, like other movements in this part of the world, if there is no evolution, no progress toward greater freedom, greater dialogue, greater debate between people on all issues. Whenever an attempt is made to stop the clock, that is when you can expect trouble from extremist movements. If the basic social problems are dealt with, and if we have peace, then I think that the future is very bright. We will have greater moderation and Islam will be a source of strength for true Muslims.

Milton Viorst: And you really believe that peace is essential for moving in this direction?

King Hussein: I believe that peace is absolutely essential.

Milton Viorst: The Arab world is historically weak at political succession. Have you taken measures in Jordan to correct that weakness?

King Hussein: I have some thoughts on the succession. I have sought to produce a system that would he close to the true teachings of Islam while selecting the best available person. The House of the Prophet is a force for stability and continuity, and democratic monarchy is my ideal. When I was considerably younger and my first son was born, things were so turbulent here that I thought that if anything happened to me, he would not have the opportunity to take over. So I chose my youngest brother, which is probably an indication of the way I feel, to be crown prince. And he has done very, very well. I've brought him up as close to me as I could all these years. I've talked to him and others about a system to choose the best-qualified person from the line of sons and grandsons of Sharif Hussein. This would avoid subjecting someone who is young to exploitation. I hope sometime soon to present a system—I was thinking of a family council—that will provide for the line of my succession.


---

It was clear from listening to King Hussein that he represents a vision of Islam that is very distant from Islamic orthodoxy, and even more distant from Islamic fundamentalism. To call it modernism might do the King a disservice, since he would very likely explain that, whatever the resemblance, it is what the Hashemites have believed since the time of the Prophet. Its Meccan roots impart to the vision much more persuasive credentials than if it were of recent religious vintage, or the product of one man alone.

But, in terms of the decline of Arab civilization, what matters is not so much the history of the King's Islamic concept as its minority status within the Islamic community. The Hashemites rule over a tiny country; their influence beyond its borders is limited. The King, whatever his efforts, does not have a large following as an Islamic thinker. That the heir of the grandest of Islamic dynasties holds to these views surely makes them a valid candidate for mainstream thought. But not even a king can generate optimism that they will be widely accepted.

What King Hussein articulates to Muslims is a Hashemite option for understanding their faith. It seems to hold much promise—far more promise than the competing options—for reconciling Islam with the modern world. In the larger arena where the struggle for the soul of Islam is conducted, there is scarcely a sign that the Hashemite option will prevail. But the clear impact it appears to have made in Jordan during the so-far brief Hashemite reign suggests that Muslims may, after all, be listening.

tangawizi, ijtihaad is not "the process of reinterpreting" at all.

ijtihaad is making a judgement of something that is not clearly mentioned in the Qur'aan and Hadeeth - relying on the Qur'aan and Hadeeth by using certain processes such as comparison.

This is done by the mujtahids - that is the people who have memorised all Verses in the Qur'aan relating to rulings and Hadeeths relating to rulings with their chains of narrations while knowing details about the people in those chains of narration. This is over about 50 000 Hadeeths that are memorised with their chains.

There are also other conditions to fulfill - all of which are required for a person to be able to draw a valid conclusion from the Verses of the Qur'aan & the Hadeeths.

Otherwise, calling an ignorant person to make ijtihaad will result in misjudgement because of their lack of knowledge.

That is the first point.

The second point is that Islaam's rules apply & are valid for all times.

Islam does not advocate bin laaden and his followers.

Those extremists have strayed from the boundaries of Islaam.

Their actions are what lead people to think that Islaam needs to be modified.

Rather, they are the ones who need to modify themselves to comply with Islaam and in that way the society would know that Islaam is not how bin laaden or his followers portray it.

Is it possible to use of 'reason' in ijtihaad?

If you read King Hussein's interview, he was of the opinion that the decline of Muslim can be dated from the ninth century when Islam missed the chance to become the religion of reason and moderation by crushing the Mu'tazilite movement (which was a Shi'ite movement).

Can Sunni orthodoxy reopen the gates for ijtihaad to use 'reason' once again?

-Of course reason is used in ijtihaad.

-The Mu'tazilite movement is not a shia movement.

The mu^tazilah are those who believe that God only created good and hence they associate partners with Allaah in the Attribute of creating.

They contradict the Qur'aan - one of the Verses they contradict is Surat al-Furqaan, Verse 2 which means: Allaah created everything.

And Surat Faatir Verse 3 which means: There is no creator other than Allaah.

Those mu^tazilah are the ones that reason is against and many great scholars of Ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah refuted their ill-beliefs using the logical proofs and reason.

One of these great scholars is Imam Abul-Hasan al-Ash^ariyy whose refutations are still used until today to combat the mistakes which mu^tazilah make.

Some of which can be found here:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...heAshariyys.htm

These days mu^tazila ideas are carried by a group called hizbut-tahreer. This group claims to be calling for Islamic unity & Islamic caliphate but in other countries when they got to the leadership they forgot about all their promises. Because of them many countries were ruined and they have been classified along with the 3 main groups that went out of the moderation of Islam and took extreme views for themselves. These are:

the wahhabis; http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...yahFitnatul.htm

the qutbis; http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php/topic,5209.0.html

and the ones who call themself hizbut-tahreer:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...izbAtTahrir.htm


Info about shia can be found here:
http://talkaboutislam.com/forums/index.php...g41563#msg41563

Oh yes, you are quite right. The Mu'tazilite was a Sunni Islamic intellectual movement which was supported by the caliph Al-Mamun during the Abbasid Dynasty. They were avid translators of Greek philosophers, and its really thanks to their works that Arab philosophers like Avicenna and AVerroes were able to influence later Christian scholastics and allow the Renaissance to explode in Europe.

Wat I have read was that Mu'tazilites heavily challenged the Sunni orthodoxy and traditionism as the root of law, in the sense that they denied the orthodox contention that sharia law was the highest expression of Islam. In the Mu'tazalites view, each believer had to personally verify Allah's existence, a dutry requiring an exercise of the mind. Their doctrine was to transform Islam from an external set of convictions into an internal set of convictions. In tryiing to challenge the dogmas of the orthodoxy, the Mu'tazilites created the doctrine that the Qu'ran had been 'created' (as you rightly pointed out in your post). The ulemma orthodoxy has always insisted that the Qu'ran is 'uncreated' meaning the Qu'ran is the word of God which has existed for all time and was revealed to Mohammed at the time of Allah's choosing. In other words, the Qu'ran was eternally changeless, and cannot be re-interpreted.

The Mu'tazilites ridiculed the logic and the political implication of the Sunni orthodox ulemma. They argued that Allah having 'created' the Qu'ran, gave it to Mohammed to deal with specific earthly conditions. which means Allah might offer new revelations when new conditions demanded. This issue caused a big fissure in Islamic theology during Al Mamun's era.

I think the Caliph Al Mamun was hoping to use the Mu'tazilite doctrine to break the power of the orthodox ulemma consisting of clerics and jurists. Al Mamun elevated the Mu'tazilite doctrine as state doctrine and even tried to appoint a Shi'ite imam (Ali Al-Rida, a persian, and a son-in-law) as his annointed successor . The Sunni orthodoxy were mortified about the idea of a Shi'ite caliphate and there was so much unrest that it threatened the survival of the Abbasid dynasty. Finally, Al Mamun, even after he tried to crack down on the Sunni orthodoxy had to give up the idea of appointing a Shi'ite as his successor. The chance for Sunni and Shi'ite to be reconciled was lost forever.

Also, the theology of the orthodox was strengthened by Ibn Hanbal during this time, and Al Ash'ari. When Al Mamun died in 833, his nephew Mutawakkil revoked the doctrine that the 'created' Qu'ran and restored the traditionist dogma to favour. Without the caliphate support, the Mu'tazilites became a target by the Sunni orthodoxy and famous theologians like Ibn Hanbal and Al Shafi.

Anyway, I understand that the Mu'tazilites are not completely gone, because the Shi'ites still keep their doctrine alive, and the Egyptian Muhammad Abduh was a keen follower of the use of reason in Islamic theology. I guess both orthodox traditionism and the Mu'tazilahs are just fighting it out for political control over the Muslim followers. The Mu'tazilahs would like to reinstate the Caliphate (which I could not believe this but was only abolished by Ataturk in the 1920s!!) while the traditionists want the political control to lie with them.

I didn't know the Wahhabis are Mu'tazilahs, I thought they represent the Sunni orthodoxy??


The Sunni orthodox would not agree with you that 'reason' is used in itijihad. Or at least the kind of reasoning that we know of, which was derived from the Greeks. I forget that you must be a Lebanese Shi'ite?

no tangawizi - you've mixed them all together.....

mu^tazila are not sunnis they are against sunnis.

Imaam Abul-Hasan al-Ash^ariyy is one of the great leaders of the sunnis & he debated mu^tazilis.

I gave you that info here:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...heAshariyys.htm

wahhabis, mu^tazilis and sunnis are 3 different things.

wahhabis and mu^tazilis are both groups which went out of Islam's boundaries but they are also different to each other eventhough they might team up sometimes.

generally, wahhabis tend to carry mujassima beliefs - they believe God is a body and in a place which is completely blasphemous & against Islam because Muslims believe there is absolutely no resembling Allaah to the creations.

wahhabis say Allaah has attributes but then they liken God to the creations. mu^tazilah say God has no attributes - which is also blasphemy.

The people of truth and moderation - Ahlussunnah say - God has Attributes and His Attributes are not like the attributes of His creations - i.e. they are not imagined or subject to what attributes of creations are subject to.

So you see, mu^tazilis and wahhabis are the extremes on either side - hence they both are off track.

The true belief is not to liken God to the creations and at the same time not to deny His attributes. It is to believe in His Attributes and to believe that they are unlike those of the creations in any way whatsoever.

------------------------
I'm not a shia

I will give you an example of what I mean by reason being used in ijtihaad.

There is a Hadeeth of the Prophet that he was in his home and part of his thigh was uncovered.

One companion came in and he did not cover.

Another companion came in and he covered.

There were 2 different ijtihaads about this:

1) That the thigh of the man is not a matter to be concealed in front of other males and that is why the Prophet left it uncovered the first time.

2) That the thigh of the man is a matter to be concealed in front of other males but the Prophet did not realise it was uncovered the first time and when he did he covered it.

-------------------------

As for the issue about the Qur'aan, it must be explained that the word Qur'aan has 2 meanings:

1 is the Eternal & Everlasting Attribute of God. His Speech which is not a letter, sound or language & has not beginning and no end and is not imaginable. This is not created.

2 is the revealed expressions included in the Book of the mus7af. This is in the Arabic language and other revealed expressions were in Syriac and the other languages of the Divine Books. These are created expressions referring to the Eternal Speech of God. They are letters, sounds and language and so they are created whereas the Eternal Attribute of God is not created.

To explain this further, if a person wrote "fire" on a blackboard, it does not mean that if he puts his hand on this it will burn him - because this is not the actual fire - this is an expression referring to the actual fire.

The revealed expressions are expressions referring to the Eternal Attribute of God.


----------------------------
By the way, the one who says anything other than God and the Attributes of God is Eternal without a beginning commits associating partners with Allaah and hence is not a Muslim. Didn't Avicenna say that the world is eternal by kind? If so, his philosophy led him to blasphemy.

Are you an Ahlussunnah?

You say Mu'tazilas were neither shi'ites nor sunnis. Apart from being blasphemous, which school of Islam were they? I had read that they were Sunni and their doctrines about the 'created' Qu'ran were used by Caliph Al Mamun in order to increase the Caliph's temporal powers over the Sunni clerical orthodoxy.

It seems that the doctrine of the 'created' Qu'ran was a powerful doctrine which could have broken the power of the orthodox traditionists and reunited the Shias and the Sunnis, even as at today. The traditionists only wants muslims to look back to Islam and the golden age of the Prophet and the rashidun. Whereas the Mu'tazilas were looking to the future. For them, the Qu'ranic scriptures are immutable. But human interpretations are changeable and therefore, interpretations of the Qu'ran must change according to the times.

Even modern Islamic thinkers in Egypt are proposing that the Sunni orthodox ulemma has over the centuries since the close of the gates of itijihad (after Al Mamun's failed attempt to support the Mu'tazilites) distorted Islam and not permitted innovation. The Mu'tazilism offered a more humanistic orientation to the interpretation of sharia law whereas the Islamic orthodoxy was only interested to secure their own power as clerics to protect their rigid Prophet-centered vision of sharia law.

Your example of how 'reason' is used in itijihad illustrates the proper behavior of a muslim in front of other men. Your example of how the words of revelation in the Qu'ran is different from writing the word 'Fire' on a blackboard. The revelation in the Qu'ran may fire you up, but if it doesn't allow Muslim leaders and communities to live in peace with other non-Muslims. Your country is at war, I know it's because of the wrong behavior of men (Israelis, Americans, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians etc). But do you know what new innovations and institutions can there be in order for there to secure peace? I ask you this because the revelations and fire in the Qu'ran is not helping to achieve this peace.. because as you point out, there are so many extreme schools of interpretations like the Wahhabists or the Mu'tazilites.

I like the idea of truth and moderation in your faith. But I am hoping you can give more real life examples of how peace can be acheived instead of just listing what the Qu'ran and hadeeths say is correct muslim behavior.

For examples:

1. The split now in the Islamic world between Shia and Sunnis. How can the two schools be talking to each other and reaching an understanding? Can the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan be able to breach the schism in Islam since they are descendents of the Prophet and if you read King Hussein's speech above, he really would like to offer a peace role in the region? he's passed away now but his legacy carries on..

2.If the Sunni orthodoxy claims that the era of the rashiduns (the four rightly guided caliphs who were appointed after the death of the Prophet) was the golden period of Islam for which muslims should strive to return to, why were three of the four caliphs murdered/assassinated? Can you analyse with the use of reason why has the succession of the Prophet been so bloody throughout the beginning of his death? You have seen how the last Pope when he died, and how his successor was chosen by the bishops and cardinals. Do you think it is reasonable now for Islam to try and arrange a similar method where the successor to the Muslim leadership is appointed in a sacred ritual and peaceful way?

3. Do you think the Caliphate which was abolished by Ataturk in the 1920s can really come back again now that the Middle East is split into Nation States, each with their own armies and parliaments? Can this Caliphate be replaced by a muslim economic cooperation (such as the EU), and the Caliphate is the President of this economic union? This means that there is still need for a Muslim leadership in the religious sphere. Must it be separate from the economic or political leadership? Or should it be as the Sunni orthodoxy require that the leader is the ultimate leader for all muslims in all spheres whether political, religious or economical. If this is so, should the Imam be such a leader? Which Imam can be accepted by all?

I am 1 person from Ahlussunnah - which makes up hundreds of millions of Muslims.



Mu^tazili teachings are blasphemous that means they are not Muslim. They are against every school of Islam because they contradicted basics of the beliefs of every Muslim.

To believe that God is not the Creator is in direct contradiction of the Qur'aan & Hadeeth and hence it is automatically rejected by every person who is Muslim.

They are not sunni. I don't see how they would have succeeded in claiming to be since they were actually debated by the leader of ahlussunnah in his time - Abul Hasan al-Ash^ariyy.

Also, the Prophet mentioned their ill-belief in his Hadeeth before they even came into existence and declared them as blasphemers.

He said about them that they are the majoos of this nation. That means they believe there is a creator for good & a creator for evil - just as the majoos do. And that is completely against Islam.



Like I said tangawizi, to say the Qur'aan is created can have 2 meanings.

The Revealed expressions which are athered in the musHaf of the Muslims and are letters, sounds and language are indeed created. No 2 Muslims differ about this.

However, the Attribute of God - His Eternal Kalaam which is not a letter, sound or language is definitely not created. No 2 Muslims differ about this either.

So you see, a Muslim can say the Qur'aan is created - meaning the revealed expressions.

However it is blasphemy & takes one out of Islam to say the Qur'aan is created - meaning the Attribute of God.

----------------------------

Saying the revealed expressions are created is simply stating a fact. Because nothing other than God and the Attributes of God is not created. Only God and His Attributes are Eternal without a beginning.

So as you can see, saying the revealed expressions are created does not mean that the rulings in them are irrelevant to different times.

God revealed the Qur'aan & He Knows all.

God Knows the changing situations of the world and He revealed this last Divine Book and Ordered for it to be followed until Judgement Day.

Eventhough the revealed expressions are created - this does not mean that they are composed by a Prophet or Angel. Rather they are expressions referring to the Eternal Attribute of Speech of God which is not letters, sound or language.

The difference points of shia and sunnis are beyond the issue of Qur'aan.



Now that is a paradoxical statement.

If you permit innovations that are not of Islam then that is when you are distorting Islam.

We don't want a man-made Religion. We want to follow the way God Ordered.



You are wrong about that.

Let me show you what is in the rules of Islam:

It is permissible for the Muslim caliph to engage in a specific peace treaty with a group of original blasphemers. Then, once the treaty is concluded according to the rules of Islaam, it becomes forbidden for the Muslims to kill any of those original blasphemers covered under the treaty.

In today's society, when a non-Muslim country grants a Muslim a visa, Islamically that Muslim must not harm those non-Muslims or betray them once promising them safety.

These are rules that are taught by the scholars of Ahlussunnah walJamaa^ah and they are not new. What is new is suicide bombing and random killing of civilians.

Had those innovators adhered to the teachings of Islam, they would not have done those acts.



wahhabis and mu^tazilis are not schools of interpretations. They are innovators.
They are rejected by all Muslims.
And they are the terrorists which are rejected by the west.

shia and sunnis do and have debated.

They are not schools. When I say schools of thought, I mean valid differences in ijtihaad which do NOT contradict other Verses in the Qur'aan or other sayings of the Prophet.

It is not valid to make an interpretation and then call it Islamic if it does not comply with ALL Verses of the Qur'aan and sayings of the Prophet.

When 2 groups debate, the truth becomes apparent as to who is making invalid interpretations.



It is bloodier now. People are murdered everyday these days. But observe, throughout time, many great leaders of Ahlussunnah & defenders of Islam have been murdered by wahhabis, qutbis and other deviant groups. Many Messengers of God were murdered by jews. That is not an indication that the Messengers of God were in the wrong. That is an indication that the murderers were in the wrong.



In Islam, leadership is not appointed in a bloody way. Muslim leadership is determined by the opinion of the best of the Muslims - the most pious of them who do not commit sins and are highly educated in the Religion. It is not determined by the sinner, money-loving, desire-seeking low lives.

If a good leader is appointed but the sinner people don't like him, that is something normal. A good person is not usually liked by bad people unless he is 2-faced.

to Samsparky and all who are celebrating the Eid next week!

Eid Mubarak everyone

Nice one tangawizi


Recommended acts on the day of ^Id

· It is sunnah on the day of ^Id to have a bath before going to the prayer.

· To wear perfume.

· To clip one's fingernails.

· To wear the best of one's clothes.

· To take different routes to and from the ^Id prayer.

· To go early to the mosque excluding the Imam.

· It is sunnah to have a light snack such as dates or the like before going to the prayer.

· Walking to the prayer place.

· Saying takbirs of ^Id is highly recommended after the sunset of the last day of Ramadan and remains until the Imam says the opening takbir of the ^Id prayer. This includes saying takbir in one's home, the market places, mosques, and the streets.

· Congratulating one another on the day of ^Id is rewardable, as both Ibn Hajar and Al-Bayhaqiyy stated.


It is sunnah to spend the night preceding the day of ^Id in acts of worship such as praying or the like. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to pray ^Id prayer consistently as it is sunnah mu'akkadah. The first ^Id prayer that the Prophet performed was in the second year after the Hijrah (migration).

Eid Mubaarak

This is problematical because one can find conflicting verses in the Qu'ran. The funny thing with islam is that you don't have a pope to tell you what to interpret and accept as the authoritative decree. Everybody can just interpret the conflicting verses any way they like. That's why it's not just the Schism between the Shias and Sunnis that will never be resolved. Between two muslims from two different continents, they won't resolve their differences either..



I think as the debate goes on, the truth becomes apparent to no one except those who are still involved in the debate and think they are absolutely right!




You seem to hate the Wahhabis quite a bit. Do you wish that their royal supporters, the House of Saud can be overthrown? I read that to overthrow a ruler is not permitted in the Qu'ran. When a people is without a ruler, what results is fitna - public disorder - and that is worse than corrupt rule. Obedience to rulers is part of Muslim practice, and when enforced under the shari'a, this is the thing that stops people from asking that the rule of the Sauds and the Wahhabs be removed. It seems this duty of obedience came from the time of Hanbali school of law. It is also backed up by a verse in the Quran which says something like 'Fitna is a greater sin than killing'.

If you can recall our historical account of the Mu'tazilites during the Abbasid dynasty, Ibn Hanbal was attacking the Mu'tazilites heresy and I guess, the political fight for ascendency caused him to claim that obedience to a ruler even if he's corrupt is better than the muslim community living in a public disorder. But is that a good thing nowadays? Isn't there a way we can call corrupt rulers to answer for their misdeeds?



Well, you and I know which Muslim rulers are 2-faced. Do you think these rulers can be removed in a proper legal way like a general election, or must it be through a bloody war and revolution? Why can't the shari'a laws allow a general election of rulers by the people? Why must the arabs still have hereditary Kings?

No, tangawizi, you are wrong about that.

The Qur'aan is known and its interpretation is known.

The difference between shias and sunnis is that they do not want to believe in the Hadeeths of any companions except Imaam Ali, and the rest of whom they call ahlulbayt.

They accuse ^aa'isha of committing adultery after the Qur'aan made her innocence clear.

They think that ahlulbayt and the rest of the four caliphs after Prophet MuHammad are against each other, when in actual fact members of ahlulbayt named their children after those caliphs.

The evidence is clear about what is the truth but some people don't want to see the sun in the middle of a summers day.

But if you look at ahlussunnah, whatever country you go to, they are preaching the same. Why? Because they all learnt in the same way - from the chain of knowledge - and that chain leads back to the same person - Prophet MuHammad - so they are not in conflict.

And these are the sawaadul a^tham - that accounts for hundreds of millions of people.

Whereas when you try to count groups who went off the true chain of knowledge, you will not find this huge number.

--------------------------------------

Also your comment about debate tangawizi, it is as if you are saying that no one is able to correct another.

I will give you a worldly example.

Many a time when doing maths there has been a conflict between 2 students as to why such and such is the same thing as such and such.

One person says it is not and one person says it is.

Those two people present their proof in the form of "working out" and it is assessed to find any mistakes. Then it becomes apparent who is right and who is wrong.

It doesn't matter if one of them is stubborn and still thinks he or she is right despite that, because they are considered as closing their eyes to the sunlight.

-------------------------------------

There is no caliph these days. In Islam the caliph is not the one with the most money or oil. The caliph is the one selected by the pious and knowledgable people to be their caliph.

That means that in saudi currently and anywhere in the world, there is no caliph.

The Muslims currently have no caliph.

To overthrow the CALIPH is the one that is sinful. But it is not worse than killing. Blasphemy is the fitna that is worse than killing. And my proof is the the Prophet Sallallaahu 3alayhi wa sallam mentioned in his Hadeeth that the worst sin after associating partners with Allaah is killing. Not overthrowing the caliph.

When there is a caliph selected by the pious people of the world then yes it becomes sinful to rebell against him even if he commits some sins. Because, overthrowing him would mean Muslims against Muslims in a war and obviously no one wants that. The Muslims can try to stop any sins he commits by advice and warning the people about it but if they were to start a war then this would be increasing the hardship.

Because that ruler is still a Muslim, he still implements many things in Islaam and it is better for the Muslims to be ruled by him than being ruled over by non-Muslims if the Muslims were to wage war against each other

-------------------------

As for the wahhabis, they add up to maybe 2 million people. They are blasphemers and the mainstream of the Muslim nation know that. They have a voice now because of the money and so they try to spread their false creed to the people. These wahhabis have lost many debates both public and private with people of ahlussunnah and yet their money is able to significantly cover them up.

They are the ones who tell people to learn Islam by reading books because that is the way they spread their false beliefs. Because if they use a verbal method they will easily open spaces for replies by ahlussunnah. alHamdu lillaah there are even replies to their books because their beliefs contradict the beliefs of ahlussunnah and that can be seen by many proofs that show how many of these wahhabis cover their eyes so they do not see the truth.

---------------------------------------

tangawizi, as I said, Islamically the caliph is not the one with the most money, nor is he necessarily the son of the previous caliph.

There is no caliph these days and if people are able to use their votes to overthrow those who are in power and causing more harm than good, then let them do that.

I do not know who made the rule up that the person with the most money gets the loudest voice - that is not Islamic.

Islamically, the caliph is the one selected by the pious, practising Muslims whether rich, poor, old or young.

So do you understand now the difference between practising Muslims and Muslims who love money and worldly pleasures too much.

The former will go to Paradise straight away if they die on that but the latter, if their money & love for the worldly desires leads them to injustice then they are accountable for that on the Day of Judgement, the Day when every deed a Muslim did not repent from will be exposed.

In this life, Muslims can try to do what they can to stop injustice but if they are truly unable then they are not blamed for the presence of injustice.

Mmm.... samsparky, somehow if you think about it, the shias were against the rashiduns (four caliphs) right from Day 1 when the Prophet passed away. They wanted his son-in-law Ali to take his place, while the others disagreed and planned the succession according to arab bedouin tradition of the shura (elderly council). Therefore, it is no wonder that the followers of Ali (shias) would never have accepted the hadiths that come centuries later from the other followers (sunnis)..

I have this question for you. Can you tell me why the rashiduns (four caliphs after Prophet Muhammad) are considered as 'rightly guided' and generally considered the golden era of Islam which muslims would like to see a return to, when in fact, 3 out of the 4 caliphs were assassinated? It seemed like a very violent period of time, full of uncertainty and fractious following. It doesn't sound at all like a peaceful period.

How come the violent transition of power after the death of the Prophet is not widely discussed by muslims?

I just think that somehow, Islam haven't really eradicated some of the Bedouin tribal values and practices which are seen in the modern day as giving rise to violence, non-cohesiveness, although egalitarian in some ways. And these values and practices are still permeating till today in many Islamic communities such as the Palestine.




But who helped the ahlussunnah to spread the chain of knowledge and learn the same way?

Just a century ago, when communication was poor, and muslims in distant lands like Indonesia or Malaysia did not have the means to travel to the haj, the ahlussunnah have very few access to the chain of knowledge and theological scholarship. But with the advent of steamships in the 19th century, and the rise of oil wealth in the 20th and 21st centuries, the ahlussunnahs have benefited from these to learn more about the chain of knowledge and theological schools.. as people began to travel and communicate what they learnt from the ulemma in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and brought these back to their own countries.

Some analysts say that in fact the Wahhabists have been able to get money from the Sauds to spread their teachings on the chain of knowledge by setting up madrassahs all over the world. And this happened only in the past few decades.

I must tell you that since I grow up, the muslims in my country have changed. They used to enjoy traditional cultural practices like shadow plays (wayang kulit), spiritual practices etc.. but these traditional cultural customs are now condemned by the muslim clerics as unislamic and banned in certain provinces. There is like a process of arabization going on in my country in Asia, whereby, more and more muslims are copying the dress and habits of arabs. Some of them even want to marry into arab families, so that the lineage is closer to the Prophet so-to-speak.

I don't know, samsparky, but I think this whole thing about the need to get back to the chain of knowledge linking all the way back to the Prophet and the rashiduns, is makiing muslims around the world abandon their traditional cultural values and adopting an alien set of values which is really bedouin arab values couched in islamic terms.

The outcome of the violence and bloodshed in the Middle East will affect the attitudes of muslims in Southeast Asia. This region has nearly 250 million muslims in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. I think it's very important that Islam finds the right leadership to guide its development and reconcile its differences between the Sunnis and Shias.




Well samsparky, I have never thought that any religious teaching can be the same as the proofs of mathematics.

After all, religous teachings are transmitted by thoughts committed to words, which can be mistranslated, misinterpreted or miswritten. There is a well-known debate whether there was a mistake or intentional fraud in translating the old bible from Hebrew/Greek (Septuagint) to Latin (Vulgate) which perpetuated the virgin birth of Christ. You can google 'virgin birth' and read about it.

Words are made by men, and hence liable to misinterpretation. Of course, when you tell me that the Words of the Qu'ran are made by Allah, which is the same as mathematical proofs and hence not liable to misinterpretation, I have to ask you if this were so, why is the Muslim world then split into Shias and Sunnis who can't see eye-to-eye on the interpretation of the Qu'ran?

Isn't this enough evidence for you to realize and accept that words in the Qu'ran, despite its divine origins, are still open to different interpretations and never be reconciled?

Can you see a day when the Shias and Sunnis are reunited with the same view of the Qu'ran without having to shed blood? If that day can happen, then I will agree with you that these religious teachings is the same as mathematical proofs because they have made all humans behave morally and good without any fighting needed.

Here's a source on the history of Caliphs and their role in muslim communities throughout the centuries..

Through history, there have been parallel Caliphs, but none had as much symbolic power and influence as the one that followed the line of Caliphs from Abu Bakr, who was the first. This line of Caliphs had a continuing residence in Damascus from 661 to 750 and Baghdad and Samarra up until 1258. After 1258 and until 1924 there have been several Caliphs, but all of these have had only limited influence. They have represented no continuation of the Caliphs of Baghdad, and in more than one case, these caliphhoods have been motivated by political motives rather than religious ones. The Muslim world has never agreed upon uniting behind any one of these.

There was apparently a motion to revive the caliphate in the 1920s by Turkey, but that was abolished. Is that why fitna is so apparent in the muslim world today? and why we see corrupt oil rich sheikhs claiming to be guardians of the Mecca? Is the time not ripe for there to be a Caliphate that can help to reconcile the muslims of today? How can this happen when muslims are divided into so many groups apart from Shias, Sunnis, there are the Ishmailis, Mahdists etc etc..? Will it be possible to have a Caliphate now that we live in a world of nation states?

I have two more questions for you:

If someone like Osama Bin laden resurrects the Caliphate, by overthrowing the Sauds and installing a respected leader as the Caliphate say in Saudi Arabia, will you as the ahlussunnah support that Caliphate?

Whatabout in Iraq where the civil war between Shias and Sunnis is still ongoing. What is the best solution you want to see happen there in Iraq for its peoples? It is said that the country is llikely to break into regions. Maybe a federation.. what does the ahlussunnah say is the best way forward for Iraq?

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
Mmm.... samsparky, somehow if you think about it, the shias were against the rashiduns (four caliphs) right from Day 1 when the Prophet passed away. They wanted his son-in-law Ali to take his place, while the others disagreed and planned the succession according to arab bedouin tradition of the shura (elderly council). Therefore, it is no wonder that the followers of Ali (shias) would never have accepted the hadiths that come centuries later from the other followers (sunnis)..[/quote]

1) How does it make sense that the shias were against the 4 caliphs after Prophet Muhammad if the fourth was Imaam Ali.

2) The Caliphate of Abu Bakr was determined because the Prophet had given the people a sign before he died. When he was too sick to lead the people in the congregational Prayer, the Prophet ordered that Abu Bakr lead them in Prayer.

3) Imaam Ali himself agreed with each selection of the 3 caliphs before him with the proof that had he not agreed he would have spoken up and accusing him of not speaking up in such a situation is accusing his of cowardice. And Imaam Ali the 4th caliph is clear of that.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
I have this question for you. Can you tell me why the rashiduns (four caliphs after Prophet Muhammad) are considered as 'rightly guided' and generally considered the golden era of Islam which muslims would like to see a return to, when in fact, 3 out of the 4 caliphs were assassinated? It seemed like a very violent period of time, full of uncertainty and fractious following. It doesn't sound at all like a peaceful period.[/quote]

The 4 caliphs after Prophet MuHammad: Abu Bakr, ^Umar, Uthmaan and ^Aliyy are considered as rightly guided because they are from the best of the Companions. They were following the Prophets rules truthfully and faithfully and as Imaam Ali said about the group that fought him during his caliphate: "They want money and ownership." That is why many unjust killings happen. The existence of greedy people in a society who might harm others is not an indication of a wrong in the harmed it is an indication of a wrong in the harmer.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
I just think that somehow, Islam haven't really eradicated some of the Bedouin tribal values and practices which are seen in the modern day as giving rise to violence, non-cohesiveness, although egalitarian in some ways. And these values and practices are still permeating till today in many Islamic communities such as the Palestine. .[/quote]

Abu bakr was not selected by a bedouin way as I outlined above the reason he was selected. I do not know where you get this idea of a bedouin from. Islamically, violence is un-called for except in a justified war against people of war and not against civilians. I do not know where you get the non-cohesiveness either because had that been the case then you would not find Muslims of all nationalities meeting in Hajj together or you would not find Muslims and non-Muslims living as neighbours anywhere is the world and to think that is just silly and denying reality.

Palestine is a different story to what you are talking about because in Palestine, Muslims are being kicked out of their own homes for jews to replace them. That is completely different to being someone's neighbour.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
But who helped the ahlussunnah to spread the chain of knowledge and learn the same way?

Just a century ago, when communication was poor, and muslims in distant lands like Indonesia or Malaysia did not have the means to travel to the haj, the ahlussunnah have very few access to the chain of knowledge and theological scholarship. .[/quote]

The people who wanted to seek knowledge used to travel to it. Wherever it is they used to go. Have you ever heard of walking? Or riding? or using a boat? The people of old days used to get around because they had the determination and Allaah gave them the strength.

And anyways, most of the people were already spreading even during the time of Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet would send his Companions to different places to preach to people of other countries. So you see, a person who came in contact with a companion and learnt Islaam and passed it on to a person he was in contact with and so on and so on until our time - that is a chain. And don't think it is just 1 chain that the knowledge was received from. There are millions of chains but all of them carry the same message because they all lead back to one person: Prophet Muhammad.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
But with the advent of steamships in the 19th century, and the rise of oil wealth in the 20th and 21st centuries, the ahlussunnahs have benefited from these to learn more about the chain of knowledge and theological schools.. as people began to travel and communicate what they learnt from the ulemma in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and brought these back to their own countries.
.[/quote]

Your terminology is incorrect. Ahlussunnah spread because of these rise in technology. Ahlussunnah are the people who were originally with the Prophet then passed their knowledge on to whoever they met wherever they went. So those chains of knowledge were already established and correct. What the increase in transport technology did was cause more people to join this chain of knowledge who were not already a part of it.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
Some analysts say that in fact the Wahhabists have been able to get money from the Sauds to spread their teachings on the chain of knowledge by setting up madrassahs all over the world. And this happened only in the past few decades. .[/quote]

wahhabis don't have a chain of knowledge back to the Prophet. Their chain stops at ahmad ibn taymiya, the man who went against all of ahlussunnah and hence broke the chain of knowledge. Any chain that leads back to him is a dead end:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/Eng...icles.htm#First

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
I must tell you that since I grow up, the muslims in my country have changed. They used to enjoy traditional cultural practices like shadow plays (wayang kulit), spiritual practices etc.. but these traditional cultural customs are now condemned by the muslim clerics as unislamic and banned in certain provinces. .[/quote]

I'm guessing some things in these practises involve concepts taken from non-Islamic religions in Africa before Islam came. For example, if a certain practice contains acts done to worship other than God, eventhough it used to be known as an African cultural thing, if you are Muslim, you are Muslim. You keep of your culture whatever complies with Islam and you regard the rest as something that came from people who did not know the judgement of such things referring to what God ordered.

That doesn't mean become Arabic. Because even the Arabs when they become Muslim they have to reject the things regarded as cultural if those things are against Islam. For example, smoking tobacco in Islam is disliked. Eventhough it is regarded by some to be an Arab cultural thing, it is not to be encouraged because Islam tells us to avoid it.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
There is like a process of arabization going on in my country in Asia, whereby, more and more muslims are copying the dress and habits of arabs. Some of them even want to marry into arab families, so that the lineage is closer to the Prophet so-to-speak..[/quote]

As for the dress, do you mean covering? Or do you mean Arabic fashion? Because there is a difference. If the people of Africa are choosing to cover what Allaah Ordered them to cover, that does not mean that they are becoming Arabs, that means they are choosing to do what God Ordered. If usually the habit of your people was to uncover certain parts of the body and then you learnt about God's message and that He Ordered for those parts of the body to be covered in public then of course you would regard that part of what people consider as your culture as something due to ignorance of what God ordered. You would not be forfeiting your culture, you would be forfeiting the practices in it which contradict God's order.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
I don't know, samsparky, but I think this whole thing about the need to get back to the chain of knowledge linking all the way back to the Prophet and the rashiduns, is makiing muslims around the world abandon their traditional cultural values and adopting an alien set of values which is really bedouin arab values couched in islamic terms...[/quote]

Getting the chain of knowledge has nothing to do with getting the chain of culture. A person who gets the chain of knowledge learns what the Prophet told us to believe in. Among that of course is what God Ordered and what God forbade but as I already explained, to forfeit a bad habit which is known amongst your people to happen, is not something specific to non-Arabs. Arabs also have to forfeit the bad habits which were known amongst them when they were not Muslims because those bad habits do not agree with what God Ordered.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
Well samsparky, I have never thought that any religious teaching can be the same as the proofs of mathematics.

After all, religous teachings are transmitted by thoughts committed to words, which can be mistranslated, misinterpreted or miswritten. ...[/quote]

Well tangawizi think again. Religious teachings are transmitted by revelation to the Prophets by the Angel Jibreel. The Prophet then taught it to the Companions and the Companions taught it to the followers of Companions. Not by books or translations. Books and translations are used as an aid to the teacher and student when passing on knowledge from the chain. In fact, the book itself without a teacher explaining it to you, showing you the typing mistakes, showing you the places that require extra explanation, is not enough to make you a person who received the knowledge by that chain. As you pointed out there can be mistranslations, misinterpretations and miswritings which all could confuse the reader if he does not have the author to explain the book to him. Or someone who the author explained it to, or someone who explained it to someone after it was explained to them. The person gets this explanation from people who he knows have a strength in the ability to recall information that they hear and who have a reputation of recalling it correctly. Also, to make certain that the person has acquired the true explanation, he sits in the explanation of many people who received it from different chains and confirms his understanding of the book.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
There is a well-known debate whether there was a mistake or intentional fraud in translating the old bible from Hebrew/Greek (Septuagint) to Latin (Vulgate) which perpetuated the virgin birth of Christ. You can google 'virgin birth' and read about it. Words are made by men, and hence liable to misinterpretation. ..[/quote]

Such a thing does not happen in Islam because Muslims have a habit of memorising their Holy Book, and taking its interpretation from a teacher, if not many teachers. If that person is not an Arab then he takes the meaning of the Qur'aan in his own language by a person who can speak both languages well and who received the explanation of the Qur'aan from the chain. The words used to explain the same thing might vary but as long as they give the same meaning, then nothing is lost. Even an Arab needs to take the explanation of the Qur'aan from one who took it from the chain who uses words of explanation which deliver the same meaning. If you are telling me that a person is unable to deliver any idea to another without escaping error then you are abolishing communication.

Understanding is something special and is part of communication and is necessary for it. If someone does not understand me when I explain something to them or understands me wrong then I just explain it to them again. Or I check their understanding by asking them questions.

That is the habit of teacher and student and that ensures that the knowledge gets passed on.

That is why they have exams for doctors - to check their understanding.

That is why they have exams in Islamic universities - to check their understanding.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
Of course, when you tell me that the Words of the Qu'ran are not liable to misinterpretation, ..[/quote]

I did not say that. There are some people who misinterpret the Qur'aan because of their ignorance of Arabic grammar, or because of their ignorance due to not learning the interpretation from the chain- Not learning the way the Prophet taught it and not having their understanding checked.

These people are obvioulsy misled and need to be corrected by producing the proofs. For example a chain of narration back to the Prophet explaining the meaning of a particular verse in the Qur'aan.

It is like if a person studying medicine does not go to lectures and in the end does not do the exam but still thinks he is qualified to do surgery because he reads about it at home. That person might understand some things and might misunderstand others. Even a person sitting in the lectures might misunderstand certain things - hence the exam and tutorials and discussions etc to make sure the person understood it correctly. If the person misunderstood then he must be corrected and shown why. In medicine I guess they would need to show them the saying of a famous doctor... but see what I mean. Just because something might be misunderstood, it doesn't mean that there is no longer a right and a wrong understanding. In fact, it means that the person who understood it right needs to tell the person who understood it wrong and tell them their proof. Otherwise, if the person who misunderstood refuses to accept the word of a co-student for example, he or she might cause the death of another - showing you that that student was in fact mistaken and was shown the proof but did not listen and look what he did now.

[quote name='tangawizi' post='2426257' date='Oct 26 2006, 03:56 PM']
I have to ask you if this were so, why is the Muslim world then split into Shias and Sunnis who can't see eye-to-eye on the interpretation of the Qu'ran?
[/quote]

All you need to do tangawizi is see the question of shias and the answer of sunnis that I already have put a link to a few posts ago. There the evidence os all out on the table for you to ask any questions for more clarification if you need to.

But like I said before, winning the debate does not automatically mean that the person who lost will go back on their initial word - some people are too arogant and that is when the split stays.

ok tangawizi, for your 2nd last question, no I do not support bin laaden - he is a wahhabi. He gets his money from the oil-rich wahhabis of saudi anyway so why would he overthrow them?

The actions of bin laaden do not comply with the rules of Islam and neither do the actions of his wahhabi gang.

There will be a caliphate when the mahdiyy comes and that is one of the small signs of the nearing of Judgement Day. During the mahdiyy's time, Prophet Jesus will also come down from the 2nd sky and that will be one of the major signs of the nearing of Judgement Day.

---------------

As for iraq, you are asking me a strange question. Let me ask you one like it:

What do you see as the solution to the Arab-israeli violence in Palestine? Does it even matter to the israelis what your opinion is? Are they going to stop if you tell them that what they are doing is unjust?

bin Laden does not receive money from the Saudi government. The bin Laden name is a respected construction company in Saudi Arabia, and that is the extent of Osama's wealth. And Osama bin Laden himself has stated his goal is to overthrow the current government in Saudi Arabia under theological justifications.

====
tangawizi asked you a question that apparently is too complex for you. She is saying that it is precisely the lack of a moral and theological authority in the mold of the Catholic Pope or the many other religious leaders of the Christian sects, that the many interpretations of what is 'Islamic' flourishes and is creating moral, theological and religious chaos within the ummah. Your claim that Osama bin Laden's acts are not 'Islamic' holds no more weight than that of the terrorist's himself.

====
Hope does not solve the problems of today.

====
You are avoiding the question. Judaism and Islam are incompatible. But Sunnis and Shi'as are muslims and that sectarian violence in Iraq is what holding the country back from making serious progress. Pointing out the POLITICAL problems in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is nothing but an ostrich-like behavior of putting your head in the sand to avoid your own sectarian issues.

Since you feel the urge to put yourself in this nomad, and remembering that you are a person that no matter how many times I answer your questions you believe I am avoiding them, I will answer your questions once and leave tangawizi to decide whether or not she feels there is something still unanswered.

Firstly, bin laaden is a wahhabi and wahhabis got rich because of the oil. And the rich people currently have the upper hand in saudi. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Secondly, the reason why I took the time to mention that bin laaden's actions are unIslamic was to outline the fact that therefore he is unfit to lead the Muslims. My "claim" is not just held by me, it is held by every Muslim who is anti-wahhabi which constitutes hundreds of millions of people against the mere 2 million next to them that bin laaden manages to round up with the help of the media presenting him as Islamic.

Thirdly, the problems of today are due to ignorance and hence the solution is knowledge. Knowledge takes time to spread especially if the media keeps inhibiting you.

And lastly, the reason why I even mentioned the Palestinians and israelis was to show you a clear injustice that people know about and hope and try to solve but no one listens to them. Kind of similar to when the proof is laid out on the table against the shias and yet they choose to be deaf to us and continue with their misguidance - refusing to drop their mistakes and unite with the proofs.

Like I said, tangawizi has the next reply regarding this conversation because I have a feeling nomad that you did not change your habit of bad communication skills.

It does not mean that Osama bin Laden is financially beholden to the government of Saudi Arabia, which he has condemned as 'un-Islamic'. This is just one of the many sources online where his goal is well known...

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
You stated...You did in effect do not believe that Osama bin Laden would overthrow the current Saudi government. You are wrong.

====
The fact that al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, meaning any muslim of any country can join, means you are also wrong in this issue. The Wahabbis financed numerous Islamic education centers throughout the world. Saudi Arabia controls access to Mecca and that enabled them to seriously influenced how Islam is taught and interpreted. The point that tangawizi was trying (in vain) to make to you is that absent a central moral and religious institution like the Catholic Vatican and its highest office holder, the Pope, people like Osama bin Laden, regardless of whether they may be Wahabbis or not, will always exists in the ummah and will always find considerable popular support, no matter what you may claim to be 'Islamic' or 'un-Islamic'.

====
Ridiculous and typical muslim 'woe-is-me-I-am-victim' mentality. How is the media 'inhibit' anyone from learning about Islam, be they muslim or nonmuslim? Is al-Jazeera an office of CNN?

====
You avoided a very valid question, one that you cannot answer and you know it. The schism between the Sunnis and the Shias is over a thousand years old while the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which really is a political and not a religious issue, is not even one century old. Even if we are to stretch the analogy to the breaking point, it would still barely applied. For the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, both sides made mistakes and both could (hopefully) come to a compromise. For the Sunni/Shia schism, each side believe the other is in the wrong and will not compromise. And we see the example of that with you here telling us that the Shias are heretics. I could go to shiachat and read the same accusations against the Sunnis. For us nonmuslims, neither Sunni nor Shia have any 'proofs' that one is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'. We see you both as 'muslims'. Can you tell your fellow muslim which Christian sect has 'proofs'? Who is the 'real' and 'true' Christian church, the Catholic or the various Protestant sects? No, you cannot. So what make you think that you can convince nonmuslims that Muhammad picked so-and-so to be his successor instead of so-and-so?

The point that tangawizi was trying to make to you (again in vain) is that the Sunni/Shia schism is at its most prominent in Iraq where the US removed a brutal dictator who favored the minority Sunni over the majority Shias when he was in power. Now that this dictator is gone, instead of uniting as Iraqi citizens, the Iraqis are being Sunnis and Shias and it is this thousand years old feud that is making the country as bloody as when Saddam Hussein was in power. You want to blame the US for being incompetent? Do so. But how would that make the Sunnis and the Shias in Iraq lay down their weapons and use the country's natural wealth to make their country even better than it was before? It does not. Take a look at your own attitude for example. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to transport your Shias-are-heretics attitude over to Iraq and contribute to the bloody chaos there. Did the US military created 'The Mahdi Army' or did Muqtada al-Sadr did?

====
My communication skills are superior to yours and anyone who read this thread knows it.

Here is an excellent example...

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17983

Hi Sams, I sometimes think if the arabesque way of thinking is quite different from asian way or american way. Ok, you are Lebanese, so you must be Arab too right? Do you feel different from the Arabs of the Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Oman etc.. ? Do you possess traditional culture and customs different from the Bedouin Arabs? Even though the bedouins have been urbanised from sometime now, do their manner of speech, behavior, argument and resolution differ from your Lebanese customs? Don't the Egyptians Arabs have different customs from the Lebanese too, due to their influences from Egyptian and Greek historical traditions?

Well, the customs and spiritual practices of Muslims in my country grew out of the history and living traditions of the peoples of Southeast asia, namely the Malay and Indonesian. They had their indigenous cultural and religious, as well as Buddhist and Hindu influences from India. Not Africa. When Islam arrived to my part of the world, the local peoples incorporated Islamic teachings into their way of life, but their customs and traditions were maintained as living traditions. It is only recently in the last two decades or so that the Muslim communities in my country begin to doubt their traditions because the orthodox clerics (I don't know if they are from Wahhabists) tell them it's a sin to indulge in these traditions, and to adopt Arab ways of mannerism and behavior. The Muslims in southeast asia are being told by orthodox clerics to become more Arabized. Ok, you can say that this is like the time the Prophet asked his Arab followers to leave behind the ignorant age (jahiliyaa) and live in Islamic age. But both Malays and Indonesians are ethnically unrelated to arabs, is it necessary to ask other ethnics to cut ties with their customs and traditions and become Arabized in order to be Muslims? Why can't Muslims blend their faith with their traditonal customs?

They say that Americanization is going on in the world. Howabout Arabization too? Maybe it's not easy to see unless you live amongst Muslims in Asia.

For me, when my Muslim friends tell me that it would great if the world's Islamic communities can unite and return to the golden era of the rashiduns when Islam was in an ideal society of justice and virtue, I was very puzzled why they want to go back in time and live like Arab peoples from 1400 years ago.

It then came as a shock to me to learn that the 3 of the 4 rashiduns (namely Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali who had been the Prophet's faithful servants and friends, were assassinated.

I actually think that not many Muslims are aware of this fact which has probably been surpressed from their Islamic studies. Have you ever known about this? Have you ever been able to ask your Imam if this era was considered a golden era of virtue to be replicated by all Islamic communities, why were the Caliphs assassinated? Why was there greed and revenge in the aftermath of the Prophet's death?

It also came as a shock to me that after the Prophet's death, several Arab tribes which had surrendered to Islam began to reject their islamic faith and became apostates. The rashiduns had to conduct warfare on them on these apostates.

Why is this era of the rashidun considered an ideal society when there were such rampant political problems and clan rivalries?

Yes, you are right that Imaam Ali himself agreed with each selection of the 3 caliphs before him, but he was assassinated himself -- and his supporters now became the Shias when they split from the main orthodox Sunni clerics.

I have read that the Qu'ran of the Shias is not exactly the same as the Qu'ran of the Sunnis due to the fact that the Qu'ran was compiled decades after the death of the Prophet by scholars who followed either Shia school or the orthodox Sunnis. Is it true that there are two versions of Qu'ran, one for the Sunni and one for the Shia? If this is true, then how can the orthodox Sunnis say that the Qu'ran is 'uncreated' and the Word of Allah? Howabout the Qu'ran of the Shias? Is it also 'uncreated' and the Word of Allah too? Whose version is the Word of Allah?

Anyways, these are just some questions I have in my head at the moment... I thank you for taking the time out to listen to my questions and tryiing to answer them in the best way you can. There's no need for you to convince me whether it is right or wrong. I would just like an open and honest discussion using our own itijihad so-to-speak! Goodnite!

Hey Sams, I think you are wrong here because its well known amongst Muslims that Bin Laden's aim is to rid Saudi Arabia of the contamination of American rule through their surrogates in the House of Saud. We know that his terrorist acts are against Islamic principles, but you have said that it is not fitna to overthrow the House of Saud because they are not the Caliphate.

So why do you not believe that Bin Laden wants to overthrow the Sauds? Do you not agree with many Muslims' view that the Sauds are corrupt and have betrayed Islamic principles of justice and virtue by consorting with the American governments all these decades?


Nobody can say for sure what is happening in the Saudi royal family of course, but they are Bedouins and there must always be some clan rivalry no matter how much money and oil they are swimming in, right?
I actually think that there is some power struggle going on. And there is a rival faction of the Sauds who are financially supportinig Bin Laden to oust the King and establish a new rule. Whether there will be a new ruler in Saudi will be dependent on what happens to Iraq. The Saudi royal King are Bedouins, and they have never trusted their own bedouin clans to protect them as soldiers, they always 'hired' the services of mercenary armies ..

One other question for you, if the ahlusunnah Muslims around the world do not believe in the 2 million Wahhabists and their wrong teachings, how come the ahlusunnah does not have the ability to pronounce the wrong teachings of the Wahhabists and their terrorist followers like Bin laden? Why do you have to wait until you have a Caliphate to correct the theological errors by folks like the Wahhabists?




So I read on what is the Mahdi definition...The Mahdi, according to majority Sunni and Shi'ite tradition, will arise at some point before the day of judgement, institute a kingdom of justice, and will in the last days fight alongside the returned Islamic prophet Jesus against the Dajjal (Antichrist or false Messiah). Source : wiki

You know last week, I met a pastor and his wife from Melbourne in a lunch hosted by fellow Singaporeans. I asked them what they were doing here for the 2 months stay in Africa. They told me that they had met a Kenyan lady 2 years ago in a Melbourne shopping mall, who told the pastor that she had a vision that an asian pastor would come from Australia to Kenya to provide 'end-time mission' to the pastors here. The pastor and his wife grew to believe this woman's vision so much that they believed that it was a sign from God that they had to come to Africa and do God's work on earth -- which is to prepare the christian followers for Judgment Day.

It took them 2 years to get their money together, and the pastor and his wife came to Kenya and Tanzania and for 2 months, they met with african pastors in rural parts of Kenya and Tanzania and organised 'end-time mission crusades' where they taught the african pastors how to recognise the signs when the Judgment Day is near. In these mission crusades, the pastor and his wife had to feed hundreds of african christians and their pastors who came from villages to listen to their sermons. The pastor told me that it was God's miracle who had provided food for these hundreds of african villagers. But his wife told me that they spent every penny of their life savings (A$20,000) paying for the expenses of their personal crusades here. They are hoping to stopover in Singapore to raise more money from the Christian communities there to return to do more end-time crusades.

Towards the end of their 2 months' mission here, the pastor's wife suffered a mental breakdown in a town called Arusha in Tanzania. She then had a revelation which she told the african pastors in Arusha that they will be persecuted, and that this persecution was an important sign that the Judgment Day was near. They must defend themselves from this persecution. She hadn't known exactly what was this persecution in her revelation, but the african pastors affirmed her revelation that indeed they were facing persecution currently because the Qadis of the mosques in Arusha is lobbying the Tanzanian government to impose shar'ia laws and the court on all Tanzanians of all faiths, which means even the christians will be subject to shar'ia penalties. With this revelation, the african pastors were really convinced that the arrival of the pastor and his wife to africa with their messages on end-time mission and revelation, they will be able to prepare for when the Judgment Day arrives, which should be soon. The couple is really eager to raise more money and return again to Africa next year..

Sams, you must be wondering what's the point of telling you this encounter I had with this couple from Melbourne. Well, what really shocked me is this, this pastor and his wife are from my own country Singapore, they had emigrated to Melbourne 25 years ago and their children are grown up. They are obviously a normal couple who had suddenly decided to do something with their lives and dedicate it to God.

I am shocked that simply by meeting an anonymous Kenyan lady who told them of a vision that she had about them coming to Africa to give 'end-time mission', they took the radical decision that they are being called by God to do something in Africa. They spent all their life savings to come out here and spent 2 months to undertake 'end-time mission crusade' with the local african pastors. And in coming here, the biggest end-time revelation they discovered is that african christians in Arusha will be persecuted by the Islamic Qadis. And to them and the african pastors, they are convinced this is the biggest sign that the end of the world is near, and they must be prepared for the Messiah on Judgement Day. This Messiah is the same like your Mahdi I guess...

Can you tell me please...is there something wrong with these religious and devout clerics who have visions/revelations like these and make a division between Christianity and Islam and cause the believers to fear and prepare for the end of the world and the coming of the Prophet Jesus for their salvation? How does an ageing Asian couple become so affected by Christianization in such a way as to engage in revelation and personal crusades in africa using their entire life savings?

Have you met religous Muslim clerics who talk like this pastor and his wife? Hopefully you have not, for if you did like me, you may lose faith in mankind's destiny.

Yes I'm half Syrian half Lebanese, and each of these 2 countries eventhough they are both Arab have different cultural practices, and even their accent is different.

Of course I feel different from the Arabs of saudi Arabia and Yemen and Oman, they are so different from each other. They each have things specific to them such as certain types of sweets, even some ways of saying things, different proverbs etc. Some have different traditions in the marriage ceremonies, different traditions in cooking and many other things. Even different behaviours can be found if you go from one Arab country to another.



tangawizi, you didn't give me an example of one of those cultural traditions. Is that custom contradictory to Islaam's rules or not?

If it is then of course to follow the rules that God Ordered with, one must leave that thing behind, but if the custom does not contradict the rules of the Religion, even it is not Arab, it is welcomed.

Islam is a Religion not a race. Muslims enjoy seeing the different ways people do things if those things do not contradict the rules revealed by God. For example, many Indonesian Muslims have different behaviours in their marriage ceremony than the Yemeni Muslims living with them in Indonesia. Those differences do not contradict Islam and hence they are accepted as variation in culture amongst Muslims.



Like I said tangawizi, being Muslim is different to being Arab. The Arabs before they became Muslim had to drop the bad habits they had because those habits contradicted the rules of Islam.

Similarly, a Muslim of any culture needs to look at his or her practises in the light of the Rules Revealed by God to the people.

No one is saying they need to adopt Arab practises, what they need to do is get rid of practises that contradict what God ordered, not what contradict Arab practises.



Many people feel that way because that time is closer to the Prophet's time. Hence they might have met the Messenger of God or people that met the Messenger of God and hence they would have felt closer to him and felt like they were following what he came with fully.

These days ignorance is spread which makes the Muslim society very different to what it was before. At the time of the Prophet, the Muslims were united around him because he is the Messenger of God. But these days, many people are confused because they think that the knowledge is lost and they don't know where to get it from. They don't know that they must seek it from the the people who acquired it and still carry the teachings revealed by God to Prophet MuHammad.



I will tell you 1 example of what happened. The caliph before Imaam Ali was betrayed by some Muslims who surrounded him. They got into a fight, and in Islam, when a Muslim and a Muslim get into a big fight, the Muslim is allowed to choose not to fight and consequently not kill that other Muslim. So that caliph chose not to kill that Muslim and hence that caliph was killed.

After that, the pious Muslims selected Imaam Ali to be the new caliph. When the pious Muslims select the caliph, it is an obligation for all the Muslims to comply with this choice. Mu^aawiyah did not comply. He went against the selection of Imaam Ali and rebelled against him. As a result, there was a war between Imaam Ali and Mu^aawiyah.

Mu^aawiyah's desire for the world led him to go against the orders of Islaam and fight the caliph after the pious people had chosen him. He was clearly in the wrong. He committed a major sin as did all those who rebelled against the caliph with him.

When Imaam Ali sent a person from his side and Mu^aawiyah sent a person from his side to talk to each other, a group of people from those who were fighting went out and started calling everyone as blasphemers for sending these 2 men to talk together.

This group that went out was the khawaarij. They misinterpretted a certain Verse in the Qur'aan and hence went astray and out of Islam.

So, this whole example was to show you 2 things. One is an example of how greed can come about and the other is an example of how Muslims might become apostates after the death of the Prophet.



Linguistically shia means supporters. But really try to think about it. How can sunnis not be the supporters of Imaam Ali if he is the cousin of the Prophet, his son in law, and the Prophet said what means: "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its door."

Clearly, the person following the Prophet's way correctly supports Imaam Ali and considers those who fought him as sinful.

There are 2 extremes in this which will explain to you the difference between shias, ahlussunnah and another group who claim to be sunnis but are actually the other end of the extreme to shias.

I will begin by telling you the true way.

The true way is to believe that Imaam Ali was correct and that Mu^aawiyah was wrong and all who fought Imaam Ali were wrong. But at the same time to believe that Mu^aawiyah was still a Muslim, eventhough this was a major sin that he committed and that there were some Companions who were on the opposite side to Imaam Ali but then repented before they died.

The shia way is to believe that every single person who fought Imaam Ali is no longer trustworthy regarding any issue about what the Prophet said, eventhough that person was a Companion of the Prophet, to believe that Mu^aawiyah was not a Muslim and the believe that no one of the Companions repented of this sin. This is the reason why the shias reject many Hadeeths of the Prophet even if they come from the Companions that repented of their sin.

The other end of the extreme is to say that Mu^aawiyah was not at all wrong because he is a Companion of the Prophet. And to completely reject the fact that he was sinful.



No tangawizi, it is not true. The Qur'aan was compiled into 1 Book before this whole fight between Imaam Ali and Mu^aawiyah happened. The Prophet had taught the people the order of the Qur'aan and many had written parts of it and memorized it, but it was not written in one book until later on. But that was before Imaam Ali's caliphate. There is only 1 Qur'aan.



tangawizi, there are 2 meanings to the word Qur'aan. Ahlussunnah say that the Qur'aan (meaning the Atrribute of God, which is not a letter, sound or language) is not created but that the Qur'aan (meaning the revealed expressions) is created.



You are welcome for my answers which are based on what the Prophet taught.

Whether bin laaden overthrows a bad government or not, it does not make him good.




tangawizi, ahlussunnah work everyday to educate the people about wahhabis. Most of the world knows they are wrong and rejects them, it is just the wahhabi money that keeps them in power. Before they had their money they were practically underground because of the ahlussunah power over them.



The difference is that Muslims know about the mahdiyy through the Messenger of God, not some person's dream or "revelation".

Naturally, it is common sense to believe the Messenger of God about the things that are revealed to him because he proves his truthfulness to the people by way of miracles that no person is able to challenge.

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Yes I'm half Syrian half Lebanese, and each of these 2 countries eventhough they are both Arab have different cultural practices, and even their accent is different.[/quote]

Have you lived in Syria or Lebanon at all? Or have you been in Australia most of your life?

I would like to visit Syria one day, Aleppo, the Chevalier du Krakak..

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Of course I feel different from the Arabs of saudi Arabia and Yemen and Oman, they are so different from each other. They each have things specific to them such as certain types of sweets, even some ways of saying things, different proverbs etc. Some have different traditions in the marriage ceremonies, different traditions in cooking and many other things. Even different behaviours can be found if you go from one Arab country to another.
tangawizi, you didn't give me an example of one of those cultural traditions. Is that custom contradictory to Islaam's rules or not?[/quote]

Ok, I have just given some examples in this thread here earlier on. Please read that first and then continue with this thread.

I can only hope that Muslim principles may enrich what is already indigenous cultural practices and traditions, but I am afraid it has become apparent in recent years that ambitious Islamic clerics have gained political ascendency and would like to see an end to customs and heritage of our pre-Islamic past.

It's as if, asian muslims are gradually being Arabized and told our pre-Islamic past is no longer to be remembered. Our history should start from 1400 years ago with the arrival of the Prophet.

I don't know if you see this happening with folks in the Syria or Lebanon?


[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
If it is then of course to follow the rules that God Ordered with, one must leave that thing behind, but if the custom does not contradict the rules of the Religion, even it is not Arab, it is welcomed. Islam is a Religion not a race. Muslims enjoy seeing the different ways people do things if those things do not contradict the rules revealed by God. [/quote]

It is true that Islam is a religion not a race, but it is also easy for the religious leaders to mix racial matter in their religious teachings. The problem comes when it is the Islamic clerics who have arabic or persian blood in their lineage who tell the local people (Malay, Indonesian) what is welcomed custom and what is not. When in fact, rural peoples have been following the custom even before Islam arrived to these shores. For e.g. the tradition of the Wayang Kulit, a puppet shadow plays which started in Indonesia even before Islam arrived there in the 13th century. These puppet shadow plays recount Indian epic tales of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Islamic clerics in Malaysia (many of whom claim lineages to the Arab clerical families) now ban these wayang kulit as Hindu superstitions against Islam.

Is race not mixed into their religious teaching? After all, the Wayang Kulit has been played for so many centuries even before the arrival of Islam to Malaysia and since after as well, why did the Islamic ulemma suddenly realise that this traditional heritage is now against islamic teaching??

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Like I said tangawizi, being Muslim is different to being Arab. The Arabs before they became Muslim had to drop the bad habits they had because those habits contradicted the rules of Islam. Similarly, a Muslim of any culture needs to look at his or her practises in the light of the Rules Revealed by God to the people.
No one is saying they need to adopt Arab practises, what they need to do is get rid of practises that contradict what God ordered, not what contradict Arab practises.[/quote]

It is not bad habits we are talking about, but rather cultural heritage. I think it is not right that Islamic clerics are telling native peoples that their cultural heritage is a bad habit and should be dropped. I can understand it the way the Prophet converted his Arab followers and persuaded them to drop their bedouin customs in favour of new Islamic ones. But in the case of Asian muslims, we are seeing that the Islamic clerics are telling followers only centuries later that their cultural heritage are wrong and against Islamic priinciples, and therefore should be banned. Why did they take so long to realise this? To me, it smells fishy and looks like a political game they are playing rather than spiritual teaching.

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Many people feel that way because that time is closer to the Prophet's time. Hence they might have met the Messenger of God or people that met the Messenger of God and hence they would have felt closer to him and felt like they were following what he came with fully.[/quote]

My concern is that the Prophet's time was not exactly the most peaceful time of Islam.

There were much political instability and clan rivalry then, even after his death. The rashiduns may seem united, but frankly speaking, the fact that 3 of 4 of them were assassinated by rival factions suggests that the muslim followers were never united in the first place.

And this is still the same with muslim followers 1400 years later..





[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
These days ignorance is spread which makes the Muslim society very different to what it was before. [/quote]

Well Sams, my father also says thiings aren't what they used to be.. But how do you know what Muslim society was like before and that it is really better before?

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
At the time of the Prophet, the Muslims were united around him because he is the Messenger of God. [/quote]

This is where I am not sure, because if the Muslims were united around the Prophet, I can't understand why his four rightful successors (rashiduns) suffered political strife and three of them were assassinated by opposing followers.


[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
But these days, many people are confused because they think that the knowledge is lost and they don't know where to get it from. They don't know that they must seek it from the the people who acquired it and still carry the teachings revealed by God to Prophet MuHammad. [/quote]

I agree with you that many people are confused indeed and it is not just Muslims you know. Many rural peoples who are of different faiths are also confused by the changing world. From Latin America, to Africa, Central Asia to the Far East, many people's lives are changing too fast and some of them have lost cultural compass, as they become urbanised too quickly and became too materialistic and find answers to everythiing with only logic and no sense of compassion or spiritual guidance. While others in fear of losing out in the modern rat-race, or having perceived that they have already lost out in the rat-race, have chosen to cling to their spiritual faith for an answer to everything in life. I think you belong to this second group. Am I right?

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Linguistically shia means supporters. But really try to think about it. How can sunnis not be the supporters of Imaam Ali if he is the cousin of the Prophet, his son in law, and the Prophet said what means: "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its door."[/quote]

Well, the problem here seems to be that even if you say that the Sunni ahllasunnah supports the Imaam Ali, the Shia supporters do not and have never supported the leaders of the Sunni ahllasunnah, isn't that right? So the schism goes on and on and on... with no end in sight.

[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
Clearly, the person following the Prophet's way correctly supports Imaam Ali and considers those who fought him as sinful. There are 2 extremes in this which will explain to you the difference between shias, ahlussunnah and another group who claim to be sunnis but are actually the other end of the extreme to shias.

I will begin by telling you the true way.

The true way is to believe that Imaam Ali was correct and that Mu^aawiyah was wrong and all who fought Imaam Ali were wrong. But at the same time to believe that Mu^aawiyah was still a Muslim, eventhough this was a major sin that he committed and that there were some Companions who were on the opposite side to Imaam Ali but then repented before they died.

The shia way is to believe that every single person who fought Imaam Ali is no longer trustworthy regarding any issue about what the Prophet said, eventhough that person was a Companion of the Prophet, to believe that Mu^aawiyah was not a Muslim and the believe that no one of the Companions repented of this sin. This is the reason why the shias reject many Hadeeths of the Prophet even if they come from the Companions that repented of their sin.

The other end of the extreme is to say that Mu^aawiyah was not at all wrong because he is a Companion of the Prophet. And to completely reject the fact that he was sinful.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining the true way of viewing the Mu'aawiyah's sinful act against Imam Ali. I read that although Mu'aawiya who was the governor of Syria was a rival who did not support Imam Ali, he did not actually kill the Imam. The assassin was Abdur Rahman bin Muljam. For me the significance of Mu'aawiyah's role in the assassination of Imam Ali is not important.

What was more important was this :

I was quite alarmed to read that there are some Arab historians claim that the assassin of Imam Ali, Abdur Rahman bin Muljam, had been influenced by a woman to assassinate Imam Ali because this woman named Qattama whom he fell in love with had told him that the price for winning her hand in marriage was if he could bring her the head of Imam Ali.

I could not help but think that it is this historical account which caused the bloody rift in the Islamic World, which caused the later Islamic clerics to come up with hadeeths and shari'a laws that put the role of women secondary to men. Basically, the Islamic clerics are so dead concerned about the influence of women on their men that they preferred to keep them from doing mischief and creating discord amongst men! How sad! Maybe you can show me if I am wrong in my conclusion??


[quote name='samsparky' date='Oct 28 2006, 07:04 AM' post='2431533']
No tangawizi, it is not true. The Qur'aan was compiled into 1 Book before this whole fight between Imaam Ali and Mu^aawiyah happened. The Prophet had taught the people the order of the Qur'aan and many had written parts of it and memorized it, but it was not written in one book until later on. But that was before Imaam Ali's caliphate. There is only 1 Qur'aan.

tangawizi, there are 2 meanings to the word Qur'aan. Ahlussunnah say that the Qur'aan (meaning the Atrribute of God, which is not a letter, sound or language) is not created but that the Qur'aan (meaning the revealed expressions) is created.
You are welcome for my answers which are based on what the Prophet taught.[/quote]

I know it may be disturbing for you to acknowledge that there is a Shia Qu'ran, but there is, and Shia theologians speak about the differences. Shia community has, at certain times in its history, derived one of its main tenets; namely, that there was an original, uncorrupted text which proclaimed Ali and the Imams as the rightful heirs of Muhammad. I will not get into this topic but maybe you can google it out and read about the issues surrounding the interpretations of the Shia Qu'ran. "Most educated Muslims are universally unaware of any variance of early codices, and the fact that there are variants is a fact which will shock contemporary Muslims greatly."

p/s - this board can't take too many quotes...it seems...

Ah...well...maybe the Ahlussunnah needs some organizational skills in order that they educate about the threats of the arab Wahhabists! I can tell you the Wahhabists are very active here in Kenya especially on the Swahili coastal towns and islands. And I am not sure if your Ahlussunnah are doing enough to counteract their influences.

In all religious teachiiings, there needs to be organizational hierarchy for them to propagate and be successful. I guess in a way, the Ahlussunnah is different because it is so unorganized without any hierarchy! Even when we as non-muslims ask why can't the Ahlussunnah organised themselves into one united following under a leader equivalent to the Papacy in the Vatican, we know also that an institution like the Vatican and the Pope have problems too. However, in violent times like these, I guess a united following under one leader is better than none?



Haha... I wish you could be there to convince the pastor that the fact that the hundreds and thousands of african pastors and villagers were fed when they came to hear his sermons was not due to the God's miracle, but his own bank account savings!

Honestly, why are there people so deluded?

Sams, maybe I belong to the first group you know, the one who is in the rat-race and thinks everything can be solved logically.

Tangawizi, growing a beard is done by Muslims not because they want to be Arab lol. In Islaam it is something advised for the man to grow his beard.

And wearing the qalansuwa on their head is also something which Islam advises the man with. Please differentiate between Islamic and Arab.

Arabic non-Muslims usually do not grow their beard or wear a qalansuwa.

And between Malaysian culture and between practises of their non-Muslim ancestors which may have been in worship of other than God.

Please also differentiate between wahhabis and Arabs. There are Arab and non-Arab wahhabis.