Tag: religion

  • Questions from a Non-Muslim

    cynicallyjaded:

    wolfy18:

    I have a few questions I’d like to put out to the Muslims & Christians on here.

    Some questions might appeal to one religion more so than the other and the questions are sort of related to eachother, but whatever.

    1.  If God is all seeing, all knowing, and the great planner of everything, does this mean he plans evil?

    2.  Can you have mercy without sin?  If not, does this mean we have to become a sinner before we can “find God”?

    3.  If our lives are planned, does this contradict our free will?

    By the way I’m asking out of intrigue, not trying to sound like a condescending twat.  I genuinely want answers.

    Hi, these questions are asked often by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Here’s my perspective on what I think it means:

    1. Evil is not a ‘commodity’ like good in the same way that dark is not a ‘commodity’ like light. The one exists in the absence of the other. This ties in with the concept of fate and free will, which also relates to your third question, so I hope to deal with it more comprehensively in that answer. Essentially what I’m saying is that God doesn’t plan good or evil. He simply makes available the choices to us with predetermined outcomes, and what we choose is what determines whether good or evil results from our actions.
    2. Assuming that mercy is only required when we sin overlooks the fact that mercy is also needed to continue giving without reason or recompense. What I mean is that we often only think of asking for mercy if we realise that we’ve done something wrong. However, as Muslims, we consider every good that we receive, and every comfort that we enjoy as a mercy from Allah. So we believe that we’re indebted to Allah for all the mercy that He shows us even though we are often not complying with what we believe to be His will or instructions for the way we should be living our lives. 
    3. Free will and destiny are often very misunderstood. As Muslims, we believe we have a limited free will, and not an absolute free will. What I mean is that I can choose how I respond to a situation, or how I want to act, but I cannot control what situations or experiences are presented to me. This world is a perfect system in that every action has a predetermined reaction. These are the natural laws and order of things that we believe was created by Allah. Therefore, whatever we do, the outcome is known to Allah because He created the ‘rules’ that govern existence and how everything interacts. But in this system, there are variables, and these variables allow us to exercise our limited free will. So by exercising our gift of reason and logic, and our ability to act on it, we choose either to encourage good, or evil. How we choose, and how we comply with the laws and guidelines set out for us is what determines our standing in Allah’s court, and subsequently will determine our final fate when we’re called to account on the day of judgement.

    I’ve contemplated the issue of fate and free will previously, so if you’d like to read more about my thoughts on the subject, you can see some of my previous posts under the tag of fate.

    I look forward to hearing your views on this. 

  • The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in the Bible

    cynicallyjaded:

    Comparative religion has always been an interest area of mine. This discussion is quite an interesting one, and if you don’t have enough time to watch the video, here’s a link to the dialogue referred to in the video. Such dialogues are not uncommon between leaders of various faith groups in South Africa. Although it is a lot less prevalent since the passing on of Ahmed Deedat.

    Here’s the introduction to the video from the Youtube posting:

    According to the Bible, God said to Moses, on whom be peace: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18 – King James Version).

    The prophet described in the above verse must have the following three characteristics: 1. He will be like Moses. 2. He will come from the brothers of the Israelites, i.e. the Ishmaelites. 3. God will put His words in the mouth of the prophet and he will declare what God commanded him.

    The question is; who is this prophet? Let us find out…

  • How I Came to Love the Veil

    As most of you know, I have a separate blog to reflect my views on Islam, but this post, despite presenting the views of a Muslim woman, is a very important description of the naivety of the West in understanding the context and widsom of Islamic injunctions. If we had more willingness to understand these concepts and practices, it would very quickly erase the ignorantly vile attitude that Muslims are subjected to on a daily basis.

    Personally, in my daily interactions with non-Muslims, it always, without exception, becomes apparent that cultural (read religious) ignorance is much more prevalent in non-Muslims than in Muslims. Ask the average non-Muslim about Islam, and you’ll get media-biased views and opinions. Ask the average Muslim about Christianity (or even Atheism) and you’ll get a relatively informed view of the tenets or fundamentals of the faith, an understanding of their sects, and an appreciation for what is common and what are differentiating factors between the religions. I won’t hazard any guesses just yet as to why this is true, but from my experiences and engagements so far, it simply is.

    ammarmali:

    SubhanAllah, my tears refuse to stop flowing. This is everything I’ve ever felt regarding hijab; everything I’ve always wanted to say.

    I used to look at veiled women as quiet, oppressed creatures — until I was captured by the Taliban.

    In September 2001, just 15 days after the terrorist attacks on the United States, I snuck into Afghanistan, clad in a head-to-toe blue burqa, intending to write a newspaper account of life under the repressive regime. Instead, I was discovered, arrested and detained for 10 days. I spat and swore at my captors; they called me a “bad” woman but let me go after I promised to read the Koran and study Islam. (Frankly, I’m not sure who was happier when I was freed — they or I.)

    Back home in London, I kept my word about studying Islam — and was amazed by what I discovered. I’d been expecting Koran chapters on how to beat your wife and oppress your daughters; instead, I found passages promoting the liberation of women. Two-and-a-half years after my capture, I converted to Islam, provoking a mixture of astonishment, disappointment and encouragement among friends and relatives.

    Now, it is with disgust and dismay that I watch here in Britain as former foreign secretary Jack Straw describes the Muslim nikab — a face veil that reveals only the eyes — as an unwelcome barrier to integration, with Prime Minister Tony Blair, writer Salman Rushdie and even Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi leaping to his defense.

    Having been on both sides of the veil, I can tell you that most Western male politicians and journalists who lament the oppression of women in the Islamic world have no idea what they are talking about. They go on about veils, child brides, female circumcision, honor killings and forced marriages, and they wrongly blame Islam for all this — their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance.

    These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam. A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Women in Islam are considered equal to men in spirituality, education and worth, and a woman’s gift for childbirth and child-rearing is regarded as a positive attribute.

    When Islam offers women so much, why are Western men so obsessed with Muslim women’s attire? Even British government ministers Gordon Brown and John Reid have made disparaging remarks about the nikab — and they hail from across the Scottish border, where men wear skirts.

    When I converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was cover my head and hair — but I instantly became a second-class citizen. I knew I’d hear from the odd Islamophobe, but I didn’t expect so much open hostility from strangers. Cabs passed me by at night, their “for hire” lights glowing. One cabbie, after dropping off a white passenger right in front of me, glared at me when I rapped on his window, then drove off. Another said, “Don’t leave a bomb in the back seat” and asked, “Where’s bin Laden hiding?”

    Yes, it is a religious obligation for Muslim women to dress modestly, but the majority of Muslim women I know like wearing the hijab, which leaves the face uncovered, though a few prefer the nikab. It is a personal statement: My dress tells you that I am a Muslim and that I expect to be treated respectfully, much as a Wall Street banker would say that a business suit defines him as an executive to be taken seriously. And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable.

    I was a Western feminist for many years, but I’ve discovered that Muslim feminists are more radical than their secular counterparts. We hate those ghastly beauty pageants, and tried to stop laughing in 2003 when judges of the Miss Earth competition hailed the emergence of a bikini-clad Miss Afghanistan, Vida Samadzai, as a giant leap for women’s liberation. They even gave Samadzai a special award for “representing the victory of women’s rights.”

    Some young Muslim feminists consider the hijab and the nikab political symbols, too, a way of rejecting Western excesses such as binge drinking, casual sex and drug use. What is more liberating: being judged on the length of your skirt and the size of your surgically enhanced breasts, or being judged on your character and intelligence? In Islam, superiority is achieved through piety — not beauty, wealth, power, position or sex.

    I didn’t know whether to scream or laugh when Italy’s Prodi joined the debate last week by declaring that it is “common sense” not to wear the nikab because it makes social relations “more difficult.” Nonsense. If this is the case, then why are cellphones, landlines, e-mail, text messaging and fax machines in daily use? And no one switches off the radio because they can’t see the presenter’s face.

    Under Islam, I am respected. It tells me that I have a right to an education and that it is my duty to seek out knowledge, regardless of whether I am single or married. Nowhere in the framework of Islam are we told that women must wash, clean or cook for men. As for how Muslim men are allowed to beat their wives — it’s simply not true. Critics of Islam will quote random Koranic verses or hadith, but usually out of context. If a man does raise a finger against his wife, he is not allowed to leave a mark on her body, which is the Koran’s way of saying, “Don’t beat your wife, stupid.”

    It is not just Muslim men who must reevaluate the place and treatment of women. According to a recent National Domestic Violence Hotline survey, 4 million American women experience a serious assault by a partner during an average 12-month period. More than three women are killed by their husbands and boyfriends every day — that is nearly 5,500 since 9/11.

    Violent men don’t come from any particular religious or cultural category; one in three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, according to the hotline survey. This is a global problem that transcends religion, wealth, class, race and culture.

    But it is also true that in the West, men still believe that they are superior to women, despite protests to the contrary. They still receive better pay for equal work — whether in the mailroom or the boardroom — and women are still treated as sexualized commodities whose power and influence flow directly from their appearance.

    And for those who are still trying to claim that Islam oppresses women, recall this 1992 statement from the Rev. Pat Robertson, offering his views on empowered women: Feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

    Now you tell me who is civilized and who is not.

    By Yvonne Ridley

  • Imam Al-Ghazzali on Feeble-Mindedness

    …the parable of the feeble-minded person who thinks that the light of the sun is the result of its rising, is like the parable of an ant which as it happened upon the surface of a sheet of paper, was endowed with reason and thereupon watched the movement in the process of writing, only to think that it was the work of the pen, but would not go beyond that to see the fingers, and behind the fingers the hand, and behind the hand the will which moves it, and behind the will a deliberate and an able scribe, and behind all, the Creator of the hand, and the ability, and the will. Most people do not look beyond the nearby and earthly causes and never arrive at the Cause of all causes.

    Imam Al-Ghazzali (The Book of Knowledge)

  • Debate About Sunnis and Shias Hating Each Other

    Beautiful Struggle: Anonymous asked: do you pretty much hate all sunnis?

    <a href=”http://remorsecode.tumblr.com/post/17044553106/beautiful-struggle-anonymous-asked-do-you-pretty-much”>remorsecode</a>:<blockquote><a href=”http://the72sects.tumblr.com/post/17042519292/beautiful-struggle-anonymous-asked-do-you-pretty-much”>the72sects</a>:<blockquote><a href=”http://remorsecode.tumblr.com/post/17039769889/do-you-pretty-much-hate-all-sunnis”>remorsecode</a>:<blockquote>Okay I might as well talk about this more in depth since I’m worried people might get a misconception that the Shia somehow hate all Sunni people. This is not true whatsoever. As the saying goes, hate the sin, not the sinner. This is all just my personal beliefs. I don’t have…</blockquote>

    The number of generalisations in this post is in stark contrast to the very same intellectual pursuits that the original poster talks about. But set aside all the generalisations and whether there is or isn’t truth to the aspersions against Sunni’s, or whether it even cements the argument that Shia’s are supposedly on the right path, or not. The lingering thought I have in my head, the same way I think about every other ridiculous post about these Sunni/Shia differences is simply this…how does any of the facts contained in the post actually strengthen your Imaan? If Imaan is purely about your sincerity of belief in the oneness of Allah, and not ascribing any partners to Him, and accepting His decree, then what does it matter what historical facts have been perfectly preserved or horribly twisted?

    If we weren’t there to witness it, and the available knowledge has contradictions, then let it be. It has no impact on who we are as Muslims right now, because in Islam right and wrong is clear. Anything that causes doubt in between should be avoided. Simple. Why complicate  beautiful way of life with these annoying attempts to convince everyone about whose history is more accurate?

    </blockquote>I truly don’t like participating in “debate” however you’ve asked questions and I feel like I should answer them, despite the fact I sense a lot of rhetoric and sarcasm contained within them.<strong>“how does any of the facts contained in the post actually strengthen your Imaan?”</strong>Because I am of the belief that knowledge is what leads to certainty and through gaining knowledge, my Imaan increases. History is also a branch of knowledge I am fond of.<strong>“If Imaan is purely about your sincerity of belief in the oneness of Allah, and not ascribing any partners to Him, and accepting His decree, then what does it matter what historical facts have been perfectly preserved or horribly twisted?”</strong>As I’ve implied many times throughout that post and on my blog in general, Imaan is gained through knowledge. I don’t understand why people hold this belief that somehow history is history and you should leave and let die.

    Do you know how many prophets are mentioned in the Qur’an? 25 and all of them with their relevant story and history. It’s a strange phenomenon that people imply history should just be left alone yet the very book we all turn to for guidance is for the vast majority, history. The lesson? History repeats itself and nothing is a greater teacher than the knowledge of the past. That’s why historical facts are necessary and required to be fully understood, weaved away from the falsehood.<strong>“It has no impact on who we are as Muslims right now, because in Islam right and wrong is clear.”</strong>I find no other word to describe what you are saying as other than completely ironic. The history of Islam has absolutely everything with who we are as Muslims today because history is what defines the current events.It is even more absurd that you claim “right and wrong is clear” yet your very own blog title is called “The 72 sects” ??? I’m sorry for my ignorance, maybe I just do not understand what you’re trying to say, but I see nothing but double standards in what you’re telling me.

    </blockquote>In light of your ‘rebuttal’, please allow me to clarify my views. Whilst there may have been a healthy dose of rhetoric in some of what I said, sarcasm was certainly not intended. I respectfully disagree with your view that the stories contained in the Qur’an are intended to hold historical value. Allah states several times that it is through parables that Allah guides us so that we may understand. A lot of the historical evidences in the Qur’an was intended to confirm what was revealed before, and not simply as a history lesson. Also, your assumption about my views on history ignores another statement of mine in the same post that said:<blockquote>If we weren’t there to witness it, <strong><em>and the available knowledge has contradictions, </em></strong>then let it be<strong><em>.</em></strong></blockquote>

    The Qur’an does not contain such inaccuracies or contradictions, and therefore cannot be used as an example to substantiate your objection to my statement. Again, with due respect, Imaan is not dependent on what our views are of historical events, or respected personalities. Imaan is about our belief and reliance on Allah alone. The only unforgivable sin is Shirk, and the belief in questionable historical facts has no bearing on this. Let’s assume for a second that your statement about history is correct relative to Imaan. Would you then please explain how the knowledge of A’isha (RA)’s age at the time of marriage strengthens your Imaan?

    As for my blog url, it relates to the hadith that reminds us of the 73 sects that will form amongst the Muslims of which only one will be rightly guided. So my url is a reminder to me about the fact that the vast majority of sectarians are misguided. I’m not sure how that is supposed to reflect irony or double standards. Like I said above, not just to you but to everyone that engages in these types of debates, how has it strengthened your Imaan? Has it established or encouraged unity in the Ummah? Has it brought you closer to Allah? Or has it simply filled a gap of knowledge that was being fed by curiosity, or dare I say ego?

    Edit: After a final exchange via ‘Ask’ with the OP, let’s just say we agreed to disagree. This debate was going nowhere fast, so it’s best to leave it at that, iA.

  • Wishful thinking…I wonder what’s so intelligent about observing symptoms of creation and then declaring that to be the source of intelligence and the purpose of life? It’s one thing to maintain a belief system, but entirely different to use it as a soap box from which to dismiss other belief systems. 

    I always wonder how prudent a use of time it is to spend your life seeking purpose and forgetting to live in the process? Perhaps some would argue that the search is in fact living in itself, and perhaps there is truth in that. But given that atheists firmly establish their belief system in science, and given that the foundations of science have recently been shaken to their core with the discovery that the speed of light is in fact not the limit that we thought it was, I wonder what implications that may have on the belief systems that are based on science?

    Seems rather convenient to suggest that theism is flawed because it can’t be proven when in fact atheism is just as theory-based. Big difference is that theism is capable of defining theories of existence that atheism was denying until they could prove scientifically that the theistic theories were actually true to begin with. The fact that those theistic theories were based on broadly accepted divine inspiration will always be conveniently overlooked. But the fact that the speed of light was based on one of the greatest scientists this side of the Ice Age and has now been proven to be incorrect as the basis for the theory of relativity will also be conveniently overlooked.

    But science is progressive, and must therefore be allowed the convenience of breaking its own rules in its search for the truth. It’s all just too convenient for me. Far too convenient to take the moral high ground as an atheist, dismiss the definitive influence that religion has had and continues to have on that same moral code, and then conjure up even more elaborate theories about how morality is independent of religion when a simple study of various cultures will confirm that morality is very definitely based on the religious customs of any community. 

    Reminds me of another post I wrote not too long ago on the subject of Atheism and Theism.