hamburger wrote:perhaps let me ask a simple question of raul :
would a good and true muslim woman not be recognized as a muslim (a/t all muslim teachings) if she DOES NOT wear a veil .
hbg
I asked two of my Muslim colleagues, Rizwan and Iqbal, this question after you posted it.
They laughed. They wanted to know where I got the idea that Islam required Muslim women to wear a veil. They are originally from Pakistan, and are practicing Muslims. They told me that veil/burkha use reflect cultural/political (tribal) history/habit, not religion.
here is what the
...MUSLIM WOMEN'S LEAGUE... has to say about female genital mutilation :
(from the above link)
"Muslims are called upon by Allah (swt) to enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong. Clearly, mutilating a woman's genitalia in the name of Islam violates the most sacred tenets of our faith. Therefore, we must oppose this practice and join efforts with others who are working to educate women and men about its harmful effects. We applaud the work of Muslim leaders who challenge the view that female circumcision is required in Islam. These views have been expressed by Dr. Hassan Hathout, renowned Muslim gynecologist and scholar, and by Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of Al-Azhar and Sheikh Abdel Ghaffer Mansour. Like many others, they urge the discontinuation of this harmful cultural tradition due to the numerous devastating consequences that result. "
that seems like a pretty clear condemnation of the practice by a learned body of muslims .
hbg
Raul-7 wrote:Who said female genital mutilation and female infanticide are part of Islam? Islam condones the killing of any infants. And Muslim women aren't required or were never asked to cut their genitals off. This only takes place in some parts of Africa.
I've got news for you pal. It was being done in civilised Australia less than 10 years ago (but only by uncivilised muslims). It took an act of parliment to stop the vile practise.
Circumcision is only required for males as it provides nothing but cleanliness and it isn't harmful or life-threatening.
I heard the Prophet saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."
And that is a relevant reply to your assertion that femal genital mutilation only occured in Africa how???
i found the "minaret" article , indeed quite enlightening .
the article closes with htis sentence :
"People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements. Ethiopians in the United States stand between the Ethiopian culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. I do think, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. "
i assume that raul would claim that the wearing of the veil is required by "religion" , since other practices , unsupported by religion , may be abondoned .
perhaps raul is right .
however , since other learned muslim scholars are claiming that wearing a veil is not a religious requirement , there seem to be at least two different opinions .
after all , there are two branches of islam , shia and sunni , and they do not always agree on the proper interpretation of islamic tenets .
(is it really so much different from the different interpretation of christian tenets by its various adherents ?) .
imo there is really nothing wrong with a healthy discussion and even disagreements , as long as murder is not used to convince the other party of its wrongs .
strictly my opinion , of course .
hbg
hamburger wrote:iafter all , there are two branches of islam , shia and sunni , and they do not always agree on the proper interpretation of islamic tenets .
No. And they generally display their disagreements by hacking each other to death, as the more enlightened muslims are want to do.
I believe it's only the "fundamentalists" that interprets the Koran in the wrong way.
The reason they seperated into two sects is because the Sunni's (majority) believe that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ordered that Abu Bakr (Prophet's right hand man and best friend) be his successor, while the Shia believe that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ordered that Ali (direct descendant of the Prophet) be his successor. That's the main reason behind the division.
What a wonderful reason to kill each other.
Mohammed wrote:Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established till the sun rises from the West; and when it rises (from the West) and the people see it, they all will believe. And that is (the time) when no good will it do to a soul to believe then."
Actually of course Mohammed did not write that because its a direct quotation of something he is supposed to have said...(Mohammed was illiterate, why do Muslims mark that as a great characteristic? Is it something to be aspired to?)
ok my question is what does the above quote mean? In plain English please. Thanks.
Steve 41oo wrote:(Mohammed was illiterate, why do Muslims mark that as a great characteristic? Is it something to be aspired to?)
Same with Jesus - though he could walk over water and make water to wine ...
Walter Hinteler wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:(Mohammed was illiterate, why do Muslims mark that as a great characteristic? Is it something to be aspired to?)
Same with Jesus - though he could walk over water and make water to wine ...
I didnt know that. Come to think of it, did Jesus ever perform a miracle twice, to show it wasnt just a fluke?
Raul-7 wrote:The reason they seperated into two sects is because the Sunni's (majority) believe that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ordered that Abu Bakr (Prophet's right hand man and best friend) be his successor, while the Shia believe that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ordered that Ali (direct descendant of the Prophet) be his successor. That's the main reason behind the division.
You're always filling these threads with bullshit, and your particularist religious bigotry. Ali was not the descendant of Mohammed, he was his first cousin, and son-in-law.
Wikipedia wrote:Ali was the cousin of Muhammad, and after marriage to Fatima Zahra, he also became Muhammad's son-in-law.
Source at Wikipedia
I suspect that you are Sunni, which would account for your close-minded ignorance. Shi'ites believe that Ali was the first Imam, and the two main sects of Shi'ism depend upon whether believe there will be seven "true" Imams before Ali returns (the Seveners, the minority sect) or twelve "true" Imams before Ali returns (the Twelvers, the majority sect).
The life of Ali at Imamalinet-dot-net
A very brief biography of Ali
Life of Ali at Anwary-Islam-dot-com
You just make yourself look a fool when you make a basic mistake such as that, and give others little reason to believe what you write here.
Let's all get out of the way and let the Shia and Sunni if they have a mind to fight each other to oblivion.
Walter
Jesus was illiterate???
au1929 wrote:Walter
Jesus was illiterate???
I don't know. It's just a guess - he didn't obviously write anything.
Certainly, it may well be opposite (I tend to believe that). But there's no proof for that either.
(Less than 10% of the Roman Empire under the principate is beleived to have been literate, with that number falling as low as 3% in Roman Judaea.)
I don't have a problem with the use of religious symbols by students therefore I don't support the French law.
However I believe teachers must not wear religious symbols that belong to minority religions. A teacher is a person who shapes characters, so teachers must be forced by law not to wear Muslim symbols in countries where Christianity is the main religion or the opposite. At a Christian country people grew up under some specific standards - Especially in the schools were we have to do with young people we have to be more cautious. A female teacher having only her eyes exposed in a European primary school could cause many problems to the young students.
