The Sheikh has written a letter to the Australian Governor General where he says that the Queen is less than a bitch, and that she doesn't really care about Australia's interests.

http://www.sheikhharon.com/announcements.html

My question is do you believe that Australia needs the Queen, does she benefit our country in anyway?

Since she is the Queen, should she be more involved with Australia?

Do you think Australia should become a republic?

I think there was a thread where we discussed the definition of a Republic and whether Australia should become one. I'm pretty sure that it's in this board.

Any idea which thread, FD?

bluebird wrote on Aug 12^th, 2008 at 10:28pm:

The Sheikh has written a letter to the Australian Governor General where he says that the Queen is less than a bitch, and that she doesn't really care about Australia's interests. http://www.sheikhharon.com/announcements.html My question is do you believe that Australia needs the Queen, does she benefit our country in anyway? Since she is the Queen, should she be more involved with Australia? Do you think Australia should become a republic?

Royalty is a disgusting idea to begin...

So really all thats left is to acknowledge that Kings and Queens are forms of authoritarian domination from a bygone era and the roles for most countries, at least most western ones, that they play is purely ceremonial.

So to the questions...

She doesn't benefit anyone in anyway.
No.
Pseudo homage to a foreign queen V a reshaping of the already capitalist 'democratic' society = don't really care unless we are smacking them both off.

Exotic Cheese wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 2:14am:

Pseudo homage to a foreign queen V a reshaping of the already capitalist 'democratic' society = don't really care unless we are smacking them both off.

Lol. You sound like a Communist.
;)

I've heard of suspicions before that this "Sheikh Haroon" guy is a hoax, probably perpetrated by anti-Muslim groups to incite hatred towards Islam, but after actually viewing the website, I think it is much clearer.

A few points about his website:

He's given the title "Australian Muslim Cleric", yet Muslims don't believe in any concept of a clergy, and it's only Western media outlets that normally refer to Islamic leaders as clerics, or perhaps occasionally apologetic government appointed groups who seek to use Western terminology to gain acceptance. But a 'fundamentalist extremist muslim leader' would never use the term cleric to refer to himself.

Also the term cleric is usually applied to Shi'a/Iranian religious leaders, and this is claimed on the website:

"The Australian Muslim Cleric, Sheikh Haron, is the same Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi who has formally changed his name and that's why some people were confused who was Sheikh Haron?"

The term Ayatollah is only ever used by Shi'ah leaders, and specifically Iranian ones. Yet Sheikh Haroon claims to be a supporter of "Imam Osama Bin Laden", whilst Iranian Shi'ah are diametrically opposed to him, due to the fact he follows the Salafi/Wahabi methdology which declares Shi'ah to be apostates.

Sounds very much like this website is produced by someone who has only a very brief understanding of Islam, and one that seems to mix and match media terminology in ways that doesn't make any sense at all.

The nrepublic thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173182998

No, the Queen should not be more involved in Australia. Her role, limited as it is, requires her to be as detached as possible.

Exotic Cheese wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 2:14am:

Royalty is a disgusting idea to begin... So really all thats left is to acknowledge that Kings and Queens are forms of authoritarian domination from a bygone era and the roles for most countries, at least most western ones, that they play is purely ceremonial. So to the questions... She doesn't benefit anyone in anyway. No. Pseudo homage to a foreign queen V a reshaping of the already capitalist 'democratic' society = don't really care unless we are smacking them both off.

Ditto 8-)

Freediver- Thank you for the link. I will read through this. Its interesting how people's opinions differ.

I also believe that Australia will become a republic its just a matter of when. I also believe Australia will be better off.

Abu_rashid- I am interested in Islam and the Sheikh Haron website is one of the sites I go to. I have a question as you are quite knowledgable in Islam.
Why don't Muslims believe in any concept of clergy? Isn't a Sheikh a cleric also? If not, what is the difference?
Also, on the site I had a look at the about us, it states that they are non-sectarian Muslims, does that not mean they are not shiah and not sunni?

bluebird wrote on Aug 12^th, 2008 at 10:28pm:

The Sheikh has written a letter to the Australian Governor General where he says that the Queen is less than a bitch, and that she doesn't really care about Australia's interests. http://www.sheikhharon.com/announcements.html My question is do you believe that Australia needs the Queen, does she benefit our country in anyway? Since she is the Queen, should she be more involved with Australia? Do you think Australia should become a republic?

My question is do you believe that Australia needs the Queen, does she benefit our country in anyway?

Short answer, No.

Since she is the Queen, should she be more involved with Australia?

A true Head of State should be intimately involved in the affairs of the nation and the sensibilities of its people, as QEII rightly is with the British state and people. As a faux (and foreign) Head of State of Australia her role falls far short of what a HOS should be to the nation.

Do you think Australia should become a republic?

Yes.

bluebird,


Quote:

Why don't Muslims believe in any concept of clergy?

In the Qur'an we are told about how the institution of a clergy led the religious communities before us (ie. the Jews & Christians) astray.

They have taken as lords beside God their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only one God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

O ye who believe! Lo! many of the rabbis and the monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of God. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God, unto them give tidings of a painful doom,


Quote:

Isn't a Sheikh a cleric also? If not, what is the difference?

A clergy is a specific religious class, who are supposed to be somehow holier than the 'laypeople'. In Islam all people are supposed to be religious I guess. The way I've always viewed it is that every Muslim should strive to be on the level of 'a religious class'. This is why we see every Muslim woman is required to cover herself, to the same degree that only the religious class in Catholicism for instance do (ie. nuns). Likewise any Muslim should be capable of performing a wedding or a burial or any other religious festivity/rite.

The word 'Sheikh' actually just means old man, there's really no significance for this word in Islam, apart from in developed traditions, but they have no legal standing in the Shari'ah. Likewise there is no special clothing for a clergy.


Quote:

Also, on the site I had a look at the about us, it states that they are non-sectarian Muslims, does that not mean they are not shiah and not sunni?

I have very strong doubts that it is even a legitimate Islamic website, as expressed above. A lot of things on the website just don't sound right. Most of the language used appears to be ripped straight out of media stories about Muslims. Also just about every single article on there, just seems aimed at inflaming Muslim/non-Muslim tensions. Add this to the fact nobody within the entire Australian Muslim Community has ever heard of "Sheikh Haroon", and it becomes very suspicious.

Semantic garbage.
Cleric/Scholar?
Call it what you like, it is just another in the parade of mad muftis with spurious claims of being able to unlock the secrets of the mystery manuals.

While the sunnis do not have any hierarchical clerical system, the shia sect most certainly do.

It is strange how these two groups can vilify each other so vehemently, whilst claiming to be able to justify their behaviour from the exact same text.

I'm a little divided on this issues.

Logically, realistically and practically HM the Queen serves no purpose to Australia. So, my brain tells me "A Republic! If you can keep it." However, my heart remains loyal to the Queen because of my family's tenuous link to the UK. Should the Queen abdicate or pass away, that link will be gone and I will be free of this personal bind.

;) ;)

mozzaok wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 8:19am:

Semantic garbage. Cleric/Scholar? Call it what you like, it is just another in the parade of mad muftis with spurious claims of being able to unlock the secrets of the mystery manuals.

You clearly have no idea what a 'cleric' is. I suggest you go out and do some reading before making yourself look foolish (once again I might add).

Is Grand Mufti a Shi'ia exclusive title? If not, are they considered to be a religious "elder" or (dare I say it) clergy (in the western sense)?

Quote:

Is Grand Mufti a Shi'ia exclusive title?

Mufti means 'one capable of giving fatwa', but the term does not appear in any Islamic texts that I know of. I don't know if the Shi'a use it, but most 'Sunni' countries do use it as a term for government appointed scholars.

Can anyone give a fatwa? If not, then  what requirements are needed to qualify one to do so? A scholar? An iman? How do they become Muftis or Grand Muftis? Is an iman considered to be "clergy"?

Quote:

Can anyone give a fatwa?

No, should be someone who has studied extensively and has ejazah (a chain of teachers stretching back to the prophet (pbuh) himself).


Quote:

A scholar? An iman?

Actually a better translation would be 'scientist', an Aalim is someone who has studied the Islamic Uloom (sciences). Obviously in the modern Western context, you'd not consider such a a translation accurate but that's actually the best translation. Also keep in mind that for most of Islamic history, there was no distinction between a scientist of the Islamic sciences and one of the natural sciences, most of the great scientists/scholars in Islam were also scientists/scholars in mathematics, astrology, geography etc.

By 'Iman' I think you mean Imam. Imam just means 'the guy at the front', coming from the Arabic word for forward/front Amaam, and it basically just means leader, usually leader of congregational prayers.


Quote:

Is an iman considered to be "clergy"?

As stated already there's no concept of clergy in Islam, really.

Why is scientist a better translation than academic, scholar or something else?

Quote:

Why is scientist a better translation than academic, scholar or something else?

Because that's what it translates as.

عالم (Aalim) is the Arabic word for 'Islamic Scholar' and it's also the Arabic word for 'Scientist'. Throughout the history of Islam, there wasn't really any distinction between the two, they were exactly the same thing. Islam doesn't have the same kind of historical conflict between religion and science as the Western Christian civilisation has. In the Islamic world they were more seen as one wholistic tree of knowledge, some branches of which dealt with Islamic disclipines and some which dealt with physical phenomena and some which deal with social phenomena and so on.

Growing up with a Western viewpoint myself, I can definitely see the problems that raises for you, as it doesn't fit in nicely with the Western way of dividing it all up. But you gotta realise Muslims have always viewed it like this, since long before the Christian West took any interest whatsoever in science. Pretty much all of the famous Muslim scientists/mathematicians were all 'Islamic Scholars' also, and were masters in the Islamic branches of science like Usul ul-Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence), Tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis) etc. They didn't consider themselves as 'Islamic Scholars' and also 'Scientists', they just considered themselves 'Aalim'.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 6:50pm:

Islam doesn't have the same kind of historical conflict between religion and science as the Western Christian civilisation has. In the Islamic world they were more seen as one wholistic tree of knowledge, some branches of which dealt with Islamic disclipines and some which dealt with physical phenomena and some which deal with social phenomena and so on.

Interesting. With that in mind, how do the aalims tackle natural sciences such as evolution and the Big Bang theory? Some Christians have a hard time accepting this as it goes against the literal teaching of Genesis and the creation of the universe and Man. Do Muslims have the same dilemma?

Quote:

Interesting. With that in mind, how do the aalims tackle natural sciences such as evolution and the Big Bang theory?

Those theories have only been proposed in the last century or two, by which time the Islamic civilisation had almost completely declined. There have been very few Muslims worthy of the title Aalim in that time, what few Ulema (plural of Aalim) we've had, were usually busy addressing other issues related to our decline, occupation, revival, disapora etc. to have time to focus on issues of natural science. Along with this, we have the Arab nation states attempting (quite poorly) to emulate the Western secular states, and so they've pushed, quite brutally in many cases, to relegate the role of the Ulema to something like a 'cleric', who performs circumcisions, marriages, burials and delivers weekly sermons about being nice to your neighbour asnd occasionally gives a 'fatwa' when the government requires it to condone/condemn things that suit the government's interests.

Basically that kind of higher level of thinking requires a very stable civilisation, and the only civilisation which is stable enough at present to produce such a level of thinking is the Western civilisation. The Islamic civilisation has not seen that kind of stability for quite a few centuries.

If you want a giggle, you can go to youtube and hear how the koran has already solved ALL these mysteries.

Big Bang=The world came from a cloud.
Flat Earth= The world is laid before you like a carpet.
Not Flat Earth=The world is like an egg.

I don't know why we westerners waste all that money and time seeking to increase the knowledge and understanding of mankind, an illiterate arab solved it all 1400 years ago.

Abu,

If you don't mind, how about on a personal level? What is your opinion as a Muslim on the natural sciences of (say) evolution and the creation of the universe etc. I suppose, this question goes out to Malik, Exotic Cheese and Lestat as well, if they so wish to answer.

:)

Quote:

Flat Earth= The world is laid before you like a carpet.

Quite amsuing since Muslim cartographers measured the circumference of the earth with amazing accuracy in the 9th. century C.E

Last time I checked it's kind of hard to measure the circumference of a flat 2d plane :)

Abu_rashid- Thank you for answering my questions.

Quote:

If you don't mind, how about on a personal level? What is your opinion as a Muslim on the natural sciences of (say) evolution and the creation of the universe etc.

I'm certainly no Aalim.

And I am certainly not qualified to speak about the theories that biologists and cosmologists propound. Let's just say I find them interesting, and I enjoy learning about them, but don't consider all that they postulate to be proven fact. As far as evolution theory is concerned, I studied biology and actually biochemistry to a high school level, so I have a basic understanding of what they involve, but am not particularly convinced they are correct. I enjoy reading/listening to material about cosmology and I don't really see anything in it that contradicts the Islamic description of how the universe came to be. In fact some passages from the Qur'an have been pointed out to actually corroborate some of what modern cosmological theories claim about the origins of the universe, here's some examples:

The universe was constructed and is being expanded:
"And the firmament, We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it." (Qur'an 51:47)

The universe will be contracted again:
The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),  (Qur'an 21:104)

Is there no 'official' Islamic position on evolution?

(Aalim) is the Arabic word for 'Islamic Scholar' and it's also the Arabic word for 'Scientist'.

So you translate it as scholar when the context implies that the English word scholar is the correct translation, and you translate it as scientist when the context requires it.

Throughout the history of Islam, there wasn't really any distinction between the two, they were exactly the same thing.

It's the same throughout most of western history. Science has a meaning now that it didn't a few centuries ago. The Greek (I think) 'scientia' translates to knowledge, not science.

Islam doesn't have the same kind of historical conflict between religion and science as the Western Christian civilisation has.

That doesn't justify the wrong translation into English.

In the Islamic world they were more seen as one wholistic tree of knowledge, some branches of which dealt with Islamic disclipines and some which dealt with physical phenomena and some which deal with social phenomena and so on.

ie, philosophy

But you gotta realise Muslims have always viewed it like this, since long before the Christian West took any interest whatsoever in science.

That doesn't justify the incorrect translation either.

Pretty much all of the famous Muslim scientists/mathematicians were all 'Islamic Scholars' also

Same with many early European philosophers and scientists.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 13^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

to incite hatred towards Islam

The next guy who says this is a rotten egg.


No-one does more to stoke this particular sentiment then muslims.  Enough of this empty, shop-soiled, double-talk cliche.


With the greatest respect.

Hi Soren, welcome to OzPolitic. I remember you from AM, but they deleted the thread with your posts in it that I read.

Hi Soren. How's the coffee shop going?

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 10:14pm:

Hi Soren. How's the coffee shop going? ;)

Decaf - it's all a big zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Quote:

So you translate it as scholar when the context implies that the English word scholar is the correct translation, and you translate it as scientist when the context requires it

I don't translate it as anything. I'm simply pointing out the word Aalim (which is what a learned Muslim, who has degrees from Islamic universities is called) is actually translated as Scientist. Goto google translator and type in Scientist, it'll spit back Aalim for you. You can accept, reject, other... thats just how it is.


Quote:

The Greek (I think) 'scientia' translates to knowledge, not science.

As does the Arabic noun علم (ilm) of which عالم (Aalim) is the active participle. This is what I'm trying to get across to you, you have a distinction between the words science and knowledge, but for many other cultures/languages they're just the same thing, and you must recognise your word 'science' is just the result of a slight semantic drift from knowledge, ever so slight, that most other cultures don't draw the distinction, yet still understand the exact same concepts. In Arabic for instance علم الإجتمعية (ilm al-ijtimaa'eyah) is translated as "Social Science", but would also be translated quite literally as "Knowledge of those things pertaining to societies".


Quote:

Same with many early European philosophers and scientists.

That's funny, I thought they were usually labeled heretics/witches/sorcerers etc. and burnt at the stake...

Soren wrote on Aug 14^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 14th, 2008 at 10:14pm: Hi Soren. How's the coffee shop going? ;) Decaf - it's all a big zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What's this about your thread being deleted from AM? FD had the same thing done to him.

I don't translate it as anything. I'm simply pointing out the word Aalim (which is what a learned Muslim, who has degrees from Islamic universities is called) is actually translated as Scientist.

So someone else made the mistake - but the point still holds.

Goto google translator and type in Scientist, it'll spit back Aalim for you.

That doesn't mean that Aalim should always be translated back to science.

That's funny, I thought they were usually labeled heretics/witches/sorcerers etc. and burnt at the stake...

Some were, but the vast majority weren't. People tend to overplay the conflict (sound familiar?). Many famous early European scientists were Christians who sought to 'know God' through his work. Many historians credit this with 'igniting' the scientific revolution, by motivating research over a long period with no obvious benefits to humanity, or the researchers themselves.

What's this about your thread being deleted from AM? FD had the same thing done to him.

Same thread. Soren had a few responses in it.

Quote:

So someone else made the mistake - but the point still holds

علم التفسير (ilm ut-tafseer) is translated as "Science of Qur'anic Exegesis", so why shouldn't the one who practises that science be translated as scientist, especially seeing that's what the word is always translated as in all other contexts? Is the word Science sacred to you or something? :) Am I violating it's sacredness?


Quote:

Many famous early European scientists were Christians who sought to 'know God' through his work

Can you name any? Note, when I was talking about Muslims, I mean people who were the foremost scholars in the religion of Islam, were also the foremost scholars of other sciences. You think many famous early European scholars would fit this same category?

Are you claiming that there weren't scientists before Islam?

(ilm ut-tafseer) is translated as "Science of Qur'anic Exegesis", so why shouldn't the one who practises that science be translated as scientist

It shouldn't be translated as science.

Am I violating it's sacredness?

No, you are just using the wrong word.

Can you name any?

Here's a list:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

Note, when I was talking about Muslims, I mean people who were the foremost scholars in the religion of Islam, were also the foremost scholars of other sciences. You think many famous early European scholars would fit this same category?

No, but only because of the timing. As a field of study gets more devloped, you need to devote more of your time to it in order to contribute. Take the ancient Greek philosophers for example. They covered a very borad range of topics in a single day. You could probably have learnt everything in the field of what is now calle dscience in one day.

jordan,


Quote:

Are you claiming that there weren't scientists before Islam?

Is that what you understood from our discussion so far?

freediver,


Quote:

It shouldn't be translated as science.

You're entitled to your opinion. As far as I'm aware you don't know much about the Arabic language, so I fail to see how you can make that call.


Quote:

No, you are just using the wrong word.

The fact you consider the word wrong, without having even a rudimentary understanding of the language involved, indicates that you have a preconceived idea of where the word should fit in. Christianity and Judaism calls their men of knowledge 'Scholars' or 'Academics', they're religions, and so is  Islam, so Islam should also. Not very scientific of you.


Quote:

Here's a list: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/christian-foundation-science.html

That list is amusing.

Russian Orthodox Communists? Jewish Atheists?

Mendel is about the only one I would consider to fit the bill, as he was a monk. I was thinking of him when you mentioned it, but couldn't think of anyone else who could possibly be included.

I also find it quite surprising that a list of the 100 most influential scientists, past and present only seems to have European/Judaeo-Christian scientists. Sounds like somebody who's trying to draw some conclusions about the relationship between Christianity and science.


Quote:

No, but only because of the timing. As a field of study gets more devloped

The Muslim scientists developed their fields quite extensively. That's rubbish. The simple fact is there were few European scientists of any note until the Renaissance, as Christianity receded scientific knowledge advanced (Yes I'm using your old signature jordan) as Christianity had been a stifling force that prevented people from studying scientific issues, and it seems you can't accept this wasn't the case under Islam for some reason... So you're attempting to claim pretty much the same conditions existed in Christian Europe, what a laugh.


Quote:

You could probably have learnt everything in the field of what is now calle dscience in one day.

You certainly couldn't have learnt everything in a day that Muslim scientists did in their entire field.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2008 at 11:54am:

jordan, Quote: Are you claiming that there weren't scientists before Islam? Is that what you understood from our discussion so far?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

I'm just curious which parts of the discussion led you to draw that conclusion, that's all. Don't wanna answer? It's ok :)

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2008 at 11:59am:

I'm just curious which parts of the discussion led you to draw that conclusion, that's all. Don't wanna answer? It's ok :)

How about you answer my question?

With an answer instead of a question.

Don't wanna answer?

As far as I'm aware you don't know much about the Arabic language, so I fail to see how you can make that call.

It's the English language, and the definition of science that interests me. I trust you can explain the meaning of the Arabic word. I have not contradicted your explanation of what the Arab word means.

So you're attempting to claim pretty much the same conditions existed in Christian Europe, what a laugh.

No I'm not.