Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Send Topic Print
Women in islam (Read 92963 times)
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #90 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:07pm
 
Are you thick or something Acid?
Everyone knows that muslims have always been perfect, and never had any violence or disputes before the evil west conspired to destroy them.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
easel
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3120
Re: Women in islam
Reply #91 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:18pm
 
I was told by a Muslim man that Shia's or Shi'ites or whatever are crazy and they hate the Sunni's.
Back to top
 

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #92 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:40pm
 
abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 5:26pm:
I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.


I could be wrong but I was certain that I read Malik say that while it is not perfect Iran is the closest nation that may be considered to a Caliphate. I don't remember where I read it (there are so many concurrent threads on Islam).

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 5:26pm:
From what I remember, he said a majority of Palestinian Jews at the time of the founding of the Zionist movement opposed Zionism.


Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 2:00am:
The majority of Jews from the Middle East and in particular Palestine rejected the idea of a Jewish State and were against it.


Ok, since you put it that way. I guess I interpreted his comment incorrectly.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #93 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:45pm
 
Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:04pm:
This violence came AFTER the West divided our states.


That's what I'm trying to find out - what is the point of contention between the Sunni and Shi'ites? Is it religious? Is it a differences in opinion and interpretation? Is it political? What?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #94 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:47pm
 
mozzaok wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 7:07pm:
Are you thick or something Acid?
Everyone knows that muslims have always been perfect, and never had any violence or disputes before the evil west conspired to destroy them.


Grin Grin Grin Grin

Maybe I should pull out my Mensa credentials as well...

Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Women in islam
Reply #95 - Jul 28th, 2008 at 10:28pm
 
Quote:
I could be wrong but I was certain that I read Malik say that while it is not perfect Iran is the closest nation that may be considered to a Caliphate.


Malik is entitled to his opinion on that, but the majority of Muslims would probably disagree on that specific issue. If a state were going to be likened to a Caliphate, they'd want to at least be using the name Caliphate to describe their form of government, not that that would guarantee it was a legitimate Caliphate, but it would at least suggest they were attempting to approximate one.

Quote:
Ok, since you put it that way. I guess I interpreted his comment incorrectly.


I guess it's not exactly clear from his wording that he meant in the past at the time of the creation of Israel. That's what I took it to mean, as it is well known that many of the native Jews did oppose the European invaders also.

Quote:
That's what I'm trying to find out - what is the point of contention between the Sunni and Shi'ites? Is it religious? Is it a differences in opinion and interpretation? Is it political? What?


It is based around a political disagreement over who should succeed Muhammad (pbuh) as head of state. Some Muslims rallied around the idea it should be his family members (perhaps they were still clinging onto some of the Arab tribalism Muhammad had come to abolish), and as the head of state changed two then three times without it passing to his family, tensions began to form. The 4th. head of state was finally from the family of Muhammad (pbuh), his cousin Ali (may God be pleased with him) but unfortunately the family members of the head of state who preceded him also fell victim to the same tribalism that Ali's followers were falling into. Then 2 caliphs later and Ali's son (also Muhammad's grandson) was murdered by the Caliph's army. It was rather quiet after that, but then when some of Muhammad's (pbuh) family finally became Caliph again (The Abbasid Caliphate), the Shi'a who were by now formed into a tight political unit, at first supported them, but then withdrew support when they realised they were not going to adopt the Shi'a partisan ideology. During the Abbasid time there were a lot of upheavels, and in fact the Shi'a grew very large in number, and even controlled the Abbasid state from behind the scenes for a long time, setting up the Caliph as merely a puppet ruler. The Shi'a then split further into sub-sects, and one sect even established a rival Caliphate in Egypt (The Fatimids). Even though they rallied around the idea of Muhammad's family, most Shi'a were actually non-Arabs, and this is even true today, the largest group of them are Persian and they mostly lived close to the frontiers of the Abbasid state as it moved north and east. After the Abbasid time they moved back down into Iraq/Iran and consolidated themselves  and largely remained there, forming their own Empire (Safavid)..

So their belief mainly differs from the mainstream of the Muslims over this political succession and the subsequent civil wars that it caused. I'm sure Malik probably has a slightly different account, and he's welcome to give it, and you can get both sides of the story I guess.
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #96 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 7:40am
 
Thanks Abu, that was nice to see an account of Islamic history where at least some of the sugar coating is removed.

I really think that is a far better way for you to counter, what you would call anti-muslim sentiment, with honesty and responsibility, it will always go a long way towards delivering credibility.

To be fair to you, perhaps you have only been exposed to a highly sanitised and biased version of Islamic history, so may be unaware that other scholarly opinion exists, outside of what you have seen.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Women in islam
Reply #97 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 3:57pm
 
I think you need to firstly find out how they became slaves in the first place.

Why does it matter how they became slaves? If your POWs etc are as deperate for your protection as you make out, why not employ them on a wage rather than force them to acrue a debt to pay back to you? All you have to do is create a hostile economic situation (eg taking all their land and posessions) and you will have slaves indefinitely.

That's correct, you can take prisoners of war as slaves. The reason for that is if people go to war against you and you fight them and beat them, then their possessions are yours as war booty.

Great, no wonder Islam spread peacefully rather than by the sword....

Australia's human rights record more than 1400 years after the establishment of the Islamic state is far worse than any point of Islamic history.

You can't honestly expect us to believe this Malik. We don't stone people to death for having gay sex. Not keeping accurate records of their crimes against humanity hardly makes the Islamic state a beacon of human rights. It's naive to assume they were based on a lack of evidence.

I think you really don't quite understand much about what we consider slavery. People aren't forced into it, they have an option to either accept it or leave the lands without their possessions or stay in the lands if they wished but without any of their possessions. It just brings into question how they would survive without any wealth?

Exactly Malik. I'm not sure why you present this as some kind of good example. Luckily this sort of thing is against international law and the modern world is taking steps to stamp it out.

Do you somehow think the underlying nature of humanity has changed in recent times, and that we've all of a sudden become these enlightened elevated beings that are above such practises?

Well, we've nearly abolished slavery (except for a few Muslim countries), so that's a good start.

In fact the Western form was practiced by the Arabs prior to and at the time of Muhammad pbuh but Islam forbade this and gave slaves right's that had never been seen before. Islam wholly condemns this behaviour and encourages freeing of slaves.

So why do you acknowledge the improvement in Islamic slavery over earlier versions, but not in the abolition of slavery in the west? Apparently there are some enlightened Muslims who do.

Outdated? Where it was once the norm worldwide, can you please tell me a country where it is legal to keep slaves under their law? Are there slaves in Iran (a nation which I'm led to believe is the closest to a Caliphate). I'll be surprise if you can find enough for 1 hand, if any.

Acid, I think a few African and middle eastern Muslim countries practice slavery.

Abu, I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. I'm trying understand the subtleness between the Muslim sects/tribes

Acid the correct term is 'schools of thought'. They don't have sects. Instead, they bomb each other because they belong to different schools of thought. Of course, this can also be blamed on the west....
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Women in islam
Reply #98 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 7:53pm
 
freediver,

Quote:
Acid the correct term is 'schools of thought'. They don't have sects. Instead, they bomb each other because they belong to different schools of thought. Of course, this can also be blamed on the west...


The Shi'a are a sect, not a school of thought. The schools of thought are Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali & Shafi, and all belong to the mainstream, and I don't remember the last time an adherent of any school of thought bombed another. Perhaps you can provide for us an example? Since you're ovbiously quite informed about the matter.
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Women in islam
Reply #99 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 7:58pm
 
Sorry, my mistake.

Does Malik think of them as a different sect?

Are wahabis a different sect?

I think I read on wikipedia that there are no 'schisms' in Islam, but it seems that the Shia split is a close analog to the Anglican-protestant split.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Women in islam
Reply #100 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 8:03pm
 
mozza,

Quote:
Thanks Abu, that was nice to see an account of Islamic history where at least some of the sugar coating is removed.


*shrug* It's just history, that's the way it was written, not really much for me to sugarcoat. My opinions about later Islamic history are even less "glossier", so you might be surprised. Just because I'm proud of Islamic Civilisation's achievements doesn't mean I am necessarily living in a fantasy land, although that's what would serve you better in argument to suggest I guess.

Quote:
To be fair to you, perhaps you have only been exposed to a highly sanitised and biased version of Islamic history,


As opposed to the open and objective version of Islamic history we can get by reading the tales of orientalists?
Don't you think it's just a little arrogant to suggest that Muslims/Arabs are not capable of recounting their own history by themselves, and that instead they require some outside foreign entity (of course European) to re-interpret it for them? Do you accept our Islamic versions of your (Europe's) history? Are our accounts of the history of European events any less sanitised in your eyes? Or does it only go one way?
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
Malik Shakur
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 799
Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #101 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 8:36pm
 
abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 5:26pm:
I don't think too many Muslims would consider Iran anything like a Caliphate. For a start the Shi'a generally reject the concept of the Caliphate, and this is their main problem with the mainstream Muslims, that we established a Caliphate, instead of a hereditery Imamate, which is what they believe in.

I might clarify what I meant by Caliphate here before more questions are raised.. By caliphate I meant the Islamic State.  And we consider the Imam by the same name as our brothers from the Sunni banner would name the Caliph, they are the Amir ul-Mumin'een or Commander of the Faithful.

The Shia school of thought's way of choosing a Caliph is to choose them from the Prophet pbuh's decendents only, it is not simply a matter of a father handing the leadership down to his son and continuing it that way like Muawiyah did to Yazid, but it's a criteria of being eligible to lead the Nation, in Yemen the Caliph used to be elected from amongst the many families who were the Prophet's decendents. It was a form of choosing the best of the Prophet pbuh's family to lead us and upon really thinking about the issue I realised that I would prefer that instead of having someone who is not from the decendents of the prophet pbuh's family.

I do believe Iran is the closest thing we have to an Islamic State, that's not saying that Iran is perfect, instead it's really showing how far the Muslims have strayed.. Iran needs a great deal of work but has made some very positive steps in the last 30 years which I certainly applaud.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 28th, 2008 at 5:26pm:
Islam is really not as fragmented as the media would have us believe. The vast majority of Muslims belong to the mainstream, which is about 80-90% of all Muslims, they are often mislabeled as "Sunni" but this is an incorrect designation, and one we never really use to describe ourselves. The Shi'a are about the only real major sect (the word Shi'a itself actually means sectarians or partisans), and then there are some smaller groups who are pretty much mainstream Muslims, but perhaps dabble in a little sectarianism, like Salafi (wahabi) and Sufi groups, but they are a tiny minority. There are also some historical sects that are now extinct like the Khawarij, but they thankfully only exist in the history books.

While I subscribe to the Shia schools of thought I do have the utmost respect for Muslims from the other schools of thought and don't hold any animosity at all against them. I certainly don't like Wahabi's but neither do most from the Sunni schools either. The Shia also have an equivelant and it goes to show that extremism in any shape or form is detrimental to Islam.

I will also mention that while the Shia schools are about 20% of the Muslim population of the world, at least 85% of that number are from the Ithnāˤashariyyah school of thought of thought, when considering that the remaining 80% of the Muslims of the Sunni school of thoughts are made up of 4 different schools one would understand that the Ithnāˤashariyyah itself is actually quite a considerable size in comparison.

I will also mention that those of the Shia schools don't formerly call themselves 'shia', they consider themselves to follow the schools of Ahlul Bayt or the Family of the Prophet pbuh. Furthermore from my understanding the etymology of the word Shia is that it can be translated into the words sect, followers, party etc.

Furthermore, I do believe that no one school has it 100% right and all the others are wrong. The schools were the teachings of very pious and educated people may God reward them, but none of them claimed to have the perfect system nor claimed perfection themselves, therefore I believe that it's important for Muslims to continuously work together and accept that there are differences of opinion on this issue and not let it divide us.

I personally believe that when Imam Al-Mahdi reveals himself, he would look at Muslims from all schools of thought and think to himself 'What are these guys doing? That aint right!' and he'll have to direct us to the straight and narrow path again, removing any doubt about any issue that creates division amongst us and making all schools of thought null and void so that we'd all know the correct way God willing.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Malik Shakur
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 799
Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: male
Re: Women in islam
Reply #102 - Jul 29th, 2008 at 8:51pm
 
abu_rashid wrote on Jul 29th, 2008 at 7:53pm:
The Shi'a are a sect, not a school of thought. The schools of thought are Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali & Shafi, and all belong to the mainstream, and I don't remember the last time an adherent of any school of thought bombed another. Perhaps you can provide for us an example? Since you're ovbiously quite informed about the matter.


My Sunni friend went to India recently, he said that people from different schools of thought that are under the 'Sunni' banner started killing each other because of their differences so careful there as it does occur.. Also I might add that in the 1400 years of the Islamic State there was not a civil war like that seen in Iraq with people being persecuted due to their school of thought.. I will ALSO further add that those who started bombing places of worship were Wahabi's and then their Shia counterpart started retaliating, if anything it shows that extremism in any form is unacceptable and contrary to the teachings of Islam..

Furthermore, from the Shia I know, they consider their Sunni brothers as just from a different school.

In the Iranian constitution it says:

Article 12

The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school (Ithnāˤashariyyah) [in usual al-Din and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Other Islamic schools, including the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Zaydi, are to be accorded full respect, and their followers are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. These schools enjoy official status in matters pertaining to religious education, affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law. In regions of the country where Muslims following any one of these schools of fiqh constitute the majority, local regulations, within the bounds of the jurisdiction of local councils, are to be in accordance with the respective school of fiqh, without infringing upon the rights of the followers of other schools.


Iran is considerably progressive compared to the Sunni states to it's West, In Sunni dominated states (who are not Islamic States by even the Sunni definition) they tend to oppress their Shia minorities. Iran doesn't oppress it's Sunni inhabitants and in fact as you can see by their constitution they make no mention of Sunni or Shia, they only consider the difference as a difference in school of thought and not as sects which is the true way of the School of Ahlul Bayt.

To make it clear, I say Shia and Sunni to help people here understand better, but by no means would I classify myself as a Shia nor would I classify Abu_Rashid as a Sunni. We are Muslims, plain and simple..
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Women in islam
Reply #103 - Jul 30th, 2008 at 2:49pm
 
Doesn't Abu reject Shia? Doesn't that make him a Sunni?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Women in islam
Reply #104 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 7:03pm
 
warning - graphic images:

http://www.artsandopinion.com/2006_v5_n2/robinson-fgm.htm

The Sunnah (the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammed) contains a reference to female circumcision. According to the Muslim Women's League: "Those who advocate for FGM from an Islamic perspective commonly quote the following hadith to argue that it is required as part of the Sunnah or Tradition of the Prophet: The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." This passage is regarded by many Muslims as having little credibility or authenticity. According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are non-authentic. Many Muslims see passages in the Qur'an which, by implication, oppose FGM. They reason: God apparently created the clitoris for the sole purpose of generating pleasure. It has no other purpose. There is no instruction in the Qur'an or in the writings of the Prophet Mohammed which require that the clitoris be surgically modified. Thus God must approve of its presence. And so, it should not be removed or reduced in size or function. The Qur'an promotes the concept of a husband and wife giving each other pleasure during sexual intercourse. "It is lawful for you to go in unto your wives during the night preceding the (day's) fast: they are as a garment for you and you are as a garment for them." (2:187) ". . . and He has put love and mercy between you." (30:21) Mu, in The Qur'an (An-Nisa': 119) states that Satan will try to trick humans into body modification: "And I will surely lead them astray, and arouse desires in them, and command them and they will cut the cattle's ears, and I will surely command them and they will change Allah's creation."

This might be interpreted as forbidding FGM as well as tattoos, piercing and any other modification that alters the design of the human body as Allah created it. Nawal El-Saadawi, a Muslim victim of infibulation (partial closing/stitching of the vagina), says, "The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in these societies is the reason why female circumcision still remains a very widespread practice despite a growing tendency, especially in urban Egypt, to do away with it as something outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision lies the belief that, by removing parts of girls' external genitals organs, sexual desire is minimized. This permits a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and adolescence to protect her virginity, and therefore her honor, with greater ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the female harem by castration which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female circumcision is meant to preserve the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse." Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, head of the al-Azhar Islamic Institute has stated that the practice is un-Islamic. The Health Minister of Egypt, Ismail Sallam, announced the ban on FGM in 1996. This was upheld by a junior administrative court in Cairo. Sheik Youssef Badri, a Muslim fundamentalist, took the health minister to court. In 1997, an Egyptian court overturned the country's ban on FGM. Eight Muslim scholars and doctors had testified that the ban exceeded the government's authority and violated the legal rights of the medical profession. Sheik Youssef Badri commented: "[Female] circumcision is Islamic; the court has said that the ban violated religious law. There's nothing which says circumcision is a crime, but the Egyptians came along and said that Islam is a crime." The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel interviewed Sheik Badri. He claimed that many Muslim women are pleased with this victory of Islam over its enemies. When it was pointed out to him that parents in Morocco and Algeria do not practice FGM, he replied that the clitoris in Egyptian girls was larger than in those countries and had to be cut back to a normal size. He quoted a French study which showed that circumcised girls are less likely to contract AIDS. He believes that the United States is spreading misinformation on the health risks of FGM. The government appealed the case to Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court. They ruled that the operation is not required by Islam, and that "female circumcision is not a personal right according to the rules of Islamic Sharia (law)." Thus, FGM is subject to Egyptian law. They prohibited the procedure, even if it is done with the agreement of the child and her parents.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Send Topic Print