What Kind of Muslim Are You?

[SummerRain]

Horta, Is being a practicing Muslim new to you? I'm not being sarcastic, its a very sincere question?

Ur topic is just expanding on the paranoia and the bad image the West has on our religion by posting such polls.

[*Arabman]

[Ur topic is just expanding on the paranoia and the bad image the West has on our religion by posting such polls. ]

It bothers you the bad image the West has on our religion?

[*Gibran]

Ok, lets say that muslim societies should not adopt secular system. Tell us what kind of system you envision? The Taliban regime??

And before you go and say, Islamic State, what is the islamic state? the 7th Century Islamic caliphat?

[SummerRain]

[quote="*Arabman"][Ur topic is just expanding on the paranoia and the bad image the West has on our religion by posting such polls. ]

It bothers you the bad image the West has on our religion?[/quote]

I can not believe you just asked my if I cared about how my religion is viewed...........why would I not care? Dont you want to prove them wrong? Obviously not, seemingly, you have already adopted to the mind set that you're what the west definies you, that is the type of Muslim you are, to their flexibility and comfort...Pathetic. I dispise people who acknowledge the terms that are used upon them to be degraded, and thats exactly what you're doing. How about next time you remind us about what Islam is truly about but according to the definitions and the teachings of the quran and not what Bush and his adminstration came up with.

[*Arabman]

[Ok, lets say that muslim societies should not adopt secular system. Tell us what kind of system you envision?]

You believe in the separation of the state and religion. Islam is against adopting secular system. Why should I tell you what kind of system I envision since you're for what Islam is against?

[Dont you want to prove them wrong?]

But they will not be satisfied unless we leave Islam and follow whatever they follow. Don't you know that?

[Aiman]

[quote="Biif Baaf"]Both 'Terrorist' & 'Secular' are words conjured up by the West. I consider myself to be a devout Muslim who believes in the teachings of the Qur'an & the Sunnah of our Noble Prophet (saw). If that meakes me a 'Terrorist' then let it be so.[/quote]

Yes indeed.


[quote="*Gibran"]

Other thing, one can be muslim and secular..it does not mean that the person is a Kafir.. I am muslim, infact a practising one (pray, fast, etc). but at the same time, i believe in the concept of Secularism..spcially when it involves the state.. My faith is between me and God, and the state belongs to everyone.[/quote]

Non sense you are either a Muslim or not there is no middle ground. Is like a prostitute saying I could be a porn "star" at the same time be a Muslim or being gay at the same time be a Muslim is non sense you can't mix oil with water.

[qardasay]

The Thought of Sayyid Qutb:
Qutb recognizes that the concept of religion constituting an entire system of life completely conflicts with the Western concept of separation of church and state. He argues that the West was the first civilization to introduce a split between religion and society, belief and practice. Due to Western dominance, Qutb claims that societies all over the world have divorced faith from practical life and ostracized it to the point where it has become impotent.34 He strongly believes that this split has created a permanent condition of jahiliyyah in the West that has spread throughout the world, thereby creating numerous negative consequences. He characterizes the West’s separation of religion and society as a "hideous schizophrenia." He views it as a condition that has evolved due to "unfortunate circumstances" in the history of Christianity and Western civilization.35

For Qutb, the West’s affliction with hideous schizophrenia originates in the life of Jesus and His disciples’ interpretation of His teachings. He believes that Judaism was a Divine system of life; however, the Jews had developed an incorrect habit regarding ritual and their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was sent to correct these problems, and He promoted a gentler and spiritually pure understanding of Mosaic Law. God sent Jesus to affirm the Jewish faith, not to create a new religion of which He would be the centerpiece. However, the Jews misunderstood and rejected Jesus’ teachings and had Him crucified. After the crucifixion, the Jews and the followers of Jesus had such anger towards each other that the two camps became separate from each other. The new Gentile converts were equally hated by the Jews who rejected Jesus. Thus, Qutb argues that "despite the fact that the first Christians sought merely to renovate Judaism through a slight modification of its laws," the Christians were rejected with vehemence. Because of their isolation from the Jews, the Christians developed a more radical message. The Christian Bible became almost completely separated from the Old Testament although it continued to be considered Scripture. At the same time, the Divine law of Judaism that had once governed practical life was lost. Christianity became a wholly spiritual message that separated itself from the Mosaic Law that preceded it.36

However, Qutb believes that it was still possible that Jesus’ true message could have survived these initial problems. The intense fervor of the persecutions by both the Jews and the Romans ended any chance of this. The disciples and their followers were forced into hiding to protect their lives. The times demanded such secrecy that the Christian scriptures were haphazardly put together. The accounts of Jesus’ life could not be verified; hence, false legends and narratives were mixed with the authentic Gospel message. With this faulty Scriptural foundation, the growing Christian movement was destined to stray away from God’s divine intent. Qutb has strong words concerning the Apostle Paul, believing him to have a conception of Christianity "adulterated by the residues of Roman mythology and Greek philosophy." Qutb mentions the Incarnation as an example of mythology being used to explain Jesus’ life. Meanwhile, Paul’s separation of faith and works reflects the muddling of God’s revelation with Platonic concepts of the real and the ideal. Paul’s acceptance of Plato led to the complete abandonment of the Mosaic law, which was God’s guide for practical life.37

Christianity’s triumph under Emperor Constantine allows Qutb to explain the faith’s transition from its faulty conception to being part of a hideous schizophrenia. The simple fact is that Constantine was never a true believer. He lived a life of debauchery and irreverence towards God. It was not until moments before his death that he was baptized. Throughout his rule, high government officials mirrored his practices. They pretended to be Christians, but continued to practice paganism and idolatry. Society became hypocritical by proclaiming Christianity as the state religion while continuing with its old immoral habits. The development of Christian principles and their application to the social order became nearly irrelevant. By the time that Rome had reached its height of power, society had drifted even further away from God. Romans worshipped the power and wealth which they had acquired while using the Cross as their symbol on the battlefield. The Roman people and its leaders indulged in lustful behavior, sensual pleasure, and gluttonous appetites. Rome declined and was in need of moral regeneration.38

The Church attempted to save society. However, Qutb argues that it reacted in a way that further destroyed the Christian ideal. The Church did not choose to show society how to incorporate faith into everyday life; rather, it turned to monasticism. Christianity’s answer to Roman decline was to separate itself further from society. Monasticism is a practice that Qutb considers to be unnatural. It is a "sharp deviation from man’s nature" because of its embrace of celibacy, poverty, and consequent rejection of the physical world. Monasticism stood in strong contrast with the moral bankruptcy of mainstream society, thereby making itself out to be a symbol of human perfection. Qutb argues that it is not human perfection because it suppresses man’s potential and deprives him of his role as God’s "vicegerent on earth" (Qur’an 2:30). Instead of solving the problem, Qutb believes that monasticism allowed debauchery to co-exist with it. Society was split between the two extremes, each side perpetuating the other. Even the clergy of the church had difficulty meeting the demands of asceticism. As a result of its self-denial and rejection of this world, monasticism failed as a practical moral code for Christianity. Society and religion continued to drift from one another.39

Sadly, when the Church attempted to acquire political influence, it did so at the expense of its members. For example, the collection of indulgences, based on the false concept that Jesus gave the Church the power to forgive sins, was used to add to the wealth of the Church. Qutb argues that such exploitation allowed the temporal leaders, who were in a power struggle with the papacy, to use the people against the Church: "They resorted mainly to unveiling the scandals of the clergymen, exposing their clandestine perfidy and personal debauchery, which had been disguised behind priestly robes and ecclesiastical ritual."40

Qutb argues that the hideous schizophrenia of "separation of religion from the social order" became forever entrenched into Western civilization once the Church began to establish dogmas that contradicted logic and declared war on scientific inquiry. The Church began this destructive process when it declared itself theologically infallible and the lone interpreter of Scripture. By doing this, it prevented anyone from questioning its new dogmas and doctrines, many of which Qutb considers to have been "incomprehensible, inconceivable, and incredible." Qutb offers the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist as an example. He believes that the Eucharist had no precedent beyond a traditional consumption of bread and wine during Easter; nevertheless, the Church pushed the idea of transubstantiation. These dogmas were not open to rational discussion. Qutb argues that the irrational nature of these dogmas forced the Church to claim that they were "divine mysteries." Next, the Church began to authorize clergy to develop theories about natural laws that they believed were in accordance with Christian teaching. The result was a creation of scientific concepts that would not be able to stand the test of time. Nevertheless, some brave scientists did challenge the Church’s conceptions of the universe. The Church considered these challenges to be heresy. The development of the Inquisition and the ensuing bloodshed made honest scientific inquiry and religion mutually exclusive. Qutb believes that at this point Christianity had clearly ceased to be a true religion because it had declared war on rationality and reality. It had become incompatible with practical life and could not act as a viable guide for the social order.41

For Qutb, the Protestant Reformation represented the acceptance of the concept that religion could not act as a system of life in Europe. Religion had become a personal affair that was predominately spiritual instead of practical. The West’s hideous schizophrenia forced it into a permanent jahiliyyah. Even if the West wanted to end its schizophrenia, Qutb does not believe that Christianity is able due to so. Through Paul, its doctrines have embraced a Platonic "theory of opposition" in which the earth opposes heaven, worship opposes labor, spirit opposes body, and so on.42 However, he points out that despite Western dominance, numerous consequences of its hideous schizophrenia make it a failed civilization.

[biko]

Other thing, one can be muslim and secular..it does not mean that the person is a Kafir.. I am muslim, infact a practising one (pray, fast, etc). but at the same time, i believe in the concept of Secularism..spcially when it involves the state.. My faith is between me and God, and the state belongs to everyone.[/quote]

Non sense you are either a Muslim or not there is no middle ground. Is like a prostitute saying I could be a porn "star" at the same time be a Muslim or being gay at the same time be a Muslim is non sense you can't mix oil with water.[/quote]


aiman

i agree with the farax ...one can be muslim and beileive in the conept of secularism in regards to the affairs of the state. there is not one msulim country that can be said is a real Islamic state where the Sharia is implemented fully. at best they mix secular laws and Islamic affairs...which translate in laymen's terms...semi-secu/Isla...= secular state,..and as you have stated yourself earlier,... you cannot play mix-match with Islam.

let just say for argument sake, the ICU are still in power in somalia and with all the good things they have done if a referendum was held on the issue of whether somalia should be ruled under strick Islamic laws, i would have gone for the NOs!

why cos i dont beleieve that we(somalia) is ready for such governance concidering its recaent past. this shouldnt be seen as not having faith on Islam but rather been prudent and not sure about the people who will be upholding such laws.

[*Arabman]

[why cos i dont beleieve that we(somalia) is ready for such governance concidering its recaent past.]

Are you saying Somalis aren't ready for the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah? If so, your statement is faulty. There's no such thing as being ready for the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. We aren't in the era of the prophet (saw), when certain Islamic laws/injunctions/rulings were introduced in stages, like drinking alcohol at certain times until it was completely forbidden. Besides, Somalis have been there and done it; they were ruled with Islamic governance (Shariica) for 6 months, and it brought them peace, security, brotherhood, prosperity, etc.

[Grant]

Tam,

My vision of reality is considerably different from yours. I did not vote, but I have to comment here:

" Besides, Somalis have been there and done it; they were ruled with Islamic governance (Shariica) for 6 months, and it brought them peace, security, brotherhood, prosperity, etc."

Even during it's very short tenure the ICU was deeply divided between it's moderate and hardline elements. Not every Somali supported the criminalization of qaad or watching foreign movies. Others were offended by the destruction of the tombs of the sheiks in Barawe. Foreigners especially were offended by the public exercutions and floggings and the unpunished murders of Martin Adler and Sister Leonella, who were treated by the ICU as kaffirs rather than human beings. You try to make it sound as if all Somalis supported the hardline positions, which they did not.

Any "prosperity" during the ICU period was the direct result of stopping the extortion at the isbaaros. There was no actual increase in GDP. In fact, I believe I heard the initial ICU "revolt" was financed by a great deal of stolen Dahabshiil money. These are diversions of wealth, not it's creation.

My observation of this period is that, with or without the Ethiopian presence, peace, security and brotherhood ended at the borders of Hawiye territory. To say the ICU controlled a peaceful South is just not true.

You seem to think the radically conservative elements in Islam need protection from the outside world. I would say the reverse is true. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to your opinions and free to do with your private life as you will, but your ability to impose your will on others must end at the end of your arm. It's like abortions. If you believe they are immoral, don't have one.
If you believe tombs in mosques are haram, dont have them in yours. Change opinions through education if you can, but respect others enough to leave their opinions, lives, institutions and property intact if that doesn't work. They will get their reward. It was a mistake and an immoral and unethical act to destroy the Buddhas of Bamyan. I have to believe there is something wrong if you don't see that.

[Daanyeer]

Bariis iyo Hiilib with MOOS/MUUS.

[Demure]

[quote="*Arabman"][I would say peculiar question coming from someone who prides himself for being a devout Muslim.]

I don't pride myself of anything; I can only hope that I am a devout Muslim, and if I am, I can only be thankful to Allah. Islam is against pride, being proud and nationalism. Islam also teaches, any Muslim with an ounce of pride will not enter paradise.[/quote]

Evade the question all you want Arabman, but still it's strange to me you are asking the very question you debated was a western based argument in the past.

[muslim-man]

Arabman,

If being secular is about separating religion from government or day to day life and terrorism is about blowing up innocent people, then i'm neither. However, if being a terror man is about praying five times a day, fighting or hating oppression, injustices, brutality and siding with my muslim brothers & sisters (if they are fighting for ha'q and agains't the aforementioned issues), then i'm one and a proud one at that

I havne't voted and will not untill you make clear what you mean by "terrorist muslim"? coz your poll above does not warrant a vote. secular muslim is out of the question! it shouldn't be there to begin with

[biko]

[quote="*Arabman"][why cos i dont beleieve that we(somalia) is ready for such governance concidering its recaent past.]

Are you saying Somalis aren't ready for the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah? If so, your statement is faulty. There's no such thing as being ready for the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. We aren't in the era of the prophet (saw), when certain Islamic laws/injunctions/rulings were introduced in stages, like drinking alcohol at certain times until it was completely forbidden. Besides, Somalis have been there and done it; they were ruled with Islamic governance (Shariica) for 6 months, and it brought them peace, security, brotherhood, prosperity, etc.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you saying Somalis aren't ready for the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah?"


thats not what i meant, but i'll let you read a reply from brother nur to a sister who asked if somalia is ready for sharia law?

and this was when the ICU was in control.



----


Are We Ready For Sharia Law?


A sister once asked me on another thread the need to enforce the stoning of the adulterer clause in the Sharia in Somalia today, here was my response, please read and reflect, here is the text of my response:

Bismillah wa bihi nastaciin.


Islam is a wholesome way of life, it was completed at the time of prophet Muhammad SAWS. Later, the years that followed, Islam as a community, witnessed blossoming, and then slow death that many are betting that it is all over today.

The first community of Islam were persecuted in Makkah, they fled to Medina and found sympathy among the people of Medina who supported this new faith and gave it a launching pad.

It was in Medina that the laws of stoning were reconfirmed, as the Jews who lived in Medina had the same law in their holy books ( read Suuratul Maaedah). When I say the laws were reconfirmed , I mean that the laws of Moses were binding until Muhammad SAWS appeared, at that point, the new prophet through divine revelation, had the choice to either abolish or sustain that law. ( the law was sustained)

Early in the last Century, The Caliphate, represented by Sultan Abdul Hamid of Turkey was dismantled and a new secular Turkey identifying itself with Europe was born. In a way, the last nail was hammered on the coffin of the Islamic Nation that lasted for 1400 years. Afterwards, nation- states were born and the European nations inherited much of the inheritance of this dead Caliph.

Holland Taking Indonesia, and the rest divided in the Berlin Conference that pretty much feasted on the world map as its rightful colonies. As Somalis, we became the property of three colonial masters, The British, Italians and the French. Because of that division, today, we eat fish and chips, spaghetti, and chocolate souffl� respectively. So you can see how united we are as a nation.

The last century witnessed the rebirth of Islam, after many Muslim intellectuals dusted out our lost heritage and realized the extent of damage done to our existence as a viable faith and a message for mankind.

These intellectuals, from Pakistan to Tunis, called for the rebirth of Islam as a state, not merely as a religion. Because unlike Christianity, Islam was formulated from the beginning as a state for the faithful. The proof of this statement resides in the Library of Congress, not in the card catalogue, but on the Main Dome roof as you walk in, look up the Main Dome Roof to see ISLAM engraved on the roof next to France and Britain as a state among states. A living and a fair testament America is offering the Muslim world for a lasting recognition.

Today, Islam is going through tumultuous times to reestablish itself, however, the times have changed not in the sense of technology, but in the sense, that, both Christianity and Judaism, our sister religions have been marginalized and are no longer religions for social change, and Islam is expected to follow suit.

Based on that quick background, many Islamic activists who want to reestablish Islam as a state for the faithful differ greatly, just as the Jews who have established Israel have differed on the creation of Israel, each one of them interpreting it his own way.

But the Jews ( as a faith and nation ) got their state when Britain's Balfour Declaration gave the Jews Palestine after the holocaust and the fundamentalist Jews were forced to go with the secular interpretation of the creation of Israel.

So today Muslims are living in nation states, grouped along geographical and ethnic lines, not faith. The laws of these nations are secular in nature with some honor mentioning of Islam as the official religion of the state, in most so called constitutions. The practical laws of these nations are the European colonial laws, like the French law, which ironically have borrowed some laws from the Hanafi school of thought, specially in the inheritance law.

In light of that background, and the fact that Islam as a legal entity is disenfranchised, taking the Islamic law into ones hands will portray Islam very badly to an audience that is in dire need for it.

Applying part of Islamic laws in makeshift courts, will alienate those who are sympathetic to Islam, because the beauty of Islam resides in its enforcement of Islamic laws as a WHOLESOME and COMPLETE jurisprudence, not selective pieces and parts.

The laws of Islam can only be enforced within a community that is willing to abide by the moral of the law before the letter of the law, and we all know, that such a community, does not exisit today, even if it exists in a geographical terms, it does not yet have the international community mandate or understanding that it needs to declare such a sovereign state.

We are thus in changing times, and as times change, we are suddenly finding ourselves again in old Mecca township and village setting, a small world after all, indeed.

And as such, we as Muslims have to deal with this new reality wisely by looking into the early Meccan period and the persecutions of the faithful and the Divine strategy of focusing their attention on the spiritual aspect and prayers and not on wars, retaliation and revenge, even when when unjustly attacked, Allah says:

( stop retaliating and establish regular prayers) Quraan.

In conclusion, Islam today governs the individual, not the community, so, up until a willing community which can best represent Islam in all spheres of life is born, applying the Islamic law may not serve the best interests of Islam. A spare part for a Ford, will not work on a GM.

Wallahu Aclam


Nur

[*Arabman]

[However, if being a terror man is about praying five times a day, fighting or hating oppression, injustices, brutality and siding with my muslim brothers & sisters (if they are fighting for ha'q and agains't the aforementioned issues), then i'm one and a proud one at that ]

Are you saying you support Muslim insurgencies against the occupations of Somalia, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world? Are you also saying you support the means and methods (including martyrdom operations) those Muslim insurgencies employ against the occupiers?

[thats not what i meant, but i'll let you read a reply from brother nur to a sister who asked if somalia is ready for sharia law?]

You let me read what brother Nur wrote instead of making a response of your own? You lack enough confidence in yourself to make a response of your own?