Islamic Reformation

larryone

A simple question:
Do you think that an Islamic reformation is at all likely to happen in our lifetimes?

Rev Hellfire

Define what you mean by reformation.
Islam doesn't have the same centralised structure that christianity at the time of the break from the catholic church. I'm not sure how the comparison to the christian church is valid.

the_new_mr

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by reformation.

If you mean a reformation as in changing laws laid down in the Quran, then I (and most Muslims) could never accept that. One of the final verses revealed in the Quran during the Prophet Mohamed's (peace be upon him) final sermon was:

Al-Maida:3
"...This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion..."

If you mean a reformation as in going back to the true teachings of the Quran which is void of cultural influences and the like then I'm all up for that. I don't want to give the wrong impression here. What I mean is that Islam has been given a bad name by those who wish to use it for terror and oppression but also by those who wish to tarnish the image of Islam in the media. So, I want to return to a time of proper understanding like that present at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

If you mean a reformation as in going back to the true teachings of the Quran which is void of cultural influences and the like then I'm all up for that.

You could argue quite forcefully that the Quran itself is heavily culturally infuenced by the time and location it sprang from. The fact that it can only be fully understood in one language, Arabic is but one example. An Arabic that itself has changed in the interim time, even with the Quran held up as a standard. If the Prophet was Indian, Chinese or indeed Irish(:D ), then Islam, while containing similarities, may have had quite a different nature. Polygamy, slave owning, belief in one god etc would be very strong cultural markers that would not be present as an example in modern day Thailand.

the_new_mr

Well, of course, you could only make that argument if you believe that the Quran was man made. So, depending on what you believe, there are only two possibilities with two possible courses of action.

1.: You believe that the Quran was revealed to the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) by God and therefore know that it's God's words and so don't require reform.
2.: You don't believe that the Quran is the word of God and therefore shouldn't actually have a say in any idea of reform.

I'd also like to say that the changing Arabic you mentioned is only relevant to different Arabic dialects. The Quran uses classical Arabic which hasn't changed at all (or very little) since its revelation. I don't mean to sound patronising but you'd need to know more about Arabic and the Quran before anyone could make such an argument.

Also, Islam actually set things in place to phase out slave owning and this is clear if we examine the Quran and Sunna (ways of the Prohet (peace be upon him)) carefully as well as the history of the Islamic state.

And by the way, worshipping of One God was not common practice at all in Arabia at that time.

I should probably make my idea of reform a bit clearer. I also mean that large efforts should be made by Islamic scholars to apply the teaching of the Quran and the Sunna to modern day life as Islam is a religion till the day of judgement. Some scholars already do this. Please don't misunderstand me though as I'm not one of those people that tries to make everything okay to do in Islam but there are a few things that need some closer attention.

The Hill Billy

Who is to say that Islam is in need of reformation?
That's a very presumptious question.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, of course, you could only make that argument if you believe that the Quran was man made.

Partially true, I'll agree. You could also argue that even in examining Islam as a prelude to embracing it as a faith, such questions might still be valid. The cultural angle would have a bearing. The idea that the Quran can only be truly understood in a particular language might be a block for many. It appears to narrow it down to a particular time and place. The idea of a universal truth, laid down immutable for all time is a difficult one for some as "truth" itself seems quite fluid depending on time, culture and viewpoint.

2.: You don't believe that the Quran is the word of God and therefore shouldn't actually have a say in any idea of reform.

Maybe not, but a right to at least make the question would be valid, surely? Especially in the current climate of seeming ignorance on both sides.

I'd also like to say that the changing Arabic you mentioned is only relevant to different Arabic dialects. The Quran uses classical Arabic which hasn't changed at all (or very little) since its revelation. I don't mean to sound patronising but you'd need to know more about Arabic and the Quran before anyone could make such an argument.

Of course, but the point I was making was concerning the apparent cultural influences on the faith.

Also, Islam actually set things in place to phase out slave owning and this is clear if we examine the Quran and Sunna (ways of the Prohet (peace be upon him)) carefully as well as the history of the Islamic state.

A debate I'd be happy to join in another thread.

And by the way, worshipping of One God was not common practice at all in Arabia at that time.

Very true, but the Jewish and Christian traditions were also very strong in the area, which are both monoatheistic religions. To look at it another way, if Islam had arisen in a Hindu region, it would have been more unusual. The cultural framework was present in Arabia and as such other cultural influences could also be argued(even from the point of view of the faithful).

Please don't misunderstand me though as I'm not one of those people that tries to make everything okay to do in Islam but there are a few things that need some closer attention.

And I for one would fight for your right to do just that. I only have a problem when such religious views(any) inform the governance of a secular democracy, where dissenters or non believers views are not taken into account. It's a difficult balance to strike, I'll admit, but worth striving for.

Hill Billy wrote:

Who is to say that Islam is in need of reformation?
That's a very presumptious question.

While I do take your point, Islam as a faith has many precepts that would likely clash with western precepts of government and general life. The separation between church and state might be one. As such, questions like these are valid IMHO, if nothing else to gain understanding of the culture behind both ideals.

UU

Well Islam is quite different from Christianity in that there aren't any specific heads of the religion, I believe? Catholicism has the Pope and the Church itself, Buddhism has the Dalai Lama.

Islam can actually be quite variable in different areas. For example, when I went to Tunisia in North Africa, there they were quite liberal - the women didn't wear headscarves, the political party is secular and some Muslims I met even had wine at times (probably due to French cultural influence). On the other hand, places like Iran are very strict regarding Islamic laws. As for a reform, well that's up to Muslims themselves......

the_new_mr

Hill Billy wrote:

Who is to say that Islam is in need of reformation?
That's a very presumptious question.

Totally agree.

Wibbs wrote:

Partially true, I'll agree. You could also argue that even in examining Islam as a prelude to embracing it as a faith, such questions might still be valid. The cultural angle would have a bearing.

I don't really see how. I mean, if you approach Islam with an open mind and heart on the possibility that it's revealed from God then why would you go and try and critique it on the basis that it was man made? You can try and exclude modern day cultural associations that have tarnished the image of Islam but as for the text of the Quran itself, that's a different story.

Wibbs wrote:

The idea that the Quran can only be truly understood in a particular language might be a block for many. It appears to narrow it down to a particular time and place. The idea of a universal truth, laid down immutable for all time is a difficult one for some as "truth" itself seems quite fluid depending on time, culture and viewpoint.

While it is true that the Quran only exists in Arabic (translations are just that... translations... not English/French/German versions of the Quran), the message of Islam is simple. Worship One God with no partners, believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) is the final messenger, enjoin good and forbid evil.

A person would be better trying to decide whether the Quran was indeed from God or not and that, as I said before, would best be done in this mdoern day in age by examining the scientific miracles etc.

Wibbs wrote:

Maybe not, but a right to at least make the question would be valid, surely? Especially in the current climate of seeming ignorance on both sides.

With total respect, sorry but I don't agree. As Hill Billy said, it's very presumptious to assume that it needs a reformation in the first place.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, Islam actually set things in place to phase out slave owning and this is clear if we examine the Quran and Sunna (ways of the Prohet (peace be upon him)) carefully as well as the history of the Islamic state.

A debate I'd be happy to join in another thread.

Well, I've a very good book here. It's called "Islam on Trial" and it's really quite excellent. There's whole chapters on the most delicate topics. When I have a bit more time (and energy... it's 6 am ), I'll post the section on slavery.

Wibbs wrote:

To look at it another way, if Islam had arisen in a Hindu region, it would have been more unusual. The cultural framework was present in Arabia and as such other cultural influences could also be argued(even from the point of view of the faithful).

Not at all. What a lot of people don't know is that Islam brought with it a complete revolution of social values completely alien to the people of Arabia at the time. There are many many examples. One such example is the establishment of women as equal to men. All over the world at that time, women were living very sub-standard roles in society. Islam gave them rights that western laws only began to give women in the mid 20th century.

Wibbs wrote:

I only have a problem when such religious views(any) inform the governance of a secular democracy, where dissenters or non believers views are not taken into account. It's a difficult balance to strike, I'll admit, but worth striving for.

With respect, you have to ask yourself one question. Who is to say that the western form of democracy is the best kind? Is it not full of problems as it is? Also, to say that the views of non believers are not taken into account in an Islamic state is completely false. It's a known historical fact that Christians and Jews actually preferred to live under Muslim rule than under the rule of other kings/leaders/etc Non-Muslims in a proper Muslim state have complete religious freedom etc.

Wibbs wrote:

As such, questions like these are valid IMHO, if nothing else to gain understanding of the culture behind both ideals.

I totally agree with you that mutual understanding is an important responsibility on everyone. It must be done with an open mind though and you have to try and leave behind all the mental baggage that has been attained over years and years of living in a particular system with a particular way of thinking and particular views.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Totally agree.

If the question itself can't even be asked, where does progress lie in the dialogue between what appears to be two opposing viewpoints in the world, secular humanism(for want of a better word) versus Islam(and fundamental christianity for that matter)?

I don't really see how. I mean, if you approach Islam with an open mind and heart on the possibility that it's revealed from God then why would you go and try and critique it on the basis that it was man made?

But is not critique not critigue, regardless of source? This is the problem with applying critique to any faith. By it's very nature the faithful believe. Science may believe a theory but it's open to review.

You can try and exclude modern day cultural associations that have tarnished the image of Islam but as for the text of the Quran itself, that's a different story.

Fair enough, but what modern day cultural associations do you speak of? If it's crap like "honour" killings, then yes, I agree that's not from Islam or the Quran, Hadeeth or any Muslim text I'm aware of. However there are ideas found in Islam such as the cutting of the hands of thieves, death to apostates etc., that many in a "modern" society might have serious issues with.

.../the message of Islam is simple. Worship One God with no partners, believe that Mohamed (peace be upon him) is the final messenger, enjoin good and forbid evil.

TBH that would be an over simplification of Islam. The first and last points would find little problem with most of a Judeo Christian background(among others), but the middle point would be the sticking point as some(not all of course) of the instructions of Mohamed would be anathema to many in the west, both secular and spritual.

A person would be better trying to decide whether the Quran was indeed from God or not and that, as I said before, would best be done in this mdoern day in age by examining the scientific miracles etc.

Which I and others have and found too many inconsistencies as discussed before. In any case, I don't think faith needs science anyway.

With total respect, sorry but I don't agree. As Hill Billy said, it's very presumptious to assume that it needs a reformation in the first place.

It's wasn't an assumption, it was a question. Sometimes it's the reaction to a question, rather than the answer that informs more.

Well, I've a very good book here. It's called "Islam on Trial" and it's really quite excellent. There's whole chapters on the most delicate topics. When I have a bit more time (and energy... it's 6 am ), I'll post the section on slavery.

Bring it on.:D After some sleep of course.

Not at all. What a lot of people don't know is that Islam brought with it a complete revolution of social values completely alien to the people of Arabia at the time.

How do we know that? The written history of immediate pre Islamic Arabia is sparse(for many reasons). What there is no doubt is that part of the world contains some of the earliest civilisations on earth, largely unbroken for over 5 thousand years.

One such example is the establishment of women as equal to men. All over the world at that time, women were living very sub-standard roles in society. Islam gave them rights that western laws only began to give women in the mid 20th century.

I agree that among the Arabian people Islam gave more rights than many other societies at the time and for a long time after that. Yet for all these rights, Islam still considers a womans testimony in court as worth half a mans, still considers a man as a maintainer of the woman with a degree of superiority above them. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.034
and still considers them the majority in hell, deficient in intelligence and religion; http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301

With respect, you have to ask yourself one question. Who is to say that the western form of democracy is the best kind?

I never said that the current form is perfect, but it is more open to change and evolution. It has more capacity for adaptation in the face of changing circumstance. This is certainly not the case with Islam as it's precepts are "written in stone" over 1500 yrs ago, with no chance for change. The very question of change is seemingly a presumptious one.

Is it not full of problems as it is?

Of course it is. That's the nature of humanity. In any case there has never been the perfect Islamic state, in the past or now. The current Islamic states are for the most part in a worse economic, scientific and educational state than the western states.

Also, to say that the views of non believers are not taken into account in an Islamic state is completely false.

While people of the book(christians and jews) have some rights in an Islamic state, pagans etc are a grey area(debated to death before tbh)

It's a known historical fact that Christians and Jews actually preferred to live under Muslim rule than under the rule of other kings/leaders/etc

I agree that in Spain for example it would have be en far preferable to have lived in the Muslim part than in the Christian part. Not surprising as the christian part was very backward with the rule of law by comparison. That was then and this is now however. Given the same choice I and many others wouldn't make the same one today. Times change.

It must be done with an open mind though and you have to try and leave behind all the mental baggage that has been attained over years and years of living in a particular system with a particular way of thinking and particular views.

An open mind is a two way street. I am quite willing to leave behind "mental baggage" (some anyway) in a bid for understanding. I'm quite willing to admit that our system is not the best as it stands. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and say our western system is open to reform. Is Islam?

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

If the question itself can't even be asked, where does progress lie in the dialogue between what appears to be two opposing viewpoints in the world, secular humanism(for want of a better word) versus Islam(and fundamental christianity for that matter)?

Well, it's always up to a group themselves to decide whether or not they need to make changes. I wouldn't tell Hindus to consider changing their religion. It's not my place.

Mutual understanding can still be obatained of course. That's partly the goal of this forum I guess. However, I don't think it's right to ask people to compromise their religion for the sake of others. Islam belongs to God so even Muslims don't have the right to change it. It's up to Muslims and Muslim scholars all over the world to try and get a better understanding of Islam and use its teachings to apply to the modern world but that doesn't mean changing things which obviously shouldn't be changed. There are always going to be differences of opinions though. There has been for the last 1400 years and that's just something that has to be accepted.

Wibbs wrote:

But is not critique not critigue, regardless of source? This is the problem with applying critique to any faith. By it's very nature the faithful believe. Science may believe a theory but it's open to review.

God doesn't ask people to follow with blind faith. That's why science and religion should be closely linked. We can certainly agree that there is a certain amount of faith inolved and it's okay to ponder and question about certain things in a faith but I think people should be careful not to approach it with any kind of arrogance (for want of a better word) and believe that they have the right ideas only if ya catch my drift?

Wibbs wrote:

but the middle point would be the sticking point as some(not all of course) of the instructions of Mohamed would be anathema to many in the west, both secular and spritual.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there.

Wibbs wrote:

How do we know that? The written history of immediate pre Islamic Arabia is sparse(for many reasons). What there is no doubt is that part of the world contains some of the earliest civilisations on earth, largely unbroken for over 5 thousand years.

Not as sparse as you might think. There's plenty of research based upon both Muslim and non-Muslim texts.

Wibbs wrote:

I agree that among the Arabian people Islam gave more rights than many other societies at the time and for a long time after that. Yet for all these rights, Islam still considers a womans testimony in court as worth half a mans, still considers a man as a maintainer of the woman with a degree of superiority above them.

Well, the rights of women in Islam was not only better than Arabian societies but indeed societies all over the world. It's crazy to think that it was still being discussed in France back in 1586 whether or not a woman was a human being!! Indeed, women weren't considered citizens in England until the year 1850 and were not allowed possess any property until 1832 nor had they any personal rights!

Of course, as you said, that was then and this is now but the fact still remains that Islam had women placed as equals in society from over 1400 years ago. Men and women are different and Islam acknowledges that. One of the links in the FAQ thread ellaborates more on this fact.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING3

Some verses showing equality of men and women before God (mentioned in the link given).

Surat An-Nisaa:124
"If any do deeds of righteousness - be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Paradise, and not the least injustice will be done to them"

Al-Ahzab:35
"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward."

Wibbs wrote:

and still considers them the majority in hell, deficient in intelligence and religion;

I'm not a religious scholar but I believe that this narration of this hadith is not completely accurate. I think the part about being sometimes being ungrateful etc is correct but the part about being less in intelligence is not.

Wibbs wrote:

I never said that the current form is perfect, but it is more open to change and evolution. It has more capacity for adaptation in the face of changing circumstance. This is certainly not the case with Islam as it's precepts are "written in stone" over 1500 yrs ago, with no chance for change. The very question of change is seemingly a presumptious one.

Well, if you're a Muslim, then you belive that it doesn't need change because God says it's the perfect religion. This may seem arrogant to some people but you have consider the typical Muslim's point of view.

Without doubt, there are no more proper Islamic states in this day in age and that's sad. Still, that's the fault of man and not God.

Wibbs wrote:

An open mind is a two way street. I am quite willing to leave behind "mental baggage" (some anyway) in a bid for understanding. I'm quite willing to admit that our system is not the best as it stands. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and say our western system is open to reform. Is Islam?

Well, I think a more prominent question is "Should Islam?" As I said earlier, a faith shouldn't have to change for the people. Rather, people should change for a faith. If someone believes that the Quran is the word of God, then why would they think of changing the texts to "suit" them? Is this not the beginnings of a man made religion? I understand that something like the cutting off of hands of thieves may seem shocking to some people but it's important to remember a few things on this point and others like it.

One thing is that a thief is classified as someone who steals without need. If someone steels out of necessity (bread for food for example) then the state has no right to cut off their hands. Indeed, Oman Ibn Al-Khattab (I think it was him) temporarily suspended this law during a famine.

Of course, this doesn't mean that Muslms and non-Muslims can't live together peacefully. I would hope that my life and the life of my friends and family are examples of that.

Actually, whilst writing this post, I remembered an interview I saw with Hamza Yusuf that was conducted on BBC. Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/03/forums/talking_point/islam09sep.ram
It's a good interview. Hamza Yusuf interrupts yer man a bit too much but maybe it was because he was so anxious to get some things across. I think he covers a lot of what is currently being discussed on this thread.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't really see how. I mean, if you approach Islam with an open mind and heart on the possibility that it's revealed from God then why would you go and try and critique it on the basis that it was man made? You can try and exclude modern day cultural associations that have tarnished the image of Islam but as for the text of the Quran itself, that's a different story.

An open mind isn't accepting beliefs to be true, its allowing yourself to see something from a point of view that's potentially somewhat alien to you.

I'm open minded, why would I not be open to the word of Quran being God-made? Of course I am it's just no one's provided evidence to suggest it was God-made. They've just told me to believe it.

Science on the other hand has proven a lot of things that the Quran didn't mention\contradicts. (earth being made in 7 days & being 7000 years old vs Darwins theory & the earth in fact being in fact quite a bit older*)

*This would actually be an argument based on the book of Genesis. Not entirely sure if its fair to assume Islam has the same theory about the Earth's origins. So my apologies if it doesn't.

the_new_mr

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

An open mind isn't accepting beliefs to be true, its allowing yourself to see something from a point of view that's potentially somewhat alien to you.

Yep, agree with that. We could ellaborate further and say that it's allowing yourself the possibility to be convinced with another point of view.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I'm open minded, why would I not be open to the word of Quran being God-made? Of course I am it's just no one's provided evidence to suggest it was God-made. They've just told me to believe it.

Science on the other hand has proven a lot of things that the Quran didn't mention\contradicts. (earth being made in 7 days & being 7000 years old vs Darwins theory & the earth in fact being in fact quite a bit older*)

*This would actually be an argument based on the book of Genesis. Not entirely sure if its fair to assume Islam has the same theory about the Earth's origins. So my apologies if it doesn't.

Well, I'm glad you put that disclaimer on your post there Your apology is of course accepted

Islam and the Quran does not hold that the world is 7000 years or whatever years old at all. That's one important point to mention. Whereas the Quran does say that the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them was created in six days, it's important to remember that these are not days in the way we measure them. Think Einstein.

Al-Sajda:4-5
"It is Allah Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all between them, in six Days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): ye have none, besides Him, to protect or intercede (for you): will ye not then receive admonition?; He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning."

Although the above verses don't show what the measure of the days when the heavens and the earth were being created exactly were, it does show the principle that not all days are measured the same if ya know what I mean?

Other verses showing differences in time:
Al-Hajj:47
"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning."

Al-Ma'arig:4
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:"

Note that the last verse doesn't say "of your reckoning".

Anyway, what I want to say is that the Quran doesn't say that the earth is 6000 years old and doesn't say that the earth was created in six days as we know them (144 of our hours).

Also, I've read a lot about people saying that there are scientific contradictions in the Quran. I'm not sure what they mean really. I've already talked about this in this post and then there's the following link that contains some good information about scientific miracles/evidences in the Quran. I think it's all pretty solid but I guess that's for everyone to decide for themselves.

I hope I answered as best I could.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, I've read a lot about people saying that there are scientific contradictions in the Quran. I'm not sure what they mean really. I've already talked about this in this post and then there's the following link that contains some good information about scientific miracles/evidences in the Quran. I think it's all pretty solid but I guess that's for everyone to decide for themselves.

Since we're steering away form the topic.. Faith is one thing, but when someone makes extraordinary claims of a scientific nature, one must have the evidence to back it up. It is very similar to the creationist/darwinist thread on the Christianity forum. That is running for quite a while over there. I have no wish to start similar here, because as I've said, science and religion have issues when combined. I posted on this topic before, when Suff made similar claims. Here follows just one of the arguments against the claim in said thread;

*-THE LAYERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE:

I knew I'd seen this before. Seven has been a mystical number for a very long time. One of the reasons for this was the number of planets the ancients could see As one of the links below states the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. To divide the "heavens" into seven spheres is quite common in mythology and doesn't refer to seven layers of the atmosphere. It's an astrological reference at best and a commonly held pre copernican view of the universe(or heavens). It would be natural for the people of Arabia to continue with this idea as it was the current one.

http://www.eliki.com/ancient/myth/daily/

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html

This graphic illustrates the concept better

http://www.12x30.net/early1.html

As for the proof contained in the seven layers of earth. You will find the ancients also had the notion that there were likely seven layers below as above. Seven layers to hell and all that. I find it interesting that in your example lithosphere is mentioned twice, so actually there are six layers of the earth in science.

"Mandate" of the heavens is different to function, but here the problem may be the translation of the Arabic. In any case, the planets were assigned different "functions" or meanings in astrological terms, so the passage would still read correctly from that viewpoint. While you explained their scientific functions, the Quran in that passage at least, does not.

Also on re-reading the Quranic passage a second time, it appears to suggest that the earth was created before the "heavens".

Quote:
He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven

Now if we take your view that the "heavens" is referring to the atmosphere, then the Quran says everything on earth(including life etc) was created before the atmosphere. Any understanding of science would say this is impossible. If you take my view that it refers to the 7 "planets", then it's equally false scientifically. It would mean the Earth was created before the rest of the universe. The theory goes back to the pre-copernican view that the Earth is the center of all things(which we now know isn't the case).

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/041.qmt.html#041.012

If you continue to read the relevent passages that you quote, you will also see that according to the Quran, the stars(lights/lamps) were also created after the earth. Interestingly it also says that Allah "adorned the lower/nether heaven with lights". this would suggest that the stars are in the lowest levels of the atmosphere. Even if we take that it means the last "heaven" it still means that according to the Quran, the stars are part of the atmosphere. Which we know is untrue. Again we're back to the ancient pre-copernican view of the universe.

Further in this passage of the Quran it suggests that the sun sets in a black sea or dirty pool, which science would contradict;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/018.qmt.html#018.086

If you would like to continue this debate here or elsewhere in a different thread or more appropriate setting I'd be happy to debate it with you.

the_new_mr

Have to be honest, when I first started reading from "I knew I'd seen this before...", I thought I had missed a complete paragraph (or two)

Anyway, upon reading further, I see what you meant.

Before I say anything at all. I'd just like to say that the Quran is God's word and man can only try their best to interpret the meaning of the verses. This may not always be done correctly. I know that sounds like a "get out of jail free card" for later but it's really not. I'm just stating the fact that it's not God's fault if someone understands a verse incorrectly and then tries to state things based upon that false understanding.

Anyway, there's certainly no mention of the thing with seven meaning seven planets or anything like that so I think we can ignore this point.

As for the skies, first of all, the Quran refers to both anything above the earth and the universe as "heavens" or (my translation) "skies". So, it's not necessarily always referencing the atmosphere (if ever). Keeping this in mind, we can see how easily it could be that people could misinterpret verses.

I have to say, that my reference for the number of layers of the atmosphere is indeed 7... but then, does it matter? After all, this is just something that different scientists could differ on anyway. I can see it now.
Scientist A: It's 6 layers I tell you!
Scientist B: NO!! It's seven!
Scientist C: YOU'RE BOTH WRONG!! IT'S EIGHT!!
and so on...

As for the thing about the Sun setting in a murky pool of water, that's only a reference to how it appeared to him. In the same way we might say "And so the sun sinks in the sea for another day" when we're at the beach.

Indeed, the Quran states that:
Al-Anbiya:33
"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course."

Ya-Sin:38
"And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing."

Science has recently found that even the sun is in its own orbit and moving towards a particular location.

I find it interesting that people are more interested in proving the Quran wrong with science when science is only man made and is prone to being wrong. It's been wrong before and I'm sure will be wrong again in the future. That's not me "dissing" science mind you! Science is a very very important part of our lives.

I find it even more interesting that people ignore verses that science completely agrees with and have amazed scientists who are specialists in their respective fields.
Just one example:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Before I say anything at all. I'd just like to say that the Quran is God's word and man can only try their best to interpret the meaning of the verses. This may not always be done correctly. I know that sounds like a "get out of jail free card" for later but it's really not. I'm just stating the fact that it's not God's fault if someone understands a verse incorrectly and then tries to state things based upon that false understanding.
[/url]

Hi,

Might have got off on the wrong foot with my pervious posts. I'll be good

Just to bring it back to the topic of Islamic reformation. Do you not feel that a reformation is needed ?

I mean Islam has many sides, its the full package Spiritually sufi, and political shia and a mix of both sunni. But I feel over the past few decades the Islam which is being propagated throughout the world is very political. For example, if you go to mosque the talk will be more about the troubles in palistine rather than about the Quran. Im not saying that its not important to speak about the issues affecting muslims but I think it has caused people to loose focus.

Also, although people do speak out in public against suicide bombers, behind closed doors there is a feeling of "well thats what they deserve". Much the same as the Irish would have had with the English when the troubles were at their height.

I have heard the word Kafur being used against Irish muslims parents (who are not muslims) but I have NEVER heard the word used against a suicide bomber even though in the papers the muslim leaders will say that it is against Islam.

So, in that sence I feel Islam is in need of reform. I think people need to get back to the original message of the Quran, tolerance. Is this possible ?

D

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Have to be honest, when I first started reading from "I knew I'd seen this before...", I thought I had missed a complete paragraph (or two)

Well i miss stuff all over the place, most of the time so....:D

Anyway, upon reading further, I see what you meant.

That's a first. I'm gonna use you as a witness that i'm sometimes understandable.:)

I know that sounds like a "get out of jail free card" for later but it's really not. I'm just stating the fact that it's not God's fault if someone understands a verse incorrectly and then tries to state things based upon that false understanding.

Hmmm I'll let that slip.

Anyway, there's certainly no mention of the thing with seven meaning seven planets or anything like that so I think we can ignore this point.

With respect one can't ignore it, as it's precisely the way the ancients in many parts of the world regarded the "heavens". The heavens were the seven observable "planets".

Science has recently found that even the sun is in its own orbit and moving towards a particular location.

Yes but if you look at it from the ancients way of thinking the sun orbited the earth which was fixed. To try and squeeze the idea of solar progression into that verse is pushing it a bit. Especially as it's far easier to fit it into a pre-copernican view of the universe.

I find it interesting that people are more interested in proving the Quran wrong with science when science is only man made and is prone to being wrong. It's been wrong before and I'm sure will be wrong again in the future.

That's it's greatest advantage, it can be proved wrong and a new theory can replace the old. That's not so easy or impossible with religious texts.

I find it even more interesting that people ignore verses that science completely agrees with and have amazed scientists who are specialists in their respective fields.
Just one example:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

Again that's squeezing the text to fit the theory IMHO. For example the Quran doesn't mention the fertllisation process or the even the female egg at all(again echoing the ancient view that sperm were the generative force when implanted in the womb).

DinoBot wrote:

Just to bring it back to the topic of Islamic reformation. Do you not feel that a reformation is needed ?

Good plan. To do so you may to take a few things into consideration.

1. Does the original message of the Quran(or any religion) preach tolerance in the modern humanist sense?
2. Is Islam, by it's nature as a faith more political?
3. Is Islam(or again any other faith) more prone to exclusivity which would have issues for any society striving to include as much of all it's members?
4. Would such a theistic society affect our view and workings of western democracy, or does the original message of the Quran have precepts that would cause problems to many in the "west".
5.As many Muslims see their faith as perfect in itself, does this not preclude any idea of a reformation, or indeed dialogue of same?

DinoBot

Wibbs wrote:

Good plan. To do so you may to take a few things into consideration.

1. Does the original message of the Quran(or any religion) preach tolerance in the modern humanist sense?

Yes, it does preach tolerance for other religions but at the end of the day NO other religion will be accecpted at the day of Judgement. When Isa (Jesus) returns he will rule the earth and Islam will be the religion of the people. So where will the christians and Jews be...... Ill let you think over that one

Wibbs wrote:

2. Is Islam, by it's nature as a faith more political?

No, but the Islam which is being thought now very very much is. Although Islam has a political side and there is no difference between religion and state in Islam, there is no Islamic state at present. That was my earlier point, I feel Islam has moved away from the message and become more of a political party (just my thoughts)

Wibbs wrote:

3. Is Islam(or again any other faith) more prone to exclusivity which would have issues for any society striving to include as much of all it's members?

Islam is not alone here, but because of no seperation between religion and state it meakes it more so to exclusivity. I recall an interview with a scotish catolic film director, and he said the only reason that scotland did not suffer the same level of abuse that Ireland did was because the church was not in control of the state. I think its a bad combination. As do many others, hence we have seperation.

Wibbs wrote:

4. Would such a theistic society affect our view and workings of western democracy, or does the original message of the Quran have precepts that would cause problems to many in the "west".

Islam has no history of voting. Although in recent times some countries have it. Thats not a bad thing. But on matters of faith there is no vote. Lets say Ireland became an Islamic country. Some simple changes: all satues would have to go, over all the main rivers of Ireland their are heads of the river gods, they would go. Will that affect ourwestern democracy ? not sure.

Wibbs wrote:

5.As many Muslims see their faith as perfect in itself, does this not preclude any idea of a reformation, or indeed dialogue of same?

Yes for some. But the reformation would not look to reform Quran or five pillers but on the stuff that is questionable or is open to debate. I think its needed to stop this plague of suicide bombers as well. If muslims dont addresss it I feel they will loose everything.

(as a side note, some feel that to loose everything is needed because its a sign of the last day!!)

D

the_new_mr

Well, without wanting to veer too much away from the topic, I just want to clear up a few things.

DinoBot wrote:

I mean Islam has many sides, its the full package Spiritually sufi, and political shia and a mix of both sunni.

This isn't correct. Sufi is not a seperate strand of Islam like Sunni and Shia. Anyone who tells you so is wrong. Rather, Sufism is nothing more than the pursuit of spirtual enlightenment through worship... being able to know real worship and love your Lord. Some Sufis might tell you that you have to dress a certain way or do certain things in acts of worship but this is all incorrect information. Really, it's been given too much attention and people (some Muslims) think it's quite seperate but this is pure ignorance.

Wibbs wrote:

Again that's squeezing the text to fit the theory IMHO. For example the Quran doesn't mention the fertllisation process or the even the female egg at all(again echoing the ancient view that sperm were the generative force when implanted in the womb).

Just a reminder here, the Quran is not a reference book of science I'm not really sure how you think it's been squeezed to fit the text at all. I mean, there are plenty of words which are too accurate to be purely coincedence such as the word 'Alaqa (literally meaning something that attaches/leech) and mudgha (literally meaning something which is chewed). These incredibly descriptive words are a far cry from your idea of "lucky strike" interpretations. This is aside from the hadith which are even more detailed in the description of the whole process.

Anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion and you don't have to believe if you don't want to. That's your choice at the end of the day. Ask yourself though, are you perhaps being a little overzealous in trying not to see the scientific parallels?

Wibbs wrote:

To try and squeeze the idea of solar progression into that verse is pushing it a bit.

Perhaps I should have included these verses.
Al-Anbiya:33
"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit."

Ya-Sin:38
"And the sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise"

Wibbs wrote:

1. Does the original message of the Quran(or any religion) preach tolerance in the modern humanist sense?

Of course it does. There are an incredible amount of verses in the Quran preaching forgiveness and tolerance.

Wibbs wrote:

2. Is Islam, by it's nature as a faith more political?

It is more political, yes but there's nothing wrong with that. It contains law for an Islamically ruled society as well as guidelines for individuals in any society be it an Islamic one or not.

Wibbs wrote:

3. Is Islam(or again any other faith) more prone to exclusivity which would have issues for any society striving to include as much of all it's members?

Well, I don't know about other faiths but Islam is certainly not more prone to exclusivity that's for sure. Check the history books for that one.

Wibbs wrote:

4. Would such a theistic society affect our view and workings of western democracy, or does the original message of the Quran have precepts that would cause problems to many in the "west".

There's no doubt that there are some things that some people in the "west" would have have a problem with in the Quran and/or Islam in general but then, who is to say the western way of doing things is the right way of doing things? I don't want to really be repeating myself too much here but I've said before how anything which is man-made is prone to being in error and how people have to be careful not to be too arrogant in thinking that the rest of the world's way of doing things is just wrong without something solid to back them up.

Having said that, there are a number of misconceptions that the west has about Islam and this makes people think that it's not a religion of tolerance or makes people think that it's the thinking of backward people but these views are based on ignorance and the powerful suggestion of the media from every angle in an attempt to tarnish the image of Islam. I hope that this forum goes some way to helping to fight against this.

One such example of these misconceptions is Islam's attitude towards women. What people don't tell you is that a large majority of converts to Islam in Britain are educated women.

Wibbs wrote:

5.As many Muslims see their faith as perfect in itself, does this not preclude any idea of a reformation, or indeed dialogue of same?

As has been said before, it's very presumptuous to think that it needs a reformation.

DinoBot wrote:

That was my earlier point, I feel Islam has moved away from the message and become more of a political party (just my thoughts)

This may be true in some states or in some Mosques but this doesn't represent Islam properly. You're always gonna get people who attempt to use religion for false political agendas. That's not to say that Islam doesn't have more of a political side because it does but preaching just the political side is a lost cause. The Imam at my Mosque often says things like "we won't mend the society until we mend ourselves on an individual basis."

DinoBot wrote:

Islam has no history of voting. Although in recent times some countries have it.

Not true. Indeed, Abu-Bakr was chosen as the first Khaliph of the Muslim nation after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Islam doesn't have anything against voting.

Islam is open to debate on things which have no definite ruling. As DinoBot mentioned, on matters of faith (or indeed laws of an Islamic society), there can be no reformation as such. I think that people think that there is no discussion in the Muslim world but there really is. Scholars are always expressing their opinions and sometimes these opinions conflict. Perhaps it needs to happen in a more constructive way though.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

This isn't correct. Sufi is not a seperate strand of Islam like Sunni and Shia. Anyone who tells you so is wrong. Rather, Sufism is nothing more than the pursuit of spirtual enlightenment through worship.

I knew sufi was considered outside of Islam by many but I had thought it was still part of Islam. I have many books by sufis and its like the spiritual side of Islam. Are they considered Kafurs (unbelievers) ?

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I don't know about other faiths but Islam is certainly not more prone to exclusivity that's for sure. Check the history books for that one..

Well i would strongly disagree. With in the religion itself and amonng the muslims there is an "exclusivity" with arab and non-arab, pakistan and non-pakistan ... the list goes on. Very Very rare to see an arab woman marry a non arab man. Quite common for an arab man to marry non-arab woman however (??)

the_new_mr wrote:

There's no doubt that there are some things that some people in the "west" would have have a problem with in the Quran and/or Islam in general but then, who is to say the western way of doing things is the right way of doing things? I don't want to really be repeating myself too much here but I've said before how anything which is man-made is prone to being in error and how people have to be careful not to be too arrogant in thinking that the rest of the world's way of doing things is just wrong without something solid to back them up...

I agree with your point here (I know it was not directed to me)


One such example of these misconceptions is Islam's attitude towards women. What people don't tell you is that a large majority of converts to Islam in Britain are educated women.

the_new_mr wrote:

As has been said before, it's very presumptuous to think that it needs a reformation....

I dont think so. Do you think the Islam being shown today is the Islam you want in the world. I think it is upto the muslims to rid themselves of this image of terror. No one else will do this!

the_new_mr wrote:

Not true. Indeed, Abu-Bakr was chosen as the first Khaliph of the Muslim nation after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Islam doesn't have anything against voting.....

I dont recall a VOTE being taken for this. Please provide your source for this. Is this not the very event which caused the split between Sunni and Shia in the first place. Some people believed that the rightful person to be chosen should be from the Prophets blood, ie his nephew Ali and others wanted Abu-Bakr . From this the Shia (Ali's people) and Sunni (Abu-Bakr) came about.

the_new_mr wrote:

Islam is open to debate on things which have no definite ruling. As DinoBot mentioned, on matters of faith (or indeed laws of an Islamic society), there can be no reformation as such. I think that people think that there is no discussion in the Muslim world but there really is. Scholars are always expressing their opinions and sometimes these opinions conflict. Perhaps it needs to happen in a more constructive way though.

Yes, when I say reformation I dont mean changing the religion. I am not speaking from a western type of reform which would like to see it all changed

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Just a reminder here, the Quran is not a reference book of science

I never said it was, although you claim it has scientific miracles contained therein. It's either one or the other, particularly when such claims are made. Science is didferent to religion. It evolves with new knowledge. It evolves even against previously deeply held views. Science does not see Newton as a heretic, just because he got some stuff wrong. Religion, especially literal religion is totally different as change is nearly impossible. That's why I said at the start that religion and science make uneasy bedfellows. I see nothing to refute that view.

I'm not really sure how you think it's been squeezed to fit the text at all. I mean, there are plenty of words which are too accurate to be purely coincedence such as the word 'Alaqa (literally meaning something that attaches/leech) and mudgha (literally meaning something which is chewed). These incredibly descriptive words are a far cry from your idea of "lucky strike" interpretations.

Ok let's examine these. The leech/attaches part is simple observation. Aristotle had worked out the general purpose of the placenta a 1000 yrs previously. Any simple farmer or raiser of animals could tell you that the embryo is attached to the mother. The expelled placenta is evidence of that. The reference to mudgha could quite literally mean anything. EG. chewed leather would look nothing like a foetus. To get anything like(at a stretch) a foetus you would want to bite precisely into a gum of some sort.

This is aside from the hadith which are even more detailed in the description of the whole process.

OK let's look at more then. Here's one; http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html#023.012 (014) Man is a product of wet clay, or extract of same. Sperm(seed) is placed in a safe resting place. You will notice, no mention of the female egg at all(not surprising as many in the ancient world saw the male as the creator and the female the home for said creation). Then the lump of "congealed blood" brings forth bone and then is clothed in flesh. We now know that the flesh preceeds the formation of the bones. In the past they thought the bone structure was first. If you can find a Hadith that mentions the female egg, I'd be more likely to take some of this on board. I've looked and I couldn't.

Ask yourself though, are you perhaps being a little overzealous in trying not to see the scientific parallels?

Honestly, no, I'm not. I would only love to be proved wrong in this. It would make life so much easier if any religious text had proof of any nature. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs and frankly I don't see this here.

Perhaps I should have included these verses.
Al-Anbiya:33
"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit."

Ya-Sin:38
"And the sun runneth on unto a resting place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise"

Neither of which illuminate. TBH they make my position more strong. The sun and moon in orbit. The sun even "rests" or stops. No mention of the earth floating or orbiting in that. Sounds like the earth is fixed in those lines. You can find similar passages if you do a (long ) search of http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/. Try search parameters like "earth" "sun" "heavens" etc. In none of them could I find an example where the earth itself moves. It's repeatedly referred to as fixed, while the "heavens" move. This is consistent with a pre Copernican view of the earth as the centre of the universe.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/013.qmt.html#013.002

"Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the throne (of authority); He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed." In this it sounds like the sky is a ceiling or tent above the earth.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.022
Here the Earth is a "resting place". Fixed in the heavens?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.421
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/093.sbt.html#009.093.528
In these passages the sun is described as prostrating itself under the "Throne of Allah". That could mean controlled by Allah to be fair.

As an aside; http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/016.qmt.html#016.015
Here the purpose of mountains is to make the earth firm and stop earthquakes, which we now no is the opposite as mountains often times are evidence of and the cause of earthquakes.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/020.qmt.html#020.053 This would suggest the earth is flat.

The ancients sometimes have more knowledge than we give them credit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
One interesting line is; "It also adds support to the idea that there was an ancient Greek tradition of complex mechanical technology which was transmitted via the Arab world". The Arabs, pre Islam, were not the barbarous bunch that is sometimes suggested. In fact, among the very first maps of the heavens were laid down by Arab peoples. Much of our zodiac has it's origins in the middle east, along with our science, technology, farming techniques, storytelling, etc. The list is endless. While we owe a great debt to Islamic scientists, a large bulk of the Arabian influence on the world is pre Islamic.

Of course it does. There are an incredible amount of verses in the Quran preaching forgiveness and tolerance.

Mainly to fellow Muslims, but that subject's been done to death TBH.

It is more political, yes but there's nothing wrong with that. It contains law for an Islamically ruled society as well as guidelines for individuals in any society be it an Islamic one or not.

Again done to death, but it's certainly a big advantage to be a Muslim in such a society, is it not? At least with western democracy the idea at least exists that all men and women are created equal, regardless of faith etc.

Well, I don't know about other faiths but Islam is certainly not more prone to exclusivity that's for sure. Check the history books for that one.

Just because it was better than the opposing barbarous bunch in the past, doesn't mean it's better now. Not by a long shot.

There's no doubt that there are some things that some people in the "west" would have have a problem with in the Quran and/or Islam in general but then, who is to say the western way of doing things is the right way of doing things?

I agree, it may not be, but the west can and has evolved. Theistic societies find that far more difficult as they think themselves "perfect" from the start.

people have to be careful not to be too arrogant in thinking that the rest of the world's way of doing things is just wrong without something solid to back them up.

I agree completely.

Having said that, there are a number of misconceptions that the west has about Islam and this makes people think that it's not a religion of tolerance or makes people think that it's the thinking of backward people but these views are based on ignorance and the powerful suggestion of the media from every angle in an attempt to tarnish the image of Islam. I hope that this forum goes some way to helping to fight against this.

We live in hope.

One such example of these misconceptions is Islam's attitude towards women. What people don't tell you is that a large majority of converts to Islam in Britain are educated women.

Which proves what exactly? Many educated women become Christians or Jews, or Buddhists. Many educated women have become atheists. Many educated women have become scientoligists and look how that religion is percieved. You could even argue that some educated women are fed up with how the modern world percieves and treats it's women(on many levels) and there is comfort in a more "traditional" role such as found in Islam. I can see why that happens and it's a part of my society I dislike.

The Imam at my Mosque often says things like "we won't mend the society until we mend ourselves on an individual basis."

Bloody good advice.

Wibbs

DinoBot wrote:

Well i would strongly disagree. With in the religion itself and amonng the muslims there is an "exclusivity" with arab and non-arab, pakistan and non-pakistan ... the list goes on. Very Very rare to see an arab woman marry a non arab man. Quite common for an arab man to marry non-arab woman however (??)

Maybe this stems from the Islamic instruction that no Muslim woman may marry a non Muslim man, but a Muslim man can marry a non Muslim woman. Why's that then? Seems to me that's a unequal restriction on Muslim women right there. (new topic beckons)

larryone

New topic becons alright, but I think that it is also very relevant to the current one in this thread. I think gender equality and tollerance are among the most important issues that need addressing in the contex of reformation in Islam. DinoBot mentioned ridding Islam of the image of terror. I think there's not enough muslims who speak out against violence and terror, and far too many who allow the extremists to define what Islam is.

DinoBot

larryone wrote:

I think there's not enough muslims who speak out against violence and terror, and far too many who allow the extremists to define what Islam is.

Nail on the head.

I think there are even too many who dont even see it as a problem.

Hobbes

Actually it has less to do with that and more with the media.

Take the Danish cartoon for example. There were numerous muslims groups publically denouncing the violence over the cartoons and declaring it was against Islam (despite the cartoons being offensive). Yet the media portrayed a minority of the religon over and over on TV causing violence.

With that kindly pull it on track. And if there is a new thread out of this please feel to create it. Thanks.

larryone

I'm not just talking about the violence/terror issue when I say that far too many allow the extremists to define what Islam is, it applies also to the gender equality and tolerance. I'm talking about the extremist who doesnt persue violence, but who holds up the Quran or Hadeeth, declares there is no room for different interpretation, and convinces people that intolerance and inequality and opression is what God wants. I think too many muslims listen to that extremist. I think more muslims need to embrace independant thought, and not just blindly accept what is spoonfed to them.

DinoBot

Hobbes wrote:

Actually it has less to do with that and more with the media.

I agree that the media does show a very one sided view when they want but of all the muslims I spoke to all said " well what did people expect to happen"

I think it was another example of where Islam needs reform. One thing is being said to the world but at the ground level its "well they deserve it type attitude". even though as you said "the violence over the cartoons was against Islam (despite the cartoons being offensive)" ....... thats the point Im rising. Something is against Islam but yet is accepted as the norm nowadays, ie violence.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Actually it has less to do with that and more with the media.

I have to agree with you there.

Larryone wrote:

I think gender equality and tollerance are among the most important issues that need addressing in the contex of reformation in Islam.

Agreed, but what if the western form of gender equality and tolerance are not to be found in the Islamic texts? What then? Many things in the texts would be alien to much of the non Islamic world. The unequality in law, inheritance and marriage choice for women, the amputation of hands for stealing, execution for apostates, etc are pretty much accepted as laws in the faith.

To most religious Muslims the very thought of reformation of the core of the religion is not just presumptious, it's not even present. It's a pointless question because Islam for them is perfection for all time, only interpretation on some of the grey areas may vary. How can you reform something that is perfect? One can only strive to make life as Islamic as possible. As an example, in the "perfect" Islamic society. separation of state and religion would be fought from every pulpit in every mosque, with few dissenters. In this Islam is different from other faiths as it's legal system and political side is far more entrenched in doctrine. It's a faith that is a complete way of life, more than others.

The definition and aim of an equal tolerant democratic society is where all citizens are treated equally regardless of faith(or anything else). In an Islamic society this would not be the case as Muslims and the Islamic faith(naturally) take precedence over non believers in law and even taxation. Even simple freedom of movement for Muslim women might be at issue. Any "reformation" would be difficult in this context without changing some of the teachings themselves, which is not going to happen. The room for manuever may be small, on these and other matters.

the_new_mr

WOW! There's a lot to reply to. I'll probably miss some things.

So, one post at a time...

DinoBot wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

This isn't correct. Sufi is not a seperate strand of Islam like Sunni and Shia. Anyone who tells you so is wrong. Rather, Sufism is nothing more than the pursuit of spirtual enlightenment through worship.

I knew sufi was considered outside of Islam by many but I had thought it was still part of Islam. I have many books by sufis and its like the spiritual side of Islam. Are they considered Kafurs (unbelievers) ?

Maybe I wasn't clear. Sufis are not considered Kafurs at all... but then they shouldn't be called sufis. They are Muslims. Sufism is the spirtual search side of Islam which has now been given a name because of a group of great spirtual thinkers. That's all. I could say that I'm exploring sufism when I try and make my mind more concentrated and meditative when I read the Quran or pray and that's fine.

What I meant was that sufism to try and be more devout or more spirtual is perfectly okay but when it starts entailing wearing green bands around ones chest and chanting things in large groups whilst bobbing back and forth on ones feet then it's gone way past what sufism was intended to be in the first place and enters innovation in worship which is a dangerous place to be in.

I think I still mightn't have done a very good job of decribing the difference. To sum up, sufism is not out of Islam but it's also not a completely different part of Islam comparable to Sunni or Shia. It doesn't require specific dress or anything like that although some people who call themselves sufis believe so.

DinoBot wrote:

Well i would strongly disagree. With in the religion itself and amonng the muslims there is an "exclusivity" with arab and non-arab, pakistan and non-pakistan ... the list goes on. Very Very rare to see an arab woman marry a non arab man. Quite common for an arab man to marry non-arab woman however (??)

These are shortcomings of individuals themselves, not Islam. In the Prophet's (peace be upon him) last sermon, he said:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

DinoBot wrote:

I dont think so. Do you think the Islam being shown today is the Islam you want in the world. I think it is upto the muslims to rid themselves of this image of terror. No one else will do this!

I agree but this isn't a reformation is it? It's more of a PR thing and should definitely be done so I agree that Muslims and Muslim councils need to make more effort (without being apologetic as it's not Islam or Muslim's fault if there are terroists).

DinoBot wrote:

I dont recall a VOTE being taken for this. Please provide your source for this. Is this not the very event which caused the split between Sunni and Shia in the first place. Some people believed that the rightful person to be chosen should be from the Prophets blood, ie his nephew Ali and others wanted Abu-Bakr . From this the Shia (Ali's people) and Sunni (Abu-Bakr) came about.

It was a concensus. I'm afraid I can't provide a source. I will when I find one. As for the break, it's more complicated than you mention.

Wibbs wrote:

I never said it was, although you claim it has scientific miracles contained therein. It's either one or the other, particularly when such claims are made. Science is didferent to religion. It evolves with new knowledge. It evolves even against previously deeply held views. Science does not see Newton as a heretic, just because he got some stuff wrong. Religion, especially literal religion is totally different as change is nearly impossible. That's why I said at the start that religion and science make uneasy bedfellows. I see nothing to refute that view.

Disagee with you there.

Wibbs wrote:

The leech/attaches part is simple observation

Not being cheeky but you did you read that link I put it up? It shows a picture of a comparison of a leech and an embryo.

More here anyway:
http://www.ezsoftech.com/akram/accuracyofquran.asp
It contains one of the hadith I mentioned.

Wibbs wrote:

We now know that the flesh preceeds the formation of the bones.

Not sure what sceience book you got that from.

During the seventh week, the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week, the muscles take their position around the bone forms (Moore, Developing Human, 6th Edition, 1998)

The earth is never referred to as fixed. I don't know how you're seeing that, honestly. As for the sun "resting", that is at the very end... not each day. Check science books, you'll find that both the sun and moon are in orbit and that the sun is making its way towards a point in space.

Anyway, your post made a lot of other statements which are inconsistent with modern scientific views and will take too long to go through here.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Of course it does. There are an incredible amount of verses in the Quran preaching forgiveness and tolerance.

Mainly to fellow Muslims, but that subject's been done to death TBH.

Not true. I've already talked about this elsewhere.

Wibbs wrote:

At least with western democracy the idea at least exists that all men and women are created equal, regardless of faith etc.

Islam doesn't say otherwise.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I don't know about other faiths but Islam is certainly not more prone to exclusivity that's for sure. Check the history books for that one.

Just because it was better than the opposing barbarous bunch in the past, doesn't mean it's better now. Not by a long shot.

I never said by comparison. Check the history books and you'll see that Islamic states treated people more fairly than most current states now... including countries in the "west".

Wibbs wrote:

Theistic societies find that far more difficult as they think themselves "perfect" from the start.

What's the problem with that? Just because certain laws can't be changed doesn't mean they're bad. Also, as I said before, some laws are sometimes put on hold due to circumstances.

Wibbs wrote:

You could even argue that some educated women are fed up with how the modern world percieves and treats it's women(on many levels) and there is comfort in a more "traditional" role such as found in Islam. I can see why that happens and it's a part of my society I dislike.

My point exactly. If these educated women who have researched Islam (let's be honest) more than you have because they were thinking about embracing Islam decide that Islam is the best choice for them then doesn't that say a lot about how Islam perceives women? Also, consider that not only is Islam the choice of most women who decide to change their religion, it's also the fastest growing faith in the world.

The invalid points raised about gender inequality in this thread are already very well addressed here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING3
As the rules suggest, this forum is not for Muslims to have to defend our religion. A little reading goes a long way.

Hobbes wrote:

Actually it has less to do with that and more with the media.

Take the Danish cartoon for example. There were numerous muslims groups publically denouncing the violence over the cartoons and declaring it was against Islam (despite the cartoons being offensive). Yet the media portrayed a minority of the religon over and over on TV causing violence.

Absolutely spot on.

Wibbs wrote:

In an Islamic society this would not be the case as Muslims and the Islamic faith(naturally) take precedence over non believers in law

You make it out as if a Muslim could never be tried of a crime against a non-Muslim. This unfair representation of Islam is partly the reason people have incorrect ideas about Islam in the first place.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Disagee with you there.

Fair enough, we'll agree to differ.

Not being cheeky but you did you read that link I put it up? It shows a picture of a comparison of a leech and an embryo.

Yes I did. As I said, show me any passage that refers to the female ovum in all this and the comparisons would be more impressive.

The view of embryology contained in the Quran could just as easily be attributed to previous extant works on the matter from the Greeks and elsewhere. The comparisons are remarkable in their fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen#Work_and_impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Not sure what sceience book you got that from.

It depends on your definition of flesh, I suppose.

The earth is never referred to as fixed. I don't know how you're seeing that, honestly. As for the sun "resting", that is at the very end... not each day. Check science books, you'll find that both the sun and moon are in orbit and that the sun is making its way towards a point in space.

Obviously the sun and moon are in orbits(the suns being around the Galaxy, not towards any particular "point"). You contend that the earth is never referred to as fixed, yet can you find post a link from any of the Islamic texts where it says the earth is in orbit or moves in the heavens? All the links I've posted frankly suggest the opposite.

Anyway, your post made a lot of other statements which are inconsistent with modern scientific views and will take too long to go through here.

Which ones in particular are inconsistent?

Islam doesn't say otherwise.

Really, so a Hindu is equal to a Muslim in the eyes of Allah? I'll think you'll find that all religions consider their adherants to be superior to others(naturally).

I never said by comparison. Check the history books and you'll see that Islamic states treated people more fairly than most current states now... including countries in the "west".

Can you give examples?

What's the problem with that? Just because certain laws can't be changed doesn't mean they're bad.

No but it does mean that they are more difficult to adapt to changing circumstance and knowledge.

Also, as I said before, some laws are sometimes put on hold due to circumstances.

Which is good.

My point exactly. If these educated women who have researched Islam (let's be honest) more than you have because they were thinking about embracing Islam decide that Islam is the best choice for them then doesn't that say a lot about how Islam perceives women?

Actually, I've researched Islam(and others) quite a bit. My point was that many inteligent women also become Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc It's hardly an argument for any faith. Many women have changed their faith when they marry. More women than men do so.

The invalid points raised about gender inequality in this thread are already very well addressed here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING3
As the rules suggest, this forum is not for Muslims to have to defend our religion. A little reading goes a long way.

I'm not asking you to defend your religion. I will argue with you when you're suggesting scientific knowledge contained in any holy book. I would(and have done in another forum) the same with Christianity for example. They "defended" themselves very strongly, page after page .

Regardless, am I incorrect when I say that under Islamic law, a woman's testimony is considered less than a man's, especially in capital cases. Am I incorrect when I say that a Muslim woman may not marry a non Muslim, but a Muslim man can marry whoever he likes (up to four)who is single, regardless of her faith? Is that not an inconsistency?

You make it out as if a Muslim could never be tried of a crime against a non-Muslim. This unfair representation of Islam is partly the reason people have incorrect ideas about Islam in the first place.

I'm sorry where did I say that? Of course they could under Islamic jurisprudence. I note that you left out the taxation bit for non Muslims.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

Obviously the sun and moon are in orbits(the suns being around the Galaxy, not towards any particular "point"). You contend that the earth is never referred to as fixed, yet can you find post a link from any of the Islamic texts where it says the earth is in orbit or moves in the heavens? All the links I've posted frankly suggest the opposite.

The main thing in your quote here is the word "suggest". You feel that it is suggested but that is simply your opinion. Can you find any verses that explicity state that the earth is fixed? No is the answer there.

Wibbs wrote:

Which ones in particular are inconsistent?

Flesh, mountains etc.

Wibbs wrote:

Really, so a Hindu is equal to a Muslim in the eyes of Allah? I'll think you'll find that all religions consider their adherants to be superior to others(naturally).

Well, it's complicated and might be a little long-winded so bear with me.

You said that

Wibbs wrote:

At least with western democracy the idea at least exists that all men and women are created equal, regardless of faith etc.

In Islam, this is the view. All men and women are created equal while everyone has a fair chance at entering heaven. If someone dies completely ignorant of Islam then their judgement is with Allah and it is the widely held opinion that the fact that they didn't know about Islam will not be held against them. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.

What about in an Islamically ruled society? Well, again a non-Muslim is not considered inferior to Muslims as far as the law goes. That's a very important point I want to make sure gets across here. What about judgement day? A non-Muslim who lives with sufficient exposure to Islam for example? Once again, their judgement is with God and God alone but if that particular non-Muslim didn't believe that Islam was the religion to follow in their life then that is their choice, isn't it? What I mean is:

If based on faith the only problem for a non-Muslim in the eyes of Islam will be on the day of judgement then there is no injustice done to them in this world? Would you agree with this logic?

Wibbs wrote:

Can you give examples?

I can. One such example is when the Muslim armies had to fight a battle and needed all their soldiers in the battle. To do this, they had to regrettably withdraw some of their forces from some of the cities and towns from which they had taken the tax or risk losing the war outright. Before withdrawing, the treasurer was commanded to give back all the taxation money to their rightful owners since the Muslim part of the agreement of military protection could not be upheld due to the circumstances. Non-Muslims living in these cities and towns said things like "We hope you win the battle and come back to rule us for you are the most just rulers we have ever known. Had they [the enemy] been in your position, they would not have given back the money"

When was the last time the government gave back our motor taxation money because they didn't fix up the roads?

That brings me neatly to the point you raised about the tax.

May I just say that to state:

Wibbs wrote:

I note that you left out the taxation bit for non Muslims.

seems to be suggesting that I "conveniently" left it out for fear of not being able to address it in a satisfactory manner. This is most certainly not the case and I resent such a statement.

Anyway, the tax is for one thing and one thing only. When a non-Muslim in a non-Muslim state gives the jizya (tax), it is in exchange for not having any military responsibilities. Also, if any outside force threatens the non-Muslim population inside the Muslim state, the Muslim military are sworn to defend them. A non-Muslim can also decide to not pay the jizya if they enter any military battles as any Muslim would.

It's also worth noting that this jizya was minimal anyway and often items as small and invaluable as a few needles would count as payment for the year.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

You make it out as if a Muslim could never be tried of a crime against a non-Muslim. This unfair representation of Islam is partly the reason people have incorrect ideas about Islam in the first place.

I'm sorry where did I say that? Of course they could under Islamic jurisprudence.

Here:

Wibbs wrote:

The definition and aim of an equal tolerant democratic society is where all citizens are treated equally regardless of faith(or anything else). In an Islamic society this would not be the case as Muslims and the Islamic faith(naturally) take precedence over non believers in law and even taxation.

Wibbs wrote:

Actually, I've researched Islam(and others) quite a bit. My point was that many inteligent women also become Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc It's hardly an argument for any faith. Many women have changed their faith when they marry. More women than men do so.

Yes and my point was that these women aren't stupid and wouldn't enter a religion that wouldn't give them any rights. It's also worth noting that most women who embrace Islam are single when they do so (i.e. not just for marriage)

And here's an interesting and funny true story. In the city where I lived, a woman embraced Islam to marry a Muslim man as that was what he and his family wanted. One year later, she divorced him because he wasn't a good enough Muslim

Wibbs wrote:

Regardless, am I incorrect when I say that under Islamic law, a woman's testimony is considered less than a man's, especially in capital cases. Am I incorrect when I say that a Muslim woman may not marry a non Muslim, but a Muslim man can marry whoever he likes (up to four)who is single, regardless of her faith? Is that not an inconsistency?

You're right and wrong at the same time.

To correct a few things, a Muslim man may not marry up to four wives just because he wants to. There should be reasons. God warns men to be careful as it is very important to be equal both emotionally and materialistically with each wife and God warns men that they cannot be equal. This means that however hard they may try, they won't be able to do it. This doesn't mean that they can't marry another woman if the circumstances require but it's something they should consider very carefully before doing it.

As for the thing of a man being able to marry non-Muslims. I believe this is debated amongst Muslim scholars but I'm not entirely sure. The rights of a woman in Islam are an incredible amount too. One Muslim scholar joked that maybe if people knew properly all of womens' rights that the men might start arguing that they aren't being treated fairly. It was just a joke of course because they're both equal.

The truth is that a lot of women in Islamic countries are oppressed because of the unjust men/goverments in those countries and not because of Islam. One example of this is how women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia which has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. This makes people accuse Islam of oppressing women whereas this isn't the case.

Women and men are indeed equal but they are different and Islam acknowledges that. In any case, as the article in the FAQ clearly states women and men are equal in the eyes of God and what more equality could anyone ask for?