Ask a Muslim

[Sidhe]

Look all I said was that Muslims have tended to adhere more closely to there faith historically, not that Christians now don't, but it was touch and go in Europe for a long time. I'm not sure how this is inconsistent, but whatever, this is not what this thread is about, K.Just to clarify. I also think Jesus story is more remarkable than Mohammeds, I said I thought Mohammed was a remakable man, meaning what he acchieved is quite unprecedented in history, not that I was comparing him to Jesus. Hope that clears it up, if not then feel free to pm me for more clarification.

 

[incantrix]

Sorry about the delay, I've been busy. Answers comming!

 

[incantrix]

I'n not sure how anyone could do anything except applaud your approach to your faith.

I just wish there were more like you! I wish it were the trend to become more moderate. Why is it, do you suppose, that the trend is to become more and more conservative as Muslims? Why do you think the pendulum is swinging to radicalization? Why do we see countries tightening up Sharia instead of loosening it?

There's a lack of education in many Muslim countries and many people cannot read. One of the things I wanted to show when I opened this thread was the difference between a 'westernized' Muslim and one living in the Middle East. I have had a wonderful education and seen the world from more than one prospective. A child in Pakistan is lucky to get the equivalent of a 4th grade education.

There's also an element of fear. Many Americans fear Mexican influence, though few have taken up arms over it and none have taken up violence over illegal immigration. Now, if these Americans didn't have access to the media they do and were only told by their pastors that Mexicans are coming here to destroy America, rape your wives, force you to learn Spanish, make you become Catholic ect ect, I expect there would be much more hostility.

You gonna watch Little Mosque on the Prairie?

I did! The mother was a bit silly, but I enjoyed the show.

Thx for your replies to most of my questions. But you didn't answer this one:
What is your favorite surah?

Al-Falaq and Al-Nas (113 and 114)

Also, I noticed that you didn't answer ssrt's question, but rather steared clear of it by saying that all religions have a violent past. But that is not what he asked, I will post it again for you and bold the last question which remain to be answered:

I really fail to see how crashing a plane into a building is spreading Islam. Do I condemn those who try and force conversions? This is tricky. I do not agree with them. I would never support it being done. However, they believe they are doing the right thing and I the wrong. You can make the Qur'an say a lot of things and who am I to say which is the truth? I would rather look bad in your eyes than be a hypocrite.

 

[incantrix]

So in essence you believe that the Gods of the Vedas, or the Trinity of the Puranas, or the attributeless god of the Advaita Vedanta are all false?

The Saudi flag says in Arabic "There is no God but God (Allah) and Muhammad is His prophet." That's a Muslim's declration of faith much like the Council of Nicaea decided a few points that were a must for a Christian.

Part of me believes they are false (but that this will not lead to eternal damnation). Part of me believes that other religions are those cultures own unique way of relating to God. At times, the second makes me uneasy.

 

[Katheryn]

There's a lack of education in many Muslim countries and many people cannot read. One of the things I wanted to show when I opened this thread was the difference between a 'westernized' Muslim and one living in the Middle East. I have had a wonderful education and seen the world from more than one prospective. A child in Pakistan is lucky to get the equivalent of a 4th grade education.

There's also an element of fear. Many Americans fear Mexican influence, though few have taken up arms over it and none have taken up violence over illegal immigration. Now, if these Americans didn't have access to the media they do and were only told by their pastors that Mexicans are coming here to destroy America, rape your wives, force you to learn Spanish, make you become Catholic ect ect, I expect there would be much more hostility.

As much as I like the sound of this answer, unfortunately I don't think it pans out in actuality. The ones that we have to worry about the most are actually highly educated. Al Zawahiri is a pediatrician, Mohammed Atta had a bachelor degree in Engineering, and of course OBL was raised in a very rich and educated home. Most, if not all the hijackers were here on student visas and were highly educated.

 

[incantrix]

The problem of self-image arises because the people in control of the Muslim religious establishment in India still foster the view that India was a useless place before the coming of the Muslims, and that Muslims are superior by dint of their religion even now, and that they should still have attitudes similar to the imperialist rulers of the early Muslim period - as that of foreign civilisers. But the social reality is that precisely because of this regressive attitude, the Muslims did not benefit from the modern English education which was brought to India by the Europeans, and now have fallen behind in many social and economic indicators.

This creates a clash. On the one hand, the average Muslim is told that he is superior, he is better than the people of the country he is living in, but on the other hand, he sees that he is among the poorest in the country, and his subculture is among the most backward.

This clash creates anger, and it is this anger which is threatening to engulf the Muslims of India today, and which has been responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the world. It is this idea that even though we are superior, we are still behind others, so others must somehow be at fault, that is the driving force behind this hatred.

And this is not all. Even today, there are two social divisions among the Muslims in India, like castes. The Ashraf Muslims are the ones who claim descent from the Arab and Mughal invaders of India. The Ajlaf Muslims are the people who were locals and converted. The Ashraf consider themselves superior to the Ajlaf, and treat them badly.

This extended context will better help you understand the question. Should the Ashraf still view themselves as foreigners? Should the Ajlaf still have second-class status? How should the convert view himself?

Excellent post! There's some anlogois to that in North America. When my mother arrived in Canada, she knew she was an immigrant and considered herself in the debt of her new country. Somoli immigrants who arrive here consider themselves the pinical of humanity -- even if they had to leave their forsaken country.

No Muslim should ever consider another Muslim beneth or above him. A friend of mine once told me of his pilgramage to Mecca, "as we made our way towards the Kaaba, there was people of every race, every eye colour and both sexes. Yet, we were all the same."

The problem is worse than you think. In Pakistan, the teaching of history begins with the coming of Arab raiders and Muslim armies, which is traced back to Mohammed's ascent in Arabia. The fantastically rich history before this period is simply not covered. The people of Pakistan have absolutely no affinity at all with what was probably the earliest and largest first civilisation in the world, that of the Indus valley, nor with the Hindu-Buddhist civilisation that was its successor.

That's terrible. I would hate to be taught I was inferior until foreigners arrived. Lying about history doesn't change it. What danger is there in facts

This same attitude is echoed by the mainstream mullahs in India. This is extremely dangerous, too, from a national point of view - we can't have 13% of our people believing that they don't really belong in the country.

We do in Canada

The problem is, the Indian and Muslim traditions were (or maybe still are) fundamentally incompatible, so the Muslim invasion and subsequent occupation was catastrophic for Old India and its culture. But these people refuse to accept that, and instead claim that civilisation came with the Muslims. What do you think of such a stance?

Do they not accept that there was any culture in India or that the culture that the Arab raiders brought was better? I don't like either stance, but I feel I have to ask: do you think the native Indian culture is superior? And if not, what about most Hindus?

The students of the Darul Uloom are mostly theological students, who go on to become mullahs and qazis in the mosques in India. It is one of the world's premier Islamic universities, with a reputation among the orthodox faithful in India in the same league as Al-Azhar (for Sunnis) and Qum (for Shias such as yourself). They are also the most regressive arseholes imaginable. They were the guys who inspired the Taliban.

The question which arises when such things are brought up is: What comes first for a Muslim? His religion or his country? These Mullahs hold the religion even above national identity. When India was fighting a war against Pakistan, one person from the Darul Uloom refused to give his good wishes to Indian soldiers because they were fighting against Pakistani soldiers, who were Muslim.

I'm a Canadian who happens to be Muslim. I won't lie and say that if the Canadian government decided to wage war on Islam (laughing at my computer at the thought) I have to admit I would feel torn I don't have a problem with Canadian troops in Afgahnistan.

Another question: in India, should Muslims be allowed to have their own laws when it comes to things like marriage, divorce, and inheritance? Because in India, each community is governed by its own code when it comes to matters of personal law, such as the things I stated above. This has the unfortunate consequence of putting these legal codes into the hands of these same mullahs from the Darul Uloom and other fundamentalist and regressive institutions.

Hard question. I believe two people should be allowed to create their own contracts if both have an equal say. Women in sharia law don't have an equal say.

Even today, a Muslim man in India can marry four wives, divorce any of them for any reason whatsoever by simply saying the word "talaq" thrice, and is not compelled to pay any alimony. The mullahs claim they can trace the origins of these laws back to the Quran and Hadith. What is your opinion on this issue?

A religious divorce and a legal one are two different things. People should be able to divorce for any reason. A woman should have the same right as the man though. It would be over my dead body (though this is probably more likely than I intended) that a hypothetical husband would drop me like that.

 

[emzie]

Now that incantrix has posted that... aneeshm, I'm sorry for trolling you in the past and thank you for taking the time to explain how Muslims in India relate to Hindus.

 

[Katheryn]

Here is some information on who the terrorist recruiters truly are:

TraCCC speaker debunks terrorist stereotypes
by Sally Acharya, American Weekly, March 8, 2006

There’s a common image of a terrorist in the popular media and in the minds of millions, and it goes like this. He is a young Muslim man, perhaps steered onto his bloody path by a militant recruiter. His madrassa education gave him knowledge of almost nothing but the Koran, and he’s so sexually frustrated that he’s willing to blow himself up to get to a martyr’s heaven and enjoy his reward of 72 virgins.

Marc Sageman has studied the backgrounds of several hundred Islamist terrorists who attacked Western targets, including the 19 who killed thousands on Sept. 11. His conclusion? The stereotype is empirically wrong on virtually every point. The conventional wisdom, he said, is “nonsense.”

Sageman spoke last week on who terrorists really are, and how and why they join terror networks. Drawing on his background as an intelligence analyst and forensic psychologist, the author of Understanding Terror Networks examined biographical data, including thousands of pages of trial transcripts, and spoke of his conclusions at the Transnational Crime and Corrup-tion Center (TraCCC).

At the beginning, Sageman said, these men were like any idealistic young people who wanted to build a better world and fight injustice for an imaginary utopia. They were well educated in secular schools, and by the time they committed their attacks, they were about 26 years old and married, often with children.

But if they weren’t frustrated, madrassa-educated zealots, what did these terrorists have in common? Sageman’s basic answer: each other.

In his research on Islamist terrorists who chose to attack “the far enemy” of the West, he found that fully 84 percent belonged to the diaspora, living outside their homelands in an unfamiliar culture.

There is a traceable pattern among expatriate Muslim terrorists, he said. Like many expatriates, they get homesick and initially try to cope by clubbing and drinking. When that doesn’t work, they look for a sense of belonging by seeking out other Muslims. “Where do Muslims hang out? At the mosque,” he said. “So they gravitate there, not for religion, but friendship.” Strikingly, only 12 mosques worldwide generated 50 percent of the terrorists in his sample.

Like anyone abroad, these young men also call up old friends and relatives. Sixty-eight percent were friends before they became terrorists together; in fact, half of the terrorists in one French prison had grown up in three adjacent high-rises in Algeria. “That’s why they don’t have a problem with security. They know each other,” he said.

These friends share apartments, marry each others’ sisters, and get together over couscous or chicken tikka—defining themselves through culturally based social networks, just as other expatriates do. But what’s different is the content of the talk.

Perhaps influenced by an outspoken and influential individual in the group, their conversations begin to mix religion with frustration and hate for the out-group—in this case, for the West. “They just keep talking up the hate and increasing it,” he said. “They even believe other Muslims are really not Muslims; only their groups are Muslims.”

Most were highly educated in subjects like engineering, but had little religious background before what amounts to a joint conversion experience. “It’s an engineers’ problem,” Sageman said, only partly tongue-in-cheek, “because engineers are arrogant. They think they can read the Koran without any help.”

As what he calls “the script” becomes increasingly important, the emerging terrorists begin to view the in-group as special, and terrorism as a glorious proof of commitment and courage. “There’s no recruitment. It’s a group of friends . . . They simply acquire the beliefs of their friends. You have a total proselytizing environment. They all mutually recruit each other.”

When recruitment occurs not through, say, an Al-Qaeda operative planted at a mosque, but through the internal radicalization of friendship groups who then may seek out terrorist contacts by, say, traveling to a training camp, is it possible for military action to end terrorism?

“The military role has been sanctuary denial,” he said, shutting down the option of a group heading to Afghanistan for training. But terrorism has simply splintered into a “global, leaderless jihad”—and in many cases, moved online, so that friendship networks may even be virtual.

While the majority of terrorists attacking Western targets so far have not been criminals, Sageman did find a pattern of poor second-generation immigrants in Europe turning to extreme Islamist beliefs after an early life of petty crime. This group could lead to a crime-terror nexus that could become extremely dangerous, particularly if they begin to use the sophisticated organization of heroin smugglers.

Sageman noted that efforts to stop terrorism can only succeed if the complexity of terrorism is recognized and addressed. “Because they’re terrorists,” he said, “we put our brain on hold,” and the stereotypes persist, in spite of the lack of empirical evidence.

This is pretty widespread knowledge, easy to research. Boohoo! It makes me sad.

Anseem said:

This creates a clash. On the one hand, the average Muslim is told that he is superior, he is better than the people of the country he is living in, but on the other hand, he sees that he is among the poorest in the country, and his subculture is among the most backward.

This clash creates anger, and it is this anger which is threatening to engulf the Muslims of India today, and which has been responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the world. It is this idea that even though we are superior, we are still behind others, so others must somehow be at fault, that is the driving force behind this hatred.

Excellent analysis. This is why it is the educated in Muslim countries that are the most angry, the most willing to die to kill the culture that excels over them.

 

[incantrix]

Hi incantrix.
Thanks for your reply however I am not sure if I follow you here. You believe that God prefers for his creation (man) to forgive and forget, however He does permit retribution, meaning justly harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done or basically taking revenge to correct a wrongdoing. I assume by this you mean that jihadists are sincere in conviction and in faith but are misguided because they pursue the latter method first. Most people here will disagree with you because as I said most believe that the jihadists are not true in their faith and are employing the teachings of Muhammad as a tool to pursue a secular political agenda, meaning they are not sincere Muslims. Now if God only prefers the benign method of forgive and forget but also permits retribution, then are the jihadists truly misguided? When do you believe, is retribution permitted?

I do believe that jihadists are sincere in their conviction. They believe they are doing God's work. I believe they aren't and I believe their leaders are misguiding them.

I would only choose retribution if I thought it was crucial to saving myself, my family or my freedom. Jihadists truly believe that western influence is going to destroy them, their families ect. To some extent this might be true (Iraq). I will admit I find it hard to not sympathize with an Iraqi who is fighting for what he believes is his freedom.

I understand this is only your perspective of Islam and you do not speak for all Muslims, however it seems to me that you, like many Muslims especially in the west, have applied reason to faith.

Thank you

You have escalated the common values that most people cherish, such as freedom and tolerance, above the teachings of Muhammad which is greatly commendable. What I also find commendable is for you to take time out of your schedule to answer our questions, improving relations by sharing knowledge in open dialogue is always good thing. Despite the disingenuous diatribes of certain indiviuals here, no regular member on this board dislikes or feels harshly toward people simply because they are Muslim. There are those of us who criticize and oppose Islam, however this does not reflect on Muslims. This open criticism is seen as "hatemongering" which I am sure you will agree is a reactionary response of ignorance, no idea or belief is beyond criticism and that includes all religious and secular ideologies. That being said I have one more question if you don't mind: from what you know of Muhammd and his lifestyle, do you have any doubts that Muhammad, by virtue of his conduct is qualified to be a prophet of a benign God? and why?

God might be benign and loving, but people are not. Yes, I believe Muhammed was qualified to be God's prophet. I believe that in comparison, he was far less violent than humanity.

I believe that the Muhammed of today, in this world, would be a pacifist.

 

[incantrix]

Ironduck: Azkonus is right. Even a picture of Muhammad being perfect would be offensive. It's okay for Christians to worship Jesus as a god because they believe he is God. So it is not idolatry.

For Muslims, Muhammad is a prophet not a god. The fear of idolatry is a large one (and probably partially motivated by the fact that early Muslims saw Christians worshiping the Prophet Jesus) I support the right to publish those cartoons, but please consider that I also find it very offensive

 

[Lord_Iggy]

We do in Canada

ROFL!

Ahem.

Excellent thread incantrix. Very enlightening.

I can't say that I have any questions right now, mine have already been answered.

 

[Homie]

So were you raised in a muslim home? Did your mom pray the mu'awwidhatayn with you before you went to sleep? Is that why those are your favorite surahs?

 

[incantrix]

So were you raised in a muslim home? Did your mom pray the mu'awwidhatayn with you before you went to sleep? Is that why those are your favorite surahs?

My mother was Muslim and I'm not sure about my father. I do not remember him well. From 6 until I was 17 I was raised a Muslim. I came back to Islam when I was 22.

My mother did sing (yes sing) the mu'awwidhatayn (how did you spell that right ) to me when I was a child when ever I was sick. That memory brought a tear to my eye Thank you.

Now, if I may ask you a question, how do you know this much about the Qur'an?

 

[incantrix]

I would like to clarify one statement

I'm a Canadian who happens to be Muslim. I won't lie and say that if the Canadian government decided to wage war on Islam (laughing at my computer at the thought) I have to admit I would feel torn I don't have a problem with Canadian troops in Afgahnistan.

I would feel torn just like most Christians would feel torn if their country waged war on Christianity (not unlike what I hear from American Conservatives, just replace 'the left' with 'American left')

No one has asked me about social issues. That surprised me!

 

[incantrix]

As much as I like the sound of this answer, unfortunately I don't think it pans out in actuality. The ones that we have to worry about the most are actually highly educated. Al Zawahiri is a pediatrician, Mohammed Atta had a bachelor degree in Engineering, and of course OBL was raised in a very rich and educated home. Most, if not all the hijackers were here on student visas and were highly educated.

Yes, in part. I don't believe the average uneducated man from the streat could make and detonate a dirty bomb.

Looking at this from the standpoint of a Muslim extremist I could say that while the average US Soldier here in Iraq has had little experience with foreign cultures and is lied to by the US media, his superiors are well educated and manipulate their culture to meet their agenda.

Without support, these terrorist leaders wouldn't be around. The lack of education among the supporters is the problem.

You don't see Zawahiri or OBL risking their lives.

 

[Sidhe]

Katheryn is right, Muslims who are poor and uneducated have more to worry about than the political struggles of Islam, they tend to be radicalised only by personal or prejudicial influences. The most dangerous Muslims: those that head or work at higher levels in Muslim terorrist organisations, tend to follow the same pattern

a) tending to be of higher than average intelligence
b) from wealthy or moderately wealthy familly
c) Well educated and thus knowledgeable of politics and of media in their country

Even if you look at the London bombing undrgrounds, the Muslims who carried it out fitted in the main all three of the above categories.

The idea that the terrorist is a backward fanatic, illiterate and with a poor understanding of both Islam and Politics is not backed up by fact.

 

[blackheart]

Without support, these terrorist leaders wouldn't be around. The lack of education among the supporters is the problem.

You don't see Zawahiri or OBL risking their lives.

This is so true for all leaders.

 

[blackheart]

Is another Caliph possible in this day and age?

How do muslims of different ethnicities (Arab, Irania, Indonesian, etc.) view each other?

 

[ironduck]

Ironduck: Azkonus is right. Even a picture of Muhammad being perfect would be offensive. It's okay for Christians to worship Jesus as a god because they believe he is God. So it is not idolatry.

For Muslims, Muhammad is a prophet not a god. The fear of idolatry is a large one (and probably partially motivated by the fact that early Muslims saw Christians worshiping the Prophet Jesus) I support the right to publish those cartoons, but please consider that I also find it very offensive

Offensive to you or to all muslims? Because, as mentioned earlier, there is beautiful muslim art that includes portrayal of Muhammad.

Christians don't worship, say, John the baptist (usually). Or Adam and Eve. Yet there is a rich tradition for portraying them. Do you feel offended by portrayals of your other prophets and holy figures, or only of Muhammad? And why/why not? I really don't understand it.

Further, if I personally paint Muhammad because I want to, are you going to be offended? It's not meant as an offense against anyone. It's art.

No one has asked me about social issues. That surprised me!

Actually I did, twice, if perhaps different social issues than you were thinking about. I asked about factions of islam that held socially liberal views similar to liberal christian churches. Men and women equal in the mosque, no veils, women imams, homosexual weddings, etc. Do you know of any such mosques? I've never heard of it, I only know secular muslims, but these particular religious practices remain socially backwards (imo).

You don't see Zawahiri or OBL risking their lives.

Maybe, maybe not. But what we do see are highly educated western muslims who are brainwashed into becoming terrorist. That's quite scary, particularly because of who they target - they wish to cause as much death as possible.

 

[Naval Power]

I've read that your a westernized Muslim so this may be a totally opposite view of a Muslim living in the Middle East, but how do you feel about the nation of Israel? Do you think they stole Muslim land? Do you think they have a right to stay?