Ask a Muslim

Status
Not open for further replies.
I reject the false dichotomy that your last statement above generates. That is the kind of religious absolutism that creates the very problems that we are discussing. Do you not see the likelihood that all of the world's religious books are subject to contamination by the imperfection of their human authors? Or to manipulation by persons and powers that might seek to use religion for their own purposes? It is imperative that a believer use their conscience to think through where text in holy books may not be the work of God, but the work of man.

We are always choosing what to believe. I cannot say that I know which holy texts Islam embraces, if any, besides the Quran, but I am sure that there are books that some allege to be holy that you do not accept. In Judeo-Christianity, we have an interesting dilemma: The Jews believe in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament. Most Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments, but not in the Book of Mormon. The Mormons are perhaps the most consistent in that they believe in all three. And yet they all are believing in the same God.

So why is it so difficult to think that perhaps some portion of a single holy text, alleged to be the word of God, might in fact be the error of man? I believe that God expects us to use the brain he gave us to examine this, and not be mislead like sheep by the errors of man.

Does this threaten those who run religious organizations? Of course. Is it uncomfortable to those who prefer the comfort of certainty (whether right or wrong) to the challenge of uncertainty? Most likely. But I think it is the only way to sort the wheat of how to live a holy life from the chaff of creation mythology and bloody military history that seems to coexist in holy books.

And this is not an idea that I have concocted just for this internet discussion. It is the conclusion that I have come to over a lifetime.

dV

Hello, Brother Da Vinci. :salute:

I apologize if I offended you. I did not know that you didn't believe that the Bible is the work of God, and that it is simply a work of man. However, this is not the belief of the orthodoxy of Christians, and I think it is difficult to have a discussion if we don't take that as the standard. I do, however, respect your beliefs, but if we apply your beliefs of selective analysis, then you could easily do that with the Islamic texts and we wouldn't be left with a coherent discussion/dialogue.

At minimum, however, I think that Christians who attack the Islamic texts need to look at their own texts first and foremost. It is very easy just to disregard them, but then you should also be so lenient on the Islamic texts, in order to have consistent analysis.

Nonetheless, I apologize for offending you. You seem like a really nice guy, and I agree with you that religion is often exploited by war-mongerers; both our religions have had that happen to them and it's upto people like us to enlighten people and bring them away from war but rather to harken towards peace.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
Previously you stated the you did not consider Saudi Arabia to be a truely Islamic country, why is that if it operates under Shariat law and is clearly the most religous of all the Islamic countries?

There are many Muslim countries that officially claim to follow Shariah Law, including Saudi and Pakistan. Of course, people would laugh at the idea that Pakistan follows Shariah, but this is officially what the constitution says. Indeed, these governments only claim to follow Shariah as a PR effort, but there is no truth to this claim and the religious Muslims are not fooled by this.

You, as a Non-Muslim, think of Saudi Arabia as being really Islamic and "Shariah-based" simply because they stone people, and other things like that. However, the Hadd (punishments) is just one minor part of the Shariah...in fact, a very very very small part of it. So just because Saudi Arabia adopts some of these measures does not make it a Shariah based country.

In fact, the bulk of Shariah Law has nothing to do with Hadd (punishments) but rather about social justice and welfare. The Shariah forbids kingships and the exploitation of wealth like done by the Saudi kings. Shariah Law dictates a strict re-distribution of wealth, and yet the economic system of Saudi does not address this. The directives of the Shariah in this matter are not followed. *This* is why people cry for Shariah, not because they want to stone people or other such things, as popularly portrayed in the West.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has taken the USA as its Awliyah (patron) and even aided the Non-Muslims in killing Muslims, and this is considered apostasy and Kufr (disbelief).

I am not the only one to claim that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic government. But rather, you will find that almost all Islamists say this, and call for the removal of the Saud family.

Furthermore, many of the laws in Saudi Arabia find no basis in Shariah. For example, women are forbidden to drive in Saudi, and yet this is a blasphemy! The Prophet's wife, Aisha (ra), rode out on a camel herself in one of the most famous battles! And there are many other examples of Muslim women in the time of the Prophet (s) riding camels and horses just like men. So how in the world can they ban women from driving the modern camel (i.e. the car)? And the Saudis have forbidden non-Muslims from entering Mecca and Medinah, which also has no basis in the Islamic canon. In fact, Non-Muslims are even allowed inside the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medinah. And then meanwhile, the Saudis hypocritically allow foreign troops in Arabia, which *is* forbidden in the faith.

So they have messed up things a lot, but primarily they have squandered wealth and abandoned all parts of the Shariah about social justice. And they have sided against the Muslims. Allah Willing, the Saudi government will one day fall and the Land of Islam will be restored.

What is the actual orignal meaning of jihad?

I have a previous post on this. The word comes from the word "juhd" and means to "struggle" (i.e. to struggle in the path of Allah). The initial meaning of Jihad was nothing to do with Holy War, but rather referred to Jihad Al-Nufs (the battle against one's own ego and carnal desires). However, later Jihad on the battlefield was incorporated as a part of Jihad, although its status and importance is lesser than Jihad Al-Nufs.


What do you think of secular or democratic Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Bangladesh? Do you think democracy is compatiable with Islamisim?

How do you reconcile the prospoerity and devlopment of nations like UAE, Qatar, Baharain, Kuwait, and Turkey who are generally Westernized as a pose to the comparative lack of development in nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc... and the massive problems faced by them when it comes to a young unemployed and fanatical pouplation?

You have given a very selective and flawed list of examples, in an effort to draw the conclusion that adopting western values will lead to success. You have mentioned that Bengladesh is secular and democratic but you have not included it in your list of successful countries. In fact, Bengladesh is the poorest of the Muslim countries, so if what you claim is true, then there is no such pattern linking secularism with success.

You have also placed Saudi Arabia in the list of countries lacking "development" when in fact Saudi Arabia is one of the most prosperous gulf countries that is very advanced in relation to other Muslim countries.

And you have placed Pakistan as one of the countries that is not as secular and therefore unsuccessful, even though Pakistan is one of the most secular of the Muslim countries and very "Western" in this aspect, much more than many of the Gulf countries you mention. And even the Gulf countries you mention are not mostly western: they tend to follow the burqahs with bikinis model.

In history, the Muslims were dominant when they adhered to Islam, and they lost their power when they abandoned their faith. That is why people are flocking back to the faith: if it worked once, it can work again. Or at least this is the idea. :)

Allah says quite beautifully in the Quran:

"Allah does not change the condition of a people until they (first) change their inner-selves."
(Quran)

I believe that when Muslims as a whole change their inner-selves and seek to bring themselves closer to Allah, then Allah will bless us and bring us back to a position of dignity and worth.

As for the current situation of Muslim countries, generally the countries with oil are doing well; it has more to do with oil than following Islam or secularism.

Also wha do you think of all the foreginers in the Guf States including the 5,000,000 in Saudi Arabia?

What do you mean: what do I think? I think they are fine and dandy. :) Care to specify your question a bit more?

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
No, Salah, you are missing the point. A lot of Christians believe the Bible to be the work partly of God and partly of man; ie it has been somewhat corrupted.

Hi, Eran. :salute:

Oh, ok. I see your point. Interestingly enough, this is the belief of Muslims with regards to the Bible: partly the word of God and partly corrupted by man.

However, generally I've seen that orthodox Christians reject this idea and say that it is unadulterated. I find this position more tenable than allowing for corruption in your holy book.

(Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted by man and that many of the stories of the Abrahamic Prophets were adulterated with lies and slander against them, such as accusing them of murdering people, lewdness, etc.)

Anyways, you should open up a thread "Ask a Mormon." I had some Mormon friends and they were actually very much alike to myself in respect to a lot of the "sacrifices" they had to make (i.e. a more strict lifestyle). I've found that Mormons and Muslims get along just fine! Personally, I felt great when I could drink caffienated drinks and my Mormon friend couldn't: for once, I was the one who could "do" something and not the other way around, lol.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
Nonetheless, I apologize for offending you. You seem like a really nice guy, and I agree with you that religion is often exploited by war-mongerers; both our religions have had that happen to them and it's upto people like us to enlighten people and bring them away from war but rather to harken towards peace.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
The forcefullness of my language was not due to offense, but due to a passion to make the point. And perhaps a slight irritation at the suggestion that it was just an argument of convenience today, rather than a well-considered postion. But offense is too strong a description, and I don't think your previous response was inappropriate.

We undoubtedly disagree on the idea of religious absolutism. That's fine. To me, Christianity boils down to one rule: love your neighbor as yourself. Or, treat others as you would like to be treated, or treat them as you would treat Jesus. Everything else, the church buildings, the liturgy, the Scriptures, are either a means to that end, or they are superfluous. I have no use for religious mysticsm. The Jesus I see in the new testament is much more practical that that. Even if you don't believe that Jesus was divine, or don't even believe in a Deity, his teachings are a good philosophy for a peaceful and happy life. In a lot of ways the Old Testament just clutters that up.

The other part of your response, that I did not previously address, has truth in it: some of the ways that the US has been involved in the Middle East suffers from hypocracy on examination. The judgement of terrorism or self-defense is always in the eye of the beholder. I agree that we need to reign in the extremists on both sides. What do you think about the apparent relationship, on both sides, of the violent extremism with religious fundamentalism and absolutism? I think that a little more doubt in religion would make the world a more peaceful place.

dV
 
I thought the hadiths were considered completely reliable. What makes you think that they were simply "estimating" here? And do you allow the possibility that what is said is not literally, 100% accurate and can be an exaggeration to be used in interpreting other verses?

Yes, whenever you see numbers in the Arabic scriptures, there is the possibility that they are not exactly accurate, because that is the Arabic Balagha. The same thing will be referred to as 70 in some places, 700 in others, and 7000 in others. Or 71, 72, and 73 used interchangeably. It's just an Arabic thing. I wouldn't be stating this unless it were true, as I don't believe in changing your faith to give yourself a better argument over the internet. I have already conceded to you that she was young, and I am not trying to cop out here, just state the truth and something that is universal to all Arabic narrations with numbers. Indeed, there is no *other* way to view Arab historians and their usage of numbers, because then there would be all sorts of chronological and numerical inconsistincies. In *every* battle waged by the Muslims, you will see dramatically differing figures used...Arabs just were funny when it came to reporting numbers...it was a cultural thing.

But does simply the fact that much of humanity did it excuse them from moral judgement? "Everyone did it, so we won't condemn anyone"? I don't know, if you don't have a problem judging the actions of those who lived in the past in one area - like, say, condemning the Crusades, which I imagine you do, with a quote from "Saladin" as the "Liberator of Jerusalem" in your signature - then why can you not judge the actions of those who lived in the past who did other things? Is it simply that because Mohammad was, in your view, the last and greatest prophet from God, and you don't want to condemn him?

I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't understand how you can say that it's OK to judge the actions of mankind in one area that was common at the time (Religious war) and not in others (Early marriages).

Actually, you are putting words into my mouth. I have always stated that religious wars and wars between empires was common back then, and therefore, it is difficult to place the blame on any one empire, when in fact, countries and nation-states were in a state of perpetual war at that time. I have always found it ridicolous how people try to apply say the Geneva Conventions to ancient times.

My criticism against the Crusaders has little to do with them waging war against the Muslims, but rather it has to do with the way they did that, butchering men, women, and children. They did not have even a fraction of the nobleness of Saladin (ra) and were generally regarded as raging barbarian hordes who even persecuted their own co-religionists in the East.

Why exactly do you call me this?

I believe you are my brother in humanity, as we are all Children of Adam (as).

Actually, this is a Jewish tradition that Mohammad revived, it was never really a Christian one. We aren't supposed to eat meat we know is sacrificed to idols, but that's simply because it's a bad example and could make it look like we are worshiping those idols as well as God. There's no mainstream Christian tradition for a specific method of butchering animals and preparing meat like there is in Judaism and Islam. (Other than the fact that we aren't supposed to eat food cooked in it's own blood, and we know was sacrificed to idols, that is. Other than that, we can eat pretty much anything.)

Scripture on this:

Wow, thanks for posting this! I really benefitted from it. Good to see the Christian view on this matter, especially with the verse in the Bible cited. Very nice!

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
What do you think about the apparent relationship, on both sides, of the violent extremism with religious fundamentalism and absolutism? I think that a little more doubt in religion would make the world a more peaceful place.

Well, I cannot speak for Christianity because my knowledge of it is cursory at best, and I wouldn't know what exactly constitutes true Christian fundamentalism based on the Christian scriptures.

However, I can speak for Islam that fundamentalism in Islam and "absolutism" would be the death knell for terrorists, nothing else. The Islamic Scripture is filled with prohibitions on the killing of women and children and unarmed men. (There is an *entire* chapter on this topic in the Prophetic Sayings.) But the terrorists are not Islamic fundamentalists but rather they are deviant heretics known as Khawaarij. They say that the Islamic canon cannot be applied to modern warfare because that was a time when armies fought in battle instead of with laser-guided missiles and other such things...so the Khawaarij basically just say we have to abandon the Islamic canon in this regards since it just doesn't apply any more. This is seen by true Islamic fundamentalists as pure blasphemy. Another example of how far the Khawaarij have gone from the fundamentals of the faith is that they have allowed men to fight 'Jihad' without the permission of their parents. But this is not proper because there are Prophetic Sayings which command that a man must have the permission of his parents before going to war. So the terrorists have had a really hard time dealing with a *true* fundamentalist Islam, and they are laughed at and refuted by the orthodox scholars.

I am an Islamic fundamentalist, and I do not think anything I believe in is in any way a contra-indication for peace. Instead, I think my faith calls for peace.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
Why is it heretical to draw a picture of Muhammed but not for half of everyone to have the same name as him?

Hello, Brother. :salute:

It is a cultural thing, and therefore difficult for people of other cultures to understand. For example, in Christian culture, it is considered blasphemous to say the name of the Lord in vain. To a Muslim, however, this seems absurd and strange, because we are instead urged to say the name of Allah when we are in distress. And you will commonly see Muslims saying "Ya Allah" when they are pained and in distress...on the other hand, Christians are dead-set against saying the name of Christ in vain.

Making pictures of Prophets and holy people is considered blasphemous in the Islamic culture, and you don't understand that just like Muslims don't understand saying the name of the Lord in vain. But anyways, Muslims believe that drawing a picture of a religious person is "bastardizing" the memory of that person, cheapening him, creating a cartoon out of him, and consumerizing him. The Muslims are shocked at the way the Christians draw pictures of Prophet Jesus (as) and we believe that this has cheapened the memory of Prophet Jesus (as) in many ways, taking away from the sacredness and holiness of him.

I have many past posts on the topic of the Danish cartoons, and I encourage you to read those, Allah Willing.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
 
I am an Islamic fundamentalist, and I do not think anything I believe in is in any way a contra-indication for peace. Instead, I think my faith calls for peace.

Take care, Brother. :salute:
It would appear that the way the west uses the term "islamic fundamentalist" to describe those engaged in violence against civilians is a mistake. It sounds like "islamic heretic" might be more accurate. And would not make their behavior sound typical of Islam, as the term fundamentalist might. What English term would you like to see used to describe them?

dV
 
Another question:

Is it major apostasy if you fight against the faith intellectually after becoming an apostate? Can people like Anwar Sheikh, Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina be called major apostates?
 
So, Salah, if you are a fundamental Islamist, as you said in the other thread, then do you agree with Sayiid Qutb who says this?

Jahiliyya vs. freedom

This exposure to abuse of power undoubtedly contributed to the ideas in his famous prison-written Islamic manifesto Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq where he argued:

The Muslim world had ceased to be and reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as Jahiliyya, because of the lack of sharia law. All non-Islamic states are thus illegitimate, including that of his native land Egypt
Rather than rule by a pious few, (or democratic representation [18]), Muslims should resist any system where men are in "servitude to other men" as un-Islamic and a violation of God's sovereignty (Hakamiyya) over all of creation. A truly Islamic polity would not even have theocratic rulers.
The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard [19] to fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad."
The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of Jahiliyyah.
True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice."

Although earlier Muslims (Ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab) had used Jahiliyya to refer to contemporary Muslim societies, no one before Qutb had applied it so widely, nor had such popular response. While Islam had seen many religious revivals urging a return to religious fundamentals throughout its history, Qutb was the first thinker who paired them to a radical, sociopolitical ideology.[20]

Sayiid Qutb, the father of world wide radical jihadism, (what Westerners would call 'terrorism') advocates the elimination of "Jahiliyyah" which is pre-Islam religion, yes that would include Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and so on. How does one get rid of it? Through jihad.

And he is very popular. To say it is a very small amount of Muslims who agree with jihad is nonsense. Qutb, the father of the Muslim Brotherhood, is hugely popular all over the world. His books are translated into many languages:

Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, and Ruhollah Khomeini, Qutb is considered one of the most influential Muslim thinkers or activists of the modern era, not only for his ideas but for what many consider his heroic martyr's death.

His written works are still widely available and have been translated into many Western languages. Qutb's best known work is Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), but the majority of Qutb's theory can be found in his Qur'anic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Quran). This 30-volume work is noteworthy for its innovative method of interpretation, borrowing heavily from the literary analysis of Amin al-Khuli, while retaining some structural features of classical commentaries (for example, the practice of progressing from the first sura to the last).

The influence of his work extends to issues such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform and the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between "Islam and the West" (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad.

In terms of politics, his theoretical work on Islamic advocacy, social justice and education, has left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood (still a large and very important political organization in Egypt with related organizations in many countries around the world).

In terms of lives lost and property destroyed, Qutb's greatest impact has been through Islamic insurgent/terror groups in Egypt [12] and elsewhere. His influence on Al Qaeda was felt through his brother, Muhammad Qutb, who moved to Saudi Arabia following his release from prison in Egypt and became a professor of Islamic Studies and edited, published and promoted his brother Sayyid's work. [26] One of Muhammad Qutb's students and later an ardent followers was Ayman Zawahiri, who went on to become a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad terror group [27] and later a mentor of Osama bin Laden and a leading member of al-Qaeda. [13] Zawahiri paid homage to Qutb in his work Knights under the Prophet's Banner. [28]


And we all know that the Muslim Brotherhood is the father of Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and so on and so on. Don't remember how to spell the one in Indonesia and the one in Philippines and Thailand. They are, nonetheless, very active in these areas.
 
Hello, Brother. :salute:

It is a cultural thing, and therefore difficult for people of other cultures to understand. For example, in Christian culture, it is considered blasphemous to say the name of the Lord in vain. To a Muslim, however, this seems absurd and strange, because we are instead urged to say the name of Allah when we are in distress. And you will commonly see Muslims saying "Ya Allah" when they are pained and in distress...on the other hand, Christians are dead-set against saying the name of Christ in vain.

Now, now, now, not so. When Christians call out Jesus name in distress that is not taking the name of the Lord in vain. Taking the Lords name in vain would be using it when you are not cognizant of the fact you are using it. For example, if you say, "God damn it" when you are irritated with something, or "God damn you", or "go to hell", this is taking God's name in vain. A human doesn't "damn" anything and shouldn't ask God to. Most people, however aren't even cognizant of what they are saying. Or saying, "Jesus Christ!" when they mean, "Oh that really sucks!" isn't nice either.

However, calling the Lord's name when in distress is an act of faith.


Making pictures of Prophets and holy people is considered blasphemous in the Islamic culture, and you don't understand that just like Muslims don't understand saying the name of the Lord in vain. But anyways, Muslims believe that drawing a picture of a religious person is "bastardizing" the memory of that person, cheapening him, creating a cartoon out of him, and consumerizing him. The Muslims are shocked at the way the Christians draw pictures of Prophet Jesus (as) and we believe that this has cheapened the memory of Prophet Jesus (as) in many ways, taking away from the sacredness and holiness of him.

I have many past posts on the topic of the Danish cartoons, and I encourage you to read those, Allah Willing.

Take care, Brother. :salute:


Yes, well, nothing could "bastardize" Jesus or "cheapen" Him. So paint away! Have at it. Doesn't bother us at all. Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.
 
"Every knee shall bow" sounds very oppressive. Is this from the Koran?

What will happen to me if I refuse to bow my knee?
 
So, Salah, if you are a fundamental Islamist, as you said in the other thread, then do you agree with Sayiid Qutb who says this?

Quote:

Jahiliyya vs. freedom

This exposure to abuse of power undoubtedly contributed to the ideas in his famous prison-written Islamic manifesto Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq where he argued:

The Muslim world had ceased to be and reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as Jahiliyya, because of the lack of sharia law. All non-Islamic states are thus illegitimate, including that of his native land Egypt
Rather than rule by a pious few, (or democratic representation [18]), Muslims should resist any system where men are in "servitude to other men" as un-Islamic and a violation of God's sovereignty (Hakamiyya) over all of creation. A truly Islamic polity would not even have theocratic rulers.
The way to bring about this freedom was for a revolutionary vanguard [19] to fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad."
The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against Islam and the elimination of Jahiliyyah. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice."

Although earlier Muslims (Ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab) had used Jahiliyya to refer to contemporary Muslim societies, no one before Qutb had applied it so widely, nor had such popular response. While Islam had seen many religious revivals urging a return to religious fundamentals throughout its history, Qutb was the first thinker who paired them to a radical, sociopolitical ideology.[20]

Sayiid Qutb, the father of world wide radical jihadism, (what Westerners would call 'terrorism') advocates the elimination of "Jahiliyyah" which is pre-Islam religion, yes that would include Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and so on. How does one get rid of it? Through jihad.

And he is very popular. To say it is a very small amount of Muslims who agree with jihad is nonsense. Qutb, the father of the Muslim Brotherhood, is hugely popular all over the world. His books are translated into many languages:

Quote:

Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, and Ruhollah Khomeini, Qutb is considered one of the most influential Muslim thinkers or activists of the modern era, not only for his ideas but for what many consider his heroic martyr's death.

His written works are still widely available and have been translated into many Western languages. Qutb's best known work is Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), but the majority of Qutb's theory can be found in his Qur'anic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Quran). This 30-volume work is noteworthy for its innovative method of interpretation, borrowing heavily from the literary analysis of Amin al-Khuli, while retaining some structural features of classical commentaries (for example, the practice of progressing from the first sura to the last).

The influence of his work extends to issues such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform and the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between "Islam and the West" (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad.

In terms of politics, his theoretical work on Islamic advocacy, social justice and education, has left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood (still a large and very important political organization in Egypt with related organizations in many countries around the world).

In terms of lives lost and property destroyed, Qutb's greatest impact has been through Islamic insurgent/terror groups in Egypt [12] and elsewhere. His influence on Al Qaeda was felt through his brother, Muhammad Qutb, who moved to Saudi Arabia following his release from prison in Egypt and became a professor of Islamic Studies and edited, published and promoted his brother Sayyid's work. [26] One of Muhammad Qutb's students and later an ardent followers was Ayman Zawahiri, who went on to become a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad terror group [27] and later a mentor of Osama bin Laden and a leading member of al-Qaeda. [13] Zawahiri paid homage to Qutb in his work Knights under the Prophet's Banner. [28]

And we all know that the Muslim Brotherhood is the father of Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and so on and so on. Don't remember how to spell the one in Indonesia and the one in Philippines and Thailand. They are, nonetheless, very active in these areas.

Hello, Sister Katheryn. :salute:

First off--without being excessively rude--I must say that your source is laughable: do you routinely use Wikipedia as a source of your knowledge of Islam?

Secondly, Sayyid Qutb never ever advocated terrorism nor the killings of inncocents. Indeed, he adamantly stated that the Prophetic Way was to be kind and compassionate towards Non-Muslims. As Karen Armstrong, author of the best-seller book "The Battle for God", says:

"Muslims today, Qutb urged...should be courteous to unbelievers and apostates in their society..." (Karen Armstrong, "The Battle for God", p. 242)

In fact, Qutb's philosophy was a "Jihad against Jahiliyyah". I am afraid that you do not know the meaning of either word. Jahiliyyah refers to the Age of Ignorance, and it is used when Arabs described their Pre-Islamic time. For example, the Second Caliph (ra) would say that he did such-and-such sin in his time of Jahiliyyah. The Shaikh of Islam, Ibn Tamiyyah (ra), explained that the term Jahiliyyah is used to "describe backsliding in contemporary Muslim society."

Therefore, Jahiliyyah is almost exclusively used in discourse to refer to the back-sliding in Muslim lands and Muslim society. It is a criticism of the condition of the Muslims in Muslim lands, and not of the West in Western lands. Sayyid Qutb says in his book "Milestones" that the Muslims have fallen back into Jahiliyyah and that "the Muslim community has been extinct for a few centuries." (Qutb, "Milestones", p.19)

As for the word "Jihad", it comes from the same root as "Juhd", and means struggle. Therefore, a Jihad against Jahiliyyah refers to the Struggle against the ignorance prevalent in Muslim societies. Qutb, as most Islamists do, believed that the Muslim world had gone away from Islam and instead adopted secularism, Westernism, etc. as well as superstitions, backwardness, etc. He considered this unacceptable, and preached what he termed "the middle way" or the "best of both worlds": an enlightened Islam. Therefore, Qutb preached an ideological battle in which the Muslims must reject these values and instead cling back to the Islamic ideals.

Qutb believed that as more and more Muslims were won into the folds of Islamism that this would be the start of an ideological revolution in the lands of Islam, that would ultimately culminate in a coup d'etat, in which the ungodly rulers of the Muslim world would be removed from power. This is something which I also strongly believe in: the rulers of the Muslim lands are Munafiqeen (hypocrites), tyrants, oppressors, and puppets of the West who squander the wealth of the Muslims. Indeed, the *only* armed Jihad that Qutb focused on was what he said was the overthrow of these tyrants in Muslim lands; nonetheless, Qutb believed that such a revolution would most likely be bloodless if enough proper preparation of the Muslim masses was made.

Therefore, Sayyid Qutb's main gripe was against the rulers of the Muslim world, and he believed in a form of extreme social justice. That is why Sayyid Qutb is widely respected in the Muslim world. He is seen by the Muslims as Che Guevara is in the West, as a model for social justice, a person who advocated the re-distribution of wealth. Indeed, his very first book is called "Social Justice" and is an amazingly progressive book. He believed in redistributive economics, freedom of religion, and he lamented against racism, which for his time, shows how amazing he was. He preached the importance of education and how this was, as Malcolm said, the "passport to the future."

Karen Armstrong, author of the best-seller book "The Battle for God", says:

"Qutb always insisted that the armed struggle for God would not be an oppressive, coercive campaign to impose Islam by force." (Karen Armstrong, "The Battle for God", p. 242)

Instead, Qutb advocated an ideological revolution and a return to Islam in the Muslim world, who he termed to be steeped in Jahiliyyah.

He *never* advocated terrorism. You have stated that some terror groups today eulogize him. Well, these same groups eulogize Prophet Muhammad (s). You say that these terror groups read Qutb's books. Well, these same groups read the Quran. But *most* of the Muslims who follow Prophet Muhammad (s) decry terrorism and believe it to be Haram (forbidden). Likewise, most of Qutb's fan base is against terrorism. Furthermore--and this is most important--Prophet Muhammad (s), the Quran, Sayyid Qutb, and Qutb's works, all view terrorism to be Haram (forbidden). Indeed, many view terrorism as a RETURN to Jahiliyyah, in which the Pre-Islamic Arabs would engage in terrorism against other clans/tribes, which Islam strictly prohibited.

All you have stated as proof for your claim is that one of Al-Qaeda's leaders was a student of the teachings of Sayyid Qutb's BROTHER. First of all, not even his brother advocated terrorism, but rather he was a peaceful professor in a Saudi university. Indeed, Qutb never supported terrorism, and the terrorist groups today butcher his teachings to support their own twisted agendas, just like they twist the Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (s).

In the future, I hope that you refrain from sensationalism.

Take care, Sister. :salute:
 
Now, now, now, not so. When Christians call out Jesus name in distress that is not taking the name of the Lord in vain. Taking the Lords name in vain would be using it when you are not cognizant of the fact you are using it. For example, if you say, "God damn it" when you are irritated with something, or "God damn you", or "go to hell", this is taking God's name in vain. A human doesn't "damn" anything and shouldn't ask God to. Most people, however aren't even cognizant of what they are saying. Or saying, "Jesus Christ!" when they mean, "Oh that really sucks!" isn't nice either.

However, calling the Lord's name when in distress is an act of faith.

I didn't mean to say otherwise. Please re-read what I said. You yourself have said that saying "Jesus Christ!" is not acceptable in times of distress or consternation. In fact, it is STRICTLY forbidden in your faith. On the other hand, Muslims always say "Ya Allah!" in distress.

My point was not to say one or the other is right. In your quest of propaganda, you have failed to see my very point. My point was only that what one culture sees as a sign of disrespect, another culture won't. Neither is right or wrong necessarily: it's just a different culture. In America, putting up your middle finger is a sign of disrespect, but in most countries it means nothing and the middle finger is routinely used while reading.

Please, sister, you need not be so hostile. We are all friends here, or at least children of Adam (as).

Take care, Sister. :salute:
 
Salah-Al-Din, I'll get to the questions I raised yesterday, and your responses this afternoon. (Or so I hope. ;) ) Now I need to go to school, but I wanted to post a question now so that (Again, hopefully) you could answer it by the time I get back on here. If not, then just answer it when you have time.

According to this story, there is a Muslim doctor who is insisting that most vaccines for measles, mumps and the like, contain "halal", or forbidden things, and Muslims should not vaccinate their children because of these ingredients.

Now, as you are a fourth year medical student (I don't know where) I assume you don't share this view, but if I'm wrong on that, feel free to correct me. But what I want to know is, how common is this view that vaccines of this sort are forbidden and morally wrong to use? Is this a widespread belief? What Quranic support, if any, is there for this claim?

Thanks, I'll talk to you later.

EDIT: On the "every knee shall bow" bit, that's a prophecy, not a command. Meaning the resurrected man will see Christ in all of His glory, and will bow because he can't comprehend it all, and is overwhelmed by it. God isn't going to force you to bow, you'll bow because you can't help it, Christian or no.
 
Ziggy said:
"Every knee shall bow" sounds very oppressive. Is this from the Koran?

What will happen to me if I refuse to bow my knee?

Bible. Philippians 2. Various versions:

Spoiler NIV :
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Spoiler MSG :
Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.

Spoiler KJV :
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

linky
 
Ah I see. I have no say in the matter. I'll be blown away by the glory of JC and happily sumbit to him.

In other words, I can't refuse because I won't want to refuse. Thanks for the clarification :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom