WHERE IS THE FUTURE OF ISLAM?????!!!!!

[Thou Exalted]

tassan

Haydar the Truthful

BeXlieXve

I'm new, but if I may throw in my two cents on the issue...

Morals are subjective here in the U.S. too. That's the reason we're having problems with specific laws right now (gay marriage, abortion, etc.).

But the thing is that we agreed a long time ago on most of the things we call "rights." We find new rights as we go, of course, but we knew the most basic of rights when the country started.

Our Declaration of Independance says "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To shorten, that means we decided that it was obvious we were all equal, that no life should be valued more or less than another.

I think that people in Islamic countries get this. You value life, of course. Everyone does. The thing is that our definition of "men" has changed. We used to think "men" referred only to white, rich men. But a couple hundred years later, we've added everyone to that category. Men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Natives, rich, poor... everyone.

I think the problem with Islamic countries is that they're more old-fashioned, and so it's taking them longer to make the connections we've already made.

And I have to say, the only hope for Islam now (or any group of people, really) is this generation. Young people, all over the world, are much more accepting than their parents. It could take a few generations, but eventually, the Islamic countries may catch up with us. And I hope they do. I understand wanting to keep the traditions and old ways, but there must be a way to do that without holding others (in this case, women) back from fulfilling their potential.

This is true, Regardless of how Islamic Countries are viewed there are countries like Lebanon who are undergoing civil problems, And regardless that I agree that Israel shouldn't be where it is due to "How" they took the land, I also agree that Islam needs to have peace within its own countries.

And yeah Ahmed it is pretty bad in more than just Saudi Arabia, I believe to get a non corrupt ruler is simply to get a well known scholar that EVERYONE in that country agrees is pious and doesn't lie or do anything in private and what not. I'm thinking of having this leader not in "total" power as some countries, But to have the government have power as well, So even these innocent persons don't over rule, So it seems to me a mix of Islamic Law and American Law, Which would seem to control things.

but in Qura'n it is mentioned the symbols of true leader!!

why no body follows it??

I know it does, But really, The last leader that leads a country that I can remember would be Hazrat/Imam Ali (PBUH) and really, He was disobeyed by extremists. Every leader after him seems to me just oppressing Muslims in one way or another.  

[BubbleBerry Tea]

Actually, saying "old-fashioned" is an understatement. I was just trying to be polite. sweatdrop It's much worse than old-fashioned.  

[Geek Zombie]

BeXlieXve

Actually, saying "old-fashioned" is an understatement. I was just trying to be polite. sweatdrop It's much worse than old-fashioned.

can you explain how much worse!!

it helps ME get a picture that what you are thinking?  

[The Dead Terrorist Achmed]

tassan

The Dead Terrorist Achmed

tassan

Qura'n

Tassan, everybody interprets the Qu'ran differently, even though we all read the same words. That's the source of our issues.

"its the same words but different meaning" is that what you are trying to say?


that would be because one would have not paid attention to what he/she is reading

NO, tassan. that is not correct.

Arabic is the holy language of Allah. We keep the Qur'an in Arabic to preseve Allah's (swt) word.

That's 12th century old Arabic. Granted, Arabic doesn't change very much, but it's still freakin old.

Just because someone doesn't have the exact same interpretation as you doesn't mean they're not reading correctly. After all, who gave the authority that we should all listen to YOUR interpretation of the Qu'ran?

This is were we get different fractions of Muslim communities and exploitation of the words. Muslims aren't the only ones guilty of it. Jews and Christians manipulate the works of their sacred scriptures to benefit them in the past.

That's not a new concept. You can see for yourself the differences in interpretation just by looking at this guild. If you need further proof, check out Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Look at Iraqi, hell, even look at the Shia/Sunni differences.

This is where Ratri was bringing up the Catholic heirarchy and said that she liked it. The Catholics have a set standard on how to interpret the Bible. (it's NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY)
So, everyone worldwide is not supposed to interpret the bible literally and just take it for what it's worth: moral guidelines.

Take Islam where the interpretation of the Qu'ran ranges from very loose to extreme fundamentalism. I hate that. I want unity iwithin the faith. If we cannot even have a set standard on how to accurately interpret the Allah's word, then what hope have we for unity in the future?  

[The Dead Terrorist Achmed]

Haydar the Truthful

This is true, Regardless of how Islamic Countries are viewed there are countries like Lebanon who are undergoing civil problems, And regardless that I agree that Israel shouldn't be where it is due to "How" they took the land, I also agree that Islam needs to have peace within its own countries.

And yeah Ahmed it is pretty bad in more than just Saudi Arabia, I believe to get a non corrupt ruler is simply to get a well known scholar that EVERYONE in that country agrees is pious and doesn't lie or do anything in private and what not. I'm thinking of having this leader not in "total" power as some countries, But to have the government have power as well, So even these innocent persons don't over rule, So it seems to me a mix of Islamic Law and American Law, Which would seem to control things.

1. Please remember your history. As much as I dislike the way Israel is now, the Brits had control of Palestine (which wasn't even a country yet, it was still a colony). They owned the place and had the power to do this. They didn't really "take the land" because the land didn't belong to Palestine anymore. I wish the Brits were better in executing the establishment of Israel. (but that's whole other debate)

2. I disagree. There is too much potential of abuse of power when mixing Islamic law and secular laws. It's bad enough when a country is run by Islamic law alone. It should be completely secular. Separation of Church and state----one of the best things that the US government has ever done, in my opinion. And how are you going to determine this leader? you're using subjective terms again. There's no such thing as "picking a leader that everybody likes" It's going to be majority vs minority. And would the person be Sunni, Shiite, or Sufi? People would claim that the leader, even if not given much power, would promote favoritism of a particular sect.  

[Thou Exalted]

The Dead Terrorist Achmed

Haydar the Truthful

This is true, Regardless of how Islamic Countries are viewed there are countries like Lebanon who are undergoing civil problems, And regardless that I agree that Israel shouldn't be where it is due to "How" they took the land, I also agree that Islam needs to have peace within its own countries.

And yeah Ahmed it is pretty bad in more than just Saudi Arabia, I believe to get a non corrupt ruler is simply to get a well known scholar that EVERYONE in that country agrees is pious and doesn't lie or do anything in private and what not. I'm thinking of having this leader not in "total" power as some countries, But to have the government have power as well, So even these innocent persons don't over rule, So it seems to me a mix of Islamic Law and American Law, Which would seem to control things.

1. Please remember your history. As much as I dislike the way Israel is now, the Brits had control of Palestine (which wasn't even a country yet, it was still a colony). They owned the place and had the power to do this. They didn't really "take the land" because the land didn't belong to Palestine anymore. I wish the Brits were better in executing the establishment of Israel. (but that's whole other debate)

2. I disagree. There is too much potential of abuse of power when mixing Islamic law and secular laws. It's bad enough when a country is run by Islamic law alone. It should be completely secular. Separation of Church and state----one of the best things that the US government has ever done, in my opinion. And how are you going to determine this leader? you're using subjective terms again. There's no such thing as "picking a leader that everybody likes" It's going to be majority vs minority. And would the person be Sunni, Shiite, or Sufi? People would claim that the leader, even if not given much power, would promote favoritism of a particular sect.

For the first part, I suppose I agree with you on the issue but you can't disagree when I say Israel isn't as innocent as they announce.

As for the second, I suppose it could be something like A Islamic Bill of Rights, And yes Separation from Religion and Government would probably be best now that I think about it since corruption spreads and what not... So we can't just establish A Islamic "America" System? Something similar to American law without causing rebellions and what not?  

[BubbleBerry Tea]

Well, if someone is killing his daughter for talking to a boy, yes. That's how much worse it is. neutral

See, by saying "old-fashioned" I just meant that some Islamic countries are far too traditional, to the point that women are viewed as a piece of property and can be killed so easlily. It's as though we're livestock.

"Old-fashioned" may not have been the best thing to say. It's how we in the U.S. politely describe people who hold onto old ideals that we now consider to be wrong, such as racism and sexism. Our human rights issues are nowhere near yours, though. If someone here killed his daughter for talking to a boy, he'd probably be executed.  

[The Dead Terrorist Achmed]

Haydar the Truthful

For the first part, I suppose I agree with you on the issue but you can't disagree when I say Israel isn't as innocent as they announce.

Neither side is innocent. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are guilty.

Haydar the Truthful

As for the second, I suppose it could be something like A Islamic Bill of Rights, And yes Separation from Religion and Government would probably be best now that I think about it since corruption spreads and what not... So we can't just establish A Islamic "America" System? Something similar to American law without causing rebellions and what not?

Islamic American System? No. It wouldn't work. Which laws from the Shari'a are going to be incorporated into government then? Taliban liked forcing women to wear burqas and having no education, and forcing men to wear long beards. No. It needs to be completely secular. There shouldn't be a banning of hijabs. There should be an option of wearing one or not. Women shouldn't be condemned for not wearing one.
Oh, and what about the Christians and Jews that often live in Muslim countries? Misinterpretation of Islamic law has lead to persecution of these people, or anyone from another faith. Many are killed because they are not Muslim. And a just government takes into account of the majority and the minority. So forbidding pork or liquor stores would be a violation of rights. And what about censorship too? America is pretty liberal in that area, far more than any Muslim country I've seen.  

[The Dead Terrorist Achmed]

BeXlieXve

Well, if someone is killing his daughter for talking to a boy, yes. That's how much worse it is. neutral

See, by saying "old-fashioned" I just meant that some Islamic countries are far too traditional, to the point that women are viewed as a piece of property and can be killed so easlily. It's as though we're livestock.

"Old-fashioned" may not have been the best thing to say. It's how we in the U.S. politely describe people who hold onto old ideals that we now consider to be wrong, such as racism and sexism. Our human rights issues are nowhere near yours, though. If someone here killed his daughter for talking to a boy, he'd probably be executed.

...I'd rather call it archaic concepts or stupid traditionalists/fundamentalists who need to take the edge off.  

[Thou Exalted]

The Dead Terrorist Achmed

Neither side is innocent. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are guilty.


Never said Palestinians weren't guilty, But Israelis make themselves as if they are innocent, when they aren't. Both sides are guilty and I know this already.



Islamic American System? No. It wouldn't work. Which laws from the Shari'a are going to be incorporated into government then? Taliban liked forcing women to wear burqas and having no education, and forcing men to wear long beards. No. It needs to be completely secular. There shouldn't be a banning of hijabs. There should be an option of wearing one or not. Women shouldn't be condemned for not wearing one.
Oh, and what about the Christians and Jews that often live in Muslim countries? Misinterpretation of Islamic law has lead to persecution of these people, or anyone from another faith. Many are killed because they are not Muslim. And a just government takes into account of the majority and the minority. So forbidding pork or liquor stores would be a violation of rights. And what about censorship too? America is pretty liberal in that area, far more than any Muslim country I've seen.

I suppose that would work, I already agreed to the hijab comment, The people who oppress anyone who isn't Muslim and is a woman and etc. Just misinterpret the Qur'an or Islamic Law on purpose to fit their needs. Now I suppose a secular system could work, But I myself believe the Qur'an itself is written as a guide to Humanity for all situations and as such very few people could follow it correctly. That's why I suggested a scholar who knows what the Qur'ans true meaning. Regardless this won't happen due to absence of justice in this world.  

[BubbleBerry Tea]

The Dead Terrorist Achmed

BeXlieXve

Well, if someone is killing his daughter for talking to a boy, yes. That's how much worse it is. neutral

See, by saying "old-fashioned" I just meant that some Islamic countries are far too traditional, to the point that women are viewed as a piece of property and can be killed so easlily. It's as though we're livestock.

"Old-fashioned" may not have been the best thing to say. It's how we in the U.S. politely describe people who hold onto old ideals that we now consider to be wrong, such as racism and sexism. Our human rights issues are nowhere near yours, though. If someone here killed his daughter for talking to a boy, he'd probably be executed.

...I'd rather call it archaic concepts or stupid traditionalists/fundamentalists who need to take the edge off.

XD Yes, that's certainly a much better description. I just prefer not to offend anyone too much.  

[BubbleBerry Tea]

Ratri_Cat

BeXlieXve

The Dead Terrorist Achmed

BeXlieXve

Well, if someone is killing his daughter for talking to a boy, yes. That's how much worse it is. neutral

See, by saying "old-fashioned" I just meant that some Islamic countries are far too traditional, to the point that women are viewed as a piece of property and can be killed so easlily. It's as though we're livestock.

"Old-fashioned" may not have been the best thing to say. It's how we in the U.S. politely describe people who hold onto old ideals that we now consider to be wrong, such as racism and sexism. Our human rights issues are nowhere near yours, though. If someone here killed his daughter for talking to a boy, he'd probably be executed.

...I'd rather call it archaic concepts or stupid traditionalists/fundamentalists who need to take the edge off.

XD Yes, that's certainly a much better description. I just prefer not to offend anyone too much.

pft, it' because you muslims don't drink. you guys need to relax a little bit and not be so uptight. just a shot of good scotch whiskey oughta fix that. wink

I'm really pleased with the responses so far. 3nodding
And um, Haydar, I'm rather confused as how you guys would select a lovable scholar, since there's so much disagreement on EVERYTHING in Islam, it seems.

There's a lot of disagreement in every religion, I'm sure.

I think the best thing Muslims could do, in way of uniting and being fair to everyone, is take the most basic principles and build a government around them. That's basically what the U.S. did. We didn't include religion, really. Just took some of the things that we all agreed on and made them laws.

"Murdering people is bad."
"Omigosh, you're so right! We should make that into a law!"
"I KNOW, right? We totally should!"

"Stealing is bad, because people work to get their things."
"Oh dude, completely."
"So we'll make a law about that too."

"People should be treated fairly and equally."
"Yeah!"
"Law!"

(Well, that last one wasn't perfect at first, really. sweatdrop But it's getting better all the time!)  

[BubbleBerry Tea]

Yes, the Islamic countries will run into those problems.

The United States has had those problems too. We're still struggling to get equal rights and priviledges for certain groups of people (gays and transgendered/transexuals, for example).

The thing is that the rules change as time goes on. I think I said earlier (or maybe it was in another thread) that the younger generations are always more accepting than the generation before them, and that is what brings about change.

So, basically, we just play the waiting game and see what the newest batch of people can achieve.