Muslim People in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

im not a hypocrit anymore
whats the point in me choosing a lifestyle and a set of beliefs but not even following or living by the belief and guidelines that are set out for me?
whats the point in me defending them if i dont follow them?

Why don't you wear the full garment?

 

[soha]

Why don't you wear the full garment?

define full garment
?...
if you mean look like a ninja and cover my face ..then no because thats not complusary..
its says in the quaran to cover all but our hands and face
some people like to cover their face aswell..but its not fardd

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Does it really say all but your hands and face? What's the scarf for then? like covering the neck/hair ?

 

[ogmzergrush]

Just on a side note:

M . U . S . L . I . M - Muslim for Life and i will never give in.
I Stand up and Speak out against those who Opress.
I take Islam and i take no less.

lol, good to see you fighting the good fight soha

Seeing as you're sharing such fantastic resources with us via your sig, I wonder if you might answer something for me. In the last steaming heaps of horseshit linked, I've noticed this:

Conclusion

We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as “the way of reason and science,” is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance.

(blah blah blah)

The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world.

Out of curiousity, I'm guessing you really rate that article seeing as it's sig-worthy material, how much longer do you suppose we'll be waiting to see the results predicted here? It's been close to four years, or is this another of those things where some random piece of fiction can amazingly predict things that are going to happen in many, many centuries? If you're not sure on the specifics that's fine, just a ballpark figure will do

 

[davin]

here's the thing though, interpretations are subjective. i've also heard people say that there are parts of the qur'an that support violence towards non-muslims. that its in the material itself. if that is a viewpoint that can be argued with quotes, does that make it valid? i think to look at a religion you HAVE to look at how it is practiced in the real world, because the interpretations are going to be subjective. when one can't say absolutly that there is a right and wrong interpretation, i think you've got to default to the interpretation that has the greatest effects on others

 

[ogmzergrush]

here's the thing though, interpretations are subjective. i've also heard people say that there are parts of the qur'an that support violence towards non-muslims. that its in the material itself. if that is a viewpoint that can be argued with quotes, does that make it valid? i think to look at a religion you HAVE to look at how it is practiced in the real world, because the interpretations are going to be subjective. when one can't say absolutly that there is a right and wrong interpretation, i think you've got to default to the interpretation that has the greatest effects on others

How subjective can it really get though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude (Yes, I know it's a contested article, but that's a bit hard to avoid when it would seem that nobody can give a straight answer on the matter).

The medieval Quranic commentator Ibn Kathir justified the dhimma in terms of Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an [3]. The verse calls upon Muslims to fight against the People of the Book until they pay the jizya head tax and are humbled:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Realistically, how much of it can you explain away as people just reading the wrong message from it? Most religions, I thought, accepted that there was some pretty outdated shit in the good book and made moves to remove it, or at least distance themselves from it. Then you've got Islam, which is apparently flawless, just that millions of people worldwide continue to read it wrong?

Not that I give a damn, ultimately it's still people that are at fault here, but I can't help but wonder every time I here people point out that Islam is totally peaceful and that all these people just pull their odd ideas about killing infidels out of thin air.

 

[davin]

zerg, i'm just saying that the arguement of "well, islam itself is peaceful, they just misunderstand" doesn't work specifically because whats most critical is how it is in practice now....

i mean, i've little doubt that every religion tries to make their religion better than it'd be based on text alone

 

[ogmzergrush]

zerg, i'm just saying that the arguement of "well, islam itself is peaceful, they just misunderstand" doesn't work specifically because whats most critical is how it is in practice now....

i mean, i've little doubt that every religion tries to make their religion better than it'd be based on text alone

Oh, I understood what you were saying and agree, just that I don't agree with the "they misunderstand" argument in a lot of cases in the first place either. Didn't actually mean to sound like I was arguing with you

 

[tempco]

How subjective can it really get though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude (Yes, I know it's a contested article, but that's a bit hard to avoid when it would seem that nobody can give a straight answer on the matter).

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=3643&view=findpost&p=34353
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=20615&view=findpost&p=310856
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=21076&view=findpost&p=319284

That Wiki article is extremely inaccurate.

 

[ogmzergrush]

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=3643&view=findpost&p=34353
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=20615&view=findpost&p=310856
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=21076&view=findpost&p=319284

That Wiki article is extremely inaccurate.

And of course the community maintained wikipedia is bound to be more biased than something hosted somewhere called "muslimvillage"? :S

I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative, but this is the shit I'm talking about. As someone who is strictly irreligious, I refuse to believe that something written in a fairly objective manner is less credible than a forum posting, on a specifically muslim site, which begins with "All Praises is to Allah, from whom comes Guidance and any Success. Allah is the Source of Mercy, and may He forgive us of our shortcomings, and certainly any error in my opinions below are my own shortcomings, and the Truth belongs to Allah.". Given the discussions we've had on here before about the limits of questioning of faith allowed within Islam, how is it possible that that is an objective analysis of the text itself (the text, not the way it is interpreted by muslims, but the text)?

 

[tempco]

And of course the community maintained wikipedia is bound to be more biased than something hosted somewhere called "muslimvillage"? :S

I wasn't referring to the bias. These posters on MuslimVillage can interpret the Qur'an and Hadith or have learnt from scholars who have interpreted the Qur'an and Hadith. Wikipedia, on the other hand, takes a single paragraph out of the volumes and volumes of Ibn Kathir's tafsir (interpretation of the Qur'an), and claims that it represents the universal rule regarding treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. No one verse in the Qur'an can be used to establish an Islamic ruling, just as you wouldn't understand a thesis on financial economics by reading a single sentence.

I'm not deliberately trying to be argumentative, but this is the shit I'm talking about. As someone who is strictly irreligious, I refuse to believe that something written in a fairly objective manner is less credible than a forum posting, on a specifically muslim site, which begins with "All Praises is to Allah, from whom comes Guidance and any Success. Allah is the Source of Mercy, and may He forgive us of our shortcomings, and certainly any error in my opinions below are my own shortcomings, and the Truth belongs to Allah.". Given the discussions we've had on here before about the limits of questioning of faith allowed within Islam, how is it possible that that is an objective analysis of the text itself (the text, not the way it is interpreted by muslims, but the text)?

It's almost impossible, in my opinion. Learning and interpretating Islam requires commitment, time and effort. Some people spend their whole lives learning how to interpret Islam... and so far, only Muslims have been willing to do that (not surprisingly).

This link highlights in a general sense how one goes about studying Islam.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I wasn't referring to the bias. These posters on MuslimVillage can interpret the Qur'an and Hadith or have learnt from scholars who have interpreted the Qur'an and Hadith. Wikipedia, on the other hand, takes a single paragraph out of the volumes and volumes of Ibn Kathir's tafsir (interpretation of the Qur'an), and claims that it represents the universal rule regarding treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. No one verse in the Qur'an can be used to establish an Islamic ruling, just as you wouldn't understand a thesis on financial economics by reading a single sentence.

A thesis on financial economics however, would contain individual sentences which made individual points which somehow did not warp to something sinister when interpreted alone.

I understand the argument for context to an extent, but I fail to see how the ideas expressed can be so thoroughly interwoven that none of them makes sense or retains its individual meaning when separated from the rest. I can't think of any other situation where this isn't the case, and I don't understand why it would be different here. For example, a single line of computer code obviously won't tell you what the entire program is meant to do, but it will contain a very clear representation of one single action within the program. With a normal book, read on its own the introduction doesn't suddenly make no sense whatsoever and contort to a twisted version of its original meaning if you don't read the rest of it. Why, or how, is it different here?

I guess my main complaint here is the lack of transparency, and I find it more than a little hard to deal with the suggestion that no individual sentence or paragraph from the text makes sense on its own, and often means something completely different unless you happen to be thoroughly versed with the entirety of it. This unexplained oddity in that the text is much too complicated to understand enough to question (But makes perfect sense to live your life by), seems much too convenient as a means of totally avoiding the issue of any form of critical analysis of the quran itself, which I'm sure isn't an issue for anyone who believes, but as you can imagine does not help to ease the questioning minds of those who do not.

 

[Paris Hilton]

I wonder sometimes about the habib head gear, its just not very attractive. Not fashionable at all....

 

[HotShot]

I wonder sometimes about the habib head gear, its just not very attractive. Not fashionable at all....

i think its sexy sometimes....

 

[katie_tully]

I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand.

Muslims are attaching themselves to bombs, and are blowing up other innocent Muslims in the hope of picking off one or two American soldiers.

What is there to misunderstand?

 

[HotShot]

I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand.

Muslims are attaching themselves to bombs, and are blowing up other innocent Muslims in the hope of picking off one or two American soldiers.

What is there to misunderstand?

and then u have bush, howard blair, claiming just about every country has WMDs, and using that as an excuse to start an invasion.. --whatever happened to North Kores perhaps they figured that invading countries isnt so easy after all.

 

[katie_tully]

And when we invade North Korea, you're all going to whine like the tree hugging, pacifist nancies you are.

Really, it's just a perpetual cycle. You'll find something else to criticise later.
Coz like, 'talking' with Saddam really got the ball rolling, ya' know? I'm sure if the UN added in an extra please, he would have resigned from power immediately.

 

[HotShot]

And when we invade North Korea, you're all going to whine like the tree hugging, pacifist nancies you are.

Really, it's just a perpetual cycle. You'll find something else to criticise later.
Coz like, 'talking' with Saddam really got the ball rolling, ya' know? I'm sure if the UN added in an extra please, he would have resigned from power immediately.

yes, so we invade a whole country, blow it up with missiles, when the army surrenders, and then occupy the country for three years, claiming they had WMDs, and then all in the name of 'remove saddam from power'.

as far as ican saddam has done a better job with iraq than the americans.

 

[katie_tully]

lololololol

yah, america doesn't give a shit about iraq...that's why it has spent the last 3 years rebuilding iraqi infrastructure, and giving them a chance at experiencing democracy.
coz you know, democracy is so much worse than having an oppressive dictator that goes on genocidal rampages.

 

[HotShot]

lololololol

yah, america doesn't give a shit about iraq...that's why it has spent the last 3 years rebuilding iraqi infrastructure, and giving them a chance at experiencing democracy.
coz you know, democracy is so much worse than having an oppressive dictator that goes on genocidal rampages.

yess just force democracy onto a country. the people of iraq want the americans kicked out and they dont want democracy.