The great big "Ask about Islam" thread

Benny_Cake

periodictable wrote: »

No. What I don't hear is moderate Islamic leaders condemning the extremism of their co-religionists. For example, when Lee Rigby was butchered on a London street, where were the Irish Islamic leaders condemning that act of barbarity?

I'm not sure whether Irish Muslim leaders commented on that murder or not, but would they be expected to comment on acts carried out by Muslims in other countries? I don't think that mainstream British Muslim groups could have been clearer in their condemnation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/23/woolwich-attack-muslim-groups-condemn-lee-rigby-murder_n_3328374.html

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

No. What I don't hear is moderate Islamic leaders condemning the extremism of their co-religionists. For example, when Lee Rigby was butchered on a London street, where were the Irish Islamic leaders condemning that act of barbarity?

As Benny_Cake says, there was widespread condemnation by UK Muslims after the murder. If you didn't hear it, then that reflects on the mainstream media you follow. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Irish Islamic leaders to make a press statement following every act of barbarity committed by Muslims across the world - it's more of an issue for Muslims living in that specific country.

Furthermore, was this really an act of religious extremism? The UK are in a war of their own choice, as a direct result of which thousands and thousands of innocent Muslims have been victims of barbarity (and of course no condemnation is ever demanded from anybody for that), and millions more suffer the consequences. The UK and US aren't doing this out of good will towards these countries - they have their own agendas which they have always pursued, and always will pursue. That is the backdrop as to why Lee Rigby, a UK solider, was targeted - as a revenge attack for the misery UK forces have been a part of. I don't agree with what they did, and also condemn it - but you cannot focus solely on the fact that Muslims committed it and that their religion must somehow be the only reason for their actions. I came across a very good article in the Guardian which covered as much:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

As Benny_Cake says, there was widespread condemnation by UK Muslims after the murder. If you didn't hear it, then that reflects on the mainstream media you follow. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Irish Islamic leaders to make a press statement following every act of barbarity committed by Muslims across the world - it's more of an issue for Muslims living in that specific country.

Disagree. Muslims speak of the ummah. That recognizes no boundaries. This act was meant to garner world attention. Britain is out nearest neighbour and the country we are closest to in so many ways. Irish people watch British TV.
The Irish ought to have spoken out.

WellThen?

confusedquark wrote: »

Firstly, Muslim men being allowed to marry women of the book is more of an exception than a rule, and even then, there are conditions attached to it. Men are still strongly encouraged to marry Muslim women.

To answer your specific question, it has to do with the preservation of religion. If a conflict (in religious opinion/practices etc) arises in the relationship, it's more difficult for a woman to stand up and maintain her religion than it is for a man. Yes relationship dynamics can be very different from one couple to the next, and there are a lot of very strong women and obliging husbands out there, but by and large, a man is less likely to have his views/religion compromised if push comes to shove.

Is this the view of the Quran? and also do you think that the religion will adapt (like most of the rest have done) and associate itself with todays world.

confusedquark

WellThen? wrote: »

Is this the view of the Quran? and also do you think that the religion will adapt (like most of the rest have done) and associate itself with todays world.

The Quran states that men can marry women of the book, and there's no further elaboration as such in it. The view is that of Islamic scholars which I have come across.

To the second part, it's a very broad question, and can really only be answered individually on the specific aspects of today's world you want to focus on. I would add that "today's world" has many short-comings, so just because the world is what it is today, it doesn't mean it's the most perfect period humanity has ever had, and as such, I don't think religions should have to necessarily adapt to fit it. Any particular issues you had in mind nonetheless?

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Disagree. Muslims speak of the ummah. That recognizes no boundaries. This act was meant to garner world attention. Britain is out nearest neighbour and the country we are closest to in so many ways. Irish people watch British TV.
The Irish ought to have spoken out.

Yes we speak of the ummah, and when one part of the ummah comes out in force to condemn something, isn't that enough to get the message across to the world that the act is wrong? As this issue has nothing to do with Ireland, I still don't see why there should be an onus on Irish Muslims to have to voluntarily come out and condemn it - even if it is our neighbours and we watch their TV a lot.

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

Yes we speak of the ummah, and when one part of the ummah comes out in force to condemn something, isn't that enough to get the message across to the world that the act is wrong? As this issue has nothing to do with Ireland, I still don't see why there should be an onus on Irish Muslims to have to voluntarily come out and condemn it - even if it is our neighbours and we watch their TV a lot.

But when someone does something which Muslims consider offensive, the reactions come from all over the place.
When the Danish cartoonist drew Mohammed, protests were held in the US, UK, India, Nigeria, New Zealand, Europe, Indonesia Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia....
All over a drawing. Surely the terrorist killing of Mr. Rigby is at least deserving of such a response? You can't have your cake and eat it.

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Surely the terrorist killing of Mr. Rigby is at least deserving of such a response?

Did you even look at the guardian article i posted? If you didn't, please do, and then please explain how it was a "terrorist" killing.

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

Did you even look at the guardian article i posted? If you didn't, please do, and then please explain how it was a "terrorist" killing.

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument. Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances.
Thanks for making that clear.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument.

Fine, if you want to define that as an act of terrorism by the "virtue of the attack" and the "intended consequences", would you consider (as in the article) ongoing US drone attacks, which have claimed hundreds of innocent lives to date (not that it matters whether it's innocent civilians or soldiers that are killed), as "terrorism", or the US/UK shock and awe attacks on Iraq as "terrorism"? Because we either define all acts with these specific "virtues" and "intended consequences" as terrorism, or else none of them. But if the term is going to be reserved primarily for when a Muslim culprit is involved, then that's just bias which serves only to fuel stereotypes and create unwanted friction in multicultural societies.

periodictable wrote: »

Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances. Thanks for making that clear.

1) I didn't for a moment try to excuse Rigby's murder - I've already written "I don't agree with what they did, and also condemn it". An act of violence can still be gruesome, horrific and absolutely wrong, even if it's not terrorism (however we choose to define the latter), so when I question whether his murder was an act of terrorism, I'm not excusing his murder - that was still a vile inexcusable crime. And I'll spell this out for your sake - I don't believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims.
2) Not publicly condemning something does not equal you believe it to be fine. There can be various reasons why somebody might not publicly condemn something, e.g. If there has already been widespread condemnation of something by people of your religion - you might not see the point in repeating the same thing again, or you might not feel it to be necessary at all if it's something relating to another country.
3) My issue is with how Muslims at large are held accountable when two lunatics do something crazy (and un-Islamic), and even when many Muslims are instantly vocal in their condemnation, those who aren't are automatically assumed to approve of it - without so much as approaching them to get their opinion.

Tom Dunne

periodictable wrote: »

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument. Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances.
Thanks for making that clear.

Ok, can we drop the politics? This is a thread for asking questions about Islam, not discussion of issues such as this.

So, with my mod hat on, I am asking you to take this particular topic to another thread.

confusedquark

Phoenix wrote: »

If a christian wants to marry a muslim female must he revert to islam?

Yes, although a reversion to Islam should ideally be a result of believing in the religion itself - and not motivated solely by other gains.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=4829&CATE=10

Phoenix wrote: »

Also why is charging interest on loans forbidden in Islam?

Interest is something which contributes to a system where the rich get richer and poor get poorer. Person A doesn't have money to buy something he wants/needs, and somebody B has excess money which he can afford to give. Person A takes out the loan and by the time he's paid it back with interest, he's relatively more poor than person B than what he was at the start, despite being worse off to begin with. It would be one thing if people only took out loans for absolute necessities, but the reality is, the ready availability of loans (even credit cards are short-term loans, with interest piling on after the first month) means a lot of people get things they don't need and often live beyond their immediate means, resulting in a lot of personal debt - which only serves to make people even poorer over time.

I've copied and pasted the following from http://qaazi.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/why-does-islam-forbid-interest/ which goes into a lot of detail.

"On an international level, the situation is much more devastating and dangerous. There is no question that when looked at from an international perspective, interest kills people. The debt servicing of lesser developed countries today is so great that they must sacrifice essential health and nutritional needs. It is dumbfounding to think that untold numbers of children are dying daily in lesser-developed countries due to the “tool” of modern capitalism: interest. Some African governments are forced to spend more on debt servicing than they spend on health or education. [36]
In this context, the UNDP (1998) predicted that if the external debt of the 20 poorest countries of the world was written off, it could save the lives of 20 million people before the year 2000. In other words, it means that uncancelled debt was responsible for the deaths of 130,000 children a week up until the year 2000. [37]
Ken Livingston, Mayor of London, claimed that global capitalism kills more people each year then were killed by Adolf Hitler. He blamed the IMF and World Bank for deaths of millions due to their refusal to ease the debt burden. Susan George stated that every year since 1981 between 15 and 20 million people died unnecessarily due to debt burden “because Third World governments have had to cut back on clean water and health programs to meet their repayments.”

3men1mission

The day you understand politics and inside job like the 9/11 I will answer your question,in plain english is beyond your level.

Giak

Why can't Muslims whistle inside a house?

Tom Dunne

3men1mission wrote: »

The day you understand politics and inside job like the 9/11 I will answer your question,in plain english is beyond your level.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, then please don't.

confusedquark

Giak wrote: »

Why can't Muslims whistle inside a house?

I'll be honest, my initial reaction to that question was "aren't we?"

After some research, it appears the disapproval over whistling comes from this Quranic verse:

8:35 - "Their prayer at the House (of Allah) is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands"

This refers to non-Muslim Arabs during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who prevented other people from worshipping at the Ka'ba with whistling and clapping. Following on from this, some scholars say that whistling in general is disliked, whereas others say it is only disliked when it's done to disrupt other people, or when imitating a song, but I haven't come across anything that specifically mentions whistling inside a house. The word "disliked" is used because it's not the same specific prohibition as alcohol, gambling etc.

Giak

So a Muslim can actually whistle in a house? A muslim friend told me recently not to whistle in her house and I thought it was the craziest thing I'd ever heard.

Do you whistle?

confusedquark

Giak wrote: »

So a Muslim can actually whistle in a house? A muslim friend told me recently not to whistle in her house and I thought it was the craziest thing I'd ever heard.

Do you whistle?

To the first bit, as I said, scholars do differ over it, some say it's ok so long as you're not disrupting anyone else, whereas others say it's disliked in general and should be avoided. Personally, I do whistle occasionally - but it's not something I've ever done much of anyway.

Did your friend object on religious grounds? Because not everything a Muslim says to you will be because of Islam - she might just have had very sensitive hearing :-)

Amilda

Hi guys

Though I'm not exactly new on the Board - I've been reading it for quite a while - I only registered tonight after making some search about how Muslim people are perceived in Ireland.

I was delighted to find the thread here - it's interesting to see what some people think, some of the questions they have etc. I'm sometimes taken aback by some remarks/ideas/beliefs, as I don't recognize myself in some of the stuff depicted as being my religion...

Just to quickly introduce myself : I am a 26 year old sales professional and have been working and living in Ireland for about 3 years in total. I originally came here because of a great passion I had for the country (the music, the history, the culture etc... and I still love it ).

So I will be actively taking part in this thread as I think it is interesting to confront and be able to bring light of who muslims are. But being from France, I must say this should give you a very different angle view from muslim from other part of the world. Indeed muslim in France tend to be a lot less into religion and more moderate on many stuff than their middle-east/arabic countries/asian countries counter-part. Sorry, I should not say moderate : but a different cultural background will define a different way of
practicing the religion I guess. For instance, many french guys coming from muslim families (though this fact doesn't automatically make them muslims) will drink alcohol and not think wrong of it. Or they will not pray or stuff like that. I guess french muslim have their own version of their faith. Very different from what it originally is.

Just to get back to Giak :

Your post made me smile and is the reason that actually triggered my signing up here The reason is, when I was a kid, my mum would always told me not to whistle while in the house. When I asked her why, she would always answer : because it brings the devil in. This answer made me be very frightened. :eek: For years I was afraid of whistling at all in any place like a house or flat.
Then I grew up and learned to think in a more rational way and got back to my mum questioning her why she used to tell me that as it made me very scared a s a child. I asked her where is the Quran was it written not to whistle in places like a house. She told me it was not, but her mother used to tell her that. It was just old superstitious beliefs that she passed on to me. This is symptomatic in Islam and tends to happen a lot is this religion : people tend to mix religious texts with their own cultural traditions, and both things get so intricate you can't tell where the religious stuff begins and where it ends. Lots of things people would tell you is in the Quran is actually not when you check, lots of them are just made-up facts ...like whistling in house
(Apologies in advance for my english, I tried to keep it as good as possible:D)

H3aler

Giak wrote: »

Why can't Muslims whistle inside a house?

it is uncivilized habit to whistle in house-- Some people are sleeping in the house your whislte may distrub them-- Have you ever wonder what is purpose of whistling.. boys whistle to see girls etc-- Islam protects and gives respect to family relations-- in the house of love, you should not whisltle or distrubed any one... if there is no peace in your mouth you could whistle in a place where no human exists-- slience is lanaguage of love

Tom Dunne

H3aler wrote: »

it is uncivilized habit to whistle in house

Who says it is uncivilised? Perhaps in other cultures it is, but in Western culture it is not considered uncivilised.

H3aler wrote: »

Have you ever wonder what is purpose of whistling.. boys whistle to see girls etc--

That is a very negative and narrow minded interpretation of whistling. What about all the songs that have whistling in them?

H3aler wrote: »

Islam protects and gives respect to family relations-- in the house of love, you should not whisltle or distrubed any one... if there is no peace in your mouth you could whistle in a place where no human exists-- slience is lanaguage of love

This is the kind of post I really have trouble with - you are not exactly casting Islam in a positive light. Are you suggesting that Islam encourages everyone to walk around their house in silence? Having been to many Muslim homes, with screaming kids around , I can assure you that is not the case.

biko

Many Muslims say they have "reverted" to Islam, implying that everyone are have "fitrah" at birth and when they find Allah they "come back" to Islam.

Is it the same for people that in adulthood find other religions, for instance Christianity? Do they also revert (according to Muslims)?
How long have this "reversion" concept existed? I don't recall reading about it until a few years ago.

Dozen Wicked Words

The RSPCA and BVA are calling for all halal meat to be stunned prior to slaughter in the UK.

The idea, as I understand it, is the animals must be able to hear a prayer as they are killed?

So are there different levels of halal-ness (pardon the expression). Since animals which are stunned before slaughter can be considered halal, are they less acceptable than animals slaughtered without stunning?

biko

^^ It depends, some Muslims will be ok with stunned meat but some will not.
European regulations require animals to be stunned before they are slaughtered, but exemptions can be made on religious grounds.
Some countries like Denmark have now banned all non-stunned slaughter, getting criticism from Jews and Muslims.
Muslims in Scandinavia are often ok with stunning since it doesn't actually kill the animal, the cut kills it.

H3aler

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Who says it is uncivilised? Perhaps in other cultures it is, but in Western culture it is not considered uncivilised

Dear Tom, I am saying, it is uncivlized. For example you are in a libarary reading books, some one start loud whistling, it could disturb your peace and reading, Similarly-- A house is place a where people live--people from all walk of life are there-- Old, young, children--- there is no point to whistle in the house and disturb these old folks-- can you explain benefit of whisting the house-- what good someone's whistling can bring in the house-- I am looking the good sides of whislting in the house-- Everything should be done for purpose

Tom Dunne wrote: »

That is a very negative and narrow minded interpretation of whistling. What about all the songs that have whistling in them?

I have learned it from media--cartoons-- holly wood movies-- A girl attention seeker whislte to get her attention... This kind of behavior is not good for house-- where mother/fathers and sister lives-- may be good and civilzed in westren cultures where relations are not relation--- But not good where strong family and blood ties exist--- Songs have whistling-- Sometimes songs disturb the psyche of a person, if you listen such for long time-- It could lead people to mental disorder--

Tom Dunne wrote: »

This is the kind of post I really have trouble with - you are not exactly casting Islam in a positive light. Are you suggesting that Islam encourages everyone to walk around their house in silence? Having been to many Muslim homes, with screaming kids around , I can assure you that is not the case.

Dear Tom,Islam has told us rules and manner to live a good life among family relations-- Babies cry in the house, because their vioce is natural.. there is no good to utter unnatural vioces in the house like whisling.. There is difference between whislting and screaming of children-- Are you saying babies mind and a person who is disbturbing through whislting same-- Have ever babies whistle-- You are comapring the brain of fully grown person with brain of infant-- who doesn't know her crying is disturbing the peace of house.

Tom Dunne

H3aler wrote: »

I am saying, it is uncivlized. For example you are in a libarary reading books, some one start loud whistling, it could disturb your peace and reading,

In all the libraries I have ever been in over the years (I work in education, I am also a student myself), I have never once heard anyone whistling. That is quite a bizarre example. Have you been to many libraries yourself?

H3aler wrote: »

I have learned it from media--cartoons-- holly wood movies--

Ok, so you learned from a medium that you believe to be an accurate portrayal of life? Do you see any issues with that?

H3aler wrote: »

Songs have whistling-- Sometimes songs disturb the psyche of a person, if you listen such for long time-- It could lead people to mental disorder--

So songs lead to a mental disorder? Interesting perspective.

H3aler

Tom Dunne wrote: »

In all the libraries I have ever been in over the years (I work in education, I am also a student myself), I have never once heard anyone whistling. That is quite a bizarre example. Have you been to many libraries yourself?

Dear tom, Houses are more important than libraries-- These are factories of future generation-- The children inside house, should be guided and educated properly-- Whistling inside house could lead them to uncivilzed act in the house and society-- As you know children learn from elders -- As inside the libraries, there is no need to whistle, how could you whislte in the house that are factories of future generation--

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Ok, so you learned from a medium that you believe to be an accurate portrayal of life? Do you see any issues with that?

Yes issue with that, The woman should wear a modest dress and boys should not whistle at her-- treat her as their sister-- This is fruit of whislting which you are allowing inside house--A freedom that has no limits, it is sometimes not good for society-- media shouldnot display women as a thing of excitement or pleasure

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So songs lead to a mental disorder? Interesting perspective.

It is a very ignorant to say songs as a form of pleasure and passing of time

---

since the messages of today`s music follow a general theme of love, fornication, drugs and freedom.

Tom Dunne

And I think I'm done here.

H3aler

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And I think I'm done here.

Thanks you for listening me and allowing me to express my views-- It is kindness from your side