Women's Rights in Islam - UPDATED WITH MOD INSTRUCTION IN FIRST POST

niamhstokes

also what do u mean by slave master relationship? i find that confusing as to me Jesus (who is God to me in my faith) loves me and i love Him and because i love Him i follow him willingly and serve Him. So i guess to me it would be a loving relationship? Just the word slave and master sounds harsh and cold to me??

Defender OF Faith

niamhstokes wrote: »

Thanks very much so do ye always have to do the special movements when you pray or can you just chat away to God like i do too lying in bed or going for a run or whatever when it isnt the formal 5 ones?

Just to differentiate between the two terms:
When we "Pray" yes when we make "Duaa" no, and Duaa is what we do while lying in bed or going for a run & it doesnt require these "special movements"

niamhstokes

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Just to differentiate between the two terms:
When we "Pray" yes when we make "Duaa" no, and Duaa is what we do while lying in bed or going for a run & it doesnt require these "special movements"

Ok i kinda get it now thanks

muslimstudent

niamhstokes wrote: »

also what do u mean by slave master relationship? i find that confusing as to me Jesus (who is God to me in my faith) loves me and i love Him and because i love Him i follow him willingly and serve Him. So i guess to me it would be a loving relationship? Just the word slave and master sounds harsh and cold to me??

God not only created us, but he sustains us, protects, guides, provides for us.
He showers us with mercy , forgiveness and love.

God is infinitely greater than us , than the universe and everything that it entails. He is Majestic, He is the King of All Kings, The Lord of the Worlds.

It is only befitting that a relationship between insignificant creatures like ourselves be one of Master and Slave.

This is the primary relationship. If not for this then we would stray and be haughty and place ourselves on par with Him,.

At the same time He is our Protecting friend. There are certain people who through sincere devotion and piety reach a status in this life where they are considered as Awliya of Allah, a rank which is higher than that of normal worshipers.

Yet, ultimately they are still slaves of Allah.

muslimstudent

^ everything that it entails = everything that it contains

Defender OF Faith

niamhstokes wrote: »

also what do u mean by slave master relationship? i find that confusing as to me Jesus (who is God to me in my faith) loves me and i love Him and because i love Him i follow him willingly and serve Him. So i guess to me it would be a loving relationship? Just the word slave and master sounds harsh and cold to me??

In Islam we believe that we are all slaves to the all mighty our master the one who created us all, and that everything in existence glorifies him as he says:

"And there is not a thing but glorifies His Praise. But you understand not their glorification. Truly, He is Ever Forbearing, Oft-Forgiving"

"And to Allah alone falls in prostration whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwilling, and so do their shadows in the mornings and the afternoons"

We believe that God is the most Merciful and Gracious, we believe that he's an all Forgiving Merciful and compassionate God as he says:

O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)

"O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it."

To you this may be interpreted as love to us it's his mercy, "love" according to this Hadith:

" the Messenger of Allah said: Allah said: My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him."

The Love mentioned in the Hadith is a very special relationship with God, that we believe a Muslim needs to put in the effort and sincerity in order to attain & that this "love/status" is given to those truly devoted and close to him.

niamhstokes

muslimstudent wrote: »

God not only created us, but he sustains us, protects, guides, provides for us.
He showers us with mercy , forgiveness and love.

God is infinitely greater than us , than the universe and everything that it entails. He is Majestic, He is the King of All Kings, The Lord of the Worlds.

It is only befitting that a relationship between insignificant creatures like ourselves be one of Master and Slave.

This is the primary relationship. If not for this then we would stray and be haughty and place ourselves on par with Him,.

At the same time He is our Protecting friend. There are certain people who through sincere devotion and piety reach a status in this life where they are considered as Awliya of Allah, a rank which is higher than that of normal worshipers.

Yet, ultimately they are still slaves of Allah.

I can't relate to that and i'm sure u can't relate to my way I see God the same way apart from that i'm in a slave master relationship with HIm. And I don't for one minute feel on par with God and never will. It's about Him as a loving God and me as a loving servant. I suppose that's one difference we have then.

muslimstudent

niamhstokes wrote: »

I can't relate to that and i'm sure u can't relate to my way I see God the same way apart from that i'm in a slave master relationship with HIm. And I don't for one minute feel on par with God and never will. It's about Him as a loving God and me as a loving servant. I suppose that's one difference we have then.

Its in your bible to Niamh!

"I, James, am a slave of God..."


biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=MSG

niamhstokes

I guess what we mean is we have a personal relationship with God:

Having a personal relationship with God begins the moment we realize our need for Him, admit we are sinners, and in faith receive Jesus Christ as Savior. God, our heavenly Father, has always desired to be close to us, to have a relationship with us. Before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden (Genesis chapter 3), both he and Eve knew God on an intimate, personal level. They walked with Him in the garden and talked directly to Him. Due to the sin of man, we became separated and disconnected from God.

What many people do not know, realize, or care about, is that Jesus gave us the most amazing gift—the opportunity to spend eternity with God if we trust in Him. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). God became a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ to take on our sin, be killed, and then be raised to life again, proving His victory over sin and death. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). If we accept this gift, we have become acceptable to God and can have a relationship with Him.

Having a personal relationship with God means we should include God in our daily lives. We should pray to Him, read His word, and meditate on verses in an effort to get to know Him better. We should pray for wisdom (James 1:5), which is the most valuable asset we could ever have. We should take our requests to Him, asking in Jesus' name (John 15:16). Jesus is the one who loves us enough to give His life for us (Romans 5:8), and He is the one who bridged the gap between us and God.

The Holy Spirit has been given to us as our Counselor. “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17). Jesus said this before He died, and after He died, the Holy Spirit became available to all who earnestly seek to receive Him. He is the one who lives in the hearts of believers and never leaves. He counsels us, teaches us truths, and changes our hearts. Without this divine Holy Spirit, we would not have the ability to fight against evil and temptations. But since we do have Him, we begin to produce the fruit that comes from allowing the Spirit to control us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).

This personal relationship with God is not as hard to find as we might think, and there is no mysterious formula for getting it. As soon as we become children of God, we receive the Holy Spirit, who will begin to work on our hearts. We should pray without ceasing, read the Bible, and join a Bible-believing church; all these things will help us to grow spiritually. Trusting in God to get us through each day and believing that He is our sustainer is the way to have a relationship with Him. Although we may not see changes immediately, we will begin to see them over time, and all the truths will become clear.

niamhstokes

muslimstudent wrote: »

Its in your bible to Niamh!

"I, James, am a slave of God..."


biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=MSG

Thanks, we always said servant so I was confused by this. I looked it up and i saw the word 'slave' in Bible comes from doulos the greek for 'to bind' which means we are bound to Jesus Christ our Creator and Saviour and the word can also mean 'devoted follower'.

muslimstudent

Thanks for sharing guys , (and gals.)


Between boards and twitter. I've had a busy night online.

Tme for me to get some rest.

Insha Allah, (God Willing) we will chat again.

Kind Regards

niamhstokes

muslimstudent wrote: »

Thanks for sharing guys , (and gals.)


Between boards and twitter. I've had a busy night online.

Tme for me to get some rest.

Insha Allah, (God Willing) we will chat again.

Kind Regards

Agreed thanks for the exchange of faith ideas like this. It was really nice and much more peaceful, like God wants us to talk with one another!

Here is a nice sleep song all :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_cdXNWD1VY


God bless you all xx

Tom Dunne

So I wake up this morning to a large number of reported posts. I appreciate this is an emotive topic, but I can't help but feel we are yet again going around in circles. However, the thread is moving on, so I don't see any reason to stifle the discussion.

With this in mind, I have had to impose some more excessive ground rules on this thread. Please read the update in the first post and adhere to these new rules.

ANY ISSUES WITH POSTS - PLEASE REPORT THEM.

Though given the time of year, I am sure you will understand the delay in responding to them.

Happy New year to everyone.

katydid

muslimstudent wrote: »

I just wanted to know what it had to say about Gender equality, if anything.

Do you realize that the old testament has many interesting rulings on gender issues, equality included.

Do you consider this text to be from Genesis:

“I will multiply your pains in childbirth. You shall give birth to your children in pain. You will long for your husband, but he will lord it over you.”

No, YOU suggested the Nicene Creed had something to say about gender..

Yes, I do realise that the OT had a lot to say on the issue of gender; I wouldn't call them "rulings", in all cases. In the parts of the OT that basically outline the laws that should govern the lives of the Jews, there are many that aren't favourable to women. But Christians don't follow those laws - Christ taught us to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. So we don't kill children who disrespect their parents, for example. We take the distillation of those laws, the Ten Commandments, and make them our moral and spiritual guideline.
In the case of what you cite from Genesis, it's not a "ruling", just part of a primitive story, a myth about creation, drawn up by simple people trying to explain scientific things they didn't understand. Very few Christians take it literally; they take the stories from it, about creation, about Adam and Eve, and so one, and take the essence of meaning from them without feeling the need to believe they actually happened. The essence of meaning in Genesis is the relationship between God and humankind, and between humankind and the rest of nature. Women's labour pains are part of that relationship; something people have sought to understand and explain.

niamhstokes

It all comes down to the two laws in the Holy Bible:

- the Moral Law (such as the 10 Commandments)

- the Ceremonial Law (such as the laws in Leviticus)

BUT this sums it all up really well, PLEASE watch if you wonder why Christians eat pork or don't stone people for adultery despite verses in the Old Testament (it's a cartoon satire but really informative, you'll see why):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI

looksee

niamhstokes wrote: »

It all comes down to the two laws in the Holy Bible:

- the Moral Law (such as the 10 Commandments)

- the Ceremonial Law (such as the laws in Leviticus)

BUT this sums it all up really well, PLEASE watch if you wonder why Christians eat pork or don't stone people for adultery despite verses in the Old Testament (it's a cartoon satire but really informative, you'll see why):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI

Right. Well, that solves everything. I wonder why there is no reference to homosexuality in the 10 Commandments?

muslimstudent

katydid wrote: »

Yes, I do realise that the OT had a lot to say on the issue of gender; I wouldn't call them "rulings", in all cases. In the parts of the OT that basically outline the laws that should govern the lives of the Jews, there are many that aren't favourable to women.

But Christians don't follow those laws - Christ taught us to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. So we don't kill children who disrespect their parents, for example. We take the distillation of those laws, the Ten Commandments, and make them our moral and spiritual guideline.
In the case of what you cite from Genesis, it's not a "ruling", just part of a primitive story, a myth about creation, drawn up by simple people trying to explain scientific things they didn't understand. Very few Christians take it literally; they take the stories from it, about creation, about Adam and Eve, and so one, and take the essence of meaning from them without feeling the need to believe they actually happened. The essence of meaning in Genesis is the relationship between God and humankind, and between humankind and the rest of nature. Women's labour pains are part of that relationship; something people have sought to understand and explain.

I'm not convinced by all these arguments that Christians present to explain away clear texts, which they find awkward to be myths. For centuries the church taught a doctorine or a ruling and then when they decided, under pressure from secularists, to abolish a law or a doctrine, then all of a sudden those were only myths or they are redundant in this day and urge and should not be taken literally. Then to top it all they point fingers at their coreligionists, usually Muslims, and accuse them of being fundamentalists and extremists for practicing laws which are actually more moderate .

It wasn't very long ago that women were locked up in laundries here in Ireland and terribly abused in the name of the Catholic Church which to this day is dominated by men. If I am not mistaken, contraception, which is permissible in Islam, is still forbidden in Catholicism. Islam forbids abortion, but allows it for medical necessities. Savita, would have survived under Islamic law. Contraception and abortion laws, which are both issues that affects women's rights, are determined by men. How do you explain this Katy?

muslimstudent

niamhstokes wrote: »

It all comes down to the two laws in the Holy Bible:

- the Moral Law (such as the 10 Commandments)

- the Ceremonial Law (such as the laws in Leviticus)

BUT this sums it all up really well, PLEASE watch if you wonder why Christians eat pork or don't stone people for adultery despite verses in the Old Testament (it's a cartoon satire but really informative, you'll see why):

....

I understand the distinction but from another source. Thanks.

muslimstudent

I'm sure ye have all watched the youtube video - 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman , link > watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

For those who haven't its a short documentary about a women who walks the streets of new york city, dressed in a tight jeans and a tshirt with her hair uncovered. During this walk she is catcalled by many men. Some of them even follow her.

There is a similar video, filmed over a year ago of a western woman being harassed in Paris.

Some Muslim guy decided to do a "social experiment" a couple of months ago. He got a non Muslim woman, who was dressed in similar clothing as the first woman and filmed her for five hours walking the streets of NYC. Same thing happened, cat calls and harassment.

She then changed into a hijab and he filmed her for another five hours. This time, not even a catcall. video on youtube --> watch?v=mgw6y3cH7tA

Although this experiment is not scientific, this is the experience Muslim women generally have. The only harassment they sometimes get is not sexual but rather physical and verbal abuse from non Muslim men who are intolerant to women in hijab.

muslimstudent

looksee wrote: »

I cannot see that either of the previous two posters have said anything different from the other thread. We are arguing from different bases. You are happy with the way you treat women. You say yes, we are a paternalistic society, we take care of our women and remove from them any need to pursue a career or do anything other than marry, be obedient and have children. This is to their advantage and actually puts a lot of pressure on men who have to take all this responsibility.

The western women who are arguing with you are asking why you think one sex has the right to decide how the other will live. Why should women need protection from men? Would it not be possible for men to learn to control their animal urges and treat women with respect for their own sake, not because they are covered from head to foot. If women are equal they should not have to be subject to men's decisions on whether they have a career or marry and have children.

There does not seem to be any possibility of meeting on these two views. The final male argument is that the (male) prophet was given divine instruction from the (male) God, these instructions have been translated by (male) experts for the benefit of a paternalistic society. Are there any female Muslim Boardsies who would like offer an opinion? Beyond that, there really is no point in discussing it any further.

Muslims don't believe that Allah is male.
The texts do use words like He and Him when they refer to Allah, but this is only due to restrictions within the Arabic language. Nowhere does it say that Allah is Male or that He is a Man.

I wrote in this thread that Islam encourages knowledge seeking for both men and women. One of the biggest Scholars in Islam was Aisha(RA) who not only transmitted many narrations of the Prophet (PBUH) but who actually issued Religious decrees to his companions after he had passed away. Women are very much encouraged to gain knowledge particularly because they are considered to be the Mothers of the Ummah and have a big responsibility in educating the children in both religious and secular matters.

niamhstokes

muslimstudent wrote: »

I'm sure ye have all watched the youtube video - 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman , link > watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

For those who haven't its a short documentary about a women who walks the streets of new york city, dressed in a tight jeans and a tshirt with her hair uncovered. During this walk she is catcalled by many men. Some of them even follow her.

There is a similar video, filmed over a year ago of a western woman being harassed in Paris.

Some Muslim guy decided to do a "social experiment" a couple of months ago. He got a non Muslim woman, who was dressed in similar clothing as the first woman and filmed her for five hours walking the streets of NYC. Same thing happened, cat calls and harassment.

She then changed into a hijab and he filmed her for another five hours. This time, not even a catcall. video on youtube --> watch?v=mgw6y3cH7tA

Although this experiment is not scientific, this is the experience Muslim women generally have. The only harassment they sometimes get is not sexual but rather physical and verbal abuse from non Muslim men who are intolerant to women in hijab.

Oh yeah i saw this one on youtube recently the NYC one and then one with a burka thingy. But from reading new yorkers comments on the video it was deliberately filmed in rough enough areas. If she was in downtown manhatten she would be fine basically. So we could say it was deliberate to try to show the burqa is logical. Shame he wasn't honest about it then it would have more credibility.

But as one woman from egypt commented, it's not a good comparison. Because women in Egypt wear it and there is a major problem with harassment there.

Food for thought there too.

niamhstokes

muslimstudent wrote: »

It wasn't very long ago that women were locked up in laundries here in Ireland and terribly abused in the name of the Catholic Church which to this day is dominated by men. If I am not mistaken, contraception, which is permissible in Islam, is still forbidden in Catholicism. Islam forbids abortion, but allows it for medical necessities. Savita, would have survived under Islamic law. Contraception and abortion laws, which are both issues that affects women's rights, are determined by men. How do you explain this Katy?

I don't feel as a Catholic my faith is dominated by men to be honest, never have. What happened decades ago was absolutely horrendous. And we are thankful for a renewal in what we love in our faith , the true Catholic faith. In 2010 there were 1.1 billion Catholics and now there are 1.5 billion Catholics. The Catholic faith is growing rapidly across Asia, South America and Africa. These are the countries of the future with massive populations and bigger economies. Europe is the grandparents of the world. This is evident when we look at Catholic World Youth Day in Rio, Brazil when 3 million teenagers filled copacabana beach to pray with Pope Francis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIbi628oPu4

I feel we have moved on from the dark past and banished the evil from Christ's church on earth. And we will make sure it stays that way. That's for sure! I pray God protects his church on earth now and forever. Amen.

katydid

muslimstudent wrote: »

I'm not convinced by all these arguments that Christians present to explain away clear texts, which they find awkward to be myths. For centuries the church taught a doctorine or a ruling and then when they decided, under pressure from secularists, to abolish a law or a doctrine, then all of a sudden those were only myths or they are redundant in this day and urge and should not be taken literally. Then to top it all they point fingers at their coreligionists, usually Muslims, and accuse them of being fundamentalists and extremists for practicing laws which are actually more moderate .

It wasn't very long ago that women were locked up in laundries here in Ireland and terribly abused in the name of the Catholic Church which to this day is dominated by men. If I am not mistaken, contraception, which is permissible in Islam, is still forbidden in Catholicism. Islam forbids abortion, but allows it for medical necessities. Savita, would have survived under Islamic law. Contraception and abortion laws, which are both issues that affects women's rights, are determined by men. How do you explain this Katy?

The texts are indeed clear. Clearly myths. We know, for example, that the world is much older than the Bible tells us, so obviously the Bible story is symbolic, a myth. There is no conflict between that and it being divinely inspired, as God has given us the intelligence to work that out. There's nothing awkward about it at all.

Things like the ban on contraception are the result of different Christian denominations' interpretation of what the Bible says or what it means. That is the thing about Christianity; it gives people the freedom to interpret it the best way they see fit.

Contraception and abortion laws are not determined by men. This is a democracy, and men and women have equal franchise. If you mean religious laws, I am not a Roman Catholic and don't think much of their rules, so you're asking the wrong person...

katydid

niamhstokes wrote: »

I don't feel as a Catholic my faith is dominated by men to be honest, never have..

But it is, like it or not. Celibate old men in Rome decide the fate of all Roman Catholics, including you...and you go along with it.

confusedquark

niamhstokes wrote: »

Burqa Causes Vitamin Deficiency in Ireland...
MUSLIM women who wear the burqa in Ireland are at increased risk of pelvic fractures during childbirth because of vitamin D deficiency due to a lack of sunlight, a consultant warns...

Last year, Muslim women in the UK were warned that wearing the hijab could cause poor health for them and their babies. A UK government spokesman said: “We are not interfering in a Muslim woman’s right to wear the hijab, but we are stressing that we all need sunlight on our skins.”

I've spent a lot of time researching Vitamin D and sunlight over the past few years - have also been working on a website that tells you roughly how much of it you do need (it's very complex, because the amount you need differs depending on your skin type, your age, your weight, what time of the year it is, what time of the day it is, what latitude you live at, how dense the ozone layer is on that day, how much of your total skin you have exposed, and for how long).

First things first, it's not just women who wear Hijab that are at risk of it. Vitamin D deficiency is extremely common - about 1 in 6 people are severely deficient in the winter months. The reason for this is that vitamin D has a half life of around 2 months in our bodies, and in Ireland our skins only really produce it from around April to September when exposed to sunlight (because the UV index needs to be 3 or more to produce any significant amount), so it's not just women who wear Hijab, but everybody needs to know about the risks of it.

The other thing which really puzzles me about those consultants is that they seem to be blissfully unaware that sunlight isn't the only source of vitamin D. Oily fish (like salmon, herring, mackerel) are very good sources of vitamin D and if you eat them twice a week, that pretty much gives you all you need (and we all should be doing that during the winter months). Furthermore, I was at a dermatology conference in Athlone last year and a consultant dermatologist strongly warned against looking to get vitamin D from the sun (and instead recommended using supplemented milk, cereals etc) because the flip side of the coin is - the more sun exposure your skin gets over time, the more the likelihood of developing skin cancer. She also pointed out that people in general are useless at properly applying sunscreen, and we should be moving away from it for sun protection and focusing more on wearing hats and more clothes in the sun to reduce the risk of sunburn and skin cancer. A recent study also showed that with all these cheap low fare sun holidays we've had in the past 10-15 years, skin cancer rates have shot up. I personally don't completely agree with her, because I do believe that there is a safe middle ground where you can get enough sun to get your vitamin d, but not so much so as to risk sun burn and skin cancer - the problem is that one size does not fit all with regards to sun exposure (due to the complexities mentioned about) and so it's hard to make recommendations for the public at large.

We all need to be mindful of our life choices that could affect our health - and indeed women who wear Hijab do need to be made aware of the need for sunlight (or alternatives). They can very easily manage it, as you only need to sit in the sun for around 1-2 hours a week during the summer with arms, legs and face exposed to the sun (and that can easily be done from the privacy of their own homes, either in the back garden, or through an open window or door) to get sufficient amounts. If that doesn't suit them, they can either look at oily fish, supplemented milk/cereals or tablet supplements. Beyond that, we all need to be aware that sunlight is useless for the winter months for producing vitamin D and we should be looking to our diet for it, and then we all need to be mindful of being careful in the sun to reduce the risk of skin cancer - something which Hijab will protect you from.

As I keep saying in this thread, it's important to look at things from all sides

confusedquark

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And to those who argue Islam doesn't oppress women - I'm sorry, but you are digging an even bigger hole for yourself by quoting a 1400 year old holy book. This forum is based in Ireland, a modern, Western democracy where religion has fallen out of favour for whatever reasons. I hope you can appreciate why people have such problems relating to such material. Intelligent discourse, with real world examples are what people are looking for.

I see where you're coming from on that Tom, but equally, I don't consider quoting a 1400 year old holy book as digging a hole. I said in another thread that I think we often get carried away with ourselves - even though we're technologically advanced and living in the 21st century, we're not all that different from human generations gone by. We still have the same basic traits (honesty, caring, greed etc.) and desires (for comfort, food, socialising, entertainment, shiny things, etc.), only in a different context and environment. Give it time and in 1000 years time, the "modern" people then will look back at the "ancient" societies of the 21st century and dissociate from what we in the west consider right and wrong today.

Being Muslim is about believing that the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and given that, you can't on the hand believe that Allah (subhana wa'tala) is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, and then on the other hand decide of our accord that we know better and that The Quran's teachings are not applicable universally to all human generations. It sets the bar of rights and wrongs at a fixed level, and that's what we go by, irrespective of what the trends of any given "modern" society are, and that's part of the test that we perceive life to be. Of course there are always issues that aren't black and white and which scholars will disagree on, but there's no two ways about matters that there is a clear consensus about. So we don't consider quoting a 1400 year old book as digging a hole, but rather, we consider it the best way upon which to base our decisions and lives. I'm western as well, and I get that people will have a problem with parts of it, but I also think that people very often don't have the full picture of Islam (and of what Islam isn't), and that's why I bother posting here.

katydid

confusedquark wrote: »

Being Muslim is about believing that the Quran is the literal word of Allah (subhana wa'tala), and given that, you can't on the hand believe that Allah (subhana wa'tala) is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, and then on the other hand decide of our accord that we know better and that The Quran's teachings are not applicable universally to all human generations.e.

But you do decide that, when you have scholars who give different interpretations of the Qur'an.

confusedquark

katydid wrote: »

But you do decide that, when you have scholars who give different interpretations of the Qur'an.

Scholars don't dismiss the teachings of the Qur'an, they try to clarify what parts of it mean - in the context in which specific verses were revealed. They don't always agree on their interpretations, and in those cases it's generally majority consensus (and how knowledgable/reputable they are) what we go by. That's different to us deciding we don't want to follow a specific teaching from the Quran on which there is a clear consensus between the scholars, which is the case for the majority of teachings in Islam (and which was my point).

katydid

confusedquark wrote: »

Scholars don't dismiss the teachings of the Qur'an, they try to clarify what parts of it mean - in the context in which specific verses were revealed. They don't always agree on their interpretations, and in those cases it's generally majority consensus (and how knowledgable/reputable they are) what we go by. That's different to us deciding we don't want to follow a specific teaching from the Quran on which there is a clear consensus between the scholars, which is the case for the majority of teachings in Islam (and which was my point).

"
"Clarifying" is another word for interpreting. Different scholars come up with different opinions, which means they are interpreting the text. If they take a particular stance on a piece of text, it means they dismiss what the other scholars think. They can't all be right, so clearly some of them are not following a specific teaching

confusedquark

katydid wrote: »

"
"Clarifying" is another word for interpreting. Different scholars come up with different opinions, which means they are interpreting the text. If they take a particular stance on a piece of text, it means they dismiss what the other scholars think. They can't all be right, so clearly some of them are not following a specific teaching

Indeed, they can't all be right, but it's not because of them deliberately not following a specific teaching (or at least shouldn't be if they are genuine in their endeavours). Scholars are humans - as much as they try to clarify (another word for seeking the truth) what something means in proper context, they are not free from making errors of judgement, and therefore some opinions/interpretations will be wrong. In cases of disagreement, it's generally majority consensus what we go by, and how knowledgable/reputable scholars making a certain claim are.