 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: A Good Example of Muslim Tolerance |
| From: | |
KodiakKeith
|
posted
Sat, Apr 5 2008, 11:27pm
|
what part of "cultural, traditional, political" don't you understand...
Burning witches is a old western cultural tradition of European societies. Using Africans as slaves is an old western cultural tradition. Serfdom is an old western cultural tradition. Beating our children with leather straps is an old western cultural tradition. Torturing and murdering Jews, Gypsies, etc, is an old western cultural tradition. Wife beating is an old western cultural tradition. Allowing despots to rule us as their birthright is an old western tradition. Shall I go on?
We don't do these things any more; or if we do, there are severe consequences.
I want to know why the Islamic world does not question and prohibit the barbaric "cultural traditions" that exist in Muslim nations? If you draw a cartoon of Mohammed you'll have dozens of clerics calling down Fatwa's on your head, and thousands of willing believers who will take your life if given the opportunity. Where are the Fatwa's against genital mutilation of children? Where are the Fatwa's against slavery? Where are the Fatwa's against genocide? Where are the Fatwa's against despotic rulers?
Why does the Islamic world not recognize the horror existing in Muslim nations? Why do people like yourself pretend such abominations are beyond the control of the Muslim world?
Interestingly, not only do Muslim clerics not call a Fatwa against such practices, they will call down Fatwa's against anyone that complains about such practices.
Pull up Hirsi Ali on google, in hiding due to a Fatwa for collaborating in a film decrying genital mutilation of children. Pull up Theo Van Gogh on Google, dead for the same reasons. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: A Good Example of Muslim Tolerance |
| From: | |
GeneralVeers
|
posted
Sun, Apr 6 2008, 4:42am
|
Fatwā - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The current fashion for online fatwas has created an amazingly legalistic approach to Islam as scholars - some of whom have only a tenuous grip on reality - seek to regulate all aspects of life according to their own interpretation of the scriptures." ― Brian Whitaker, The Guardian, January 17, 2006
consider that the cultures of the Middle East haven't had the leaps and bounds progress the West has had over the last few centuries, colonization and imperialism left their mark as well, the ambitions of people who crave power, and the whole mess with Israel, doesn't exactly make for a pretty picture...
throw in constant Western (particularly US and Russian) attempts to control the region for their own purposes, it would be fairly easy to play on the only thing most people there really have, religion, and turn em into angry flag-burners...
still on with the genital mutilation huh...
Sunni View
There are differences of opinion among Sunni scholars in regards to female genital cutting. These differences of opinion range from forbidden to obligatory. The debate focuses around ahadith from the Sunni collections. One narration states that "a woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. Muhammad said to her, 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'"[47]
Shams Ed-Din Al-Haq Al-'Azim Abadi claims that, "[t]he Hadith of female circumcision has been reported through so many ways all of which are weak, blemished and defective, and thus it is unacceptable to prove a legal ruling through such ways."[48] While some scholars reject ahadith that refer to FGC on grounds of inauthenticity, other scholars argue that authenticity alone does not confer legitimacy. One of the sayings used to support FGC practices is the hadith (349) in Sahih Muslim: Aishah narrated an authentic Hadith that the Prophet said:"When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory." Dr. Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, Secretary General of the World Union of the Muslim Ulemas states that while the hadith is authentic, it is not evidence of legitmacy. He states that the Arabic for "the two circumcision organs" is a single word used to connote two forms; however the plural term for one of the forms is used to denote not two of the same form, but two different forms characterized as a singular of the more prominent form. He goes on to state that, while the female form is used to denote both male and female genitalia, it is identified with the prominent aspect of the two forms, which, in this case, is the male circumcised organ. He further states that the connotation of circumcision is not transitive. Dr. al-Awwa concludes that the hadith is specious because "such an argument can be refuted by the fact that in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them for an effective cause." [48] [e.g. the usage in "Qur'an in Surah Al-Furqan(25):53" "bahrayn" is the dual form of "bahr" (sea) meaning "sea (salty and bitter) and river (sweet and thirst-allaying) (not "two seas"); sometimes the word with the female gender is chosen to make the dual form, such as in the expression "the two Marwas", referring to the two hills of As-Safa and Al-Marwa (not "two hills, each called Al-Marwa") in Mecca][49]
In March 2005, Dr Ahmed Talib, Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at the Al-Azhar University, stated: "All practices of female circumcision and mutilation are crimes and have no relationship with Islam. Whether it involves the removal of the skin or the cutting of the flesh of the female genital organs... it is not an obligation in Islam."[50] Both Christian and Muslim leaders have publicly denounced the practice of FGC since 1998.[51] A recent conference at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo (December, 2006) brought prominent Muslim clergy to denounce the practice as not being necessary under the umbrella of Islam.[52] Although there was some reluctance amongst some of the clergy, who preferred to hand the issue to doctors, making the FGC a medical decision, rather than a religious one, the Grand Mufti Ali Jumaa of Egypt, signed a resolution denouncing the practice.[53]
One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that clitoridectomy is mandatory.[54] Sheikh Faraz Rabbani states, "That which is wajib [obligatory] in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce." Contrary to the WHO definition, he states that this practice is not "FGM, nor harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure." He states that "excision, FGM, or other harmful practices" are not permitted.[55] In 1994, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Jad Al-Hâqq 'Ali Jad Al-Hâqq issued a fatwa stating, "Circumcision is mandatory for men and for women. If the people of any village decide to abandon it, the village imam must fight against them as if they had abandoned the call to prayer." [56] The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.[57]
[edit] Shia View
Foster states that female circumcision is rumoured to be common amongst Shi'ite communities ruled by Hezbollah in Lebanon.[58] The procedures are outlawed by all leading Shi'ite Marjas that interpret Sharia traditions and are considered customs left over from pre-Islamic times.[citation needed]
from one of the links i posted earlier... clearly the opinion that FGC should be performed is a minority view... Islam isn't one big religion, its just like Christianity, full of different denominations and sects, some quite fundamental and rooted in the past...
now why the governments, religious leaders etc. haven't issued a torrent of fatwas against such practices, well, i don't exactly see the US prosecuting all those nasty cults within its borders, many just as harmful if not more so to children...
indeed the the concept of fatwa has been corrupted by a handful of extremists (and a media always willing to jump on the chance to slam Muslims)...
i always hear "dozens of Muslim clerics", "hundreds of Muslim clerics"... if a handful of Christian pastors started voicing "death to Chavez" like Pat Robertson did, does that mean they all will, and that all Christians will be eager to carry out this mission... granted the political situation in the West is different, but thats why it wouldn't happen...
Fatawa like the above have drawn a great deal of attention in Western media, giving rise to the use of the term fatwa to apply to statements by non-Muslims that advocate an extreme religious or political position, and loosely or as slang for other sorts of decrees.
* Excerpts from an interview given by Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obeikan, vice-minister of Justice of Saudi Arabia, to the Arabic daily Asharq al awsat on July 9, 2006, in which he discusses the legal value of a fatwa by the Islamic Fiqh Academy (IFA) on the subject of misyar marriage, which had been rendered by IFA on April 12, 2006:
Asharq Al-Awsat: From time to time and through its regular meetings, the Islamic Fiqh Academy usually issues various fatwas dealing with the concerns Muslims. However, these fatwas are not considered binding for the Islamic states. What is your opinion of this?
Obeikan: Of course, they are not binding for the member Islamic states.
Asharq Al-Awsat: But, what is the point of the Islamic Fiqh Academy's consensus on fatwas that are not binding for the member States?
Obeikan: There is a difference between a judge and a mufti. The judge issues a verdict and binds people to it. However, the mufti explains the legal judgment but he does not bind the people to his fatwa. The decisions of the Islamic Fiqh Academy are fatwa decisions that are not binding for others. They only explain the legal judgment, as the case is in fiqh books.
Asharq Al-Awsat: Well, what about the Ifta House [official Saudi fatwa organism] ? Are its fatwas not considered binding on others?
Obeikan: I do not agree with this. Even the decisions of the Ifta House are not considered binding, whether for the people or the State.
it sucks that a few radicals are allowed such a loud voice, largely thanks to the media, and aided by the grim conditions of living in those countries...
reading about the two people you mentioned, i presume the film collaborated on was exactly like the one you posted earlier, out-of-context quotes and provocative imagery with a distinct political agenda, judging by the description... in the West such offensiveness is fought with words and lawyers now, in the Middle East, they haven't quite made it to that point yet so its still the way of the gun... personally i think Hirsi Ali sounds a lot like Nancy Grace... what was done to her wasn't right, does it make it right though to start preaching hatred of all followers of a faith...
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant of April 8, 2006 she proposed the special screening of any Muslim applying for any job for possible links with terrorist groups.[74]
that pretty much says it all...
as for Theo...
Theo van Gogh (film director) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i'd say he got what he deserved... enjoy the character of this "hero", this "martyr", the self-declared village idiot who referred to his favorite target of hate as geitenneukers (goat-f*ckers)... real nice comment about diabetic Jews too, huh...
on the grounds that of those two people one was a declared Atheist, the other rejected all forms of religion (which is basically the same thing, right), would it be right to say that they speak for Atheism in general, like a few clerics seem to speak for Islam in general...
are you really any better than they are by perpetuating the hate... |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: A Good Example of Muslim Tolerance |
| From: | |
Dinokaiser
|
posted
Sun, Apr 6 2008, 10:21pm
|
Theo Van Gogh did something very unwise, HE said that it is no problem for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, he got what he asked for (doesn't mean I support it), which is why you guys are not very intelligent when dealing with these things, provoking people is never a wise move.
"Why do people like yourself pretend such abominations are beyond the control of the Muslim world?"
Because a lot of the leaders of most of the Muslim world are corrupt and intolerant.... and a few are supported the US (i'm honestly not surprised).
"I want to know why the Islamic world does not question and prohibit the barbaric "cultural traditions" that exist in Muslim nations? "
Why didn't the Germans during Nazi germany question their government? why didn't the christians question their leaders during the dark ages? why don't you question your "newspapers"? I know we do, but there is very little "power to the people".
"Where are the Fatwa's against slavery?"
You really embarrassed yourself by saying this, Islam actually says, if a slave requests freedom from his/her master, then grant it to him/her (oh wow), also Islam made the good treatment of slaves of high priority, infact it is such a high priority, that if you mistreat them you MUST release them. Also when you do, you also help them start their new lives financially (Bilahl was a famous example).
And before you say; "Muslims do nothing about terrorism" how's about you google up Nadir Abas or check what he has to say on Ytube. And another thing, there are quite a few Muslim countries (and Britain) who have "religion enlightenment programs", basically these are programs that tell misguided Muslims (usually captured terrorists I would expect) exactly what Islam really says, (although I don't know the success results), so if you're gonna keep on saying (based off certain actions by certain people) that Islam and all Muslims are compliant with the terrorists, then what are you here for?
And once again, when will you understand this; Islam is not a race, it is a religion. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|