Muslims interrupt Church Services with Qu'ran...

[Give me Beer]

****, I don't even know what I have to think of this. A friend just sent me a link from an article in the Gazet van Antwerpen (Antwerp's main newspaper) which ran an article on 23.04.07 that radical muslims now actually disturb services in Churches by bursting in and waving Qu'rans in the face of priests...

Now, I'm an Atheist, so for me, all religion is pretty much BS ... but I do believe that people need to be able to express their faith freely and this is just so far over the line it's not even funny anymore. Especially since these Muslims are immigrants ... if you can't tolerate the freedom or religion you get here ... go back to Morocco please? In other news radical Muslims "forced" restaurant owners in some places in Antwerp to stop serving alcohol seeing as that is sinful according to the Islam... which I find quite disturbing really.

I don't even like to go to Antwerp anymore because the climate there is so f'cked up. The city is divided in two big camps who activily do everything to harass the other it seems.

This is never going to end well, mark my words.

[ For those interested, here is the article http://gva.typepad.com/standpuntantwerpen/2007/04/stop_radicalise.html but it's in Dutch, obviously.]]

[Dr Hooch]

My god


You religious nuts really are all as bad as eachother... ;)

[Amit]

In other news radical Muslims "forced" restaurant owners in some places in Antwerp to stop serving alcohol seeing as that is sinful according to the Islam... which I find quite disturbing really.

lol what

[Give me Beer]

lol what

Well... these businesses are located in Borgerhout, which around here is jokingly known as "Borgerocco" because of the amount of Moroccan immigrants in the neighbourhood. Apparently, the owners got a visit from some religious extremists that told them it would be in their best interest to stop selling alcohol as it is haram.

I just find that disturbing really.

[Amit]

yeah that sucks

[spitfirejunky]

Do Belgians really just sit there and take this ****?

[Give me Beer]

Do Belgians really just sit there and take this ****?

Have you got some clear cut solution or something? What would you have people do?

The Flemish Interest party (Islamophobic and proud of it, also pretty racist if you ask me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Interest) is already up to about 25% of the vote thanks to crap like this. I think the immigrant problems aren't nearly as worse as everybody always pretends and most of 'm are decent people, but **** like this is just way over the line and people like this can just f'ck off back to Morocco.

[spitfirejunky]

Yes, remind them of Belgium's fundamental laws, which I hope includes freedom of religion.

[Give me Beer]

Yes, remind them of Belgium's fundamental laws, which I hope includes freedom of religion.

And if they ignore it?

[spitfirejunky]

The only way they can actively ignore it is if they take measures to prevent people from exercising their rights, in which case they'd be committing a crime.

[Give me Beer]

Entering a Church during a service waving Qu'rans in the priests face is offending but it's not a crime which would lead to any long term consequences for them. The restaurant owners will not speak out against the extremists as the Moroccan community is very tight knit and taking sides against your own is a huge faux-pas. Of course things should be done, but it isn't that easy. Especially since any measures against them will result in cries of "racism".

[peeted]

Could it not be considered disturbing the piece? or something along those lines.

[Give me Beer]

Which still has no long term consequences.

[ChimPz]

Apparently, the owners got a visit from some religious extremists that told them it would be in their best interest to stop selling alcohol as it is haram.
This was only the case if the owners were muslims themselves. Not that that makes everything alright or anything. I frown upon such action myself, but it is an important detail which is not apparent in the original article, making it seem as if it applied to all businesses (take note that the 'Gazet van Antwerpen' is a rather sensational newspaper and not exactly the most objective in regards to such issues).
The only way they can actively ignore it is if they take measures to prevent people from exercising their rights, in which case they'd be committing a crime
From the viewpoint of Belgian federal law coercing those owners into not serving alcohol is a crime, since the law allows them to serve whatever they please regardless of religious beliefs. On the other hand, as muslims they are obligated to follow the regulations of their belief.
So you have a situation where they must choose between one or the other, but, since the majority of Borgerhout is muslim, it is safe to say the same can be said about their clientel. As such, a boycot from the muslimcommunity could be devastating to their business and they could potentially even be ostracized from it. So you can see why these people have little incentive to file a complaint with the police.

It's not as simple as it seems. Like i said before i'm not trying to create excuses, i'm just sketching the situation and giving some additional details. Unfortunate as it is, these kind of situations are not easily solved.

[Dr Hooch]

Could it not be considered disturbing the piece? or something along those lines.

In the UK it would be breach of the peace, and if it happened more than once they'd probably be given an ASBO which is sort of where they take somehting you shouldn't be doing and make it flat out illegal so you could go to prison for repeated minor offences like

in belgium they'll probably throw chocolate at them and then call in poirot OHBURN

[Give me Beer]

This was only the case if the owners were muslims themselves. Not that that makes everything alright or anything. I frown upon such action myself, but it is an important detail which is not apparent in the original article, making it seem as if it applied to all businesses (take note that the 'Gazet van Antwerpen' is a rather sensational newspaper and not exactly the most objective in regards to such issues).

True.

I never read the Gazet because I find it a rather trashy newspaper, and I don't even live in Antwerp anyway ;). I did actually know they were only Muslim businesses, so I should probably have mentioned that in the post. Either way, I think it's creepy, since we're not in Morocco.

Here in Brussels, the situation with immigrants isn't as tense as it is in Antwerp, luckily. When I'm in Antwerp however, I don't know, there's this atmosphere of hostility in the air. Here in Brussels I get on fine with the Moroccans, in Antwerp however...

I'm getting so fed up with extremists on both sides fueling the flames and making a problem out of things where there really shouldn't be one. :/

[Akira]

All religions have extremists. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, it doesn't matter. It's pointless to even bring it up. All sane people realize that extremists are idiots, but nothing is going to change said extremists.

[Frankie-C!]

Ahem.

Christian Missionaries ring any bells?

[peeted]

I really hope your not going to say that the existence of christian missionaries makes this in any way ok..

[Frankie-C!]

I really hope your not going to say that the existence of christian missionaries makes this in any way ok..

No, but it's not so nice when it happens to you now is it?

[peeted]

When what happens to me?

[Frankie-C!]

When what happens to me?

When a bunch of pretentious cunts piss all over your way of life in the name of their own insecurity.

[spitfirejunky]

Entering a Church during a service waving Qu'rans in the priests face is offending but it's not a crime which would lead to any long term consequences for them. The restaurant owners will not speak out against the extremists as the Moroccan community is very tight knit and taking sides against your own is a huge faux-pas. Of course things should be done, but it isn't that easy. Especially since any measures against them will result in cries of "racism".

All I'm saying is that an infringement on someone's rights requires some sort of action no matter what the consequence. Right are absolutely unforfeitable.

If there's nothing criminal about intruding on a spiritual event, then so be it. But then I'd really have to question Belgian law.

[peeted]

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the people in that church were pretentious cunts who pissed all over anyone else's way of life in the name of their own insecurity?

[Frankie-C!]

And do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the people in that church were pretentious squirrels who pissed all over anyone else's way of life in the name of their own insecurity?

Yes.

I know people who go to church. They're not all like that of course, but I know that at least my local parish is full of those types.

[peeted]

You didnt answer my question, read it again.

[Frankie-C!]

All I'm saying is that an infringement on someone's rights requires some sort of action no matter what the consequence. Right are absolutely unforfeitable.

If there's nothing criminal about intruding on a spiritual event, then so be it. But then I'd really have to question Belgian law.

If it's to the point of harassment or intimidation then fair enough. But everyone has the right to express their opinion, if you happen to do it in that setting then you're an arsehole, but you're not necessarily a criminal. Philosophy and the search for the answer should be an open discussion, this is the fundamental problem with institutional religions in the first place.

[Frankie-C!]

You didnt answer my question, read it again.

No you're just not being intuitive enough, or maybe i'm just being too vague, my bad.

I can't prove that any given member of that congregation is a bigot, but then there's a difference between proof and evidence.

[peeted]

You are assuming that every member of that congregation was a bigot because you know a few Christians who are. You might as well say that all black people are criminals and all single mothers exploit the welfare system etc.

The belief in a religion doesn't somehow make every INDIVIDUAL in that church the same as the few sad bigots who you know, there is no logical link between the two.

Theres a diffrence between stupid claims with no logical evidence, e.g.7 day creation, and actual justified belief.

[spitfirejunky]

If it's to the point of harassment or intimidation then fair enough. But everyone has the right to express their opinion, if you happen to do it in that setting then you're an arsehole, but you're not necessarily a criminal. Philosophy and the search for the answer should be an open discussion, this is the fundamental problem with institutional religions in the first place.

Intruding on a spiritual event usually involves some sort of harrassment or intimidation. If they wish to object to Christianity, they should do it in a way that would not interrupt the service.

[Frankie-C!]

Intruding on a spiritual event usually involves some sort of harrassment or intimidation. If they wish to object to Christianity, they should do it in a way that would not interrupt the service.

Let's say for argument's sake I was to interrupt a some paganistic human (or even animal) sacrifice ritual, do I not have the right to intervene and at least express my concern?

Of course the difference is that a Christian sermon doesn't usually tend to involve animal slaughter, but in the eyes of a fundamentalist Muslim you're probably commiting a greater crime by not pledging your devotion to Mohammed. It's all moral relativity in the end.

[spitfirejunky]

The difference is a Christian service doesn't involve some illegal act.

[Frankie-C!]

The difference is a Christian service doesn't involve some illegal act.

Actually there are places (I think even the US until relatively recently) that allow human sacrifice on religious grounds, provided the sacrificee is consenting.

[peeted]

Were in the u.s?

and you still haven't explained how you can possibly logically generalise all the characteristics of the Christians who you know to every individual in that church.

[spitfirejunky]

Actually there are places (I think even the US until relatively recently) that allow human sacrifice on religious grounds, provided the sacrificee is consenting.

If such a sacrifice is not illegal, then my preceding argument stands.

I can't see what you're trying to get at. Are you trying to give a situation where the service can be legally interrupted?

[Frankie-C!]

Were in the u.s?

and you still havent explained how you can posibly assume that every individual in that church were exactley the same as the christians you know.

I can assume what ever I want. I don't know these people personally, for all I know they're really down to earth, perceptive, open-minded people. But from my experience with church-swallowing 'christians', I can infer that they are probably not. Can you prove that they aren't?

[peeted]

I dont need to prove that they arent since there is no logical foundation for your belief. For all i know they might be but that would be irrelevant to your point.

Either way you started by bringing up missionaries who A) dont do this and B) in all likeliness have not effected any of the Muslims who raided this church and C) probably are not related in any way to the Christians who got molested in this service.

Your not making proper deductions you are merely taking some characteristics of some individuals you dont like and generalising them to some other individuals who you have never met based on one characteristic.

You also still haven't given any examples of places were human sacrifice is legal.

[Frankie-C!]

I dont need to prove that they arent since there is no logical foundation for your belief. For all i know they might be but that would be irrelevant to your point.

Either way you started by bringing up missionaries who A) dont do this and B) in all likeliness have not effected any of the Muslims who raided this church and C) probably are not related in any way to the Christians who got molested in this service.


Ok let me just start by saying:

HAHAHA!
AHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, thanks man.


Your not making proper deductions you are merely taking some characteristics of some individuals you dont like and generalising them to some other individuals who you have never met based on one characteristic.

It's called deduction. It's not always 100% accurate but it's sometimes it's necessary.

[peeted]

That's not an argument, that's a cop out.

And as i already said There's a difference between illogical claims with no logical evidence and actual justified belief.

[Frankie-C!]

That's not an argument, that's a cop out.

And as i already said There's a difference between illogical claims with no logical evidence and actual justified belief.

It's not a cop out, it's just plain immature, and i'm sincerely apologetic for it :P. I really can't be bothered getting into an argument about how much damage that legacy has done.

If you really wanna go there, feel free to start a relevant thread about it, maybe i'll respond in the morning.

[Jaded]

I've grown up in churches, and I'm very familiar with the way missions trips work. It's not some crusade to conquer the local pagan religion, it's volunteer humanitarian effort in the spirit of christianity. When christianity is brought up, it's not accompanied with a bumrush of scaretactics and condemnation of the local religion. It's usually like "hey there's some people setting up a free clinic over there, and they call themselves christians, I wonder what they're all about", and some of them ask, and some don't. They all receive the same services regardless of their interest in christianity. Also, many missions trips are to areas where there is already a small christian following, and a church is sending people to set up a church for those people.

[Jaded]

If you really wanna go there, feel free to start a relevant thread about it, maybe i'll respond in the morning.

Nah, just don't post anymore.

[Frankie-C!]

I've grown up in churches, and I'm very familiar with the way missions trips work. It's not some crusade to conquer the local pagan religion, it's volunteer humanitarian effort in the spirit of christianity. When christianity is brought up, it's not accompanied with a bumrush of scaretactics and condemnation of the local religion. It's usually like "hey there's some people setting up a free clinic over there, and they call themselves christians, I wonder what they're all about", and some of them ask, and some don't. They all receive the same services regardless of their interest in christianity. Also, many missions trips are to areas where there is already a small christian following, and a church is sending people to set up a church for those people.

I'm not denying that a lot of good work is done abroad in the name of Christianity, but there's no reason for it to be religiously affiliated, it just so happens that the people who set up that kind of work have an agenda to spread their religion, and that that religion happens to be Christianity.

You could hardly argue that the Spaniards and the American pilgrims were the same though, among others. I'm talking historically, i.e the legacy that's been left. A lot of these people were stripped of their culture and their spiritual connection in the name of colonisation.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

It's not some crusade to conquer the local pagan religion, it's volunteer humanitarian effort in the spirit of christianityok ill take your word for it

[Frankie-C!]

Nah, just don't post anymore.

Now that is a cop-out.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

A lot of these people were stripped of their culture and their spiritual connection in the name of colonisation.ok so religion doesn't come into it

[Frankie-C!]

ok so religion doesn't come into it

wtf?

[Jaded]

I'm not denying that a lot of good work is done abroad in the name of Christianity, but there's no reason for it to be religiously affiliated, it just so happens that the people who set up that kind of work have an agenda to spread their religion, and that that religion happens to be Christianity.

And that's a problem? They aren't forcing anyone to convert. It's not like spreading religion is something that is intrinsicly (sp?) bad.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

wtf?basic comprehension

[Frankie-C!]

And that's a problem? They aren't forcing anyone to convert. It's not like spreading religion is something that is intrinsicly (sp?) bad.

Thank you for repeating what i said in the first part of my post.

Now read the second paragraph and get back to me.

[Danger Bird]

Frankie, you obviously have a very inaccurate view of missionaries. Speaking as an agnostic American, I can very much say I know what it's like for my rights to be trampled on for the sake of other people's insecurities. You can hardly compare people who volunteer to help starving people (they do not in any way push the bible on them) to people who burst into a place dedicated to Christian worship and scream at them. That's just despicable.

[Frankie-C!]

Frankie, you obviously have a very inaccurate view of missionaries. Speaking as an agnostic American, I can very much say I know what it's like for my rights to be trampled on for the sake of other people's insecurities. You can hardly compare people who volunteer to help starving people (they do not in any way push the bible on them) to people who burst into a place dedicated to Christian worship and scream at them. That's just despicable.

I just said like 2000 times, I'm not talking about Mother Teresa. I'm talking further back than that.

Besides which, your concern for humanity should be authentic, and not motivated by a religious institution.

[Danger Bird]

So you're talking things that are completely irrelevant, okay, good to know.

[Frankie-C!]

So you're talking things that are completely irrelevant, okay, good to know.

Yeah ok you just interpret my argument whichever way makes you feel right about it. The point is the Christians have been doing the exact same thing for hundreds of years and suddenly when it happens to them, THEN it's a crime against humanity. It's just ideocentrism.

[Jaded]

Thank you for repeating what i said in the first part of my post.

Now read the second paragraph and get back to me.
I didn't repeat what you said, I responded to it. Read my third sentance and get back to me. I didn't respond to your second paragraph because it doesn't apply to what we are talking about, which is modern day christian missions in comparison to muslims walking into a church service and yelling at people to convert to islam. I'm not going to deny that f*cked up sh*t has been done in the name of christianity, and I would condemn that stuff just as much as I would condemn muslims interrupting a church service. There is no need for this to get into a historical argument over which religious traditions have caused the most damage, that is not what this thread is about.

[Frankie-C!]

I didn't repeat what you said, I responded to it. Read my third sentance and get back to me. I didn't respond to your second paragraph because it doesn't apply to what we are talking about, which is modern day christian missions in comparison to muslims walking into a church service and yelling at people to convert to islam. I'm not going to deny that f*cked up sh*t has been done in the name of christianity, and I would condemn that stuff just as much as I would condemn muslims interrupting a church service. There is no need for this to get into a historical argument over which religious traditions have caused the most damage, that is not what this thread is about.

Look, I'm not saying I'd do the same kind of thing as that muslim guy, but I know a lot of Christians who would do the same thing conversely, given the chance. How many times have you been approached on the street by a muslim who wants to convert you to Islam? How many times have you been approached by Christians in a similar vein? I just want you to question why that's any different. It's just the fact that we accept Christianity as more socially acceptable than other religions, it's a sort of benign intolerance, but it still manifests itself in some forms.

If a Christian had marched into a mosque brandishing a bible would we think as much of it? That's where the historical argument comes in.

[lfantwister]

If a Christian had marched into a mosque brandishing a bible would we think as much of it? That's where the historical argument comes in.
how many threads have we had about fred phelps? oh right 573029

[Danger Bird]

No, not at all. You see, the people in this church, the ones having their right to religious expression abused, they're about 40 years old. I don't think they subjugated Native Americans or slaughtered Aztecs. You can't just look at all christians or all muslims as some single entity. They're people, and the fundamentalist muslim people abused the christian people.

[Jaded]

This isn't about christians vs. muslims, and which group is more socially acceptable. I'm sure people would be pissed if a christian guy did the same thing. I wouldn't support christians doing the same thing as the muslims did, I'm not going to discriminate just because I happen to be a christian. The only reason why christianity got brought into this argument is because of a comment someone made about missionaries, and I was arguing that a christian mission trip is not the same as a guy walking into a place of worship and rudely denouncing the tradition in practice.

There is no historical argument. This is not an argument over which religion is more socially acceptable, you made that up yourself.

[Frankie-C!]

This isn't about christians vs. muslims, and which group is more socially acceptable. I'm sure people would be pissed if a christian guy did the same thing. I wouldn't support christians doing the same thing as the muslims did, I'm not going to discriminate just because I happen to be a christian. The only reason why christianity got brought into this argument is because of a comment someone made about missionaries, and I was arguing that a christian mission trip is not the same as a guy walking into a place of worship and rudely denouncing the tradition in practice.

There is no historical argument. This is not an argument over which religion is more socially acceptable, you made that up yourself.

Yes, I'm stirring piss. Of course I don't actually support a greasy wog storming into a private christian ritual shouting 'praise Allah'. My point is, that's outspoken intolerance, but at least in that form we can address it and condemn it. Christian intolerance is far more subversive and much more complex than that.

[spitfirejunky]

From the viewpoint of Belgian federal law coercing those owners into not serving alcohol is a crime, since the law allows them to serve whatever they please regardless of religious beliefs. On the other hand, as muslims they are obligated to follow the regulations of their belief.
So you have a situation where they must choose between one or the other, but, since the majority of Borgerhout is muslim, it is safe to say the same can be said about their clientel. As such, a boycot from the muslimcommunity could be devastating to their business and they could potentially even be ostracized from it. So you can see why these people have little incentive to file a complaint with the police.

It's not as simple as it seems. Like i said before i'm not trying to create excuses, i'm just sketching the situation and giving some additional details. Unfortunate as it is, these kind of situations are not easily solved.

Well, so long as the owners have the option to continue serving alcohol without any serious threats, then the Muslim objectors haven't done anything wrong.

[Frankie-C!]

Just a thought. But Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, do they not?

And Jesus says that drinking is fine, as long as you're not a dick about it.

So when does it occur that drinking is not cool with Muslims?

[spitfirejunky]

The Qur'an supersedes the Bible, and it just so happens that mind-altering substances aren't allowed.

[Jaded]

So when does it occur that drinking is not cool with Muslims?
When muhammed wrote it down.

[Iskandar]

The Qur'an supersedes the Bible, and it just so happens that mind-altering substances aren't allowed.
I've never been sure how to interpret the Qur'an statements on alcohol. It directs believers to "turn away" from alcohol, but that's not the same as stating outright that something is forbidden (as it does for pork).

Anyway, the biggest problem I can see coming from this is the negative image of Islam that these nuts are perpetrating.

[Jaded]

I think "turn away" is pretty clear.

[Frankie-C!]

I think "turn away" is pretty clear.

If you want it to mean abstain, then it would mean abstain. If you want it to mean don't think about it too much then it would also mean that. I think 'turn away' is actually quite ambiguous.

[Iskandar]

Yes, it is ambiguous. Does it mean alcohol is absolutely forbidden (haraam, in Islamic parlance) or that you should avoid it generally but it's technically permissible (makruh)? The vast majority of Muslim thought would say the former, but it's quite possible to make an argument against that.

[spitfirejunky]

I've never been sure how to interpret the Qur'an statements on alcohol. It directs believers to "turn away" from alcohol, but that's not the same as stating outright that something is forbidden (as it does for pork).

Anyway, the biggest problem I can see coming from this is the negative image of Islam that these nuts are perpetrating.

Actually the same leniency is exercised with pork.

The meanings of many passages in the Qur'an rely heavily on context. Pork was forbidden due to how it was disease-ridden. Alcohol was forbidden due to how intoxication was rampant. So long as your pork is clean and you do not drink to intoxication, you are not breaching any of the central tenets of Islam, which include respecting the body and the mind.

[Frankie-C!]

Actually the same leniency is exercised with pork.

The meanings of many passages in the Qur'an rely heavily on context. Pork was forbidden due to how it was disease-ridden. Alcohol was forbidden due to how intoxication was rampant. So long as your pork is clean and you do not drink to intoxication, you are not breaching any of the central tenets of Islam, which include respecting the body and the mind.

Shizzactly.

[Give me Beer]

No, but it's not so nice when it happens to you now is it?

I seem to remember having mentioned being an atheist, not a Christian. I don't see how Christian missionaries somehow justify disturbing Church services and intimidating the priests. Belgium used to be a deeply Catholic Country, it might not be too Catholic anymore, but if you want to live here you can respect the fact that we allow different religions and that some of us have different lifestyles. I really do not enjoy being abused on the street because I'm buying beer or because a friend of mine doesn't cover her hair up.

Look, I've got no problem with most Muslims here in Belgium, but these few people that are taking over the community and are far too extreme should be dealt with. We're not in Iran or Saudi Arabia, and if you can't respect that, you should get the f'ck out.

The only thing they do is fuel the flames and make sure that there is going to an islamophobic backlash against the muslim community. Is that really what they want to happen? Like I said, the Flemish Interest is already up to 25% or something and in some neighbourhoods in Antwerp they've already have most of the vote.

Well, so long as the owners have the option to continue serving alcohol without any serious threats, then the Muslim objectors haven't done anything wrong.

Yeah, see, that's the catch. If I got informed right they got sort of intimidated into stopping with selling alcohol.

[Iskandar]

Actually the same leniency is exercised with pork.

The meanings of many passages in the Qur'an rely heavily on context. Pork was forbidden due to how it was disease-ridden. Alcohol was forbidden due to how intoxication was rampant. So long as your pork is clean and you do not drink to intoxication, you are not breaching any of the central tenets of Islam, which include respecting the body and the mind.I see you've taken a liberal approach here, which is great. I'm not sure that I agree that pork can be permissible, however, when the Qur'an seems to state literally that it is forbidden. I admit that I'm limited by my inability to read the Qur'an in Arabic.

There's also an argument to be made that their is benefit in abstaining from pork and alcohol in that it more clearly defines Muslims as a community, and as a form of fasting it develops the strength of will. But there are also negative consequences to upholding religious traditions which are not the norm in many societies.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, many similar traditions inevitably improve solidarity (this is a basic anthropological principle). However, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have tradition take precedence over the Qur'an in determining a Muslim's morality.

[Iskandar]

Well, many similar traditions inevitably improve solidarity (this is a basic anthropological principle). However, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have tradition take precedence over the Qur'an in determining a Muslim's morality.
Of course not. Tradition seems to be a strong factor in the interpretation of the Qur'an, however, for a lot of Muslims and this isn't always a good thing.

[spitfirejunky]

Agreed.

[Iskandar]

When muhammed wrote it down.I missed this up above.

Muhammad did not write the Qur'an down ... he is traditionally believed to have been illiterate and there's no reason to suppose that's not true. The Qur'an was memorized in the early years of Islam and wasn't written down until after Muhammad's death.

[White Riot!]

lol. Religion is dumb

Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran fool...

[Iskandar]

lol. Religion is dumb

Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran fool...You don't have to automatically assume the Islamic view of Muhammad is wrong just because you don't like religion.

There's no reason to assume he wrote the Qur'an. He was a merchant by trade, not a scholar, in a time when formal education did not exist and writing was the profession of a skilled elite. Why assume he fabricated the Qur'an? Like I said, it wasn't even written down until after his death ... it was memorized and transmitted by word of mouth.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump]

reason: 1 religion 0

looks like another point for reason

[Smokey D]

You don't have to automatically assume the Islamic view of Muhammad is wrong just because you don't like religion.

There's no reason to assume he wrote the Qur'an. He was a merchant by trade, not a scholar, in a time when formal education did not exist and writing was the profession of a skilled elite. Why assume he fabricated the Qur'an? Like I said, it wasn't even written down until after his death ... it was memorized and transmitted by word of mouth.

I thought one of the selling points of Islam was that it was written down despite Muhammad being and illiterate camel trader.

[Jharaski]

I thought one of the selling points of Islam was that it was written down despite Muhammad being and illiterate camel trader.

True. But from a secular view, that obviously did not happen.

[Iskandar]

I thought one of the selling points of Islam was that it was written down despite Muhammad being and illiterate camel trader.Not exactly. The original point was to refute those who claimed the Qur'an was fabricated by Muhammad (and we're discussing this now, more or less). The argument was that an illiterate merchant who didn't even read books, let alone write them, could not possibly have created a masterpiece like the Qur'an.

I'm with Islam on this one ... Whatever the Qur'an's origin, I don't believe Muhammad wrote it.

[shaqadelic]

I've never been sure how to interpret the Qur'an statements on alcohol. It directs believers to "turn away" from alcohol, but that's not the same as stating outright that something is forbidden (as it does for pork).

Anyway, the biggest problem I can see coming from this is the negative image of Islam that these nuts are perpetrating.

The verse is clarified by the hadith.

Of that which intoxicates in a large amount, a small amount is haram. (Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi)

If a bucketful intoxicates, a sip of it (the thing that intoxicates) is haram. (Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi.)

[Iskandar]

The verse is clarified by the hadith.

Of that which intoxicates in a large amount, a small amount is haram. (Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi)

If a bucketful intoxicates, a sip of it (the thing that intoxicates) is haram. (Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi.)
Hmm, I have some questions:

1) How reliable are those hadith considered? Are they Sunni hadith or Shi'a?
2) Is alcohol ever permissible, other than in a life or death situation?

[shaqadelic]

Hmm, I have some questions:

1) How reliable are those hadith considered? Are they Sunni hadith or Shi'a?
2) Is alcohol ever permissible, other than in a life or death situation?

From what I know, they determine the authentic-ness of a hadith based on the chain of transmission; they will scrutinize whether the hadith goes against the teaching of the Quran, whether transmitter is a reliable person, whether there are historical proof of it. Then, they will rate it from weak, fair and genuine.

Next, they will check against how many have attested to the same events from different chain of transmission for a final decision.

I have not heard anyone questioning the reliability of this hadith. Although I have heard a very well developed case against the hadith that prescribe execution as the punishment for apostasy and extramarital sex. Wanna read about that?

Alcohol is permissible in medical use as well.

[Iskandar]

From what I know, they determine the authentic-ness of a hadith based on the chain of transmission; they will scrutinize whether the hadith goes against the teaching of the Quran, whether transmitter is a reliable person, whether there are historical proof of it. Then, they will rate it from weak, fair and genuine.

Next, they will check against how many have attested to the same events from different chain of transmission for a final decision.

I have not heard anyone questioning the reliability of this hadith. Although I have heard a very well developed case against the hadith that prescribe execution as the punishment for apostasy and extramarital sex. Wanna read about that?

Alcohol is permissible in medical use as well.
Authenticity's the word you want. I would like to read that argument against that hadith on execution as well, because such practices seem contradictory to the Qur'an.

You're a great poster, shaqadelic. Keep it up.:)

[shaqadelic]

I try my best. :)

The author is Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, he is one of my favourite Islamic scholar.

On apostasy.

http://islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm
The Quran's perspective.

http://islamicperspectives.com/PunishmentOfApostasy_Part2.html
The Hadith's perspective.

About punishment for adultery in Islam.

http://islamicperspectives.com/Stoning.htm

They are a lot of read but very informative. His other works are great as well.

[Iskandar]

I try my best. :)

The author is Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, he is one of my favourite Islamic scholar.

On apostasy.

http://islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm
The Quran's perspective.

http://islamicperspectives.com/PunishmentOfApostasy_Part2.html
The Hadith's perspective.

About punishment for adultery in Islam.

http://islamicperspectives.com/Stoning.htm

They are a lot of read but very informative. His other works are great as well.Interesting. Thanks for the links. I read all of the first one but couldn't finish all of them (it was too much to read). So you're a Muslim?

[shaqadelic]

Yep.

[Iskandar]

Yep.Mind if I ask you a couple of questions about Islam? I get the impression that you prefer to keep it private, but I'm interested, so..

[shaqadelic]

yeah sure, i will see what i can do.

[Amit]

umm yeah so what does this have to do with the original thread

[shaqadelic]

haha in mx, things get derailed.

[Iskandar]

umm yeah so what does this have to do with the original threadWe've exhausting the original topic and so we have taken this opportunity to discuss the Islamic faith.
yeah sure, i will see what i can do.So ... don't feel pressed to have to go into immense detail, I'm just curious.
1) Sunni or Shi'a?
2) Do you generally take a liberal or conservative approach to interpreting the Qur'an and Hadith? Are Hadith obligatory to follow, despite their not carrying the same weight as the Qur'an?
3) Are secular government and Islam fully compatible in your opinion?
4) If you could tell today's Muslim ummah something, what would it be?

[shaqadelic]

1) Sunni or Shi'a?

Sunni but unless you are in the Middle East, particularly Iran and Saudi, there is really no distinction or need to declare yourself.

2) Do you generally take a liberal or conservative approach to interpreting the Qur'an and Hadith?

How would a liberal or conservative interpret the Quran?

I usually read what past scholars have concluded and read what modern scholars (like Dr. Ahmad Shafaat) and then make my own decision. Although, I do not advocate reaching a conclusion without reading the work of scholars.

Are Hadith obligatory to follow, despite their not carrying the same weight as the Qur'an?

Those that are reasoned to be authentic I feel oblige to follow.

There are hadiths that I don't exactly agree with. However, unless I know a sound case against it, I won't dispute it publicly.

3) Are secular government and Islam fully compatible in your opinion?

Depends on the execution; if it is akin to Turkey where there are more focus on abolishing Turkish hats and hijabs than democracy, then I don't think it is compatible.

4) If you could tell today's Muslim ummah something, what would it be?

Will have to think on that one.

[Iskandar]

[QUOTE=shaqadelic]Sunni but unless you are in the Middle East, particularly Iran and Saudi, there is really no distinction or need to declare yourself.

I like to hear that.

How would a liberal or conservative interpret the Quran?

Well, there's the more traditional, rigid interpretations vs. modern, more flexible interpretations. It's hard for me to quantify this.

I usually read what past scholars have concluded and read what modern scholars (like Dr. Ahmad Shafaat) and then make my own decision. Although, I do not advocate reaching a conclusion without reading the work of scholars.

But the opinions of scholars are only their personal interpretations and not binding. That's the impression I get.

Depends on the execution; if it is akin to Turkey where there are more focus on abolishing Turkish hats and hijabs than democracy, then I don't think it is compatible.

Yeah, I agree. But your mentioning Turkey brings up another question, which I'm amazed I forgot: Do you think the Caliphate should be reinstated, or is Islam fine without it?

Thank you for your answers.

[Smokey D]

Islam has outgrown the office of Caliph. Whether or not Islam did better under the rule of the caliphs, it would now be impossible to reinstate their office and for it to have any real impact on religious affairs. The Caliph ruled as a territorial and spiritual leader -- given the Dar al-Islam has been so thoroughly divided by recent history, western intervention and modern political ideas (most of them also from the west), it is impossible to recreate that sense of unity which was necessary to the effective functioning of the Caliph.

In fact, I'd argue that it had really ceased to be important even well before the collapse of the Ottoman empire.

[shaqadelic]

I like to hear that.

The place where distinction between the two sides actually becomes a problem is only in Iraq which is more politically driven the way I see it.


Well, there's the more traditional, rigid interpretations vs. modern, more flexible interpretations. It's hard for me to quantify this.

I try to look at the Quran/Hadith from an objective way. The two extremes that you defined above leaves one open to extraneous influences; at one side, you cling to traditional views without being critical; at another, you rather conclude your views to appease to people.

But the opinions of scholars are only their personal interpretations and not binding. That's the impression I get.

Islam is like any body of knowledge, you have to study past and present knowledge to make an informed conclusion.

Opinions doesn't bind anything. The only thing that makes anything binding is the people in power.

Yeah, I agree. But your mentioning Turkey brings up another question, which I'm amazed I forgot: Do you think the Caliphate should be reinstated, or is Islam fine without it?

To reinstate such an office requires political unity which is hard considering how widespread the Muslim world has been in terms of geography and also outlook. It is more important in improving education, technology and economy world in the Muslim world at this point than bringing all party as a single political unit.

Reminds me of the EU in a way.