Intolerance shows ignorance of Islam

[Mahmoud Siddiqi]

INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.

As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.

Politically, what kind of conclusions do you draw out of that?

Coming from a whole different background i am strongly of the opinion, that religion and politics have to be separated. In Europe, too much damage has been done in the name of religion when it was the predominant factor and i strongly doubt, that people that are in charge of political decisions would ever act according to the true virtues of religion.
They would rather twist its teachings to increase their own power.
This counts for Islam & Christianity. History has already proven that.

Man-made social and political systems will always fall short and fail because man does not know what is best for himself or anybody else. The knowledge of what is best for humankind, animals, and everything else, is only with God.

Shari'ah (Islamic law or government), is from God revealed through the Qur'an and through the Prophet in what is called Hadith Qudsi. The only responsibility of the human is to enforce and abide by the Shari'ah.

Saying that, it is possible for humans to twist the Shari'ah, just like they twist the words of the Qur'an, to fit their own goals and interpretations, which of course is illegal in the sight of God. Who are we to change the law of the Creator of everything?

[Sentenza]

Which law school are you referring to specifically?

I know, there are the 4/5 Madh'hab, the Shafiits, Hanbalits, Malikits and Hanafits. Also there are the Shia Djafarites and they all disagree to an extent on certain issues concerning the Shari'ah.

In my opinion mankind tends to be corrupt when it comes to the exercision of political power, especially when religion is involved, no matter how good or true a system might be intended.

[Mahmoud Siddiqi]

Which law school are you referring to specifically?

I know, there are the 4/5 Madh'hab, the Shafiits, Hanbalits, Malikits and Hanafits. Also there are the Shia Djafarites and they all disagree to an extent on certain issues concerning the Shari'ah.

In my opinion mankind tends to be corrupt when it comes to the exercision of political power, especially when religion is involved, no matter how good or true a system might be intended.

The different schools of thought within Islam all agree on the most important issues and only disagree on very minor things. Most disagreements have nothing to do with Shari'ah.

I shouldn't even say disagreements because all of the schools are always right and never wrong, they just have a differnt way of looking at specific things.

[Sentenza]

Which law school are you referring to specifically?

I know, there are the 4/5 Madh'hab, the Shafiits, Hanbalits, Malikits and Hanafits. Also there are the Shia Djafarites and they all disagree to an extent on certain issues concerning the Shari'ah.

In my opinion mankind tends to be corrupt when it comes to the exercision of political power, especially when religion is involved, no matter how good or true a system might be intended.

The different schools of thought within Islam all agree on the most important issues and only disagree on very minor things. Most disagreements have nothing to do with Shari'ah.

I shouldn't even say disagreements because all of the schools are always right and never wrong, they just have a differnt way of looking at specific things.

Ok, lets put that aside, cause its a deep issue. But how would you make sure, that in an islamic state, its leaders would act according to the TRUE teachings of Islam? How can that be guaranteed? I think those kind of countries are at high risk to fall victim to ruthless dictators, who "claim" to act according to Islams teachings. And if you disagree theyll behead you.

[Sentenza]

Thats what happened in Medieval Europe and in some islamic countries aswell (---> Taliban etc.).

[Mahmoud Siddiqi]

Which law school are you referring to specifically?

I know, there are the 4/5 Madh'hab, the Shafiits, Hanbalits, Malikits and Hanafits. Also there are the Shia Djafarites and they all disagree to an extent on certain issues concerning the Shari'ah.

In my opinion mankind tends to be corrupt when it comes to the exercision of political power, especially when religion is involved, no matter how good or true a system might be intended.

The different schools of thought within Islam all agree on the most important issues and only disagree on very minor things. Most disagreements have nothing to do with Shari'ah.

I shouldn't even say disagreements because all of the schools are always right and never wrong, they just have a differnt way of looking at specific things.

Ok, lets put that aside, cause its a deep issue. But how would you make sure, that in an islamic state, its leaders would act according to the TRUE teachings of Islam? How can that be guaranteed? I think those kind of countries are at high risk to fall victim to ruthless dictators, who "claim" to act according to Islams teachings. And if you disagree theyll behead you.

In Shari'ah, the leader (khalifa) must be elected by the majority. And you would notice that they would never desire to be the khalifa because it's the biggest responsibility in Islam.

Umar Ibn Al Khttab (radiAllahu anhu) wouldn't allow ANYBODY who desired to be a leader in any way in any position of leadership, even over one individual.

If a person was elected and he started to contradict the teachings of Islam, he would be stripped of his position as khalifa and a new khalifa would be elected.

[Sentenza]

But in the Kalifate of the past, the Kalifs had to have a direct lineage traceable back to Mohammed...Is this still so?

[frozen fire]

^^^no , you dont have to have direct lineage traceable to Prophet Muhamed to be a Caliph.

[Mahmoud Siddiqi]

But in the Kalifate of the past, the Kalifs had to have a direct lineage traceable back to Mohammed...Is this still so?

No, it was not neccessary.

There is no khalifa now and probably won't be until a man named Al Mahdi comes, he will be a direct decendent of Prophet Muhummad.

[Sentenza]

But in the Kalifate of the past, the Kalifs had to have a direct lineage traceable back to Mohammed...Is this still so?

No, it was not neccessary.

There is no khalifa now and probably won't be until a man named Al Mahdi comes, he will be a direct decendent of Prophet Muhummad.

Yea, seems like i was not correct about that. I could have sworn though, that the first Caliphes (Abu Bakr etc.) were all relatives of Mohammed.
Did Muslims or Arabs accepted the Turkish claim of the Caliphate? From what i know, they didnt, but whats your take.

Sorry, that i keep asking these questions. I am really interested in it and i am studying something related. Afwan...

[Mahmoud Siddiqi]

But in the Kalifate of the past, the Kalifs had to have a direct lineage traceable back to Mohammed...Is this still so?

No, it was not neccessary.

There is no khalifa now and probably won't be until a man named Al Mahdi comes, he will be a direct decendent of Prophet Muhummad.

Yea, seems like i was not correct about that. I could have sworn though, that the first Caliphes (Abu Bakr etc.) were all relatives of Mohammed.
Did Muslims or Arabs accepted the Turkish claim of the Caliphate? From what i know, they didnt, but whats your take.

Sorry, that i keep asking these questions. I am really interested in it and i am studying something related. Afwan...

Some were relatives but not through blood. Example: Prophet Muhammad married Abu Bakr's daughter A'isha.

Even if they were all related, this doesn't mean that it a prerequisite for being the khalifa.

I cannot comment on your question because I do not have sufficient knowledge on that topic.

[casalem]

INTOLERANCE SHOWS FEAR OF ISLAM(a justified fear).
i don't want to offend muslim ppl but islamic culture is often uncivilized n undemocratic(compared with western culture).Wait;im not talkin about the islamic religion,im talkin about his culture,the way islamic ppl behave in the foreign countries where lifestyles,rules n freedoms r different from islamic states.The problem started because islamic ppl(Of course not every1) often prefer respectin their culture's laws instead respectin the laws n the citizens of the foreign country which host them.
I don't like islamic culture for some reasons ,for example the woman's role,but i don't want to accuse any1.I just wanna say that i can understand fully ppl who don't like muslims as i can understand the muslims who just follows the rules they were taught in their home places.

As Salam Alaikum,

For a Muslim who knows and follows the teachings of the Qur'an and the way of the Prophet Muhammad (peace, blessings, and mercy of Allah be upon him), Islam overrules culture, ethnicity, nationalism, and everything else. Muslims believe that Islam is a complete way of life.

Unfortunately, some Muslims, due to ego and nationalism, respect and follow the customs of their culture over the ways of Islam.

Compared to Islamic "culture", western culture is ALWAYS uncivlized, undemocratic, and barbaric.

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen. This is wrong with any religion or way of living.

You should not comment on a Muslim woman's role if you don't know what it is, correct? And I know you don't.

Man try to reason logically.Do u think islamic culture is more democratic of western culture?

Not only do I THINK so, I KNOW so. I have studied both Islamic governmental laws (ash shari'ah) and Western "democracy".

Although no Islamic government is currently in place anywhere in the world today, there are remenants of one in a couple places and in those places, when compared to the Western idea of "democracy", there is no really no comparison.

I encourage you to study, from a reliable source, with an open mind.

I encourage u to open ur eyez on the world n lookin to wat really happens.
Pleeze tell me some islamic states where u think democrazy is more diffused than in western countries.

[frozen fire]

I encourage u to open ur eyez on the world n lookin to wat really happens

Like in Iraq? If thats Democracy, i dont want it!

[Sentenza]

I encourage u to open ur eyez on the world n lookin to wat really happens.
Pleeze tell me some islamic states where u think democrazy is more diffused than in western countries.

This story is a deep and complex issue. These days, you are right, the islamic world is messed up for several reasons. But you have to try to understand the bigger picture of the whole thing. Violent islamic extremism as we know it today, has not been around for longer then 30, maybe 40 years. Its a counter reaction to contemporary political developments in the region. Democracy so far never had a chance in the region, because at first, when the cold war was still going on, the western and eastern side had no interest in having democracy down there and therefore installed several dictatorships down there (Najibullah in Afghanistan, Reza Pahlavi the Sheik of Persia, Mubarak in Egypt, Saddam Hussein etc.) in order to not let those countries fall under the influence of the other side. Those countries were used as sidekicks or satellite states in the bigger fight for power throughout the world.
How brutal or violent those dictators were was of secondary interestand so the people suffered a lot. The so called democracy the western countries wanted to bring was nowhere to be found, so many religious people turned extremist, because they were the only ones promising a solution without selling themselves out to one of both.

Its like when in Germany, the whole situation was very bad at the beginning of the 30s, people turned to voting Hitler, cause he was the only one promising to end the mess in Germany. Or when the Russians turned communist in 1917.

Now that the cold war has ended, the situatin hasnt changed. Middle Eastern people are still nothing but puppets in the bigger power game and the US in contrast to what they promised over and over has done nothing to change that situation, so they are not the most trustable partner for the Muslims to talk to. Because the Muslims know best, that most of the western countries are in it for the Oil and not for the best of the people living there. So they turn extremist, cause like i said, they are the only ones that put up a fight against this new form of colonialism.

Now dont let yourself be fooled, most of the muslims dont even agree with Al Quaida, the Taliban or whatever (i know this first hand and can bring up several proofs), but why should they be in support of the west, when almost everything that comes out of their (our politicians) mouth are empty phrases (except for the Iraq war:lol: ).
Now one could write essays about the issue, because its very complex, but just saying that there is no democracy in the middle east is missing the point, because you fail to mention the reasons for that. What is your opinion on that? (This goes for all of you guys)

[EmperorPenguin]

The problem is that you haven't studied Islam's doctrine and are judging exclusively of what you've seen.

Yes sir, and what "they heard"...

I think this once again comes back to common sense. I think the world would have much less problems if people just used their own mind once in awhile and educated themselves. I believe all of the worlds problems are based on education or lack there of. I know what I've read about other religions, and what I've "heard" about other religions but I wouldn't for a minute assume I KNOW about other religions based solely on that. I have limited knowledge on a number of religions but if I was to either A: choose one to follow or B: choose one to ostracise I would do a lot more reading then I currently have, and I think a lot of people should do the same. I'm not one for religion myself, but I applaud anyone who has felt they've educated themselves enough to know in their heart that Yes, this is the one true religion and this is what I believe in my soul.