I have no problem praying the Sunni way and don't think they're disbelievers, just misguided sheep whose brain has never been put to full use.

Now I dislike Sunni sermons, so full of illiterate stuff, so I tend to avoid them. Plus I believe mosques were places for the community to debate their issues and that's what they should be, rather than passively hear someone preach among the convinced. If I'm to listen passively, let it be music I like. Anything less is a waste of time.

Then in my view, quite a few of my activities would qualify as praying, so I don't practice a praying ritual per se, nor am I spiritual enough for such a thing.

So to answer your question more directly, yes, I do go to mosques sometimes. To accompany a family member mostly. Or when it's been a long time, to keep myself connected with part of my roots.

Do I believe women should wear the hijab or be segregated from men? On this board, you'd probably get a unanimous no.

BTW, on purpose the way you speak do you?

A Beautiful Mind

http//www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/

Right on.

Agree with OPF,

The meaning is determined by the context. See

http//19.org/index.php?id=91,417,0,0,1,0

I haven't read the whole article as I'm in a hurry, but just for the record, sh-y-t-a-n (Satan)'s root in Arabic is sheen-ya-ta, not sheen-ta-noon. The form is "f-3-l-a-n", there's no such a form as "f-y-3-a-l".

Muslim.

If more details are requested, depends on the context/mood/interest of the person... Could be a short answer, "Muslim by nationality", "Muslim but not sunni or shia", or go on a slightly longer explanation about what Islam's strict monotheism, accepting the Quran and not the Hadith, etc., are about.

It's amusing how quite a few people from different backgounds react awkwardly to this btw.

You can sometimes sense some tension from Non-Muslim Westerners who suddenly feel like they're walking on eggs once you've pronounced the word "Muslim". Or sometimes, it'll fly way over their heads, because what they see doesn't match their idea of what a Muslim is, so the information goes straight away to the trashcan. Or they'll need to classify it with an additional Good/Moderate/Non-Practicing/Westernized label.

Sunnis will think that you're just missing part of your faith because of your very liberal and/or western upbringing. When they see you're interested in Islam nonetheless, they will try to convert you to their polytheist views. It escapes them completely that I've heard the arguments 10000 times before and I've never found them convincing, or that I'm actually NOT a non-practicing Muslim, that my understanding of Islam is just very unorthodox (as per traditional standards) and is in accordance with my lifestyle.

Proposing an alternative understanding

Spirit of the laws regulating sexuality avoiding associated pain and trouble that might come as a result. Anything that goes beyond is a non-Quranic restriction on liberties, whatever our own moral view on them.

'afeef in Arabic can be translated not just as "chaste", but also as "clean" => Open to interpretation.

Zina is adultery, so it doesn't cover extra-marital sex. Many include fornication, but that's an addition. Extra-marital sex is not covered by the Quran; in support of this interpretation, see traditions which allowed nikah urfi/misya/mut'a, which if we don't split hairs, are equivalent to any normal non matrimonial relationship in the Western world today. Thus extra-marital sex is not forbidden.

Adultery Are consenting swingers adulterers? They probably don't consider themselves to be so, and they're not doing any harm to anyone. The law doesn't apply to them (remember, the spirit of the law, your reason is there to understand it). Same for pornstars.

The lashes and the four witnesses now lashes are serious business. Hence the need for four witnesses. Assuming all conditions are met for the punishment, the spirit of the law primes (again), and to understand it and apply it, we need the context lashes might have been appropriate then, they're not now, punishment of an equivalent value (e.g. prison, fine, whatever is deemed both equivalent and acceptable lest you want to turn any civilized person away from the way of God). Mind you, words themselves can be redefined, especially in a legal context. E.g. when the French civil code speaks of the king or chariot, it means the president or a car. The same can be done for lashes.

I don't see the problem with Genteel's argument. The spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter (trying to apply the letter blindly might violate its purpose - "maqsid&quot. If the point is detecting pregnancy, then a pregnancy test should be enough, no need for additional pointless hardships.

The whole issue of usury (riba) vs. interest (fa'ida) is based in economic illiteracy.

Try this link, Finance 101 for Muslims http//www.aqoul.com/archives/2007/04/finance_101_for.php

I share completely Samia's view on the Messenger. Plus, obeying him was probably a temporal command, one that couldn't be applied litterally but when he was alive and the leader of Muslims. His orders, had they made it to our time, were for his time and place.

re Adam and Eden, I always understood the Adam's sin and his departure from Eden as two different stories. He was forgiven for the first, the second was an honor to mankind who, made at the image of God (or to be more accurate, contains something of His spirit), was to be the Regent of this world.

In the same thread of things different from Christianity, I like the moral ambiguity of the Quranic story of Satan. Satan was cursed because he refused to bow down unto Man, an imperfect being who does mischief, and he took it upon himself to prove it.

Thanks for the welcome all.

Zenje, I've never been angry as a direct result of religion. But the event that made me angry made my understanding of this world impossible to reconcile with the traditional Muslim view, and it's that conversation some months later that inspired me to go for the Quran alone.

Moslem, I agree with Zenje, saying is not enough. But I wouldn't call other Muslims hypocrites, they're mostly useless sheep. I just don't think the majority ever gave a thought to what Islam's monotheism implied.

I come from a liberal sunni background. Years ago, something happened that made me hate God to the point that, merely hearing his name would fill me with deep rage and scorn. It shouldn't have happened as I'm half agnostic/nontheist, but it must have been the other half which didn't want to go away.

I knew enough about the other major religions not to be attracted to them. I wasn't attracted by the idea of becoming like one of those ex-Muslims who never went beyond the traditional view of Islam and hated it for it either. I've never been convinced by quite a few things in the sunni view of Islam in the first place, but I would attribute those elements to traditions without further thought. Even in my anger though, there are things I always liked about Islam, but I thought Muslims had parted away from them. Things like the many concepts that implied individual independence (no one is above you but God, individual accountability), rationalism (for practical purposes, strict monotheism towards an immaterial God might as well mean you're on noone else but your own brain here and now), pragmatism (the claimed ease of application, money, sex, power, are all okay parts of it, though the morons will always find restrictive twists).

My rage lasted a few months. The trigger happened when a bit randomly, in a conversation that didn't have much to do with religion, as a mere technical observation, someone corrected mixing up hadith and quranic verse. The hadith in question brought me to wonder about something that seemed to be so uncritically taken for granted as an Islamic prohibition (piled up on the endless list of prohibitions by sunnis and shias), yet was nowhere to be found in the Quran.

I undertook a much closer scrutiny of the hadith and the Quran. The former was so full of outright retarded stuff. The Quran OTOH offered enough flexibility for anyone to come up with some sense out of it given the right interpretation, without necessarily splitting hair. A historical look confirms how the hadith was so much easier to tamper with than the Quran - which ironically for sunnis/shias, voids the whole claim of correcting previous religions which have been tampered with by man. I didn't realize there were others who shared this view until quite some time later. Though I don't necessarily agree with everything on this site or others alike, I found a lot of material useful and convincing.

Today, I'm even more convinced that shias and sunnis are not so strictly monotheists. The legacy and the reverence to all those contemporary muslim priests, their dead "muslim apostles" and "fathers of the muslim church" comes in the way. For the sunnis lurking out there, that's your lesser gods who, good or bad, have no more claims to perfection than I do, i.e. the amru khaleds, the bukharis, the companions... Or for many, your even lesser gods, i.e. your kings, generals, petty cops and soldiers, the barely literate imams or the self-righteous pseudo-enlightened, the White Man or the idealized Black Man hiding all those inferiority complexes, the Eyes of the Neighbors and what they'd think of you...

Anyway, I'm not sharing my story in the style of touchy feely communities who newly discovered their faith, I actually wanted to take the chance to express my regards to you people for not submitting to another human being. That is what "there is NO god BUT god" is about after all.