Welcome back. You need to post here more often. I signed up last year and i feel this forum is not as interactive as in the past.

Thank you!

That's really sad to hear.

Peace,

It is fascinating that some of the most extreme al-Qaeda supporting Muslims are Jewish converts.

However, that does not imply that these guys are just doing it to give Islam a bad name.

Peace,

I believe that the Qur'an cannot truly be a constitution. I believe it can be an inspiration for our values which are then inked down into a constitution. A constitution sometimes needs to be very detailed and must address the specific needs of the people it represents. For example the Medina Constitution addressed these specific concerns

The Constitution established the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money (the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis).

The example of the Prophet in Medina, created a constitution based on the values of the Qur'an and that addressed the specific needs of the people living in Medina, whether they were Muslims, Jews, or Pagans.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

A constitution should have wording that is very clear and almost unambiguous (something that is impossible) but a constitution should be specifically aimed a certain group of people given their socio-economic and geographical circumstances. For example the Constitution of Medina laid out in clear terms what were the rights of non-Muslims.

1. The security of God is equal for all groups.
2. Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion.
3. Non-Muslims will take up arms against the enemy of the Ummah and share the cost of war. There is to be no treachery between the two.
4. Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.

Peace,

I was actually trained to "Tajweed" and I still practice it, and find it spiritually uplifting.

However, that does not mean the practice is correct. I just try to take what I can spiritually from it, and accept that the Qur'an can be read in any way so long as the meaning is not intentionally distorted.

Peace,

I remember when some members here used to get into arguments with the nutjobs over at Faithfreedom.com

They hated us because when we argued with them saying that the hadith are not a part of Islam, they had virtually no defense. I mean what are they going to criticize us on? The only thing they could do was bring a mistranslation of a verse, or take a verse out of its context. It was actually hilarious to watch them try to convince us that the hadith were a necessary part of Islam. The irony is that they are just as hungry for the hadith as are the traditional Muslims.

Peace,

Can you give some examples of how Alevi thinking has influenced Turkish culture? (I'm curious). Smiley

To be honest, I'm not familiar with the matter, it was a claim that TheIndian made.

But I've been to other countries where a country confesses to be Sunni but the influence of other Islamic traditions is visibly apparent. For example, in Egypt virtually every Muslim identifies as Sunni, but nonetheless you can see Fatimid and proto-Shia influences on many of their traditions. For example, Masjid Hussein (where it is reported that Imam Husseins head is buried) is a very popular masjid in Egypt, while shrines for various members of the Prophets family are visited by pious Egyptians everyday. This is on top of the huge Sufi festivals that occur throughout Egypt. I've actually witnessed Sufi's doing their "dance routines" in a few Egyptian masjids.

Peace,

I think the consensus here is that the former "Islamic Empires" were merely Empires like any other empire in history with the same expansionist, brutal, and greedy tendencies as any other.

The only difference being that the rulers happened to identify as Muslims. And as we all know, identifying as a Muslim does not imply that you will act like a Muslim.

Peace,

Ahmed Bilal you are so right, thanks for pointing that out to me haha.

Peace,

I think the consensus here is that the former "Islamic Empires" were merely Empires like any other empire in history with the same expansionist, brutal, and greedy tendencies as any other.

The only difference being that the rulers happened to identify as Muslims. And as we all know, identifying as a Muslim does not imply that you will act like a Muslim.

Peace Abdun Nur,

I find this strange obsession afflicting the religious, they wish to worship, pray, pay tax, chop the hands off thieves, stone, lash, beat and kill in the name of God, they see this God as vengeful and filled with retribution, they, the religious, refuse to apply any reason, wishing to only use verse upon verse applied to every application they think appropriate, they justify Riba, bigamy and subjugation, they hold non-religious people in contempt, they see themselves as pious and superior, they subjugate those around them to conform to their perspective, with compulsion, if within their power, all in the name of God.

It only makes sense that this would be the development of many religious traditions, despite the fact that their original scriptures don't condone many of the activities that have become integral parts of their traditional understanding. Why? Because it all goes back to controlling people. If a people become religious and "God fearing" then there's no better way to control them than to convince them that God wants them to do what "you" want them to do, rather than actually doing what is actually good for your fellow man. As we all know, everything comes back to asserting and controlling power.

Hence, creating laws, and corporal punishments based on the concept of a divine God made complete sense to the ruling authorities. Instead of God being an all "encompassing concept" (this is a temporary term I use to describe something I have not found a way of describing adequately yet), he is instead turned into a figure of "retribution rage" to justify the material desires of powerful men. In the West we have seen a negative reaction to the clergy, and western countries tend to insist that the clergy be kept far away from places of power because of this historical abuse of power, or perceived abuse of power.

Finally, I think I understand where you are coming from with your assertion that "there is no God." And that the concept of Allah is far deeper than the simple understanding of "God."

In any case my thoughts on the matter are still a bit immature. If you could provide the links to your writings on the matter I'd appreciate that.

Update I see you've posted them a few posts above.

Peace,

There are many strange things in the universe, but I find it wonderful that physics supports the existence of God

Can you elaborate on this point Reverend, or start a new topic on it, I'd be more than interested to learn more.

Peace,

When we read the Qur'an, it constantly gives us stories, anecdotes, and sayings about how those who obsess over material possessions and those who define themselves through their materialism are doomed to failure as a direct result of their greed. Its no secret that greed is the leading cause of human conflict, and has led to the destruction of virtually every former society in history.

I believe that it is human nature to allow material objects to become the object of our worship. Hence, when the Qur'an says worship not but me, its basically saying, don't let money, cars, camels, mates, homes, land, etc become the focus of your life. If you are going to worship something, at least worship the one thing in this universe that encompasses everything. Hence the concept of Tawheed (roughly meaning the oneness of God). By saying "there is no God but God" we are basically saying that the only thing worthy of worship is God (a non-tangible non-material object) and the stronger our devotion to God, the less we are effected by the temptation of greed for material possessions.

In a sense devoting oneself to God is akin to devoting yourself to humanity. All the duties prescribed to believers in the Qur'an all refer to activities that help out humanity. Fasting, Salat, charity, taking care of the environment, pilgrimage, taking care of orphans, establishing justice in the land, being fair to other people, speaking out against injustice, etc these are all things that are promoted in the Qur'an as duties of the believer. The more Taqwa (God consciousness) we have the more we feel a STRONG urge to engage in these activities.

Anyway, that's how I justify my belief in God.

Peace,

These are some Turkish atheist forums with thousands of members for example

Large numbers of Turks do in fact embrace secular ideologies as opposed to Islamic ones, largely due to the strong nationalistic ideologies prevalent in Turkey.

Many Iranians seem to leave Islam, both in Iran as well as abroad. Over the years, I have personally heard hundreds of Iranians say that they are atheists.

Large numbers of Iranians also end their association with Islam due to their disillusionment with the Islamic Revolution.

Furthermore, elites in most countries around the world tend to abandon religion in general for various reasons as well, unless that religion is completely tied into the culture, in which case lip service is merely paid to the religion.

Peace,

You are totally misinformed. Most Turks (and in the past, Ottomans) are/were Sunnis. Alevis are considered a "minority".

Progressive, the poster "TheIndian" did not make this claim. Instead he claimed that Turkish culture has been influenced by certain elements of Alevi thinking.

As for Ataturk, he may have had good intentions for Turkey, and its true that he was a superb general. However, some of his policies in my opinion bordered on the extreme. The intense nationalism he played a part in creating has brought a modicum of stability to Turkey but has also played a large role in suppressing the rights of their large Kurdish communities.

Peace,

Recluse I understand your dilemma perfectly well, in fact its questions like these that led me to the type of thinking exemplified by numerous people on this forum.

Unfortunately there is no simple answer to your question. But I think a few things can be addressed.

1. It is true that groups of people that identified as Muslims engaged in wars of aggression on a massive scale, however, everyone else at the time was doing the same as well. Of course that explanation does not excuse their behavior in the least, but there exists a maxim in the study of history which states "Do not judge the people of the past by the standards of the Present."

I didn't say YOU are responsible. But why do Muslims always claim that Islamic empires were peaceful when this is clearly not the case? Why criticize the West for attacking Muslim countries unprovoked, while our ancestors (I'm from Turkey) did the same for centuries. Do most Muslims know that we are NOT allowed to wage offensive wars?? I don't think so.

2. Muslims today and for the last few hundred years have not engaged in any notable wars of expansion or aggression (for a variety of reasons). Furthermore, at our current moment in time, its primarily western powers that have been engaged in wars of conquest, aggression, and pillaging. Muslim identifying people had very little to do with WW2, Korea, Vietnam, all the debacles in Latin America, most of the wars in Africa, etc. In fact, today Muslims tend to be at the receiving end of the barrel. Thus, while its true that Muslims did engage in wars of expansion in the past, they aren't doing so today, while Western powers are. We have no control over what the people of the past did but we do have some control over what is going on today.

3. All of the former "Islamic Powers" had laws and regulations that had absolutely nothing to do with Islam. In fact the Shari'a and the hadud as we know it today were created because the Abbasids and the Ummayads before them wanted to create a distinct form of law. If you were to go through the Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, Songhai, Mombasa, etc law codes you would be shocked at just how un-Islamic they were (and I don't just mean by the standards here at FM but by the of traditional Islam today).

In any case, in most parts of the world, Nationalism has come to replace Islam as the root of identification. Islam has merely been captured by nationalists to further certain nationalistic agendas (whether good or bad). Its this nationalism that teaches us that our former wars of expansion were "good" and "just." If we were to subscribe to a truly Islamic way of looking at the situation we would have to acknowledge that the taking of life for virtually any reason (except in true self defense) is abominable and unjustified.

Peace,

If your country does not have relations with Israel, its better to keep it that way.

In any case if you haven't seen this documentary, watch it, then ask yourself does your country need to add to its problems by establishing normal relations with Israel?

http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565

Peace,

Congrats on your upcoming marriage Alen !

Peace,

I really don't believe any of this can be real... This Wallace character is merely messing around with us... right?

Peace,

My opinion is that freedom of religion should exist everywhere; including Muslim countries.

However, your country seems to have tied Islam to the national identity of your people, this is a common occurrence in many parts of the world with Muslim majorities.

Your president has tied Islam (as they interpret it) to whether or not you can or cannot be a Maldivian (sp?) citizen. This runs contrary to the fact that even in traditional Muslim countries there exist large numbers of people whom are not Muslim but are still citizens of those respective countries.

Peace,

I completely agree with Samia, ask your doctor for all the details and his advice on the matter.