I put this in great debates as it is bound to start a few contentious arguments.
But my questions are as follows:
Is Taqqiya a shia only practice? If not who else does it and how often?
How widespread in the Islamic world are terms such as Kufr and infidel, which to me personally seem quite offensive?
Please explain the following statement (i think it is from the Koran, but I’m not sure), it seems to imply that it is wrong for muslims to associate with non muslims.
Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution (“tat-taqooh”), that ye may guard yourselves (“tooqatan”) from them…[3:28]"
I found the reference while looking up taqqiya BTW.
What I am looking for is factual justification of these terms, not rants or attempts to convert me. Just good honest debates and opinions please.
That’s quite alright, I’m sure you appreciate why such a thing could raise suspicion. I don’t know that the link is the very best or most reliable source.
Anyway on one level this “lying for Islam” business is far from unique. There is a precise parallel in christianity: equivocation.
Macbeth has a lot to say about it. …“him who swears and lies”….
As to ‘infidel’ isn’t it the functional equivalent of ‘heathen’ or ‘pagan’?
I hadn’t heard of equivocation in that way before, but I concede that you have a point, it’s probably true to a certain extent that all religions will bend the truth in order to gain new converts.
You also have a point with the pagan thing, guess as an atheist I’m just going to cop it from all angles.
I would appreciate further imput on the use of kufr though, as my understanding of it is that it is a term of offense for unbelievers.
I found a link for kufr cite , while I concede that is not racist as such I find it offensive to be considered to be automatically a member of any given faith by birth. Is it a common belief that everyone is born a muslim?
I read the kufr cite and found that the argument supporting it was quite familiar – it was the Paley’s watch argument which in Western culture appeared and was disposed of back in the 1800s. It’s a very strong argument for the existence of God if you don’t know about evolution. If you do know about evolution, it’s … shoddy.
Note also the argument that everyone is disposed to and must obey God’s will … and guess who interprets God’s will? Religion is such a great scam.
It is a thought pattern, a concept attributed to Jafar As-Sadiq.
I found a useful article in the Wikipedia which explains a bit on the person behind the thought.
It depends on who you talk to and where and about whom, but usually when these words are used, they are used incorrectly = there is a certain type of Muslims who make abuse of these words at random. Yet it is not as if every Muslim does nothing else then thinking about people who don’t believe and then scolding at them as a hobby.
Kufr/Kafir is used to refer to people who don’t believe in God, infidel comes down to the same.
It is wrong to use this in a denigrating context, because every Muslim should know that only God knows what is in people’s heart. Hence also knows who has no wish to believe in God and decided this out of his own free will (with an argument that can be made aobut what is “free will”).
Furthermore it is wrong to take words of Al Qur’an out of their context to place them in a context that suits your own goal, yet adds nothing to the way you live your religion. It is not because you read words in Al Qur’an that you must neglect to look behind them for discovering their meaning.
Al Qur’an, surat al ‘Imrân, 28
The believer should not take as allies the disbelievers in the place of the believers. Those who do so belong in nothing to God, except when you out of fear for yourself are cautious for them (= you are cautious in your behaviour towards then and hence you are friendly, because you have reason to fear them if you act otherwise) God warns you for Himself, by God is the destination.
Exegeses:
If you must be cautious because they form a danger, you must try to limit the relations with them to verbal contact.
Being cautious in forming an alliance with them does not hold a prohibition for entering personal friendly relationships. Such contacts don’t pose a conscience problem for the Muslim.
Context of the sura:
89the in the chronology, revealed in Medina. The historical events referred to in the text are situated around 625 AD (the battle of 'Uhud) and 631 AD (the arrival of a Christian delegation coming from Najrân and the discussions with them about religion).
The allusion made not to take disbelievers as allies relates to these events. If you face a battle (like 'Uhud, against the Meccans) or heated discussions (like with the Christians about theological matters), you are better of with allies you can trust because they are also Muslims.
It is therefore wrong to give preference to non Muslims in such a situation because they will not support you. (not in a battle and not in your religion).
It has nothing to do with practicing the Islamic faith as you see Muslims do it.
When a child is born it is completely innocent and unaware of the world, of God, of religion. It is believed that any human, being born in such innocence, is in a natural state of worship and submission to the Creator of All. Therefore it is said that every human is born Muslim.
Well yes. By reading what you discover on a fabulous infallible website you gain the true insight in religions.
Salaam. A
Explain to me again how, in making a clearly contentious assertion, offering no evidence to support it and announcing that the assertino is indisputable, that it needs no support and that you have nothing further to add, you differ from an religious fundamentalist?
So a person who believes in God but is not a muslim, christian or a jew would be a kafir.
An illustration of this would be the fact that there is an area in northern Pakistan called Kafiristan. This area is populated by the Kalash people who have their own religion. They certainly have a concept of God:
That sounds a bit like bandying semantics to me, I have to say that I object to any religion claiming my kids by default, fortunately I’m already a lost cause as far as any religion is concerned.
What is not correct? That I don’t give allthe meanings of a specific root or verb or word, but only take the use of it as referred to by the OP in order to answer his question about its use?
I can give all the meanings of the root but what has that to do with the question of the OP which goes about one specific use?
No, that is what you want to make of it. But by all means, make of it what you want.
It doesn not change the fact that it is incorrect.
What is the relation of this remark to the OP or to my answer on it ?
If such people indeed believe in God, then they believe in God.
Like I said: Muslims believe that only God can know what is in people’s heart.
My answer to your question does not fit your uninformed interpretation, hence it is “bandying semantics” ??
If you know it all and don’t want or need things explained to you (= learn how they really are) then why do you come up with questions and make people waste their time on answering them, providing you with the correct information?
This may or may not be how things really are, it may just be the opinion of a group of people of how things really are.
Personally speaking, the path I have chosen is to not accept the existence of any god, if I am wrong then I will be prepared to deal with the consequences.
If it helps any with the baby thing, remember that the word “muslim” has a generic meaning as well as the specific meaning of “member of the Islamic religion”. Muslim means “one who submits to God”. If the belief is that a baby, before it gains an understanding of right and wrong, is incapable of sin and in a perfect state of what Christians would term “grace”, it is muslim, not because it follows the Five Pillars, but because it is in a state of natural submission to God.
There are no implications for you. Jayjay explained it once again correctly (I don’t know why my explanation seems to be giving an other message. Must be my English again)
[QUTOE]This may or may not be how things really are, it may just be the opinion of a group of people of how things really are.
[/QUOTE]
It is the opinion of an Islamic scholar who was educated by Islamic scholars (and by non-Islamic scholars for a certain amount of his education.)
Of course that is also only a group of people
What escapes me in this is why you seem to be bothered by what some Muslims (or eventually people of other religions) have to say about this.
Did they attack you personally or what is your personal experience in this matter?
I wouldn’t know. I shall ask it the next time I see Him.
If you however mean to imply that Islam would prevent people from studying, reflecting on what they study and come to conclusions, you once more give proof to “know” only what you invent yourself as truth.
I’m not bothered by it as such and I’m not attempting to denigrate your beliefs, any form of blanket statement i.e. we are all god’s children etc makes me uncomfortable.
I suppose I should just ignore it and get on with my life.
