Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Re the man given a suspended sentence of 11 years for burning a Bible - on the assumption that he wasn't burning someone else's Bible - why any punishment at all? The act may be provocative, it might be childish, inane, silly, but unless it's an incitement to violence - the act in and of itself is for him alone to decide. Again, religion is the problem here.
You are comparing cultures, and origins, of people, to religions of people.
You are comparing a doctrine of hate and killing, to people uninvolved with any of that.
Islam is a choice, people make,
as I said, When I see a member of the Nazi party, or a member of the KKK, I won't give them the time of day.
I just assume they know what the organization is all about.
True Islam is a Choice I openly make of my own free will and I find Islam to be a very Pacifist and peaceful way of life. I am not responsible for the sins of my neighbors.
I have no conflict with living as a Muslim and treating all people with respect and dignity I can only pity those who use Islam as an excuse for violence.
True Islam is a Choice I openly make of my own free will and I find Islam to be a very Pacifist and peaceful way of life. I am not responsible for the sins of my neighbors.
I have no conflict with living as a Muslim and treating all people with respect and dignity I can only pity those who use Islam as an excuse for violence.
Woodrow,
I am by no means condemning your brand of Islam, and I hold deep respect for you, for your devotion and practice to it.
I wish you could re-write the religion for all the muslims in the world.
Actually there is a central doctrine, being the Qur'an and sunnah, then all sects have their addons.
I think you will find that the majority of us see being Sunnah as an act of piety and not a requirement. (Exception being the manner the obligatory prayers are said)
As for the Qur'an there is no Tafsir(interpretation) that is considered to be the "Official" one.
If you ever read fatwas by different scholars you will find a wide range of different opinions.
Quote:
Deoband issues fatwa banning photography as un-Islamic
PTI | Sep 11, 2013, 02.34PM IST
Deoband: Muslims attend Zohar's Namaz during a visit of Saud bin Ibrahim Al Shur...
Islam does not permit video-taping of marriages or clicking of pictures to save as mementos for future generation: Deoband.
NEW DELHI: India's leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom has issued a fatwa, saying "photography is unlawful and a sin", even though Saudi Arabia allows photographers inside the holy city of Mecca and live telecast of 'namaz' is beamed on Islamic channels across the world.
Mufti Abdul Qasim Nomani, Mohtamim (Vice-Chancellor) of Darul Uloom Deoband, said on the phone, "Photography is un-Islamic. Muslims are not allowed to get their photos clicked unless it is for an identity card or for making a passport."
He said Islam does not permit video-taping of marriages or clicking of pictures to save as mementos for future generations.
When pointed out that Saudi Arabia, which follows the Wahabi school that aspires to return to the earliest fundamental sources of Islam, allows photography in the holiest of Islamic cities Mecca and beams live coverage through the year, Nomani said, "Let them do it. We do not allow it. Not everything they do is correct."
What you say about it being haraam to take photographs and keep them except in cases of necessity, and it being permissible to watch TV and videos if they are free of evils, is the view of a number of scholars, including Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) and the scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas, may Allaah preserve them.
Secondly:
The confusion that you mentioned was answered by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him), who explained that pictures contained on a video tape and the like are stored in the form of electro-magnetic waves, hence they were regarded as permissible by those who do not regard photographs as permissible.
He (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Images made by modern methods are of two types:
1 – Those that are stored in a way that does not have any tangible or visible form, as was mentioned in the case of images, such as video tapes. There is no ruling on these at all and they do not come under the prohibition at all. Hence the scholars who forbid photographs printed on paper regarded them as permissible, and said that there is nothing wrong with them. It was said: Is it permissible to film the lectures that are given in mosques? Their opinion was that this should not be done, because it may disturb those who are praying there, and it does not befit the place, and so on.
2 – Photographs that are printed on paper.
But there remains the question: if a person wants to make these permissible images, then he is subject to the five rulings according to his intention. If he intends thereby to do something haraam, then it is haraam. If he intends thereby to do something obligatory then it is obligatory. It may be obligatory to make images sometimes, especially moving images. For example, if we see someone committing a crime that is a crime against a person’s rights, such as a murder attempt and the like, and it cannot be proven except by means of a picture, then in that case taking a picture is obligatory, especially in cases where pictures could tell the full story, because the means are subject to the same rulings as the ends. If we use this image-making to prove the identity of a person lest he be accused of a crime committed by someone else, there is nothing wrong with this either, rather it is essential. But if we take a picture in order to enjoy looking at it, this is undoubtedly haraam. End quote from al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (2/197-199).
As in any religion, separation will create different views.
Look at the two main branches of Islam.
These started the same, but the militaristic views, Ali, vs Bakr, and then Ashia siding with Ali, against her father.
Then later Ali being killed,( Ashura).
The military groups separated and went different directions, What would become Sunni went into Europe, and Shia, into India.
1400 years of separation created a lot of differences, that spawned from the same thing.
We even have that charlatan here,( Now dead) Elija Muhammed, who created his own brand on Islam, nation of Islam, one that would get him killed in any Islamic nation, but thrived here preying on the blacks, at a time when they were most vulnerable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
