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.
but they are committing the evil acts because Muhammad commands them to, because Islam commands them to. Muhammad is seen as the ideal human to emulate in all ways. That is the essence and core of Islam. Not just that there is one God. But that "Muhammad is his prophet." And Muhammad is all about the evil acts that are being committed in the world at this time in the name of Islam. Just as he physically performed those very same evil acts during his physical lifetime 1400 years ago, so are the atrocities being committed today. In the name of Islam. As Muhammad commands.
You will find that many of us Muslims do not find anyplace in the Qur'an Sunnah, Ahadith or Sira that commands violence. (Ishaq's "Sirat Rasoul Allah" is not what is meant by Sira)
I will agree many non-Muslims believe different and a small percentage of Muslims also do. But the majority of us do not.
We have no centralized religious leaders nor even any ordained clergy. You have to look at us individually, no Muslim represents Islam.
To a large extent I agree here.
Islam is not an organization. It is an act of worship. That act being Islam. Those who state they are performing Islam are considered Muslims.
It is not a question of true or false, Islam is a personal commitment between the Individual and Allaah(swt) no one except the individual knows if they have dedicated their life to serving Allaah(swt)
Islam is not an organization. It is individual responsibility. As such you are going to have people of all types that believe they are performing Islam.
As such those who do evil have to be addressed as individuals not with a blanket statement of being Muslim.
I agree being a Muslim is an individual commitment. However there are verses that promote Muslims as one community [brotherhood] that is separate from the Kuffar. We mentioned about 3:110 somewhere "we [Muslims] are the best of community .." in comparison to the Christians. There are a whole load of verses that promote such a concept where Muslims must co-operate as a brotherhood to defeat the enemy [Kuffar].
It is totally wrong to generalize [a fallacy in logic]. I noted most who critique Islam do not condemn ALL Muslims.
However the fact is those who do evil must be addressed as a group or gang of individuals who are influenced by a malignant part of Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Sira and ethos]. The critical part is the bolded point which must be addressed.
My point was, there are no central authority to oversee all the individuals and groups/gangs/sects.
Therefore it is very ineffective merely to condemn the evil individual but ignore the evil elements in the Quran, Hadiths and ethos that influence them to commit evil.
By the way, these evil people do not purposely set out to commit evils but they act in the belief they are truer Muslims in accordance to the doctrine and practices of Islam.
Quote:
Actions need to be seen as the actions of the individual or in some cases the individual organization. Boko-Haram should be taken to task because they are Boko-Haram not because they are Muslim. IS should be taken to task because they are IS not because they are Muslim.
I do not agree.
ISIS, Boko-Haram and the likes should be taken to task as a type of Muslim [extremist, fundamentalist] who are of the religion of Islam and they adopt the holy text literally in the belief they are truer Muslims than other Muslims. Some call their ideology Islamism as in Communism, Nazism or Fascism.
If humanity want to resolve the terrorism of Islamism, they must address the following critical variables, i.e.
1. Muslim fundamental and their psychology of evil.
2. The evil elements in Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Sira and ethos] that facilitate the fundamentalist to commit terrible evils.
That is why it is necessary to critique Islam to expose the evil elements that catalyze the fundamentalists to commit evils in the name of Islam and their prophet.
As a psychologist you would be able to wear your objective hat and note the above rational hypothesis.
Quote:
As a Muslim I see IS choosing Ramadan as the time for their recent acts of terrorism because they want the world to condmen Islam. Indirectly they will can involve non-Muslim as unaware allies in their battle to conquer all Muslims. IS does want to form all Muslims into a homogeneous organization under control of IS. But in order to do so they need to destroy the majority of the world's Muslims. By getting the world to hate Muslims, they are setting the stage to accomplish too goals
1. Getting the world's non-Muslims to engage in battle against all Muslims which will
2. Force some Muslims to side with IS for survival.
That is just my opinion and based only upon my own views of what I see happening in the Mideast.
I disagree with your opinion.
What ISIS, Boko Haram and others are doing is based on their compulsion to be true Muslims so they can be 200% sure of going to heaven with eternal life as promised in the Quran.
To do so, they followed exactly what is stated in the Quran [as expounded personally or by the experts] and prophet Muhammad as the perfect example [note the many martial examples in Quran and Hadiths] so they can qualify as true Muslims. This point is always declared by jihadists as doing exactly what the Quran dictate.
The Quran and Hadiths pointed how the hyprocrites [moderate Muslims] and Kuffar should be dealt in the hashest terms. ISIS is doing exactly that.
Since there is no central authority to arbitrate or decide, ISIS, Boko-Haram, and the like MUST comply with what they [in their belief] read from the Quran, Hadiths and the feel of the ethos, otherwise they will not be able to go to heaven but to the fire of hell.
Quote:
But the overall solution is for all people to recognize that individuals and individual organizations are responsible for their acts. There is no organization called Islam to attack. To Attack Islam means attacking all individuals that call them self Muslim.
We are fortunate the majority [with very rare exceptions] of non-Muslims are very rational and humane human beings. Besides most of the other religions do not contain elements of evils in their holy texts to give their evil believers any opportunity to fight or retaliate in the name of their religion or founder.
There is no organization called Islam to attack, but there is an ideology which spring from Islam itself [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] which is shared by all Muslims with variations in beliefs and practice.
Thus to counter and critique such an Islamic ideology which inevitably involved the [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] is rational, necessary and acceptable.
Quote:
It is analogous to attacking all Christians because Kony and his Lord's Liberation Army call them self Christians. There are some Muslims and non-Muslims that do perceive the Qur'an as justifying violence. It must be kept in mind they are the minority.
I do see Islam via [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] as condoning Islam when adopted by SOME evil prone Muslims.
Those so called Christians, e.g. Lord's Liberation Army are not doing in the name of Christianity as Jesus in an overriding statement commanded Christians to love their enemies. These evil people who happened to adopt Christianity are committing violence and evil based on their own human nature and not because of Christianity.
On the other hand, there are evil element that exists in Islam via [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] that catalyzed some evil people [SOME Muslims] to commit violence and evils. So we need to address those evil elements in the holy texts.
Quote:
I do not know if you have ever been in combat but many of us that have, have witnessed some of our fellow soldiers commit atrocities they justified as being allowed under the rules of combat.
I am not in combat. Cases like MyLai are definitely not within the Constitution of the US related to War but rather because of the groups' psychological state under certain conditions.
Quote:
People that choose violence will find reason to justify be it Religious scripture or political manifestos or whatever they see as an authority.
Bottom line evil acts should not be labelled as the teachings of Islam. The individual that does them is the one responsible.
The fact is the evil acts by Islamists originate directly from Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos]. These evil elements will facilitate the already evil prone to commit more evil and also catalyze good people to commit evil in order to get more assurance to heaven with eternal life.
It is also a fact these evil Islamists make reference to the verses in the Quran and expositions of the Hadiths. They did not pick those verses from outside Islam in the way they practice it.
Point is other Muslims [no matter how much they shout and scream] do not have grounds to say the Jihadists and fundamentalists interpretations are wrong.
So there is something wrong within Islam [at least in part] which has malignant potential and the actual results of this is very evident.
Btw, if you had been in the army, note how the US Army brainwashed the US soldiers thoroughly to dehumanize the enemies and you [the soldier] would have hated them before you go into the battlefield so that the soldiers can kill enemies without hesitations in the name of duty.
Since you are familiar with the Quran and Hadiths, you will find similar brainwashing of the condemnation of "us versus them" i.e. the "Muslims versus Kuffar" and the Kuffar are condemned and hated in the worst terms and dehumanized.
Unfortunately most Muslims are blinded to these because of attentive blindness and confirmation bias.
I agree being a Muslim is an individual commitment. However there are verses that promote Muslims as one community [brotherhood] that is separate from the Kuffar. We mentioned about 3:110 somewhere "we [Muslims] are the best of community .." in comparison to the Christians. There are a whole load of verses that promote such a concept where Muslims must co-operate as a brotherhood to defeat the enemy [Kuffar].
It is totally wrong to generalize [a fallacy in logic]. I noted most who critique Islam do not condemn ALL Muslims.
However the fact is those who do evil must be addressed as a group or gang of individuals who are influenced by a malignant part of Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Sira and ethos]. The critical part is the bolded point which must be addressed.
My point was, there are no central authority to oversee all the individuals and groups/gangs/sects.
Therefore it is very ineffective merely to condemn the evil individual but ignore the evil elements in the Quran, Hadiths and ethos that influence them to commit evil.
By the way, these evil people do not purposely set out to commit evils but they act in the belief they are truer Muslims in accordance to the doctrine and practices of Islam.
I do not agree.
ISIS, Boko-Haram and the likes should be taken to task as a type of Muslim [extremist, fundamentalist] who are of the religion of Islam and they adopt the holy text literally in the belief they are truer Muslims than other Muslims. Some call their ideology Islamism as in Communism, Nazism or Fascism.
If humanity want to resolve the terrorism of Islamism, they must address the following critical variables, i.e.
1. Muslim fundamental and their psychology of evil.
2. The evil elements in Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Sira and ethos] that facilitate the fundamentalist to commit terrible evils.
That is why it is necessary to critique Islam to expose the evil elements that catalyze the fundamentalists to commit evils in the name of Islam and their prophet.
As a psychologist you would be able to wear your objective hat and note the above rational hypothesis.
I disagree with your opinion.
What ISIS, Boko Haram and others are doing is based on their compulsion to be true Muslims so they can be 200% sure of going to heaven with eternal life as promised in the Quran.
To do so, they followed exactly what is stated in the Quran [as expounded personally or by the experts] and prophet Muhammad as the perfect example [note the many martial examples in Quran and Hadiths] so they can qualify as true Muslims. This point is always declared by jihadists as doing exactly what the Quran dictate.
The Quran and Hadiths pointed how the hyprocrites [moderate Muslims] and Kuffar should be dealt in the hashest terms. ISIS is doing exactly that.
Since there is no central authority to arbitrate or decide, ISIS, Boko-Haram, and the like MUST comply with what they [in their belief] read from the Quran, Hadiths and the feel of the ethos, otherwise they will not be able to go to heaven but to the fire of hell.
We are fortunate the majority [with very rare exceptions] of non-Muslims are very rational and humane human beings. Besides most of the other religions do not contain elements of evils in their holy texts to give their evil believers any opportunity to fight or retaliate in the name of their religion or founder.
There is no organization called Islam to attack, but there is an ideology which spring from Islam itself [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] which is shared by all Muslims with variations in beliefs and practice.
Thus to counter and critique such an Islamic ideology which inevitably involved the [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] is rational, necessary and acceptable.
I do see Islam via [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] as condoning Islam when adopted by SOME evil prone Muslims.
Those so called Christians, e.g. Lord's Liberation Army are not doing in the name of Christianity as Jesus in an overriding statement commanded Christians to love their enemies. These evil people who happened to adopt Christianity are committing violence and evil based on their own human nature and not because of Christianity.
On the other hand, there are evil element that exists in Islam via [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos] that catalyzed some evil people [SOME Muslims] to commit violence and evils. So we need to address those evil elements in the holy texts.
I am not in combat. Cases like MyLai are definitely not within the Constitution of the US related to War but rather because of the groups' psychological state under certain conditions.
The fact is the evil acts by Islamists originate directly from Islam [Quran, Hadiths, Muhammad, ethos]. These evil elements will facilitate the already evil prone to commit more evil and also catalyze good people to commit evil in order to get more assurance to heaven with eternal life.
It is also a fact these evil Islamists make reference to the verses in the Quran and expositions of the Hadiths. They did not pick those verses from outside Islam in the way they practice it.
Point is other Muslims [no matter how much they shout and scream] do not have grounds to say the Jihadists and fundamentalists interpretations are wrong.
So there is something wrong within Islam [at least in part] which has malignant potential and the actual results of this is very evident.
Btw, if you had been in the army, note how the US Army brainwashed the US soldiers thoroughly to dehumanize the enemies and you [the soldier] would have hated them before you go into the battlefield so that the soldiers can kill enemies without hesitations in the name of duty.
Since you are familiar with the Quran and Hadiths, you will find similar brainwashing of the condemnation of "us versus them" i.e. the "Muslims versus Kuffar" and the Kuffar are condemned and hated in the worst terms and dehumanized.
Unfortunately most Muslims are blinded to these because of attentive blindness and confirmation bias.
Actually I was in the Air Force had 2 Brief careers the first as a Combat pilot which lasted 3 years then after a near fatl crash and after a year in the hospital I was able to return to active duty but was no longer able to pass the physical for flying status so lost my commission, but was able to return to duty at an enlisted grade. I spent the next 4 years as a K-9 handler and that is where I saw some atrocities by my brothers in arms. Yes I am very familiar with the dehumanization process and at the time I did perceive vietnamese as sub-human barbarians that wanted to seduce our chickens, Molest the girl next door and ruin mom's apple pie.
Perhaps because I learned Arabic long before I ever saw a Qur'an my approach to reading it differs from many non-Arab readers. I never learned to read the Qur'an one ayyat at a time. Reading in Arabic you need to treat each ayyat as if it is a single word and it does take reader at least 9 or more ayyats to comprehend any meaning. I never even saw an english translation of the Qur'an until after I accepted Islam. I do speak French and Spanish and recently have begun reading French and Spanish Translations, I find they come much closer to the Arabic meanings than the English Translations.
I have been studying the Ahadith for about 5 year now and am just now beginning to grasp the basic concepts of Isnad etc. quite complex. I can understand why few Muslims actually read the Ahadith. there are no written Sunnah or Sira one needs to glean those from the Ahadith and the opinions of as many Muslim scholars they can find. Generally a Muslim will gain their knowledge of them through studying a madhab. While Ishaq's Sirat Rasool ul-Allah probably contains some sira it is not a very good source.
ManyMuslims do not search to find what is sunnah, they take the easy wayand listento explanations bylocal scholars or simply follow local tradition
Again though sunnah is not as simple as do?don't do. There are 5 levels of resposibility
1. Must be done, there will be a punishment if you fail not to.
2. Desired to be done, but no pjishment or sin if one does not do them
3. neutral, no punishment or rewards for doing or not doin
4. desired not to do, but no punishment for doing for example eating shell fish
5. Forbidden to do, there will be a punishment for doing.
For general purposes these are spelled out in each of the 4 madhabs, but we still have the responsibility to check them our self.
Actually I was in the Air Force had 2 Brief careers the first as a Combat pilot which lasted 3 years then after a near fatal crash and after a year in the hospital I was able to return to active duty but was no longer able to pass the physical for flying status so lost my commission, but was able to return to duty at an enlisted grade. I spent the next 4 years as a K-9 handler and that is where I saw some atrocities by my brothers in arms. Yes I am very familiar with the dehumanization process and at the time I did perceive vietnamese as sub-human barbarians that wanted to seduce our chickens, Molest the girl next door and ruin mom's apple pie.
Sarcasm aside, one should take note of the dehumanization process and its existence in other situations, e.g. religions re this topic of violence in religions.
Quote:
Perhaps because I learned Arabic long before I ever saw a Qur'an my approach to
reading it differs from many non-Arab readers. I never learned to read the
Qur'an one ayyat at a time. Reading in Arabic you need to treat each ayyat as if
it is a single word and it does take reader at least 9 or more ayyats to
comprehend any meaning. I never even saw an english translation of the Qur'an
until after I accepted Islam. I do speak French and Spanish and recently have
begun reading French and Spanish Translations, I find they come much closer to
the Arabic meanings than the English Translations.
It is not because you learned Arabic long before you saw a Quran. It is your natural inclinations [as a good person] and psychological state, i.e. attentive blindness and later confirmation bias that you missed the facts of violence in the Quran.
If you read the Quran of the Sufis and other moderates who only know the Arabic language, you will find they interpret the Quran very differently from others Arab-only experts.
My point is within those who can only read Arabic only, there will be a range of contrasting views. Some like you will ignore or window-dress the evil laden elements and see ONLY the good but others will acknowledge the existence of the violent elements and apply them.
The fact remain, there are evil elements within the verses of the Quran and these are exaggerated and amplified in the Hadiths, Sira and other texts which has a real impact on SOME Muslims who are evil prone.
Proper holy texts should not contain a large number [preferable ZERO] of evil elements [direct and indirectly] where vulnerable believers can act on them.
Generally, because the paragraph in the Quran are broken into individual verses [for easy reference], it is obvious one has to the read all the related verses to understand an idea or the point of the paragraph Nevertheless there are many single verses that can stand by themselves as principles, e.g.
3:42. Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.
Pickthall 2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke the Sabbath, bow We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised and hated! [added by me]
Note many, even you at time quote single verses out of convenience due to space and time constraints not because there is any element of attempt to deceive.
To be effective one should read a verse the Quran within the context;
1. Relate each verse to the other verses that are related to the main idea.
2. Relate each verse in the whole chapter
3. Relate each verse to the whole of the Quran
4. Relate each verse to the history of the Quran, Muhammad and the surrounding circumstances.
5. Relate each verse to the philosophy of religion
6. Relate each verse to the human nature and psychology
7. Relate each verse to the whole existence and history of humanity
8. Relate each verse to the Universe
9. Relate each verse to whatever is relevant.
I take into account [with mindful awareness] all of the above. What about you?
However most Muslims will tend to be very bias, selfish and cater only to their soteriological needs and those of their brethren who share the same.
Quote:
I have been studying the Ahadith for about 5 year now and am just now beginning to grasp the basic concepts of Isnad etc. quite complex. I can understand why few Muslims actually read the Ahadith. there are no written Sunnah or Sira one needs to glean those from the Ahadith and the opinions of as many Muslim scholars they can find. Generally a Muslim will gain their knowledge of them through studying a madhab. While Ishaq's Sirat Rasool ul-Allah probably contains some sira it is not a very good source.
ManyMuslims do not search to find what is sunnah, they take the easy wayand listento explanations bylocal scholars or simply follow local tradition
Again though sunnah is not as simple as do?don't do. There are 5 levels of resposibility
1. Must be done, there will be a punishment if you fail not to.
2. Desired to be done, but no pjishment or sin if one does not do them
3. neutral, no punishment or rewards for doing or not doin
4. desired not to do, but no punishment for doing for example eating shell fish
5. Forbidden to do, there will be a punishment for doing.
For general purposes these are spelled out in each of the 4 madhabs, but we still have the responsibility to check them our self.
The general principle of the Hadiths is the Hadiths are merely expositions of the message of the Quran.
The fact is no matter how careful one made an exposition from an original text and message, there will always be potential corruptions. I am sure you are familiar with the Chinese Whisper or Telephone Game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
Because religious matters are extra ULTRA sensitive, the interpretations and expositions are more vulnerable to alterations and corruptions.
Apparently Bukhari collected 700,000+!! hadiths and filtered them down to appx. 7000. This process itself is a clue whatever hadiths are selected has the potential of corruption. What is so great about Bukhari and other hadiths compilers. Even there are similarities between what they say, it does not imply they had conveyed the truth.
A proper verification should be done hermeneutically within the perspectives 1-8 I mentioned above plus the use of other justification and verification tools and approaches.
Btw, even in the present sophisticated situations there are misinterpretations of messages. If you are familiar with philosophy, note the different understandings of Kant's philosophical views even when we can read his original texts written by him.
There is no intellectual credibility if one insist any message is fact based on personal subjective feelings [soteriological based], judgments, hunch and minimal verification processes.
Sarcasm aside, one should take note of the dehumanization process and its existence in other situations, e.g. religions re this topic of violence in religions.
It is not because you learned Arabic long before you saw a Quran. It is your natural inclinations [as a good person] and psychological state, i.e. attentive blindness and later confirmation bias that you missed the facts of violence in the Quran.
If you read the Quran of the Sufis and other moderates who only know the Arabic language, you will find they interpret the Quran very differently from others Arab-only experts.
My point is within those who can only read Arabic only, there will be a range of contrasting views. Some like you will ignore or window-dress the evil laden elements and see ONLY the good but others will acknowledge the existence of the violent elements and apply them.
The fact remain, there are evil elements within the verses of the Quran and these are exaggerated and amplified in the Hadiths, Sira and other texts which has a real impact on SOME Muslims who are evil prone.
Proper holy texts should not contain a large number [preferable ZERO] of evil elements [direct and indirectly] where vulnerable believers can act on them.
Generally, because the paragraph in the Quran are broken into individual verses [for easy reference], it is obvious one has to the read all the related verses to understand an idea or the point of the paragraph Nevertheless there are many single verses that can stand by themselves as principles, e.g.
3:42. Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.
Pickthall 2:65. And ye know of those of you [the Jews] who broke the Sabbath, bow We said unto them [the Jews]: Be ye apes, despised and hated! [added by me]
Note many, even you at time quote single verses out of convenience due to space and time constraints not because there is any element of attempt to deceive.
To be effective one should read a verse the Quran within the context;
1. Relate each verse to the other verses that are related to the main idea.
2. Relate each verse in the whole chapter
3. Relate each verse to the whole of the Quran
4. Relate each verse to the history of the Quran, Muhammad and the surrounding circumstances.
5. Relate each verse to the philosophy of religion
6. Relate each verse to the human nature and psychology
7. Relate each verse to the whole existence and history of humanity
8. Relate each verse to the Universe
9. Relate each verse to whatever is relevant.
I take into account [with mindful awareness] all of the above. What about you?
However most Muslims will tend to be very bias, selfish and cater only to their soteriological needs and those of their brethren who share the same.
The general principle of the Hadiths is the Hadiths are merely expositions of the message of the Quran.
The fact is no matter how careful one made an exposition from an original text and message, there will always be potential corruptions. I am sure you are familiar with the Chinese Whisper or Telephone Game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
Because religious matters are extra ULTRA sensitive, the interpretations and expositions are more vulnerable to alterations and corruptions.
Apparently Bukhari collected 700,000+!! hadiths and filtered them down to appx. 7000. This process itself is a clue whatever hadiths are selected has the potential of corruption. What is so great about Bukhari and other hadiths compilers. Even there are similarities between what they say, it does not imply they had conveyed the truth.
A proper verification should be done hermeneutically within the perspectives 1-8 I mentioned above plus the use of other justification and verification tools and approaches.
Btw, even in the present sophisticated situations there are misinterpretations of messages. If you are familiar with philosophy, note the different understandings of Kant's philosophical views even when we can read his original texts written by him.
There is no intellectual credibility if one insist any message is fact based on personal subjective feelings [soteriological based], judgments, hunch and minimal verification processes.
During my first year as a Muslim nearly every Muslim I met was Sufi. To a large extent I still follow the Sufi path, to the extent it is in agreement with the Hanafi Madhab. There are sunni that follow Sufi'ism as a madhab, although it is not a reognized one. There are sufi that do consider themselves to be a specific Sect, there are even Sufi that do not consider them self to be Muslim.
Quote:
Non-Islamic Sufi Organizations and Schools in the West
In addition to the various Islamic Sufi orders that now have centers in the West, a number of non-Islamic Sufi organizations have arisen in the West. These groups teach various Sufi doctrines and practices but -- in contrast to nearly all Sufi orders in the Muslim world -- have disconnected their teachings from Islam. Hence followers of these groups are generally not Muslims. Adherents of such schools often assert that Sufism pre-dates Islam and thus in prinicipal is universal and independent of it. The following Sufi groups and teachers have a non-Islamic view of Sufism:
Sufi Order International, formerly the Sufi Order in the West, founded by Hazrat Inayat Khan, who was succeeded by his son Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan (link fixed 22 Sept. 2005), who has recently been succeeded by his son, Pir Zia Inayat Khan. An essay in which he expresses his perspective on Sufism in contrast to the more traditional Islamic orms is The Paradox of "Universal Sufism". See the short biographies of each of the shaykhs of the Sufi Order International (the above links were fixed on August 20, 2002). Visit the Shrine of Hazrat Inayat Khan as well as the shrine ofNizam al-Din Awliya, which is in the same area in New Delhi, India. (Link fixed 5 November 2007). See as well the online collected works of Hazrat Inayat Khan (fixed 5 November 2007).
International Sufi Movement (formerly described at International Sufi Movement (link fixed 20 August, 2005)) is also derived from Inayat Khan and is headed by another of his sons, Hidayat Inayat Khan. Somewhat more detailed is the biography of Hidayat Inayat Khan. (Link fixed, November 23, 2001.)
Sufi Ruhaniat International (originally named "The Sufi Islamia Ruhaniat Society" (SIRS) was established by Murshid Samuel Lewis (1896 - 1971), a disciple of Hazrat Inayat Khan. Murshid Sam, who was particularly active in San Francisco during the height of the "hippie era," created the Dances of Universal Peace, which became popularly known as "Sufi Dancing." (Links fixed Oct. 12, 1999 and Nov. 23, 2001)
Mevlevi Order of America, founded by Jelaluddin Loras, son of the main force behind the spread of the Mevlevi Order in the West, Suleiman Hayati Dede.
Idries Shah was a Sufi teacher and prolific author who passed away in 1996 [the biographical material at the previous link was apparently much of the basis of the Obituary of Idries Shah (apparently offline October 22, 2002) published in the London Telegraph (December 7, 1996). See also the brief but illuminating remarks about Shah by Doris Lessing the well-known writer and student of Shah]. Through his writings, Idries Shah was arguably the single most important influence in popularizing Sufism (in a non-Islamic form) in the West. See the brief discussions of some of his works at ISHK Books (Fixed, October 10, 1999) and Doris Lessing's Review of Shah's book The Commanding Self (The London Times, May 5, 1994) as well Lessing's more comprehensive and hypertext linked The Sufis and Idries Shah People familiar with his work maintain the site Sufi Studies Today.
Omar Ali-Shah is a Sufi teacher and writer similar in orientation to his late brother Idries Shah. (Link fixed, February 6, 2001.)
The Golden Sufi Center was established in various cities in the U.S. and around the world in order to disseminate the teachings of the Naqshbandiya-Mujaddidiyya Sufi Order (in a non-Islamic form) as taught by Irina Tweedie and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee.
Sufi Foundation of America (link fixed November 23, 2001, offline for a while, then online October 12, 2003) is centered in New Mexico (U.S.) and headed by Adnan Sarhan, a Sufi originally from Baghdad, who is a master of drumming and Middle Eastern dance. Healing various addictions is a major aspect of his work.
Sufism Reoriented is a non-Islamic Sufi organization that takes Meher Baba as its focus and regards him as the avatar (God in human form). This article deals with its current spiritual leader (murshida) Carol Weyland Conner, who succeeded Dr. James MacKie as the organization's head. (Written by Nivedita Sharma and online at Boloji.com, but published originally by Women's Feature Service, March 31, 2003.) David Berry, a devotee of Meher Baba, provides a "Baba lover's" view of Sufism in his article What is Sufism?.
Sufi like most Muslims only have a minority of Arab adherents and many do not speak Arabic. A very large number are Pakisatni, Iranian, Afghanistan and Circassian (Chechen) Most of my Sufi friends are Circassian. The reason I left much of the Sufi path is because I disagree with some of their practices such as Veneration of Saints, The use of Musical Instruements (I have always hated Music, going back to my earliest memories) and the automated non-thinking form of dhiker they practice.
there are several non-Muslims that use the Qur'an if not as primary sacred scripture as an additionalSacred Sacred scripture and to some degree follow ahadith, sunnah and Sira and consider Muhammad to be one of their Prophets,
Baha'i
Non-Muslim Sufi
Sikh
Nation of Islam
Yazidi
Druze
there may be more.
collecting ahadith first became popular early in the Revelation era of Muhammad. One of the most proficient writers of Ahadith was Aisha. Ahadith are eyewitness report of what people heard Muhammad(saws) say or saw him do. The early Muslims swappeed ahadith back and forth with each other While Bukhari was not the first to make a compilation of Ahadith he was the first to trace them back to their original withesses and arraingethem in subject order. In his life time he did collect at least 700.000 but of those was only able to trace 7,000 back to the named witness,
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
.......
there are several non-Muslims that use the Qur'an if not as primary sacred scripture as an additionalSacred Sacred scripture and to some degree follow ahadith, sunnah and Sira and consider Muhammad to be one of their Prophets,
Baha'i
Non-Muslim Sufi
Sikh
Nation of Islam
Yazidi
Druze
there may be more.
.......
I can't speak for the all, but believe you're correct on all but Sikhism.
They definitely do NOT see the Koran as a holy book to be followed. They expressly forbid practises such as halal, which they see as cruelty.
They do say however, that all religions can lead to God, including Islam. Some of the Guru Granth Sahib passages resemble some in the Quran, but that is no great surprise as some in the Quran resemble those in the Bible and some of the Bible resemble those in under more ancient books, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
On a side note, I find Sikhism to be probably the most inclusive of the major world religions other than perhaps Buddhism. Women have had standing as leaders in their religion right from the beginning. They don't view apostasy as a crime. If I were inclined to view that there was an omnipotent, omniscient sentient entity, I would certainly explore Sikhism as a path to follow.
I can't speak for the all, but believe you're correct on all but Sikhism.
They definitely do NOT see the Koran as a holy book to be followed. They expressly forbid practises such as halal, which they see as cruelty.
They do say however, that all religions can lead to God, including Islam. Some of the Guru Granth Sahib passages resemble some in the Quran, but that is no great surprise as some in the Quran resemble those in the Bible and some of the Bible resemble those in under more ancient books, such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
On a side note, I find Sikhism to be probably the most inclusive of the major world religions other than perhaps Buddhism. Women have had standing as leaders in their religion right from the beginning. They don't view apostasy as a crime. If I were inclined to view that there was an omnipotent, omniscient sentient entity, I would certainly explore Sikhism as a path to follow.
With the exception of meat the Sikh do follow halal.
There is a somewhat strange coalition between Sikhism and Islam.
Quote:
Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, was born in the 15th Century in the North of India that had already been politically integrated to the organized world of Islam for almost 500 years. Arabic was already the official and cultural language at Lahore, a place only a few miles from the birth-place of the Sikh Prophet. Islam and its culture, was not only the dominant strain of the world civilization and culture of those days, but had also percolated into the common idioms and modes of thought of the North-Western Punjab. It was in this milieu that the oecumenical religion of Sikhism took birth. Guru Nanak not only was in intimate contact with the Moslem learned men and centers of religion of Islam of those days, but he also made a close study of the basic Islamic literature. His knowledge of the fundamental Hindu sacred texts now being revealed through a critical study of the Sikh Scripture, is not only pleasantly surprising but it also impresses. Needless to say that Guru Nanak was thoroughly conversant with the texts and the teachings of the Koran. Since Guru Nanak was a Prophet in his own right and according to his own claim, he neither gives direct quotation nor makes precise references to Hindu and Muslim texts, as a mere scholar would be expected to make, and it is, therefore, only a trained scholar of Comparative Religion who can spot out and pin-point the exact sacred texts which Guru Nanak had in mind when delivering a particular Revelation.
When such a critical study of the Revelations of Guru Nanak is made, there is left no doubt in the mind of a balanced scholar that even when apparently affirming or repudiating a particular doctrine or text, the Guru almost always amplifies his own statement by added nuances of critical exposition. An appraisal of this character alone can make it clear that Guru Nanak had a definite and positive attitude towards the Koran.
The Koran has three distinct elements in its texts:
a. Dissertations on the nature of God and man's relation to Him
b. Pronouncements on Social organization and ethics
c. Statements on Judaic mythology
Guru Nanak ignores the last as irrelevant to the message that he has to preach to the mankind. He also considers this as uninteresting, for, he makes very sparse, if at all, even passing references to it. With regard to the second element in the Koran, namely, the laws and principles of social organisation and social ethics, Guru Nanak would seem to reject most of them as contingent and non-perennial. It is the first element in the Koran which the Guru takes seriously and on which he has made a large number of pronouncements.
I forgot to mention there are some Christians that accept Muhammad(swt) as being a true Prophet.
Quote:
By recognizing Muhammad's prophethood, the following conclusion can be arrived at naturally: Christians concede that Muhammad is not a false prophet as has been claimed by the majority of non-Muslims from the advent of Islam to our modern age. Rather, they admit that he was a genuine prophet who brought God's message to humanity.
Although there are shortcomings in contemporary Christian evaluations of Prophet Muhammad's status, we may easily conclude that whatever Watt, Cragg, Küng, and Kerr mean by the title 'prophet', their acknowledgement of Muhammad as a prophet contributes to the development of contemporary Christian-Muslim dialogue.
As the vast majority of people, Muslim and non-Muslin, that follow the Qur'an and the Teachings of Muhammad(swt) are very peaceful, there is no justification for the claim Islam promotes violence.
During my first year as a Muslim nearly every Muslim I met was Sufi. To a large extent I still follow the Sufi path, to the extent it is in agreement with the Hanafi Madhab. There are sunni that follow Sufi'ism as a madhab, although it is not a reognized one. There are sufi that do consider themselves to be a specific Sect, there are even Sufi that do not consider them self to be Muslim.
Sufi like most Muslims only have a minority of Arab adherents and many do not speak Arabic. A very large number are Pakisatni, Iranian, Afghanistan and Circassian (Chechen) Most of my Sufi friends are Circassian. The reason I left much of the Sufi path is because I disagree with some of their practices such as Veneration of Saints, The use of Musical Instruements (I have always hated Music, going back to my earliest memories) and the automated non-thinking form of dhiker they practice.
there are several non-Muslims that use the Qur'an if not as primary sacred scripture as an additionalSacred Sacred scripture and to some degree follow ahadith, sunnah and Sira and consider Muhammad to be one of their Prophets,
Baha'i
Non-Muslim Sufi
Sikh
Nation of Islam
Yazidi
Druze
there may be more.
collecting ahadith first became popular early in the Revelation era of Muhammad. One of the most proficient writers of Ahadith was Aisha. Ahadith are eyewitness report of what people heard Muhammad(saws) say or saw him do. The early Muslims swappeed ahadith back and forth with each other While Bukhari was not the first to make a compilation of Ahadith he was the first to trace them back to their original withesses and arraingethem in subject order. In his life time he did collect at least 700.000 but of those was only able to trace 7,000 back to the named witness,
From the perspective of the Philosophy, neuroscience, neuropsychology of religion and spirituality, I believe the Sufi practices are of a higher order of spirituality that is much higher than the typical Sunni and those of other Madhabs.
I believe when we scan the brain activities [using fMRI, etc.] during practices of spirituality, my hypothesis is the Sufi will trigger the higher faculties of the human brain while the typical Sunni and the likes will be active in the lower limbic and primal parts of the brain. My hypothesis is based on the knowledge and practices they are involved in.
I don't see veneration of Saints as an issue at all. It is just like all Scientists in the field of Physics having great respect and adoration for Einstein and many greats because they brought forth great knowledge that is beneficial to mankind. These Sufi saints are respected because they has brought forward advance spiritual knowledge that are positive to the Sufis. The caution is to ensure followers should not be too zealous and avoid those saints [there will be such] who condone violence and evils.
If music be the food of love, play on.......
Rhythm [heart beat] is evident in everything and so basic to humanity, so it is very unfortunate you went off key on it. One will be very handicapped in spirituality if one have an aversion for music.
The dervish form dhikr is one form of moving meditation [like tai chi]. It may be an optimal method to many if there are no alternatives. Such meditation is not about getting in touch with a God but rather it assist in unstrapping the inherent, necessary and unavoidable beastly [animality in the lower brain] module straightjacket in the brain to facilitate the unfolding of the higher spiritual neurons in us.
Such practices in various forms are common within all the major Eastern religions.
The average Sunni methods & practices focused primarily on the mid-limbic and lower primal brain in terms of spirituality. This is evident from the composition Quran. This is the reason why the average Sunni [not you] has very low self-esteem and are ultra sensitive to the slightest threats [often a misperception] and response like cornered wounded animals.
The Sufis while leveraging on the Quran, ignore move away from the violent and evil elements and focus on core spirituality.
There are positives from the Hadith, however, from what I read about the Hadiths that are related to Aisha, the net result is negative in a sense that they end up insulting Islam and the prophet. Example note this
The Hadiths are merely guides ant they carry a confidence level of credibility at most 20% to the truths of the Quran.
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.
hadiths and filtered them down to appx. 7000. This process itself is a clue whatever hadiths are selected has the potential of corruption. What is so great about Bukhari and other hadiths compilers. Even there are similarities between what they say, it does not imply they had conveyed the truth.