How many Islams are there?
DKleinecke
it still one Islam if is is a Mosaic?
The persistent question as to "What do Muslims believe?" appears to be
unanswerable. It would perhaps be better if we could answer it
because, in default of an answer, a lot of hostile people have taken
to lecturing the rest of (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) as to what
Muslims believe. Not that there is any shortage of Muslims who will
deliver lengthy arguments on the same subject.
The difficulty is that, so far as I can tell, no two of these
lecturers agree completely. The Islamophobes can be dismissed at once
because it appears that one and all they are too ignorant to be taken
seriously by sober people. There will, unfortunately, always be
rabble for them to rouse. But, so far, that is a minority problem and
Muslims are in relatively minor danger from them.
The practical problem for Muslims face in non-Muslim countries is to
convince the people among whom they live that they are reasonable
people. Here in the United States there seems to be no activity at
all along those lines. If there is any it never reaches me. Whenever
Islam in the United States makes the news (and ignoring crime
reporting) it is some Muslim demonstrating that at least that one
Muslim is not a reasonable person. Like a Muslim woman suing because
a judge, applying the rule that hats were not allowed in court, ruled
that she must take off her head scarf. A trivial example perhaps -
but that is all I ever see in our media.
Perhaps Muslims in the United States should stop sending their charity
money to dubious overseas organizations and spend some of polishing up
their own image.
But they have to approach this is a relatively secular way. Trying to
explain what Muslims believe looks like a lost cause (because they
agree on so little). But rather Muslims should broadcast the message
that Muslims are good ordinary folk just like everybody else
regardless of the details about what they do and do not believe.
Fariduddien
> It was recently a commonplace on SRI that Islam was a mosaic. =A0But is
> it still one Islam if is is a Mosaic?
>
> The persistent question as to "What do Muslims believe?" appears to be
> because, in default of an answer, a lot of hostile people have taken
> to lecturing the rest of (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) as to what
> deliver lengthy arguments on the same subject.
If you take anyone in the world who calls himself or herself a
"Muslim" and ask what they believe, then you will surely get a whole
heap of different answers... There are a wide variety of groups that
call themselves "Muslims" - some of these groups are very tiny in
number.
However, if you stick to the "majority" groups, and exclude the groups
that the "majority" consider to be heterodox, then the variety
shrinks, and you'll find a lot more unity.
So, if you look at it the second way, you can answer the question, and
relatively easily.
The major groups (traditionally) are the Sunni Muslims (Hanafi,
Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and the Twelver Shi`ah Muslims.
Fariduddien
(Speaking for myself)
DKleinecke
> On Oct 11, 7:11=3DA0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was recently a commonplace on SRI that Islam was a mosaic. =3DA0But =
is
> > it still one Islam if is is a Mosaic?
>
> > The persistent question as to "What do Muslims believe?" appears to be
> > unanswerable.
> The major groups (traditionally) are the Sunni Muslims (Hanafi,
> Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and the Twelver Shi`ah Muslims.
>
> Fariduddien
> (Speaking for myself)
OK. That is a reasonable position and I think you know why I cannot
accept it. There are two reasons:
(1) That judgement is based on a head count and I think everyone
agrees that a lot of "yes" votes do not make anything more true than a
lot of "no" votes make it untrue.
(2) Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'a have a uniform collection of
ideas. My original comments apply just as strongly to the Sunnis by
themselves or the Shi'a by themselves. No one can tell us what Sunnis
believe or what Shi'ites believe because there are too many
variations. And of course there are all those other groups that
didn't make the big subdivision.
I don't want to be confrontational, but I feel that if one believes it
is possible to say what Muslims (or Sunnis or Shi'ies or Ibadis or
whoever) believe, one is under some obligation to indicate where and /
or how "what Muslims believe" can be ascertained.
I hasten to add that one powerful reason for doubting that what
Muslims believe can be determined is the fact that what Christians
believe cannot be determined except in a very vague way (and, for that
matter, even Judaism is too diverse for definition).
Lee
"DKleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f399095a-58ee-44ea...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> It was recently a commonplace on SRI that Islam was a mosaic. But is
> it still one Islam if is is a Mosaic?
>
> The persistent question as to "What do Muslims believe?" appears to be
> unanswerable. It would perhaps be better if we could answer it
> because, in default of an answer, a lot of hostile people have taken
> to lecturing the rest of (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) as to what
> Muslims believe. Not that there is any shortage of Muslims who will
> deliver lengthy arguments on the same subject.
>
> The difficulty is that, so far as I can tell, no two of these
> lecturers agree completely. The Islamophobes can be dismissed at once
> because it appears that one and all they are too ignorant to be taken
> seriously by sober people.
What exactly is an 'Islamophobe' were Daniel Pearl and many other
deceased people Islamophobes in their last hours, is the British citizen
who moves away from the town in which his/her parents grew up an
Islampophobe for shifting away to somewhere that the language and
architecture look a little less alien and strange.
Or has this now ubiquitous word joined others such as 'racist', 'nazi'
to be used by left wing liberal fascist, muslims and others of a similar
ilk to stereotype, marginalize and dismiss any criticism of Islam out of
hand without any need for further discussion as a recent UN charter
would suggest?
DKleinecke
myth"@127.0.0.1.com> wrote:
> What exactly is an 'Islamophobe' were Daniel Pearl and many other
> deceased people Islamophobes in their last hours, is the British citizen
> who moves away from the town in which his/her parents grew up an
> Islampophobe for shifting away to somewhere that the language and
> architecture look a little less alien and strange.
As a citizen of the United States I cannot answer your basic question
about things in the UK. I don't know who Daniel Pearl was.
However I am familiar with a phenomenon called "white flight". It is,
I
think, a dead issue in the US these days, but it was a very real issue
not too long ago. You describe a "British citizen" moving away in
terms
I recognize. You are describing "white" people moving away because the
neighborhood is becoming full of n******. There was no question that
these were people who were prejudiced against Afro-Americans and
there is no question in my mind that you are describing people who
are prejudiced against Muslims (assuming that is who you are talking
about).
I am not fond of the word "Islamophobe". It should mean people who
are AFRAID of Islam - there are many such people. But it has taken on
the meaning of "people who are prejudiced against Islam". That was
meaning in which I used it.
> Or has this now ubiquitous word joined others such as 'racist', 'nazi'
> to be used by left wing liberal fascist, muslims and others of a similar
> ilk to stereotype, marginalize and dismiss any criticism of Islam out of
> hand without any need for further discussion as a recent UN charter
> would suggest?
In this paragraph you present yourself as a right-wing bigot. I hope
that
is a false impression. The word "racist" has a precise enough meaning.
Here is the US we know exactly what it means. I agree that it is used
incorrectly by people who are are probably misled by their own ideas
of
what "race" means. Translation problem suggest themselves.
In this country "racist" and "nazi" are used by the right to smear the
left. I
gather things are different in the UK.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention a UN
charter..
On the whole, as an uninvolved impartial judge, I would say, "Yes,
your
second paragraph is a very apt illustration of Islamophobia."
Spanky
"what Muslims believe". Does this mean "What do all Muslims believe?"
Or does it mean "What do Muslims believe as a rule"? Or does it mean
"What is believed by some Muslim or the other"?
I naturally understand it as meaning "what Muslims believe as a rule",
and I am sure this is how most people would understand it. But perhaps
the original poster can clarify what exactly is meant, as he or she
uses the phrase.
On Oct 14, 10:11=A0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (1) That judgement is based on a head count and I think everyone
> agrees that a lot of "yes" votes do not make anything more true than a
> lot of "no" votes make it untrue.
We are not asking whether the beliefs of Muslims are true, in which
case the above comment might be relevant. Rather, we are asking what
Muslims actually believe. And this is naturally answered by referring
to the beliefs of the vast majority, who are now, as they have been in
the past, the Sunnis, the Ahl as Sunnah wa al Jamaat. For when we are
dealing with a diverse group, it is normal to speak of dominant and
general trends within it. In most contexts, this is a perfectly
acceptable answer, as a first approximation. If the context calls for
more detail, one can start talking about the Ibadis and the Ismailis
and so on.
> (2) Neither the Sunnis nor the Shi'a have a uniform collection of
> ideas. My original comments apply just as strongly to the Sunnis by
> themselves or the Shi'a by themselves. No one can tell us what Sunnis
> believe or what Shi'ites believe because there are too many
> variations. =A0
This is very exaggerated. Remember that the differences among the
different Sunni groups are very small as compared with the massive and
overwhelming similarities between them, and the differences are mostly
on points of detail. I am afraid you are making a mountain out of a
molehill, as far as Sunni beliefs are concerned. The core Sunni
beliefs are captured by the Aqida of Imam Tahawi and similar tracts.
> I don't want to be confrontational, but I feel that if one believes it
> is possible to say what Muslims (or Sunnis or Shi'ies or Ibadis or
> whoever) believe, one is under some obligation to indicate where and /
> or how "what Muslims believe" can be ascertained.
It is very easy to determine what Muslims believe: they believe that
there is only one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. And
they believe that everything promulgated by the Messenger of God as
part of his religion is the truth. Hence they believe that everything
asserted by the Quran is true.
Can we at least agree that Muslims believe what I have stated above?
If so, then we have made progress, and we can determine what else they
believe on the basis of this.
DKleinecke
> It is very easy to determine what Muslims believe: they believe that
> there is only one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. And
> they believe that everything promulgated by the Messenger of God as
> part of his religion is the truth. Hence they believe that everything
> asserted by the Quran is true.
>
> Can we at least agree that Muslims believe what I have stated above?
> If so, then we have made progress, and we can determine what else they
> believe on the basis of this.
We can agree, I think, that Muslims believe that "There is no God
except Allah and that Muhammad was his prophet". I think it may matter
whether one says Muhammad was a prophet or a messenger and that the
general usage these days is "prophet". There might be an objection to
my use of "was" with Muhammad when "is" is more common. There is no
copula in the Arabic original and I think "was" is a better
translation of that empty hole than "is".
However this does not define Islam very well because it is a pair of
statements that a Christian could accept - although clarifying what is
meant by "prophet" might not be too easy.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the unchangeable (and - apart from
one kind of heretic - uncreated) Word of God. I think your formulation
smells like you think Muhammad was the author. But we have to stop
there. There are Muslims - few in number, but rather loud - who accept
only the Qur'an as authoritative.
The larger number of Muslims believe that the admonition in the Qur'an
to obey the Messenger means that everything that can be reliably
reported as a saying or action of Muhammad (that is, any authentic
hadith) is authoritative. The Shi'ites believe the pronouncements of
their Imams to be authoritative etc.
If you observe the practice of Muslims, as opposed to theory, you will
see that religious ideas are more often justified by hadiths than the
Qur'an and there is very little agreement on which hadiths should be
followed and which ignored.
The matter is further complicated by the Shari'ah - the Islamic Law -
which asserts some things in direct contradiction to the Qur'an - like
stoning adulterers. I think most Muslims do not concern themselves
with niceties like a contradiction between Shari'ah and the Qur'an,
but if we are trying to describe what all (or even most) Muslims
believe we are forced to.
I could, of course, go on like this to great length but I will simply
state the core I believe we can accept as what Muslims believe while
adding that almost every individual Muslims believes a great deal more
than the core: There is no god except Allah, Muhammad was his prophet
and the Qur'an is the Word of Allah. One of the additional things
individual Muslims believe in individual fashion is how to apply the
Qur'an to everyday life.
Spanky
> I could, of course, go on like this to great length but I will simply
> state the core I believe we can accept as what Muslims believe while
> adding that almost every individual Muslims believes a great deal more
> than the core: There is no god except Allah, Muhammad was his prophet
> and the Qur'an is the Word of Allah.
OK, good. So we have an answer to the question "What do Muslims
believe?"
This is a core answer in that it defines what it means to be a Muslim.
One could not be a Muslim and reject these beliefs, any more than one
could be a bachelor and still be married: the very meaning of
"bachelor" requires that anyone so designated be unmarried, and in the
same way the very meaning of "Muslim" requires that anyone so
designated have the beliefs you so clearly delineated above.
There are many more beliefs than these that Muslims have, and they
will vary from sect to sect and from person to person: but these ones
are essential to being a Muslim.
Once we recognize that these are core beliefs that Muslims have, we
can deduce other beliefs that they have. For example, the prophet most
often mentioned in the Qur'an is Musa. Hence Muslims believe that Musa
was a prophet of Allah, since they take the Qur'an to be the word of
Allah. Continuing in this way we can flesh out our picture of what
Muslims believe considerably beyond the core that you identified.
Hajj abujamal
DKleinecke wrote:
> It is possible that there were, are, or will be, Muslims who deny
> that the Qur'an is the Word of God. Remember there are Christians
> who deny that the Bible is the Word of God.
Since "muslim" is defined in explicit terms by the Qur'an, and not
by the wranglings of "theologians," you will not find a muslim who
denies that the Qur'an is the Word of God, or that Jesus was also
God's Word, since the Qur'an states that in no uncertain terms. You
may find people who claim to be muslim who deny that, just as you can
find sodomites who claim to be muslim, and other deluded people; but
you will not find a muslim who denies either the Qur'an or the Torah,
the Psalms, and the Injeel.
It can be helpful to read the Qur'an to see what it actually says
before pontificating that there might be "muslims" who deny it.
Because the Qur'an is so clear and unambiguous about such things, what
you propose is a logical impossibility.
Christians who deny that the Bible is the Word of God have an
abundance of internal evidence for that proposition, since Jeremiah
(Chapter 8, verse 8) explicitly states that "the lying pens of the
scribes have changed it to The Lie," among other passages; and
respected rabbinical scholars have shown inconsistencies in the
received text that cannot have come from a consistent God.
The Qur'an and Islam are a world apart from Judaism and
Christianity as we see them in the world today. Accordingly, the
respective texts reflect this, certainly to an unhindered intellect.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
DKleinecke
Sorry the last paragraph cannot be allowed to pass.
How one reads the Qur'an and what use one makes of what one reads are
not agreed upon matters. Think about the situation with Christianity -
how Christians read the Bible and what use they make of what they read
are things that vary all over the map.
Islam theologians are no less creative than Christian theologians.
Multiple answers have bee proposed for many questions.
For example consider the question of whether or not a hadith can
abrogate a statement in the Qur'an. Some Muslims have felt this is
possible and, to prove that it is a non-trivial dispute, it has been
offered to justify stoning adulterers.
I think we are compelled to stop after the core statement. In fact,
the core may not hold. It is possible that there were, are, or will
be, Muslims who deny that the Qur'an is the Word of God. Remember
there are Christians who deny that the Bible is the Word of God.
It is imperative that we all learn to live with ambiguity.
Hamid S Aziz
"DKleinecke" <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote
> It was recently a commonplace on SRI that Islam was a mosaic. But is
it still one Islam if is is a Mosaic?
> The persistent question as to "What do Muslims believe?" appears to be
unanswerable
Comment:-
Islam is Surrender to Allah
and as the main attributes of Allah are Truth, Compassion and Justice
islam ought to mean surrender to Truth, compassion and justice.
It behoves allMuslims to discover what the Truth etc are.
The fact is that all human beings have only partial knowledge
and each have different parts of total knowledge,
and the acquisition of knowledge takes time.
It is inevitable, therefore, that people will have different amounts and
kinds of knowledge depending on their environments and efforts.
The only time complete agreement can be obtained if all have ALL knowledge
i.e the Knowledge that Allah has
and that is also part of Surrender to Allah.
In the meantime agreement should be obtained about the basics or
fundamentals
that Allah is Absolute, One and Unique and has sent Messengers to all people
and has the attributes the Quran tells us
and that there is no compulsion in religion because it is not possible to
induce faith by force
that the purpose of Islam is huma spiritual development
which is increasing auonmy or self-regulation and adjustment to Reality
And to avoid all Idolatry
Problems appear when relative triviliaties are elevated
in importance even to neglect of the essentials.
That is true Idolatry which is to be avoided..
Hamid S. aziz
Zev
=D7=91=D7=94=D7=95=D7=93=D7=A2=D7=94:4AF792C6...@muslimamerica.net...
> Salaam!
> DKleinecke wrote:
> Christians who deny that the Bible is the Word of God have an
> abundance of internal evidence for that proposition, since Jeremiah
> (Chapter 8, verse 8) explicitly states that "the lying pens of the
> scribes have changed it to The Lie," among other passages; and
> respected rabbinical scholars have shown inconsistencies in the
> received text that cannot have come from a consistent God.
Ezekiel 13 talks about "prophets" who were promising the people
that God would not allow the holy city to be captured by the
Babylonians.
Jeremiah complained about the same people.
More than once, Jeremiah was almost killed for
"harming the morale of the people in time of crisis".
Jeremiah 8:8 refers to the scribes who were cooperating with them.
Jeremiah 14:14 mentions them again,
too explicitly for there to be any confusion over the matter.
Why do Muslims say that prophets were sent to rectify
the corruptions to the Torah by the Israelites
but no one can come up with
a single example of a prophet who said:
"this or that, claimed to be the words of prophet so and so,
is not true, don't believe it"?
Even Jesus is not claimed to have said such a thing
although it would have helped his cause by
encouraging distrust in the Pharisees.
A 'lying scribe' would put this in, not take it out.
There are many known difficulties in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles,
but they involve details like the number
of soldiers who took part in a battle,
the number of horses in King Solomon's stables etc...
The inconsistencies seem to be concentrated
in the above mentioned books.
You can reach your own conclusions about this.
> The Qur'an and Islam are a world apart from Judaism and
> Christianity as we see them in the world today. Accordingly, the
> respective texts reflect this, certainly to an unhindered intellect.
Thank God, this is true.
Surfer
<mus...@muslimamerica.net> wrote:
>
> Christians who deny that the Bible is the Word of God have an
>abundance of internal evidence for that proposition, since Jeremiah
>(Chapter 8, verse 8) explicitly states that "the lying pens of the
>scribes have changed it to The Lie," among other passages; and
>respected rabbinical scholars have shown inconsistencies in the
>received text that cannot have come from a consistent God.
>
> The Qur'an and Islam are a world apart from Judaism and
>Christianity as we see them in the world today. Accordingly, the
>respective texts reflect this, certainly to an unhindered intellect.
>
Yet the Qur'an says,
".....Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills....."
[Ibrahim 14:4]
So how can we be sure he didn't sometimes mislead the prophets of God,
including Muhammad?
But in any case I don't believe that any scripture should be
considered infalliable.
Regards,
Surfer
DKleinecke
> DKleinecke wrote:
> > It is possible that there were, are, or will be, Muslims who deny
> > that the Qur'an is the Word of God. Remember there are Christians
> > who deny that the Bible is the Word of God.
>
t
> by the wranglings of "theologians," you will not find a muslim who
> denies that the Qur'an is the Word of God, or that Jesus was also
> may find people who claim to be muslim who deny that, just as you can
> find sodomites who claim to be muslim, and other deluded people; but
> you will not find a muslim who denies either the Qur'an or the Torah,
> the Psalms, and the Injeel.
This might be true if you were in charge of saying who is a Muslim and
who isn't.
But you aren't.
Allah, of course, knows. But human beings don't and can't.
The best we can do is take people's word for it. If they say they are
Muslims we must, if we wish to act ethically, accept them as Muslims.
For example, the government of Pakistan can pass any edicts it likes
but the rest of should accept the Ahmadiyya as Muslims. I would say
exactly the same thing about the Bahai but I think the Bahai have
decided that they are no longer Muslims. Likewise I do not what the
Druse and Alawites want to be called. I know the Shi'ites want to be
called Muslims. Here in the US we have, or used to have, a religion
that called themselves "Black Muslims" with some very odd beliefs.
So, the most ethical human solution is that the Muslims are everybody
who calls themselves Muslims.
Including, of course, all the homosexuals (which is what I assume you
mean by sodomite) who want to be called Muslims. And all the other
deluded people. You cannot expel thme. Nobody gave you that power.
So far as I know no Muslim has ever denied that the Qur'an is the word
of God. Some of them has gotten as far as saying that it is Gabriel's
translation into Arabic of the uncreated word.
But any day now a Muslim might deny that the Qur'an is the word of
Allah. Nothing would happen. It would be just another opinion (of
which we are already oversupplied).
Hajj abujamal
DKleinecke wrote:
> Hajj abujamal wrote:
>> Since "muslim" is defined in explicit terms by the Qur'an, and not
>> by the wranglings of "theologians," you will not find a muslim who
>> denies that the Qur'an is the Word of God, or that Jesus was also
>> God's Word, since the Qur'an states that in no uncertain terms.
And a "muslim," as defined by the Qur'an, testifies that the
Qur'an is the Word of God.
>> ... you will not find a muslim who denies either the
> Qur'an or the Torah, the Psalms, and the Injeel.
> This might be true if you were in charge
> of saying who is a Muslim and who isn't.
God Alone says who is a muslim and who isn't. Not me, not anybody.
In fact, I can only claim that my Islam is "established" by what I
have faith are my fulfillment of the five things that establish Islam:
Witness, Salat, Zakat, Fasting, and Hajj. Although this places a
religious burden on all muslims to at least initially recognize me as
a muslim, all I can say is "I am a muslim insha'ALLAH." God Alone is
"in charge of saying" whether my conduct meets His criteria that
define what is "a muslim."
> Allah, of course, knows. But human beings don't and can't.
That's correct: He informs us by describing "muslim" in the
Qur'an, which is the sole definition, and then instructs us by saying
"Say to no one who offers you salaam 'You are not of the faithful.'"
We are required to accept at face value someone's testimony, the
shahada, as prima facie evidence that they are muslim, and treat them
as such; however, this is not conclusive proof that they are muslim,
and contrary evidence is not overcome by an individual's shahada.
> The best we can do is take people's word for it. If they say they
> are Muslims we must, if we wish to act ethically, accept them as
> Muslims.
It is not sufficient merely to SAY that one is a muslim, but
testifying that there is no god but ALLAH and that Muhammad is His
Messenger is sufficient while subject to disproof by conduct or by
denial of what ALLAH says is true.
> For example, the government of Pakistan can pass any edicts it likes
> but the rest of should accept the Ahmadiyya as Muslims. I would say
> exactly the same thing about the Bahai but I think the Bahai have
> decided that they are no longer Muslims. Likewise I do not what the
> Druse and Alawites want to be called. I know the Shi'ites want to be
> called Muslims. Here in the US we have, or used to have, a religion
> that called themselves "Black Muslims" with some very odd beliefs.
What muslims must accept is evidence regarding any people of those
groups that proves they are NOT muslim.
> So, the most ethical human solution is that the Muslims are
> everybody who calls themselves Muslims.
The most ethical human solution is to assiduously pursue what
ALLAH defines as "right conduct" regarding all people.
> Including, of course, all the homosexuals (which is what I assume
> you mean by sodomite) who want to be called Muslims. And all the
> other deluded people. You cannot expel thme. Nobody gave you that
> power.
"Expel them" from what? Sodomites and renegades can run around
calling themselves muslim all day long, and that does not require me
or obligate me in any way to admit them to my company, my community,
or in any manner my confidence.
> So far as I know no Muslim has ever denied that the Qur'an is the
> word of God. Some of them has gotten as far as saying that it is
> Gabriel's translation into Arabic of the uncreated word.
The Qur'an itself defines a muslim as one who accepts that the
Qur'an is an Arabic recitation of God's Word, which the Qur'an says is
plain Arabic. One who attributes it to Jibreel, rather than ALLAH, is
defined in the Qur'an as NOT muslim.
> But any day now a Muslim might deny that the Qur'an is the word of
> Allah. Nothing would happen. It would be just another opinion (of
> which we are already oversupplied).
Were this to occur within a muslim jama'ah, there would be a
janaza prayer recited for that person who had provided conclusive
evidence that he is not a muslim.
We do not dream up values and criteria for making judgments, we
follow what ALLAH has already given us as judgment. That's the
difference. You may determine your own course in these things: it
does not mean that your judgment is sound or reliable, only that we
are in no way obligated by it or inclined to rely on it.