Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

Why Muslims are not free to interpret Koran?

Recommended Posts

so here is the minimum:

Muslims and Islamic are not the same thing

Muslims are not homogenous group

They come from many different cultures

Religion is trumped by culture every day of the week

TWICE ON SABATH

"Educate" does not mean learned, in your case it hardly means literate.

 

Even though i agree with you (ME?) that we should move the itellectual stagnation, I am afraid of people like you who like to thin they are intellectuals. (ME?)

surely you jest ? --- Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest moron#99

Aldoctor -

 

The original post was not meant to endorse or address any specific form of governance from democracy to theocracy to monarchy. It is an examination of the interaction between human nature and government. The main thrust of the post was that the structure of government must accept human nature as flawed. Rather than strive to find the perfect human to lead us, we should build systems that protect us from the inevetibality of tyrants coming into power.

 

**************

 

One solution is to never allow a murderous thug to sit upon the throne. But how is this accomplished? It requires seeing into the heart of a man. This is something that no earthly entity can reliably accomplish. Even the requirement of piety is not sufficient for two reasons. The obvious reason is that many clever thugs will pretend to be pious in order to gain the throne. The other reason is that power creates within all men the desire to keep power. At the moment when power feeds the desire to retain power, regardless of intention, the heart of man is no longer pure. So even the man who is pious when ascending to power will quickly find himself compromising his piety. It is human nature.

 

When a man draws his authority to rule from God, then the authority of God has been delivered to earth and granted to a human. The authority of God is eternal and above that of man. It remains unspoken that a man whose power is derived from God is therefore unremoveable. But the problem is that he is still just a mortal man. A system such as the Catholic Church or that of Iran is unavoidably destined to foster a tyrant. It will not foster a tyrant because of the unrightouness of God or even for lack of piety in men. It will foster a tyranny because mankind and human nature are inherently imperfect. Historic examples of such fialures may be found in the Catholic Church and Iran.

 

*******************

 

So, I believe, the essential argument for separation of church and state is not to be found within religion. It is to be found within the heart of man and the ease with which he can be corrupted. The seperation of church from state protects the people by not by not granting divine powers to man that would place him above the rules of governance and it protects religion from absorbing the corruption political power.

 

This is an addendum to the original inspired by the postings of Alaa. It is little more than a re-interpretation of the original posting within the context of a single issue. The intent is to highlight that the when church and state are combined it is not only the state which finds itself at risk of corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moron99

one other thing aldoctor. Somewhere in the amazon rainforest there is a man who thinks that it is better to prevent than fix. He is not stealing the idea from us. It is a testament to the commonality and equality of all men that certain ideas are born amoung all. He will also struggle to understand God. Allah will present himself to this man in such a way that the rainforest man can understand. It may or may not be the same understanding that Alaah gave to us, but it is still Allah. Our words in any language are inadequate to describe the fullness of his existence. He must therefore assume the form and words that can be understand by the group of children before him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Tex:

 

I like your contribution. I would like to point out however, that you meant to say Muslim countries and no Islamic countries. All muslim coutnries are non Islamic, I hope you see my point. If not please visit the series of articles I will start posting.

aldoctor

 

I used a common term (adjective) "Islamic" defined by Merriam Websters Dictionary as folows:

 

Main Entry: Is·lam

Pronunciation: is-'läm, iz-, -'lam, 'is-", 'iz-"

Function: noun

Etymology: Arabic islAm submission (to the will of God)

1 : the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet

2 a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion- Is·lam·ic /is-'lä-mik, iz-, -'la-/ adjective

- Is·lam·ics /-miks/ noun plural but singular or plural in construction

 

 

Merriam Webster Dictionary Online

 

Forgive me if I do not see your point --- 22 predominately Muslim countries claim Islam as the States Religion . There are many non Islamic countries where Muslims reside without any religion declared as the Religion of State. Many countries are made up of of muliti-cultural etnicities without any connection between a Religion and the State.

 

I look forward to your future postings .-- Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aldoctor, Moron and Texasman,

The above comments were kind of havier than what an average reader could comprehend ;) .. I don't want to push on your high level calibor though..

Thanks your great input, however, friendly I would suggest using more simplified wordings, most of our Iraqi readers can't follow easily such heavy acadymic dose! That is important to make your points to the most inneed!

 

I too look forward for Aldoctor's posting.. Seems he/she got alot to enlitening this forum.. Thanks and please accept me deep appology if you found my comment overdosing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saad

I think Safaa touched the crocial points in our history where we need to stop and focus :

The evolve of Quaran into State was after the death of the prophet by some early moslims who wanted to build on the power of faith to establish the state of religion.. There was a serious objection to this specially by Imam Ali.. Anyhow this is a long story .. What I want to say that the evolvement to the state of religion was an early one, so many thought of it now as the core teachings of Islam.
The long story that you just mention safaa , is the problem!!

 

A year ago I tried to bring the attention (With my poor english) in this forum to the fact that we need to critsize our history and in particular the point mentioned here by safaa.

At the end all members of this forum ended up in thinking I am a shiaa religious extrimist.

 

It is by now very hard to discuss this matter which I believe the crossing point between Islam, and exploited islam, without being consider partisan of one faction or the other.

 

The concepts , beliefs, and interpretations of Islam to serve the power of state is still in our days the same points deviding Sunna From Shi3a. These same points make militants of terrorist mostly from Sunna .

 

Terms like "Koran is The constitution of this nation" you can here often by Sunna theologists.

They KNOW the truth which is the words of GOD, so why should we create other lows and constitution!!

 

Fierce debate is to be allowed to critisize our history and to come to a popular convention of the necessity of separating the state from religion.

 

I believe democracy and freedom will allow Islam to reach its maximun expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest moron99

The future of Iraq is a blank piece of paper upon which the people of Iraq may write anything they wish. The terrorists will force you to write with blood, but the words are still yours to choose. Your great-great-great grandchildren will find themselves living their lives by your words, so you must choose them not to suit yourself, but to suit your future place in history.

 

Saad, what is it that you wish to see written upon this paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moron99

Actually ...

 

Any person who is Iraqi should be allowed to write the future.

I regret asking the question to Saad only.

If you are an Iraqi and wish to answer then please do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alaa

The trouble with any interpretation that puts the blame on the west is simply a representation of blame culture. The West hadn't created all these Islamic divisions after Mohammad because it didn't exists in its current form to conspire against the Islamic world. These are simple avoidance of the real problem with Islamic teaching with deep divisions. And going along with Saad and Safaa argument of the history of Islam, one has to ask the question of "why that happened in the first place, despite the fact there wasn't a clash of the West and Islam?". The West may have had a clash of interests which it exploited centuries of division within Islam and that may have had exasperated current Islamic divisions but that doesn't mean the West has created it.

 

Now my reference to Shia as attempting to put some modern thoughts into Islamic teaching stems from some familiarity of Ali Shariati's writings. Of course I am not promoting his ideas or thoughts but I am reading bits of his book " Man and Islam" in which he tries to bring his sociological background into a form where we see more of the private relationship of man with God.

 

As form Mohammad Abde I like his saying "if science contradicted religion we must resort to science". This in itself reflects some evolution of Islamic teachings. I've been looking for some source of Mohammad Abde teaching but I haven't got there yet. What amaze is that why people of sensible words such Abde, Tahtawi and others are ignored and less widely spreading but ignorant and tyrannical religious thoughts are dominating?

 

As for Saad's reference to "the long story as a problem"; it is crucial that we deal with this "long story" not by telling it all but by examining the serious issues in Islamic teachings and thoughts. For instance, as soon as one mentions a serious issue in the Islamic teaching people comes up with "the long story" and stop there. We don't need to tell the long story, what we need are thoughts that respect human liberties regardless of what religion we are dealing with. I think if human liberties clash with religion then religion has to adapt discarding all definition of sins and wrong doings. And we shouldn't panic by saying so because we wont end up with a chaos of moralities ethics because human societies managed for thousands or year to maintain some order and never go into the stage of total annihilation. This potential gift is again a gift of God.

 

Saad is quite right about the question "Why do we need constitutions if we have the word of God". Though I don't know if Sunnis only promote such idea; to me human societies need constitution to regulate evolving societies with input of religious ethics but not to impose an implementation of a full religious text.

 

The other point I would like to refer to is Saad's reference to the battle with our history. What makes this battle so complex and untouchable? The West has dealt with such a battle by opening itself and by admitting that Christianity is divided and such division cannot unite societies therefore liberal democracy is one answer to regulate societies and religion has to be left for private practise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very intersting step by Ayatouls Fadhlalah of Leboon.. Issueing a religious Fatwa that consider any suicider killing civilians as a criminal killer deserve all the religious and legal punshment ..

He called the moslim world to condemn such acts and to distance the Islamic teachings from such cliams that they are Islamic..

The question is why the west media didn't put any ;ight on such important fatwa by a promenent Shia Ayatoulah..

 

فضل الله يفتي بأن التفجيرات التي تستهدف المدنيين انتحارية اجرامية

الأحد 24/7/2005 راديو سوا- أفتى المرجع الديني الشيعي اللبناني محمد حسين فضل الله اليوم بأن أي تفجيرات تستهدف الأبرياء محرمة شرعا بنظر الدين الاسلامي. وقال إن هذه الاعمال ليست استشهادية بل هي اعمال انتحارية إجرامية لا يجني منها المنتحر إلا هلاك نفسه وعقاب الله. ودعا فضل الله العالم الاسلامي كله إلى شجب هذه الأعمال الشنيعة وإلى رفض ما وصفها الذهنيات المتخلفة في فهم النصوص الإسلامية، وقال فضل الله إن هذه الذهنيات التي تبرر لنفسها مثل هذه الأعمال تشكل حسب قوله عدوانا وحشيا على صورة الإسلام والمسلمين.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a criticism by a Christian theologian of a tendency of political conservatives in the United States to attempt to legislate God's will. It is a Biblical, not Quranic, criticism - but it might be of some help. It is part of one of two companion articles:

moralism: "According to this notion God's grace needs the help of the state; . . . moralism wants to make politics a tool of faith; . . .

Now I am not going to complain that moralism "imposes" a faith on people who do not share it. In the sense at issue, even secularists impose a faith on others-they merely impose a different faith. Every law reflects some moral idea, every moral idea reflects some fundamental commitment, and every fundamental commitment is religious-it proposes a god. Everything in the universe comes to a point. For moralism, therefore, the important distinction is not between religion and secularism, but between faiths that do and faiths that do not demand the civil enforcement of all their moral precepts.

 

To the question "Should the civil law enforce the precepts of the faith?" the biblical answer is, "Some yes, but some no; which ones do you mean?" The New Testament contains literally hundreds of precepts. However, Christianity is not a legislative religion. While the Bible recognizes the Torah as a divinely revealed code for the ruling of Israel before the coming of Messiah, it does not include a divinely revealed code for the ruling of the gentiles afterward. To be sure, the Bible limits the kinds of laws that Christians can accept from their governments, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). However, it does not prescribe specific laws that they must demand from them.

 

It is not even true that all of God's commands limit the kinds of laws that Christians can accept. To see this, contrast two such precepts: (1) I am prohibited from deliberately shedding innocent blood; (2) I am prohibited from divorcing a faithful spouse. Both precepts are absolute in their application to me, but that is not the issue. If we are speaking of governmental enforcement, then we are speaking of their application to others. The former precept should require very little watering down in the public square, for even nonbelievers are expected to understand the wrong of murder. That is why I may be confident in condemning the legalization of abortion. But the latter precept requires a good deal of watering down in the public square, for before the coming of Christ not even believers were expected to understand the true nature of marriage. "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard," said Jesus, "but it was not this way from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8). No doubt the Pharisees to whom He was speaking were scandalized by the idea that their civil law did not reflect God's standards fully. They must have been even more offended by the suggestion that it was not intended to. Among religious conservatives this suggestion is still a scandal, but it does not come from liberals; it comes from the Master.

 

Christians, then, may certainly commend a law as good or condemn it as evil. They may declare it consistent or inconsistent with the faith. But not even a good law may be simply identified with the faith"

  -- The Problem with Conservatism
The companian piece is The Problem With Liberalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The attack at the police station on Sunday, in the Mashtal neighborhood of the capital, was only the latest sign that the guerrillas had little desire to lay down their arms.

 

 

 

 

Guerillas! Sunni.!. These are Qaeda terrorists , they claim it , anounce it , take responsibilty.. So why NT keep it's possition of refacing them? I would point in clear voice that there is a possible common interst between such media and terrosist.. Let us not just push on some Moslims shying from clear condemning the ter, we need also to look around within us here in US!

Sunnis to End Iraq Charter Boycott; Bomb Kills 25

 

     

By EDWARD WONG

Published: July 25, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Monday, July 25 - With just three weeks to go before an important deadline for the new constitution, Sunni Arab leaders said Sunday that they were ready to end their boycott of the drafting process. The statements came as a suicide truck bomber rammed into barricades at a police station here in the middle of a raging sandstorm, killing at least 25 people and wounding at least 33 others, Iraqi officials said.

 

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

 

Sabah Arar/AFP--Getty Images

Burned-out vehicles were strewn about the street Sunday after a truck bomber struck at a police station in Baghdad, killing at least 25.

 

 

 

 

Forum: The Transition in Iraq

The Sunni leaders said the original constitutional committee, made up almost entirely of Shiites and Kurds, had agreed to the conditions the Sunni Arabs had set for their return, including having the government provide bodyguards. The Sunnis said they expect an agreement in writing, and a meeting between the groups was set for Monday morning to formalize the accord. The Sunni Arab boycott began last week after two colleagues were assassinated in downtown Baghdad.

 

"We put in writing our demands to return, and we got a promise that those demands will be fulfilled," said Ayad al-Samarraie, one of the Sunni politicians.

 

Bahaa al-Aaraji, a Shiite member of the drafting committee, said Sunday, "We will reach a new agreement at 8:30 tomorrow."

 

As a first step in their re-engagement, the Sunni Arabs have formed a commission of legal experts to review the latest draft of the constitution and recommend changes, Mr. Samarraie said.

 

The return of the Sunni Arabs to the writing process is considered crucial to lending legitimacy to the constitution, which the Parliament must approve by Aug. 15 before it goes to a national referendum in October. Without the input of Sunni leaders, the constitution could be rejected by Sunni voters, who would then also boycott the elections for a full-term government, which are scheduled for December. The Bush administration is relying on the political process to help quell the raging Sunni Arab-led insurgency by easing the feelings of disenfranchisement that arose after Saddam Hussein was deposed.

 

The attack at the police station on Sunday, in the Mashtal neighborhood of the capital, was only the latest sign that the guerrillas had little desire to lay down their arms.

 

The bomb struck at about 3 p.m., as a sandstorm swirled around the capital and cloaked buildings and streets in a thick layer of grit. Speeding through the haze, the driver of the truck appeared to cross over a median and slam into barriers outside the station before the vehicle exploded. People standing nearby were burned or peppered with shrapnel, and at least 25 cars were set ablaze, witnesses and an Interior Ministry official said.

 

A police officer at the scene said body parts were found on the roofs of buildings. The blast left a crater more than three feet deep, and metal and glass lay scattered across the street, atop thick pools of blood, oil and engine fluids. Electric cables dangled from nearby lampposts.

 

"I was inside the station when the explosion took place," said Muhammad Naief, 35, a construction worker from Najaf who was visiting. "It was huge. The glass showered our heads. When I got out to the bloody scene, I found my sedan totally damaged, and my cousin who was waiting for me next to it was slightly injured."

 

At Kindi Hospital, a man covered in dirt and wearing a red-and-white headdress sat on the ground next to a wailing woman in black robes. The man, Majeed Fadel, said he was looking for the body of his son.

 

"We found the charred car at the scene but never found him," Mr. Fadel said. "I'm sure he died, but I just want to have the body to bury. I sent him out in my car to buy a battery, and then the disaster happened."

 

The attack was the latest in a series of suicide bombings that have left hundreds dead and have raised serious doubts about the ability of the government and the American forces to placate the insurgency.

 

Weeks ago, Iraqi and American officials boasted that operations in Baghdad had helped to secure the capital and thwart the bloody designs of the guerrillas.

 

As if in response, the insurgents quickly pulled off several spectacular and shockingly deadly assaults, including a suicide car bombing in Baghdad on July 13 that left about two dozen children dead, and a mosque attack in Musayyib on July 16 that killed at least 72 people, using a stolen fuel tanker ignited by a suicide-belt bomber who dove under it.

 

12Next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

The above policy of not linking the clear relation of Iraqi killing to Qaeda, is to lay ground for the following idiot analysis!

 

We need to stand firm against Qaeda and their sympythizer in the west who try their best to tell us that killing Iraqis is not a terror act, killing westreners , is !

 

An article in NT of today.. I would like to ask the writer.. Wasn't it quick easy and cakewalk? A country as big as califorinia and army as big as one million concured as fast a tanker can run, isn't a quick and easy.. Mixing this with wrong doning of transforming it into occupation and be reluctant of transform power to Iraqis was another thing..

 

 

 

What Bush Doesn't Know

   

By BOB HERBERT

Published: July 25, 2005

I remember the arrogance that accompanied the "shock and awe" bombing campaign that kicked off the war in Iraq more than two years ago. The war was supposed to be quick and easy, a cakewalk. The enemy, we were told, would fold like a dinner napkin. And then, in the neoconservative fantasies of some of the crazier folks in the Bush crowd, the military would gear up for an invasion of Iran.

In one of the great deceptions in the history of American government, President Bush insisted to a nation traumatized by the Sept. 11 attacks that the invasion of Iraq was crucial to the success of the so-called war on terror.

 

"Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror," said Mr. Bush in a speech in the fall of 2002 that was designed to drum up support for the invasion. "To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."

 

In the speech, delivered in Cincinnati, Mr. Bush said of Iraq: "It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

 

I've always urged politicians to be careful what they wish for. The president got the war he wanted so badly. But he never understood an essential fact that Georges Clemenceau learned nearly a century ago - that "it is easier to make war than to make peace."

 

So where are we, now that the real world has intervened? The military is spinning its wheels in the tragic and expensive quagmire of Iraq and there is no end to the conflict in sight. A front-page story in The Times on Sunday said the insurgents "just keep getting stronger and stronger."

 

As for the fight against terror, the news runs the gamut from bad to horrible. The Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik in Egypt was traumatized by a series of early-morning terrorist blasts on Saturday. London is trembling from the terror attacks on its public transportation system that have claimed dozens of lives.

 

Here in New York, where the police have begun random searches of the backpacks and packages of subway riders, there is an odd feeling of resignation mixed with periodic bouts of dread, as transit riders struggle with the belief that some kind of attack is bound to happen here.

 

Interviews over the past few days have shown that subway riders in New York almost instinctively understand what the president does not - that the war in Iraq is not making us safer here at home.

 

"No, in fact I think it makes us less safe here," said Edmond Lee, a salesman who lives on Manhattan's Upper West Side. "We went over there with no real plan. No real thinking about what we'd be able to do."

 

He said he was concerned that "what happened in the London Underground might happen here."

 

Memories of the destruction of the World Trade Center are still etched, as if with acid, in the minds of New Yorkers. Very few people are dovish when it comes to the war on terror. But Mr. Bush's war in Iraq is another matter.

 

"Our soldiers being over there make it worse here," said Michael Springfield, a 32-year-old engineer from Brooklyn.

 

One of the people encountered in the subway was Andy Dommen, a musician from Germany who was pushing a shopping cart filled with luggage. He made the fundamental distinction between Iraq and Al Qaeda and said the war in Iraq was a distraction that "was taking the public eye off" other important problems, namely the fight against terror.

 

"Messing up other countries," said Mr. Dommen, "doesn't make the world or America safer."

 

There is still no indication that the Bush administration recognizes the utter folly of its war in Iraq, which has been like a constant spray of gasoline on the fire of global terrorism. What was required in the aftermath of Sept. 11 was an intense, laserlike focus by America and its allies on Al Qaeda-type terrorism.

 

Instead, the Bush crowd saw its long dreamed of opportunity to impose its will on Iraq, which had nothing to do with the great tragedy of Sept. 11. Many thousands have paid a fearful price for that bit of ideological madness.

 

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moron99
Guerillas! Sunni.!. These are Qaeda terrorists ,

 

Hmmphhh <_<

 

Where'd they get the car? The explosives? The map to the police station? A place to sleep while the bomb was assembled? Safe passage from Syria?

 

Nah. Sorry, I don't believe it. It is the affluent baathi who want to regain their control of national wealth. They provide the money, power, planning, contacts, and influence that keeps the people weak. It is they who plan and organize the continued sufferring. They sit in their fancy two story homes with pretty fences and nice gardens ... and plan out the schemes to regain power based upon the blood of innocent Iraqi.

 

Sorry, I'm just not buying the big evil Al Queda thing anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Baathis never have the courage and the trust to sacrify their lifes.. we know them very weel.. Scary rats that can support and deal with any one.. However those who commit suicide are Qaeda's , they name it, they admit it and they are proud to do it any any where.. The question is what common interst that Qaeda and libral media is there to make that media diversify the criminal acts in Iraq from being related to Qaeda terror?

We need to name it

I think there is ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...