on a recent visit to the natural history museum, i was struck by the number of hijabs, kippot and crucifixes on display. unfazed by fossils, geological displays of the age of the earth, australopithecine skulls and the marble statue of darwin that gazes enigmatically over the entrance hall, they gamely queued for the dinosaur exhibit, children in tow, back and forth beneath the massive skeleton of diplodocus, eager to expand their knowledge of the universe. it was an inspiring sight and one that i found immensely encouraging given the current level and tone of debate between religion and science. nobody appeared to be there to tell their children “and these are the fake animals G!D Placed in the earth to Test our faith”. everywhere were children asking clear, in some cases unsettling questions about how things came to be.
By Guest | Published:
July 18, 2009
This is a guest post by Rashad Ali
****
Hizb ut-Tahrir; Jamaat-e-Islami; Ikhwan al-Muslimeen and al-Qaeda all have, as a fundamental aim; the establishment of a global dictatorship under the rule of one Caliph, an autocrat, who will impose one interpretation of the Shar’iah over the entire globe. They intend to do this through unifying countries where there already exists Muslim majorities then launch a worldwide international effort at expanding this state through diplomatic and hostile means i.e. warfare.
For them, there is a religious duty (fard) in which there is no dispute, that there must be a single caliphate encompassing the whole globe. There is no room for different interpretations, and anyone differing with them – especially the likes of the Hizb, and al-Qaeda, are upon Kufr – unbelief and apostates from Islam. In fact they would argue that all the Muslim scholars who have abandoned engaging in political activity for the sake of establishing such a super-state are upon misguidance, and Kufr, even if on the whole the Muslim jurists take the position, that there are different opinions on this issue, which are legitimate opinions – Ijtihadaat – and therefore we cannot start accusing others of being on un-Islamic positions for holding different views.
Also posted in Islamism |
One of the bizarre hypocrisies of modern Britain is that criticising people who claim religious sanction for homophobia can be labeled bigotry but, at all other times, homophobia is the unacceptable bigotry.
I have always attempted to square this circle by drawing a line between those who say we are all sinners and homosexuality is a sin like any other judged by their god on judgment day (generally speaking, the Anglican answer) and those who say that it is a sin worse than all others (Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps, for example) and homosexuals deserve punishment in this world.
There is another way – and it is significantly more intellectually satisfying: to argue that religions can accept homosexuality. Dr Amanullah De Sondy does so today in the Sunday Times.
One of Scotland’s leading Muslim academics is challenging his religion’s orthodox opinion on homosexuality by suggesting Islam is compatible with a gay lifestyle.
By Zorro | Published:
June 25, 2009
Sarkozy’s call for a ban on the veil has indeed opened up a number of issues and perspectives, even if he may well have had his own motives for doing so!
We have had the normal reaction on the left to condemn him, the reaction from the right in the UK to call for a ban and even claim Muslims support them and this has caused a little stir amongst Islamists.
iEngage for example originally followed the 1st electronic print of the Express article stating that Ghaffar Hussain from the Quilliam Foundation had stated that the Burka/Burqa was a cultural practice and not sanctioned in the Quran, but then went further and mistakenly claimed that he supported a ban. This has subsequently been “corrected”, by both the Express and iEngage.
A number of ancilliary discussions have persisted some of which are quite interesting, hypocritical and opportunistic.
Also posted in Anti Fascism, Anti Muslim bigotry, Democracy, Ethics, Exegesis, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights, Islamism, Politics, Secularism, Sharia |
By Zorro | Published:
June 11, 2009
“Islamic” economic ‘thinkers’ and Islamist political activists ranging from the terror crew (Bin Laden et al), to the “moderates” often like to have a rant at the evil Capitalist economic system, and specifically interest based banking. They often equate the above with the Islamic prohibition on Riba – usually vaguely translated as usury.
Many Islamic theologians/scholars do in fact consider interest an aspect of usury, though many don’t (see here for a full discussion of all of the Islamic scholars who permitted interest and did not see it as Riba). Assuming many did forbid interest as Riba, it does not necessarilly mean that is the complete picture.
Traditionally theologians have developed elaborate means of ensuring that effective financial transactions are not prevented through the blanket application of Islamic rules of Fiqh (human interpretations of Sharia divine law) to situations without recourse to strategies where necessary.
By Guest | Published:
May 29, 2009
This is a guest post by Raziq
****
Today the word ‘Jihad’ has become synonymous with terrorist and political violence. This has come about due to the way Islamist/Jihadists have interpreted the word ‘Jihad’. In this article I intend to look at the meaning of the word Jihad as understood by classical scholars in Islam.
Ibn Rushd summarized a few of the various opinions of Muslim jurists on the issues of peace and war in Islam: Some of those who approved of peace whenever the imam finds it in the Muslims’ interest are Malik, al Shafi’i, and Abu Hanifah. Al Shafi’i only does not approve of a peace duration longer that the period which the Prophet, peace be upon him, made with the nonbelievers… the reason for their differences in approving of peace without necessity is the apparent contradiction between His (Allah’s) saying (in the Qur’an):
Also posted in Islamism, Your View |