Islam Discussion Topic

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

First question: does the religion of Islam believe that the christians of today have courupted the original scriptures of the bible?

I think that's individual from person to person.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

I do not understand this pedophile argument? I mean we are using 21st centuary morals to judge someone from 1400 year ago. That logic makes no sense, if memory serves that kind of thing was common place as people lived less. Right? So that argument makes no sense at all.

Well, there are two arguments about this:

1) Being a pedophile is bad
2) If a guy who says his law should stand the test of time, then he shouldn't do above bad things.

We believe that Islam has minimum requirements for marriage, and Aisha fulfilled those requirements.

Originally Posted by REBSHADOW09

Do you beleive in killing Jews and Christians(me)?

Uh, for being Jews or Christians? No, we don't believe in killing you.

Also who do you think Jesus was?

Jesus (Peace Be Upon His Soul) was a Prophet of God sent to the Tribe of Israel. He was crucified, but (I think he) survived the crucification. Those are the main differences between Christians and Muslims.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

As for the jews many times in their history Muslims protected jews against groups persecuting against them such as Christians.

Well, many times, Muslims have also persecuted Jews...but Islam doesn't tell us to persecute Jews, lol.

As for the other Questions Muslims regard Jesus as a prohpet and nothing more.

Well, he was a pretty important Prophet.

Originally Posted by REBSHADOW09

How do you feel when people call you terrorists? Oh yeah this was a serious question

I think they're dumb and just want to make me angry. :-\

Originally Posted by Lincoln Osiris

I've been told Muslims believe Adam was a prophet is this true? and if he was what is his role in Islamic teachings, is it the same as in Christian teachings?

Adam (Peace Be Upon His Soul) is the first human in Islam. He was a Prophet and the first Muslim because he brought a message.

Some people think that Adam (Peace Be Upon His Soul) was sort of a forerunner for modern humans, due to the connotations of being a Prophet. Since he was a Prophet, he had a message, and all Prophets delivered their message to a group of people.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

First question: does the religion of Islam believe that the christians of today have courupted the original scriptures of the bible?

Not quite the Christians of today, but the Christians of a long time corrupted the original scriptures of the Bible.

Although, there are even some more modern examples of Christians corrupting the Bible, such as Martin Luther removing books from the Catholic Bible.

Second: do they believe that it was neccesary for Jesus to pay for our sins?

No, we believe that God is very omnipotent, and that he can forgive any sin. I agree with the opinion that Jesus (Peace Be Upon His Soul) did not die upon the cross, and that he instead survived the trial.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

That's not very nice ):

Well, first of all, you have to understand that everything I am saying applies to a Muslim only.

So, a Muslim either needs to understand the way things work, or they should apostate and join a different community.

Second off, it's not very nice, but most of those crimes aren't very nice, either.

Which is less then Men's correct? Than aren't I correct on Men's rights in Islam being superior to women's right?

Uh, no. You're not correct on men's rights being less than women's rights.

Men and women have different rights, because they are biologically different.

On some issues, it seems like a woman has fewer rights than men; daughters inherit half of what sons inherit from their fathers, but that's made up by the fact that a husband must give his wife a dowry.

Women have fewer obligations; they don't have to go to Friday prayers at the Mosque, and Men do.

Women have higher minimum requirements for clothing than men, but that's because they're the bigger targets for sexual attacks than men.

:-\

Originally Posted by fratey

I think that's individual from person to person.

No, all Muslims should believe that other texts have been corrupted, and only our text remains the same. Otherwise, they aren't really Muslim.

Men and women have different rights, because they are biologically different.

On some issues, it seems like a woman has fewer rights than men; daughters inherit half of what sons inherit from their fathers, but that's made up by the fact that a husband must give his wife a dowry.

Civil rights should never, ever, be down to gender.
Ever.
And who's to say every girl gets married? The fact they get half is pure sexism at its best.

Flicking through this thread made me think about the time I visited a mosque. I remember the (Priest? Pastor? The Muslim equivalent of that) was telling us that women had the right to keep her finances separate from her husband's, and it was taxed differently, or something. Can someone explain that to me again?

Originally Posted by Marluxia

Well it was believed at that time, marriage was the best way for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to pass on his teachings to Aisha. Of course, there were other ways to do so, however at that time marriage was seen as more effective than the alternative options.

''Arranged marriages’’ you do not start by having a strong romantic relationship. It starts like a friendship and the relationship progresses onwards.

One question: did Aisha actually have any say at all in the arranged marriage?

Islam Gives Men and Women Equal Rights

In reality, and in Islam, the rights and responsibilities of a woman are equal to those of man, but they are not necessarily identical with them. Equality and sameness are two very different things. I think you’ll agree that, for one thing, women and men are physically very different from one another, although they are equal to each other in other important ways.

This kind of thinking makes me deeply uneasy. It's basically the "Separate But Equal" argument all over again, and it's a problem I have with any religion or culture, not just Islam, that assigns different rights or roles to people based solely on gender.

I fail to see how being physically different is enough of a justification to say that women should have differing rights from men. I may as well say, for instance, "Brown-eyed people are physically different from blue-eyed people, although they may be equal in many other important ways". Or, even closer to home, "Dark-skinned people are physically different from light-skinned people, although they are equal in many other important ways. Therefore, they should have equal, but separate, rights."

Don't get me wrong: I don't mean to cast an aspersion on the role that Islam may have played in granting women more rights 1400 years ago. However, I do think that religions should be more open to change, rather than strive to remain rigid and fixed, and thereby ignore the moral advances that we have made in the time since. A system that was once advanced, by remaining stationary, can become backwards if the rest of the world progresses. And that can basically be said of any religion.

By the way, in Western societies, it's true that women are often paid less. However, there isn't a law saying that this must be the case, and the discrepancy between the pay that men and women receive is actually something that anti-discrimination and workplace laws are attempting to rectify.

Originally posted by TheBattler
Uh, there are no Qur'anic verses about pedophilia.

Muhammad (Peace Be Upon His Soul) *might* have commited pedophilia. His wife Aisha was 9, but she had already hit puberty by then, and she was sick for a year or two, and their marriage was actually consummated later

Are you sure?

Wikipedia:
According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.[1][3][4] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[3] This issue of her virginity was of great importance to early historians who supported the Abbasid Caliphate. These historians regarded considered that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate over the succession to Muhammad.[3]

Aisha stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated.[1][3][4][5][6][7] The marriage was delayed until after the Hijra, or migration to Medina, in 622; Aisha and her older sister Asma bint Abi Bakr only moved to Medina after Muhammad had already migrated there. After this, the wedding was celebrated very simply. The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[8]

It doesn't seem that she was mature enough to be called an adult, or even close to one. She apparently still played with her toys even after being married.

Edit: looking back, I've just realized that this post may be somewhat incendiary. I have to say though, my purpose isn't to cause a heated argument, but to voice my own concerns with what I personally perceive to be a sexist system.

I have questions:

1. for Islamic people is pleasuring yourself illegal?
2. is it true that woman are 'slave' to men?
3. is there a central government of Islam (like the Vadican)?
4. if so why do they not weed out corrupt people?
5. is polygamy legal?
6. in what ways could Muslims make them selves seem not as bad to western people?

sorry if my questions are rude or whatever, I'm a noob when it comes to Islam.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

Actually, not it can't.

I'm not 100% on other religious texts, but as far as the Qur'an goes, you're either right or you're wrong.

The Qu'ran states that one should always go with the majority on disputed issues in the Qur'an, or settle it in a court against properly qualified people.

Since the Qur'an was collected and consolidated as one holy book, we've had scribes and scholars write down the words of Muhammad (Peace be upon his soul), and the words of the people who knew him (from his friends and family to people who had just interacted with him once).

From then, Islamic scholars have argued and debated and shared their opinions and come up with a very cohesive, somewhat general idea.

Ultimately, it is up to the person to accept what is true and what is false. However, no one should have an opinion when they are not equipped with facts to prove it.

You basically just confirmed what I said here. Because we can't ask the author what he meant, we have to rely on interpretations which may or may not be correct. And "going with the majority" still means that there's a minority who disagree, and the majority are not always correct. Neither are people who are "qualified", because they were taught by people who had their own interpretations as well.

Originally Posted by Lincoln Osiris

I've been told Muslims believe Adam was a prophet is this true? and if he was what is his role in Islamic teachings, is it the same as in Christian teachings?

Yes Adam (PBUH) is the first Prophet. He was the first Muslim to have submitted himself to God.

I am not sure of the Christian teachings, though I heard it is quite similar.

Originally Posted by linksmolecules

First question: does the religion of Islam believe that the christians of today have courupted the original scriptures of the bible? Second: do they believe that it was neccesary for Jesus to pay for our sins?

I am not aware of any Christians of today to have corrupted the text of the Bible.

Muslims believe that Jesus did not pay for our sin. Everyone indiviudal is accountable for the sin that they have committed and only God can forgive them.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

That's not very nice ):

The crimes committed are not very pleasant either. Only applicable to Muslim countries.

Which is less then Men's correct? Than aren't I correct on Men's rights in Islam being superior to women's right?

Women in Islam have no financial obligations to contribute to the family. It is the burden upon men to provide the financial necessities needed, though women may also work if she feels the need to provide financially to her family. The women get to keep all the property and demand anything that she needs from her husband. It is the role of the husband to provide anything for his wife (of course as long as it is reasonable and he can afford it).

In the Quran it generally outlines that women tend to get less share of the inheritance and there is not much significant differences between the shares at all. During the marriage contract the husband has to provide the mahr (dowry) which is a large sum of money for the wife to keep.

So overall no your not correct. You do not know nothing about Islam otherwise you would not be asking up such a series of questions which some of them have no validity to begin with. I bet half of the information you got about Islam comes off from the media who have no understanding of Islam to begin with. Islam had given these rights to women unlike Britain where women had to fight for the rights and one of them ended up getting killed for it.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Civil rights should never, ever, be down to gender.
Ever.
And who's to say every girl gets married? The fact they get half is pure sexism at its best.

Civil rights go down to the roles that each gender has to perform.

If the girl does not get married, the share of inheritance will get divided up equally as they normally do.

Did you not read what the Battler had written?

Women get dowry which makes up for half of the inheritance that the men gets. The Mahr (dowry) is a very large sum of money for the wife to keep. Like I said before there is less significant difference between the shares the man and women get.

Originally Posted by Jodd

Flicking through this thread made me think about the time I visited a mosque. I remember the (Priest? Pastor? The Muslim equivalent of that) was telling us that women had the right to keep her finances separate from her husband's, and it was taxed differently, or something. Can someone explain that to me again?

The Muslims call them the Imam. Women are allowed to keep their money separate from the husband and their other belongs too such as property, gold etc. I am not sure about how the Tax system works under Islam, though as an overview, whoever owns the most property and has the most money will generally be taxed higher.

If the wife have more wealth (includes items such as money, property, gold) than compared to her husband then she would be taxed more. If the husband has more wealth than compared to wife, he would be taxed higher. I am not entirely sure though but I think that is how it works.

Originally Posted by Asta

One question: did Aisha actually have any say at all in the arranged marriage?

Yes she has to have a say in it. The women and the man are asked whether they want to get married or not. Force marriage is not acceptable in Islam.

This kind of thinking makes me deeply uneasy. It's basically the "Separate But Equal" argument all over again, and it's a problem I have with any religion or culture, not just Islam, that assigns different rights or roles to people based solely on gender.

Your oversimplifying it by saying just solely based on their gender. Biologically women and men are different. Women have greater emotional strain than compared to men due to menstrual cycle period.

The gender is presented with tasks that they are able to cope with. Whatever task someone wants to do, regardless of their gender, we assess if they are mentally and physically stable.

Both genders are equal to God in that sense. They will be judged equally on how they lived their life.

I fail to see how being physically different is enough of a justification to say that women should have differing rights from men. I may as well say, for instance, "Brown-eyed people are physically different from blue-eyed people, although they may be equal in many other important ways". Or, even closer to home, "Dark-skinned people are physically different from light-skinned people, although they are equal in many other important ways. Therefore, they should have equal, but separate, rights."

Ah we are not talking about physical differences that you are talking about, such as the colour of the skin/eyes.

We talking about what men and women mentally and physically capable of. Women can to the task that men are usually assigned to do, as long as they are capable of doing that job.

Don't get me wrong: I don't mean to cast an aspersion on the role that Islam may have played in granting women more rights 1400 years ago. However, I do think that religions should be more open to change, rather than strive to remain rigid and fixed, and thereby ignore the moral advances that we have made in the time since. A system that was once advanced, by remaining stationary, can become backwards if the rest of the world progresses. And that can basically be said of any religion.

What are the changes that you speak of?

Like I said before, if the man/women are mentally and physically capable of doing a task they should not be bar from doing so.

Islam just outlines the basic overview characteristics of men and women. In detail it depends on the individual characteristics and how much work they can cope with.

By the way, in Western societies, it's true that women are often paid less. However, there isn't a law saying that this must be the case, and the discrepancy between the pay that men and women receive is actually something that anti-discrimination and workplace laws are attempting to rectify.

Yes but women still face a lot of problems. I’m sure you heard of the glass ceiling effect? Where women have the potential to reach a high status job however unable to reach it.

You do know anti-discrimination laws are very difficult to put into practice? Eaiser to be said than done.

Are you sure?

It doesn't seem that she was mature enough to be called an adult, or even close to one. She apparently still played with her toys even after being married.

And just from that you are going to abandon all of her other characteristics. She was considered an adult and her physical features had lead to that conclusion.

Her parents accepted the marriage and Aisha was old enough to agree or disagree with the marriage. In those days, children were seen a lot older and usually had a lower life-span.

Even if she was playing with a toy? She herself accepted the marriage and was considered a prodigy with her formidable memory.

She was raised by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and proved women are capable of leadership just as men.

The marriage was for good intention. Not perverted reasons, that the Western media continually ranted on about.

Whether your still not convinced is ultimately up to you.

Edit: looking back, I've just realized that this post may be somewhat incendiary. I have to say though, my purpose isn't to cause a heated argument, but to voice my own concerns with what I personally perceive to be a sexist system.

Well you say it is a sexist system. That is the conclusion that you come up with. It would be more helpful to pin point out from what we have been discussing that strikes to you ‘‘sexist.’’

As I said before, Islam just outlines the general capabilities of men and women. When it comes down to completing a task, men and women are assessed individually if they are capable of doing the task.

Muslim Politician Benazir Bhutto and the leader of the respect party Salma Yaqooub.

Ume Warqa was a female companion of Prophet Muhammad. She was appointed by the Caliph Umar to lead the market committee of Mecca and Medina.

Nearly one third of the Parliament of Egypt consists of women, unlike House of Lords/Commons, which is male dominated.

Razia Sultana a female historic figure ruled over Sultanate of Delhi.

This is evidence that women under Islam can achieve high-ranking positions. Of course, in other countries, culture may prove difficult from achieving these goals but that is culture, not Islam.

Originally Posted by candc32

I have questions:

1. for Islamic people is pleasuring yourself illegal?
2. is it true that woman are 'slave' to men?
3. is there a central government of Islam (like the Vadican)?
4. if so why do they not weed out corrupt people?
5. is polygamy legal?
6. in what ways could Muslims make them selves seem not as bad to western people?

sorry if my questions are rude or whatever, I'm a noob when it comes to Islam.

1. Pleasuring has more than one meaning. Can you be more specific please?

2. No.

3. I don't think so. There are different Islamic organizations in different Islamic countries.

4. Please elaborate.

5. Polygamy is legal though it is discouraged. The man has to ask permission from the wife if he can have another wife. One of the reasons that may happen due to that they cannot have children together.

6. All we can do is answer questions from non-Muslims who have misconceptions of Islam. I think it is the lack of education that causes non-Muslims to develop these misconceptions and are gaining information from Islam through biased sources.

You basically just confirmed what I said here. Because we can't ask the author what he meant, we have to rely on interpretations which may or may not be correct. And "going with the majority" still means that there's a minority who disagree, and the majority are not always correct. Neither are people who are "qualified", because they were taught by people who had their own interpretations as well.

It is only natural for humans to disagree. Interpreting the Quran was easier 1400 years ago and it is getting a little difficult as times go on.

Therefore, you are right that Muslims disagree. Through use of the courts and through use of Islamic lawyers, we try to reach a decision based on the interpretations of the Quran. However, the majority interpretations of Islam are obvious, so the interpretations are quite straightforward.

Originally Posted by Marluxia

It is only natural for humans to disagree. Interpreting the Quran was easier 1400 years ago and it is getting a little difficult as times go on.

Therefore, you are right that Muslims disagree. Through use of the courts and through use of Islamic lawyers, we try to reach a decision based on the interpretations of the Quran. However, the majority interpretations of Islam are obvious, so the interpretations are quite straightforward.

From what I've seen of any religious text they are far from straightforward. I had to study the Qoran when I was in my last year in primary school, so yeah.

Originally Posted by Cody

While we're on the subject of separate rights for men and women, is it true that Muslim men can marry Christian women, but Muslim women can't marry Christian men? The explanation I heard for it is that it's because the wife's submittal to her husband conflicts with her superiority as a Muslim

Well from what I know, Muslim men are allowed to get married with Christians or Jews though it is strongly discouraged. They can only get married to a Christian/Jew in a Muslim country.

Traditionally Muslim women had only entered marriage with Muslim men. It is not explicitly clear though, whether they can get married to a Christian or Jew.

I believe this is an issue of point of law and interpretation.

As an overview, it is best for Muslims men to marry Muslim women. The Quran strongly discourgaes a Muslim marrying a Christian/Jew. I personally do not see any point getting married to a Christian/Jew, since it is clearly foreseeable problems may arise with this.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Civil rights should never, ever, be down to gender.
Ever.

So, let me get this straight. Let's say a man and a woman are getting a divorce. They have a baby who is 1 month old, and still needs breastmilk.

The woman shouldn't get majority (or full) custody of the baby, even though she's a woman?

And who's to say every girl gets married? The fact they get half is pure sexism at its best.

Seeing as how the most important unit of an Islamic community is the family, all Muslims are expected to marry, unless they feel it will hurt them. It's not sexism if they're both expected to marry.

And even then, that half-inheritance thing is the minimum requirement if there is no will. The parent can just bump their daughter up to half of the full inheritance if they want.

Originally Posted by Jodd

Flicking through this thread made me think about the time I visited a mosque. I remember the (Priest? Pastor? The Muslim equivalent of that)

Imam.

was telling us that women had the right to keep her finances separate from her husband's, and it was taxed differently, or something. Can someone explain that to me again?

It depends. If a woman is living with her husband and not working, she gets an allowance from him (which must be at least enough to pay for her expenses), and she uses that allowance however she sees fit.

If a woman is working, then she keeps all of her money and does anything she wants with it and has the right to keep it private from her husband. The husband must still report his finances to his wife, but he does whatever he wants with it.

Originally Posted by Asta

One question: did Aisha actually have any say at all in the arranged marriage?

Yes. She could say yes or no at any time, and could have divorced him at any time during their marriage. A couple of the Prophet's wives wanted to divorce him, although they always reconciled.

This kind of thinking makes me deeply uneasy. It's basically the "Separate But Equal" argument all over again, and it's a problem I have with any religion or culture, not just Islam, that assigns different rights or roles to people based solely on gender.

Ugh, okay. So, you really think that women and men are equal to each other?

I would say that women are superior to men, if anything, since they bear children.

Men and women are biologically NOT 100% similar to each other, and those differences are where the laws differ. Laws about children, laws about working, laws about rape...

Women bear children, so they are expected to be the main influence in their child's life in the first few years of their life, and are expected to be head of the household; that doesn't mean they're locked up in their household, and that doesn't mean that the husband doesn't still have an obligation to raising his children.

Women are naturally weaker than men physically. Thus, they are given more protection to keep them from being attacked and forced to doing things they don't want to do.

I fail to see how being physically different is enough of a justification to say that women should have differing rights from men. I may as well say, for instance, "Brown-eyed people are physically different from blue-eyed people, although they may be equal in many other important ways". Or, even closer to home, "Dark-skinned people are physically different from light-skinned people, although they are equal in many other important ways. Therefore, they should have equal, but separate, rights."

You would be right, except that brown-eyes are don't do anything different from blue-eyes, and dark-skin doesn't have a different function from light-skin.

Actually, funny enough, there is a possible elastic ruling on dark and light skin; since you're not supposed to put yourselves in harm's way, a light-skinned Muslim would theoretically be advised to not jump into the sun very often without protection.

Don't get me wrong: I don't mean to cast an aspersion on the role that Islam may have played in granting women more rights 1400 years ago. However, I do think that religions should be more open to change, rather than strive to remain rigid and fixed, and thereby ignore the moral advances that we have made in the time since. A system that was once advanced, by remaining stationary, can become backwards if the rest of the world progresses. And that can basically be said of any religion.

Islam has a combination of concrete and elasticism. We believe that Islam can stand the test of time. :-\

Not all progress is good progress. We've made huge progress in gasoline-powered vehicles, but our progress hasn't been good enough to fix our pollution problems.

Are you sure?

The Mother of Muslims said it herself; she narrated her life to several chroniclers while she was a general fighting against Ali (Radiallanhuh).

It doesn't seem that she was mature enough to be called an adult, or even close to one. She apparently still played with her toys even after being married.

Back in those days, you had to grow up fast. We really need to give kids more credit; they can be as mature as an adult very easily, if they have a good upbringing and learn alot. I was capable of making conscious decisions when I was 10, but my upbringing wasn't exactly...conducive to that type of thing.

Everyone around her said she was exceptionally intelligent, and later in life, everyone could tell how intelligent she was; she became a scholar, general, historian, and orator.

Edit: looking back, I've just realized that this post may be somewhat incendiary. I have to say though, my purpose isn't to cause a heated argument, but to voice my own concerns with what I personally perceive to be a sexist system.

Don't worry about it.

Originally Posted by Cody

While we're on the subject of separate rights for men and women, is it true that Muslim men can marry Christian women, but Muslim women can't marry Christian men? The explanation I heard for it is that it's because the wife's submittal to her husband conflicts with her superiority as a Muslim, but of course trusting what random westerners tell you about Islam is a bad idea.

The thing is that Muslims are heavily advised to marry Muslims, and the Qur'an assumes that they are good people. However, Muslim men are allowed to marry other monotheists, and it still assumes the Muslim man is a good person.

Since men are naturally stronger than women, the hope is that a good Muslim man won't do anything bad to his non-Muslim wife. When dealing with a non-Muslim man, we don't assume things, and so there is the chance a Muslim wife will be forced by the man to do things she doesn't want to do.

In general, it's really not expected of a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim, because he has to inform his future wife that the children will be raised under Islamic Law.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

You basically just confirmed what I said here. Because we can't ask the author what he meant, we have to rely on interpretations which may or may not be correct.

Islamic scholarship says that Allah (Subahanawa'tallah) is the author, and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon His Soul) is his representative, and he's the guy to ask.

Secular scholarship says that Muhammad is the author of the Qur'an.

So, either way, the Muslims at the time asked THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of questions to the guy who knows the Qur'an best.

We don't rely on "interpretations." There is some leg room for opinions in Islam, but the main messages are very clear.

And "going with the majority" still means that there's a minority who disagree, and the majority are not always correct. Neither are people who are "qualified", because they were taught by people who had their own interpretations as well.

The minority is inherently wrong in Islam, because the scholars representing the minority should have pleaded their case to the scholars representing the majority already and made a ruling.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

From what I've seen of any religious text they are far from straightforward. I had to study the Qoran when I was in my last year in primary school, so yeah.

And...what wasn't straightforward to you?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

This is actually a good question, come to think of it. To re-ask it in my own way:

1. In the different sects of Islam, who are the highest-ranking clerics and what is their authority?

Uh, I only know about Sunni and Shi'ite communities. In Sunni communities, the more knowledge you are the higher ranked you are. The highest rank would then be an Imam who heads a School of Islam, a Madhab.

I could be wrong, but do the Ayatollahs in Twelver Shia Islam have the authority to, say, excommunicate someone (if that concept even applies to Islam)?

The 12 Imams have a higher rank than the Ayatollah, but since the Shi'ites believe the 12 Imam has been dormant for the past millennium, the highest rank is the Grand Ayatollah. I have no idea about their powers, though.

2. If there IS a person or group of people who have such authority, can they not excommunicate or otherwise sanction clerics who preach violence? If they could do this, they could distance their particular sect from the image of the 'terrorist Muslim'.

Well, Muslims don't have the right to call each other non-Muslims for sins. So, no, there shouldn't be a way to distance ourselves from the terrorist Muslims.

If there are Muslims doing bad things, then the rest of the Ummah has the pick up the slack and help pay for their acts. We can't just call them non-Muslims and call it a day.

An Imam CAN challenge another Imam if they propagate some downright wrong actions, and show their community that he's not a very trustworthy person.

3. If the authorities have ALREADY somehow sanctioned these hateful clerics who support terrorism, may I suggest that they make more of a fanfare about it to draw attention to the fact that their sect disowns this hateful interpretation of Islam?

There is sort of a fanfare, I guess.

The advantage of a central authority such as the Pope is that when questions are asked of his religion's principles, he can clarify the matter and it's considered the final word. Though the disadvantage is that his personal prejudices can hamper progress (most Catholics - including myself - are forming the opinion that women should be allowed into the priesthood and/or priests should be allowed to marry, but so far the Vatcian has rejected these suggestions).

See, because of personal prejudices, there is no central super-religious figure in Islam.

The Muslim State does have a political ruler, the Caliph...

1. Pleasuring has more than one meaning. Can you be more specific please?

ok here is goes masturbating, jacking off, making knuckle children is that specific enough?

Originally Posted by candc32

ok here is goes masturbating, jacking off, making knuckle children is that specific enough?

Well there are two different views on this.

It is completely forbidden in the Shi'a sect of Islam.

Sunni sect of Islam has a different stance on this. Depending on the circumstances, it can be forbidden or permissible.

Some say it is permissible if one is unmarried, unable to marry or to prevent adultery.

I think the main reason why Masturbation is looked down upon, because there is a possibility of relying on it too much.

Some consider it as Makruh. This means disliked or offensive act. Not the same as Haram which means forbidden. Muslims are encouraged to avoid it as much as possible.

So, let me get this straight. Let's say a man and a woman are getting a divorce. They have a baby who is 1 month old, and still needs breastmilk.

The woman shouldn't get majority (or full) custody of the baby, even though she's a woman?

That is not a right, that depends on the situation entirley. And what if the Mother is a nasty person?
Rights are what people are born with, just becuase you have boobs dosen't mean you should inherite less from your parents.

And even then, that half-inheritance thing is the minimum requirement if there is no will. The parent can just bump their daughter up to half of the full inheritance if they want.

What?

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

That is not a right, that depends on the situation entirley. And what if the Mother is a nasty person?

In case you did not realise, he meant that as a general comment to illustrate his point. Of course, it will take into a consideration which parent is best able to take care of the child.

Civil rights sometimes do apply on an individual for biological factors. For example, maternity leave.

Rights are what people are born with, just becuase you have boobs dosen't mean you should inherite less from your parents.

Your over exaggerating the point your trying to establish here.

This is the point that has been raised why women get less inheritance:

Women in Islam have no financial obligations to contribute to the family. It is the burden upon men to provide the financial necessities needed, though women may also work if she feels the need to provide financially to her family. The women get to keep all the property and demand anything that she needs from her husband. It is the role of the husband to provide anything for his wife (of course as long as it is reasonable and he can afford it).

In the Quran it generally outlines that women tend to get less share of the inheritance and there is not much significant differences between the shares at all. During the marriage contract the husband has to provide the mahr (dowry) which is a large sum of money for the wife to keep.

Women get dowry which makes up for half of the inheritance that the men gets. The Mahr (dowry) is a very large sum of money for the wife to keep. Like I said before there is less significant difference between the shares the man and women get.

Inheritance is different to dowry, though. You could inherit an entire mansion through inheritance, and get one hundred blocks of cheese through a dowry.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Inheritance is different to dowry, though. You could inherit an entire mansion through inheritance, and get one hundred blocks of cheese through a dowry.

Some parts of the inheritance consist of money or valuables that are worth certain amount of money, for example gold. The dowry consists of money too and valuables that is worth certain amount of money.

Whatever the women do not get from the inheritance is made up for the dowry she gets.

This system was introduced so that the man and the women will have enough wealth to enable to take care of themselves or provide themselves with the necessities that they need.

EDIT:

Dowry has to be worth something, not a block of cheese. It is a essential part of the Marriage Contract, that the dowry consists of something valuable and is worth a certain amount of money that the husband can reasonably afford.

Originally Posted by TheBattler

And...what wasn't straightforward to you?

I'm sure there was a similarly far-fetched creation story, for example, so there would have to be differing interpretations of what that was. I've seen differing interpretations on the prohibition of alcohol, too. Etc etc.

Straightforward is something like how, when driving in Britain, you must drive on the left. There's no real way to misinterpret that. Religion is never that straightforward, because there are things in the Bible that basically say "don't do this, don't do that", but then there are things which SEEM to repeal all that later on, and there are differing schools of thought on whether or not they actually do. A full reading of any religious texts reveal that they are anything but consistent, and if the Qoran is a compilation of holy books like the Bible, then it too must be rife with them.

This is a universal curiosity for me, and I'd be grateful for a Muslim perspective:

Apologetic and Evangelistic adherents to any given religion necessarily hold their own faith to be particularly "convincing". By characterization, they must feel that some displayable component of their belief distinguishes its truth from the thousands of other "less-accurate" dogmas of the world. For example, its my experience that Argumentative Christians favor academic trivia when making the case the their religion can be definitively set apart from the pack. (Christ's hypothetical fulfillment of various prophesies, the apparent "well constructed" nature of the Lutheran Bible, contrasts between Christ and other claimant prophets, etc.)

I've never had the exposure necessary to determine similar trends in other faith-based cultures, but I assume that they're universally present. So I'd like to know: in your experience how do Muslims argue the beautiful uniqueness of Islam?

I thought up a new question:
whats is Islam's stance on evolution?