Ramadan and women

[Yosef]

I just got a copy of the Koran in my hands, so I'm going to read all about it.

There are about 40 English language translations of the Holy Quran at this site:

http://www.al-quran.info

Some are more accepted than others. They are marked by green v at the list. Translations to other languages are available there too.

all the best

 

[NMSquirrel]

http://www.al-quran.info

Some are more accepted than others. They are marked by green v at the list. Translations to other languages are available there too.

um..clicked there.. it kept taking me to online quran project (just a search engine for the quran) helpfull for those that know what they are looking for..

what about some links for beginners..please?

 

[Bebelina]

I'm reading a Swedish translation: Koranen, K V Zettersténs oförkortade översättning, from 1979.

 

[Michael]

HEEY S.A.M.
help, i'm not good with history, and i don't memorize the verses from quran, so can you help me here?
because islam DID bann slavery, but who said all people did ban it.


hey rcscwc, S.A.M. will make it more clear, i'm not very good with history nor detailing.

wiki is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_social_changes_under_Islam

One of the most important contributions of Islam was the rule of meritocracy - the notion that birth, lineage, caste, family and social standing was irrelevant, only actions were important. In Islam there is no authority apart from God. So even a "slave" was paid. The Sultan stood in line with the Jannisars to obtain his salary - and the Sultans were deposed by the "slaves" when they did not meet with their approval, ultimately the Jannisars overthrew the Sultanate. The problem with Muslims today is that they ignore the Qur'an and follow "tradition" rather than scripture.

Haaaaaahhahahaha..... Shadow1, did you notice how SAM ignored your question and told you exactly what you wanted to hear?

:roflmao:

So SAM, do you care to answer Shadow1's question? DID the Qur'an BAN Slavery?
Or, did the Qur'an actually Institutionalize Slavery, thereby not banning it, but in reality legalizing Slavery?


Go ahead Shadow1, ask SAM if owning a Slave is evil, immoral, unethical? Is it SAM? Is buying and selling other humans evil? Did Mohammad ever own, buy and sell another human being?


Oh wait, but wait, Wiki is our friend:

Islam and slavery
Historically, the major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.[1] The Islamic prophet Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves.


Oh, sorry to pop your little bubble Shadow1 but it seems Mohammad did indeed live a full life as a Slave Owner. What a wonderful example to set for humankind - huh? Thanks Mo, you're a beacon of hope, a shining light showing the way. Hell, 1400 years of Slave Traders and the sale of millions of Slaves would all like to thank you kindly for your exemplary life. I mean, you could have personally lived a life without buying and selling Slaves, even if you didn't ban it, you know, to set a good example for others to follow. But, you didn't. Then again, as an apologist would say, you can't really expect a Prince to give up his Harem, Power, Gold and Jewels, his entire Kingdom to sit under a Bodhi Tree. No man could endure such hardship as a life without a Harem, Power and Slaves :bugeye:


Of course the truth is, there never really was a Mohammad. Slavery was an integral part of the Arab/Persian Empire and so of course the protagonist Mohammad had to own Slaves.

 

[Shadow1]

.

I just got a copy of the Koran in my hands, so I'm going to read all about it.

it's in english right? then, you wan't find everything so clear, or exact, many things are changed in the meaning while make an english copy, because arabic is more developed in grammars and stuff, than english, and, maybe you can say, different and hard to translate it the same and keep as it is, well, enjoy
hope you read it well, and don't judge on verses just by reading them, even a muslim can't understand all quran and need, like, a dictionaar yor something, to explain verses, (not a normal dictionnary, you can even search on net to find meanings) anyway, and in english, it may not be so, obvious, and few things would be miss understtod, for example, sky, in arabic, in quran, "sama", wouldn't just mean, sky, it would mean, everything that is not on earth, on earth ground, univerce, spafce, sky, everything, etc etc of other things... if you need help or questioning, you can ask as here.

 

[Shadow1]

.

Maybe that's because many of them cannot read.

no..
even if yes, not in all countries, not in all arab countries nor islamic countries. in here, everyone can read, and talk 2 languages, even if some old people can't speak the second language so good, they can, deal with it

 

[Shadow1]

.

It does, the very first verse revealed was : Iqra bismi Rabbi kal- ladhi khalaqa: (Read in the name of your Lord Who created) [Surah al Alaq]

And also

"[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them."


"[22:46] Did they not roam the earth, then use their minds to understand, and use their ears to hear? Indeed, the real blindness is not the blindness of the eyes, but the blindness of the hearts inside the chests."

"[29:20] Say: Travel through the earth and see how Allah originated creation"

"[20:114] Do not be in haste with the Qur'an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, "O my Sustainer! Increase my knowledge."

It would seem however, that what tradition maintains is more valuable than simply reading the Quran and learning what it says or more importantly, what it does not say. Muslims forget that this is how the gospels were lost, by depending on what people said about the gospels, rather than the words themselves.

"[39:9] Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike? "

If you don't know what the Qur'an says or does not say, how can you claim to be following it? The way I figure it, if it was a requirement of faith, it would be mentioned in the Qur'an - if its not mentioned in the Qur'an its a form of bidaah. Nothing wrong with religious interpretation so long as you know, quite clearly, that it has no basis in the Qur'an and comes entirely from custom or tradition.

sadly, some muslims, think they are, kinda very good muslims and know alot and stuff, while, you can find, other people, whome not relegious, but good, and even know better than them, and, you can call it, wise or, not asleep, means, that he can understand, not just, they tell him, so it is..anyway.

 

[Shadow1]

No one knows that better than I. Michael and I have been doing this for over four years. While he dreams of female homosexual imams in the Cordoba mosque, he neglects to recall that Americans do not even have a female leader of a political party!

wow, that impress me, lol, it don't, because i actually don't care

oh, just almost forgot, don't talk on the name of all muslims anymore, for example that muslims follow tradiotions instead of quran, because not all, also that's different from a country to another

 

[Shadow1]

.

Haaaaaahhahahaha..... Shadow1, did you notice how SAM ignored your question and told you exactly what you wanted to hear?



So SAM, do you care to answer Shadow1's question? DID the Qur'an BAN Slavery?
Or, did the Qur'an actually Institutionalize Slavery, thereby not banning it, but in reality legalizing Slavery?


Go ahead Shadow1, ask SAM if owning a Slave is evil, immoral, unethical? Is it SAM? Is buying and selling other humans evil? Did Mohammad ever own, buy and sell another human being?


Oh wait, but wait, Wiki is our friend:

Islam and slavery
Historically, the major juristic schools of Islam traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.[1] The Islamic prophet Muhammad and many of his companions bought, sold, freed, and captured slaves.


Oh, sorry to pop your little bubble Shadow1 but it seems Mohammad did indeed live a full life as a Slave Owner. What a wonderful example to set for humankind - huh? Thanks Mo, you're a beacon of hope, a shining light showing the way. Hell, 1400 years of Slave Traders and the sale of millions of Slaves would all like to thank you kindly for your exemplary life. I mean, you could have personally lived a life without buying and selling Slaves, even if you didn't ban it, you know, to set a good example for others to follow. But, you didn't. Then again, as an apologist would say, you can't really expect a Prince to give up his Harem, Power, Gold and Jewels, his entire Kingdom to sit under a Bodhi Tree. No man could endure such hardship as a life without a Harem, Power and Slaves :bugeye:


Of course the truth is, there never really was a Mohammad. Slavery was an integral part of the Arab/Persian Empire and so of course the protagonist Mohammad had to own Slaves.

waaaaw, dude, you need a serious help! get over it!
am i talking to you? why are you stuck on that phrases and stuck on me? do you have a crush on me?? uke:

 

[iceaura]

No, none at all. Hence you will not be surprised to learn that NOWHERE in the Qur'an does it say that women cannot worship, recite scripture or perform salat during menstruation. It is an innovation borrowed from other religions or a hangover of older tribal customs.

It is justified on the basis of the Quran by the religious clerics and authorities relevant.

It is Islam.

Thats correct. There are those who were surprised when informed that FGM does not come from the Qur'an, they have yet to discover that neither does circumcision. In fact, its surprising how many so called religious practices have no basis in the Qur'an.

They are not "so-called" religious practices. They are Islamic religious practices, verified as such by actual Muslims who practice Islam.

The way I figure it, if it was a requirement of faith, it would be mentioned in the Qur'an - if its not mentioned in the Qur'an its a form of bidaah.

You are not in charge of Islam. We have to deal with the actual religion, not a theoretical possibility of its ideal form.

I am quite certain that Yosef believes the Qur'an states such and such, its easy enough to verify if it does or does not. All you have to do, is read it.

That does not work - the presence of almost anything can be "verified" by the motivated reader of the Quran, as with any religious book.

No one knows that better than I. Michael and I have been doing this for over four years. While he dreams of female homosexual imams in the Cordoba mosque, he neglects to recall that Americans do not even have a female leader of a political party

Time to drop the pretense of differentiating "political" from ":religious" issues in the case of religions - such as Islam - that do not allow the separation of Church and State. All Muslims on this forum combine the two interchangeably, as there.

 

[S.A.M.]

It is justified on the basis of the Quran by the religious clerics and authorities relevant.

And they will be the first to tell you that in Islam there is no authority other than God. Find me a cleric who disagrees with that.

Any "authorities relevant" are just opinion, nothing more. Including me. All I do is point to the Qur'an and note that the religious practice has no basis in any Quranic verse. Feel free to find me a justification by an authority that opposes any stance I take and I'll address it.

I've debated religion with clerics as well as atheists. Ultimately, its all between the believer and God. There is not a single country with a Muslim population that has a religious governance. They are ALL without exception, civil governments and though they may claim their laws are based on Islamic jurisprudence, not one of them can claim their laws are infallible or absolute.

oh, just almost forgot, don't talk on the name of all muslims anymore, for example that muslims follow tradiotions instead of quran, because not all, also that's different from a country to another

I don't talk in the name of all Muslims, only on my own behalf. I see the problems in the community and state them. Anyone is free to provide evidence to the contrary and challenge me on my stance.

 

[Shadow1]

such as Islam - that do not allow the separation of Church and State. All Muslims on this forum combine the two interchangeably, as there.

anyway, do you mean, combining relegion with politics? because, you can't say combining mosuqes with politics, because mosques, unlike in christanity, are just buildings, where muslims pray together, and there's an imam in it, that pray with people, adn people can ask him about relegion things, and the imam each friday can bring a topic, to discuss, either relegion (about islam) or social life, or science (in a generality) anyway, and that imam, is a person like everyone, have a job, have a wife and kids,and etc...
so if you mean combining relegion with politics? none of us here agree on it, even that we are all muslims in here.
wait wait wait, i see the word, "ALL"

 

[S.A.M.]

anyway, do you mean, combining relegion with politics? because, you can't say combining mosuqes with politics, because mosques, unlike in christanity, are just buildings, where muslims pray together, and there's an imam in it, that pray with people, adn people can ask him about relegion things, and the imam each friday can bring a topic, to discuss, either relegion (about islam) or social life, or science (in a generality) anyway, and that imam, is a person like everyone, have a job, have a wife and kids,and etc...
so if you mean combining relegion with politics? none of us here agree on it, even that we are all muslims in here.
wait wait wait, i see the word, "ALL"

Just read this statement from ice

Time to drop the pretense of differentiating "political" from ":religious" issues in the case of religions - such as Islam - that do not allow the separation of Church and State

Islam is the only religion perhaps to require a separation of church and state - because the only religious authority is God. The ulema [religious scholars] or qadis [clerics] cannot dictate laws. Pick the most extreme example you like - Saudi Arabia, since its a favourite here - and note that the king can overrule any legal conviction.

 

[Shadow1]

Islam is the only religion perhaps to require a separation of church and state - because the only religious authority is God. The ulema [religious scholars] or qadis [clerics] cannot dictate laws. Pick the most extreme example you like - Saudi Arabia, since its a favourite here - and note that the king can overrule any legal conviction.

saudi arabia, before making it's people learn, the true islam, and the first basics of islam, and not those burkas, and letting them know what is really islam; and give their women some rights, but saudi arabia do, (i'm not discussion in general way, just to you as a muslim) don't really apply islam, i mean, it's only, dictatorship, i mean, i can't see any islam in their people, the only thing i can see, is, being pround of being ignorant, being pround, and don't want to be even better than developed countrieds, think that they are the best because they have mecca, and oil, they think they are better than all humanity;, they are rich, but many are starving, for example, in tunisia, why there's not so much poor people, and even poor are living good, because all people help each other, neibors help poor in their neighbordhood as much as they can, making them a small job, to give them money, give food, school needs, etc... true some people are poor, but , they are never alone, i don't know about saudi arabia, but, people who visited it, sya they have alot of poor people, and no one helps them, anyway, my point is, and i think you can understand what i'm saying, they are not applying anything of islam, the only thing they apply is, forcing burka on women (while she's not even convinced of it) i'm sure their king want them to be good and apply islam, but he failed, but, who knows, it's a matter of time intill they become better, i mean, they have just started their modern country, and have just found oil, they would need more time, i'm sure they will have a good future, and i'm sure there's a lot of hope left.
anyway, what church in islam is he talking about? does he mean, the mosque? he don't even know how the mosque is or even what is the mosque, wich it's impossible to combine a mosque, with politics, i mean, what to combine in it??

 

[Shadow1]

There are many things wrong with Saudi Arabia, but after four years living there, I have yet to come across any statement from a Saudi that they represent true Islam. They represent the Saudi way of life, that is all.

ah, well, what do i know! can you tell me about saudi arabia, since you lived in it 4 years? i mean, maybe correct a fw things of what i said, and others things, don't worry i'm not thinking at it as extremists or something, they may look extremists from what they wear, i mean women, but, it's the reallly really opposite way, and why do they think they represent the true islam, there's no country that reperesent the true islam, and there's no group that represent it, it's between the individual and god, anyway, so, tell me about saudi arabia.

Its a cross cultural problem. Its hard for westerners to comprehend how irrelevant a mosque is to a Muslim as a religious institution or how inadequate an imam is as a religious authority. They compare it to their own churches and priests.

yeah, it's hard for them, to even know anything in islam, or about it, or how things work in it, the simplest things, ramadhan, aiid (3id), zakat, praying, a mosque, etc...

 

[S.A.M.]

There are many things wrong with Saudi Arabia, but after four years living there, I have yet to come across any statement from a Saudi that they represent true Islam. They represent the Saudi way of life, that is all. Thats what they are proud about. Being Arab and Saudi. To them foreigners who are Muslims are still foreigners.

anyway, what church in islam is he talking about? does he mean, the mosque? he don't even know how the mosque is or even what is the mosque, wich it's impossible to combine a mosque, with politics, i mean, what to combine in it??

Its a cross cultural problem. Its hard for westerners to comprehend how irrelevant a mosque is to a Muslim as a religious institution or how inadequate an imam is as a religious authority. They compare it to their own churches and priests and don't understand how little importance we give to religious authorities in Islam.


Just read comments about Saudis funding madrassas and mosques in the US. As if all Saudis are cut from the same cloth and have some homogenous form of Islam and not that being American allies, its easier for them to invest in countries which are allied to the US as well as in the US. The total investment of Saudi Arabia in the US runs into hundreds of billions and spans the entire economic spectrum. How much of that do you think is investment in madrassas and mosques? Without the cooperation of the Sauds, the US would have self destructed a long time ago. But let some religious Saudi invest in a religious institution as dawah and you will see nutjobs run around like headless chickens.

ah, well, what do i know! can you tell me about saudi arabia, since you lived in it 4 years? i mean, maybe correct a fw things of what i said, and others things, don't worry i'm not thinking at it as extremists or something, they may look extremists from what they wear, i mean women, but, it's the reallly really opposite way, and why do they think they represent the true islam, there's no country that reperesent the true islam, and there's no group that represent it, it's between the individual and god, anyway, so, tell me about saudi arabia.

They are just like everybody else. They worry about the same things as everyone else does. Extreme is a point of view. They think Americans are extremists because they go around the world killing people for no reason. Whats extreme?

 

[Shadow1]

.

There are many things wrong with Saudi Arabia, but after four years living there, I have yet to come across any statement from a Saudi that they represent true Islam. They represent the Saudi way of life, that is all. Thats what they are proud about. Being Arab and Saudi. To them ...e. They worry about the same things as everyone else does. Extreme is a point of view. They think Americans are extremists because they go around the world killing people for no reason. Whats extreme?

aaah, thanks for clarifing, because, i was confused about them, anyway, i got what you mean, thanks for clarifying

 

[S.A.M.]

aaah, thanks for clarifing, because, i was confused about them, anyway, i got what you mean, thanks for clarifying

No problem. Thinking about it, perhaps a Hindu or a Buddhist would understand it better, to Hindus/Buddhists the temple is like the mosque, just a place to focus prayers and the priest merely someone who makes it easy to follow the traditional form of prayer local to the place. But the priest does not dictate law, the king/president/prime minister does. Actually, a Hindu or Buddhist priest probably is better versed in the relevant scriptures than an imam would be in the Quran. They would probably clarify scriptures to their congregation. But the principle is the same. For Hindus and Buddhists, the shastras and shlokas are the religion, not the priests or temples which are only about worship.

All the imam needs to know is how to direct prayer and give a khutba every Friday. Doesn't even have to be original and if he can't do it himself, he can find a khatib to do it for him.

 

[iceaura]

And they will be the first to tell you that in Islam there is no authority other than God. Find me a cleric who disagrees with that.

So?

Any "authorities relevant" are just opinion, nothing more.

So?

You miss the point, completely.

Islam is the only religion perhaps to require a separation of church and state - because the only religious authority is God.

That is not visible in any earthly manifestation of Islam.

No Islamic sect or ecclesiastical power acts to separate church and state in real life, or even tries as far as I can see - the various attempts of Turkey to screen its government from the influence of Islam illustrate the problems rather well. The very concept seems alien and incomprehensible, in most cases visible to me.

Illustration:

anyway, do you mean, combining relegion with politics?

Now that was in response to my post in which I quoted SAM once again smoothly and obliviously interchanging a religious and political issue - comparing them as equivalent.

I don't mean "combining", I mean unable to differentiate in the first place.

The kind of mental blind spot that produces ridiculous statements like this:

There is not a single country with a Muslim population that has a religious governance.

WTF?

Example? Bans on alcohol. Legal enforcement of the religious strictures on gender roles. Religious strictures on financial infrastructure including charging interest on loans. Forms and rules of marriage.

This isn't a subtle point. That religion seems to be mentally crippling to an extraordinary degree.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is not visible in any earthly manifestation of Islam.

No Islamic sect or ecclesiastical power acts to separate church and state in real life, or even tries as far as I can see - the various attempts of Turkey to screen its government from the influence of Islam illustrate the problems rather well. The very concept seems alien and incomprehensible, in most cases visible to me.


Example? Bans on alcohol. Legal enforcement of the religious strictures on gender roles. Religious strictures on financial infrastructure including charging interest on loans. Forms and rules of marriage.

I see the reverse. No Islamic sect or "ecclesiastical power" [which ones are those?] can combine church and state in real life.

Name one country in any of the above examples, where religious authority trumps civil administration. If religion is superior to state in these countries then religious authority should be the law. It should be irrefutable and unchangeable. I'll take the example of usury in "Islamic" banking. Are other forms of banking banned? Do Saudis invest in other banks which involve usury? Maybe, to the civil administration of these countries it makes sense to promote one form of banking over another. Do Saudis use medicine with alcohol? Do Saudi women abandon their abayas outside their country? What forms and rules of marriage are Islamic and mandatory? What legal enforcement of religious strictures on gender rules is outside the purview of civil refutation and bound entirely by religious edict? Why is it that Saudi women cover their face on the streets but uncover them on national television?

If communists Chinese operate Islamic banks in China, does it mean that religion trumps capitalism?

From Btimes.com.my: Affin Holdings Bhd and its foreign partner, Hong Kong’s The Bank of East Asia Ltd, have submitted a proposal to the China Banking Regulation Authority (CBRA) to open China’s first Islamic bank.

“CBRA is currently still studying the regulation and practices of Islamic finance. We hope to be the first Islamic bank in China once the authority has come up with the regulations,” said BEA chairman and chief executive officer Dr David K.P Li in Kuala Lumpur

http://www.btimes.com.my/articles/findo/Article/

Come to think of it, the only country that openly claims to use sharia [not the Qur'an but sharia] is Iran and even in Iran, all major laws are determined by civil administration and only constitutional changes are debated by the Ayatollah's council. However, although the Ayatollah is the Supreme Poo bah of Shias, even his authority only extends to Shias in Iran bound by the constitution of their country. It does not extend to Shias outside Iran or Iranians outside Iran. Does religious authority stop at the border? And all this only after a nationwide referendum following the fall of the Shah. So, were Iranians not Muslims before the Ayatollah? Before the Shah? Which is the more Islamic Iran? Under the Parliament of Mosaddegh, under the dictatorship of the Shah or under the atypical Parliament of the Ayatollah?