Islam students at LUC

Archive for October 2009

It seems like through most of or recent readings and some comments on this blog,the concept of Shariah law is very important. Most of the more modern thinkers we have been exploring feel that implementation of Shariah law (laws the Muslims abide to so that they may fllow the Islamic way in its fullest manner) has ben cause for rebel in that Muslims are being forced to follow something before they even have a connection with God wich I referred to as love. The yway I see it, how can anyone follow a set of rules and laws when that person has no reason to follow them? What I mean by that is,that Muslims must first be willing to say ” ok Allah is my God and I am his follower” then go on to make a relationship with God. With that relationship is established. then the Muslim realizes ok I have submitted myself to God and reached a level of spirituality with him, so now i must go onto obey his laws. The problem with Shariah law is not that the laws are wrong and what not. The problem is that they preach Shariah as it is the main priorty of the Muslim. Shariah implementation lacks that spiritual connection. Without it Shariah means nothing. That is why many of the writers whose works we have been reading say that Shariah is a problem. It is what’s scaring away people from this religion.

Emir Mozaffar, you are correct in asserting that the  media’s only true responsibility is to make its parent company as much money as possible.  This is why we have lunatics such as Keith Oberann, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity entertaining us on a nightly basis.  However, these media outlets have to be aware that if they continue to offer biased, invalid coverage, they lose credibility as a news source.  Theoretically they will then lose viewership and eventually money.   Media moguls are well aware of this fact and that is why the outrageous ‘news’ reporters are often times mixed in with the true news coverage.  It can only be assumed that the American public would rather be entertained than informed.   Rumsfeld does not have much faith in the American public. 

Rumsfeld would also like to take the time to congratulate Firebird on figuring out how to blog.  The system is actually quite easy to use once you experience it a couple times.

God Bless America!

okay this is ridiculous!!!  I have no idea what I’m doing or how to blog.  I cannot figure out this site.  I am frustrated.  Please someone take the time and show me how to do this.  The only reason I am here is because I just started hitting a lot of buttons and this little box showed up.  I now have a headache.  Just because one cannot blog does not mean they are not an enlightened soul.  I believe there are many individuals within their societies that are doing great things and blogging is not one of them.   Congratulations to the rest of the class who are joyfully blogging, while I am bewildered if this will even go to anyone once I find another button for sending.   If I am not in class I have been carried off to the blog asylum.

Ok, so I understand Ali Shariati’s explanation of religion vs. religion, but what I don’t understand is what exactly is his point?  Ok, so there are the monotheistic religions and there are multitheistic religions.  Why can’t these two types of religions just peacefully co-exist?  I posed this question in my response paper (sorry Professor) but I thought this could be an interesting blog post and hopefully some people can offer some responses.  Why is this such a big deal to Shariati?  Yes, they are completely different types of religions, but why can’t people believe in what they choose to believe in?  A second question that I also want to ask is if there absolutely must be one type of religion (monotheism, according to Shariati) then why didn’t he offer any suggestions as to how to make that happen?  All he basically said was that something needs to be done; we need to “continue the struggle of the divinely-appointed Prophets”.  But that’s all he said.  So basically he is leaving it up to someone else to do his dirty work for him?  Or did I miss something?  Which could very well be the case, considering I read so late at night.  Hopefully someone has some thoughts.

ok so i know this is quite the delayed response, but i thought i had enough to say about the poem we read in class last week. I was actually confused on the fact that he wrote the complaint and then wrote the answer himself also. It makes me wonder what his actual thoughts/ beliefs are. If however he was a true muslim, isn’t it all about the end result anyway? the day of judgement. Doesn’t it all matter about the ending, when you are ultimately judged for your good/pure behavior? To me it sounds like he is preoccupied with the present and achieving material goods for his present state of mind. But not looking to the future. The complaint is emphasizing that other (non-muslims) have not worked at achieving their status and wealth. But the main focus as a muslim should be for internal happiness, which is achieved through justice and good deeds. Instead of living the life of a selfless being, there is a need for wanted wealth, which in my opinion will bring about more obstacles to the complainer.

 

 

So, not knowing what to blog about, I decided to google Reform and Islam. The first site that came up was Muslims Against Sharia at http://www.reformislam.org. Initially, I thought, “Hey, maybe this is about educating people and providing the truth about Islam. Or maybe, it is about bringing Muslims back to the Qur’an and spiritual side.” But,the bold print of the topics and their goals definitely proved me wrong. The goals for this organization are to educate Muslims about the dangers presented by Islamic religious texts, educate non-Muslims about differences between Moderate Muslims and Extremists, and finally, to educate everyone that Moderate Muslims are victims, as well. Ok. I understand the second goal, kind of agree with the third one, but am confused with the first. Reading further, their Manifesto cleared up some questions, but mostly provided new ones. One of the points is to acknowledge the mistakes made; I believe they
mean that it is important to recognize the reason for the religious travesties in the world. So far, so good.
Then, they speak of inconsistencies in the Qur’an…but, if the Qur’an is Islam, would that not seem to say that there are inconsistencies in Islam? But, then again, they say “Islam has no place for violence.” This confuses me. I mean, if a Muslim believes there are inconsistencies in the Qur’an, and if Islam encompasses the Qur’an, how can Islam be perfect and the Qur’an imperfect? I find this statement of the organization to be at a great fault. Especially, all the works we have read advise Muslims to go to the root of Islam (go to the Qur’an) and reconnect with God. The organization further states that since some of the phrases in the Qur’an are outdated, it is important to keep up with current times. I just feel that this defies the principles set forth by the works we have read. Personally, I think saying the Qur’an is “not current” and has faults strikes an integral part of Islam. Why must what is current determine what should be followed and right? I think I have much more confidence in the works of Rumi, Ghazali, Iqbal, and al-Muhasibi than the organization. But, if you are able to look at the site, what do you think? Is it just me who feels that their manifest defies some key principles of Islam?

 

Hi everyone,

 Last night I was watching one of the international channels. Nevertheless, all my enjoyment ended when I saw a woman in an incomplete dress. It is not so that I saw such scene for the very first time but that last night a question came to my mind that are we becoming modern or going back to Stone Age? What is the difference in the present man and a man thousands of years ago? According to scientists, many years ago man covered himself with very less clothes even sometimes with leaves due to unavailability of clothes. However, these days, dress sizes are reduced with personal wish. People used to eat, drink prohibited things before, and they are doing the same now. Alcohol is strictly prohibited but we are proud to drink that. In early days people had to fight with one another because they had no other activity. Now we are fighting and killing one another intentionally. Even we have much better and accurate tools to kill one another. There is no difference in hairstyles of early men and present men. Previously they had to keep such hair because of unavailability of scissors and difficulty in cutting hair but present age man is avoiding it by his own will. We see the man of jungles was forced to do all this non-sense but current age man is doing this sensibly. What do you think are we becoming modern or going back to Stone Age?