Questions for Muslims

[SithDoughnut]

As Faris' thread has been locked, I thought I would open up this new one which isn't against the rules for everyone to continue the discussion in.

I believe the current discussion was about the hijab. So I've got a question related to that, aimed at any Muslims on here (and anyone else for that matter):

Do you think that the hijab and the idea of covering is more of a cultural tradition or a religious one?

 

[awitch]

Did the French pass that law banning the hijab in public?
I bet that has to make Muslims feel rather unwelcome there - then again, I suppose that was the point.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Did the French pass that law banning the hijab in public?
I bet that has to make Muslims feel rather unwelcome there - then again, I suppose that was the point.

I know they passed one banning the burqa, but I'm not sure about the hijab. The French have never got on very well with Islam in general...

 

[kiwimac]

Hence their problems in Algeria.

 

[JJWhite]

Do you think that the hijab and the idea of covering is more of a cultural tradition or a religious one?

the base is religious, but application may vary from culture to culture

to my understanding, the typical arabian woman at the time of muhammad used to wear a type of head covering that would usually leave her 'bangs' showing and which was draped down the back leaving the neck and upper chest bare. i think that was the cultural dress at the time.

some of the companions of the prophet had expressed their opinion that women should cover more, and some time down the line, a few verses were finally revealed regarding women's dress.

one verse mentions that women should draw their veils to the front as to cover their bosoms, and another verse says that free women should wear a 'jilbaab' or wrap an outer garment over their dresses in order to be distinguishable from the slave girls and less likely to be bothered.

i don't know much about shi'ite schools of law, but the four common ones amongst us sunnis today are the hanafi, shafi'ee, maliki, and hanbali. some people prefer to follow scholars that stick to one school of law, because they feel like one may pick and choose from among opposing opinions to suit their desires if they don't blindly follow a particular 'madh-hab', as these schools of law called. some muslims, such as myself, do not restrict themselves to one school of law. rather, we keep trying to learn the different opinions within our legal history and evaluate which scholars bring forward the most convincing evidence for their various positions.

regarding hijab, this is generally what the scholars of the four traditional schools of law have had to say.

hanbalis- hijab must cover the entire body.
shafi'ees and malikis- hijab excludes face and hands
hanafis- hijab excludes face, hands, and feet

rarely, you may also find random scholars in there that say it's okay for forearms to show too.

each of these opinions is based on evidence, sometimes the same textual evidence. language is one reason the differences occur... culture.. logic... some scholars accept certain ahaadeeth as authentic, while others do not, etc..

at the end of the day, what you can say is that just about every islamic scholar under the sun for 1400 years pretty much agreed that besides face, hands and feet (over which they differed), a muslim woman should cover the rest of her body when in front of non-relative males. within the past few decades though, there have been some who have begun to claim that the verses in the qur'an don't preach hijab but just encourage one to dress modestly per the culture they live in, but MOST muslims diss these modern opinions as unorthodox and unacceptable. even though there are a lot of muslim women who do not wear hijab, they still, for the most part, recognize it as a religious injunction.

 

[Crimsonfield]

In Belgium, as far as I noticed with younger generations; wearing the veil is more a question of self-assertion and rejection of Western culture rather than religious or cultural tradition.

Did the French pass that law banning the hijab in public?
I bet that has to make Muslims feel rather unwelcome there - then again, I suppose that was the point.

The face veil (burka/niqab) ban passed but the hijab is still allowed, although it's prohibited in a lot of schools now. Although it won't be a surprise if they'll push to ban the Hijab in public as well someday.

 

[JJWhite]

Niqab is even banned in a lot of universities and schools in Egypt. One of my relatives is studying psychology there. She opted for home studies, but she has to take her exams at the university. She used to take off her niqab and instead wear one of those medical mask things when entering the exam hall (since that had been allowed), but the proctor during her last exam this year made her remove that too for the duration of the test... but, at least, she gave her a front row seat so that her back was to most everyone else.

 

[Supreme]

The face veil (burka/niqab) ban passed but the hijab is still allowed, although it's prohibited in a lot of schools now. Although it won't be a surprise if they'll push to ban the Hijab in public as well someday.

I doubt it. Wheras the Niqab is worn by very few Muslim women (in the West where they're given the choice, at least), the hijab is worn by the majority of Muslim women. No country with a sizeable Muslim population like France could ever consider banning such popular religious attire- the only reason the Burqa can be banned is because even amongst Muslim communities, the garb is controversial and not practised widely.

My question for Muslims, to keep this thread on topic, is do you see todays Christians as 'People of the Book'- that is a respected, monotheistic religion non-Islamic religion- and if not why not? Believe it or not, I've encountered Muslims who say that todays Christians do not practise the same religion as the one found in Muhammad's Arabia, although if that were true, it would render the Quranic verses that are in favour of Christians obsolete by todays standards.

 

[JJWhite]

I doubt it. Wheras the Niqab is worn by very few Muslim women (in the West where they're given the choice, at least), the hijab is worn by the majority of Muslim women. No country with a sizeable Muslim population like France could ever consider banning such popular religious attire- the only reason the Burqa can be banned is because even amongst Muslim communities, the garb is controversial and not practised widely.

The niqab is gaining popularity in many countries, like Egypt. I think the only place where it is losing popularity is in the gulf states where it was pretty much culturally enforced.

My question for Muslims, to keep this thread on topic, is do you see todays Christians as 'People of the Book'- that is a respected, monotheistic religion non-Islamic religion- and if not why not?

Yes, I do... 'People of the Book', definitely.. respected (as a whole), definitely, but, regarding monotheistic... it would depend on how you look at it. I understand that Christians believe they are monotheistic and I understand that they worship only one God, but since I believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, it would still look to me that a Christian is taking as god other than God when praying to Christ (according to MY beliefs).

Believe it or not, I've encountered Muslims who say that todays Christians do not practise the same religion as the one found in Muhammad's Arabia, although if that were true, it would render the Quranic verses that are in favour of Christians obsolete by todays standards.

I've heard my husband complain about people he's encountered who have made comments to that effect as well. I suppose this usually comes up with the halal meat issue. GENERALLY SPEAKING, you'll find the Arabs and Southeast Asians don't have a problem with eating the meat slaughtered by today's Christians while the Indo-Pakistanis will only eat meat that is Jewish 'kosher' or Muslim 'halal', and some will say that it's because today's Christians have different beliefs, etc.

I have read a book (and some online articles) written by Christians that say that MOST Christians in Arabia were Nestorians or Ebionites though... and, from what I understand, they did not believe that God and Jesus were co-equal, but they did believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for humanity's sins. I suppose that would make them similar to today's Unitarian Christians??? Not sure... I am curious about Unitarian Christians' beliefs... our mosque here in the States is side-by-side with a Unitarian Church. We share parking lots and have planned a kids' fun night where families from both 'congregations' attended. Yet, I've never talked with them about religion. Got to do that.

Anyhow, the Qur'an mentions 1- Christians that believe in Jesus as only the Son, 2- Christians that believe Jesus is God, and 3- Christians who believe God is the third of three (which I assume is a way of referring to the Trinity). All three groups are classified as having false beliefs regarding God in the Qur'aan, but all three groups have always been considered Christians and People of the Book within Islamic history to my knowledge.

I could go on and on...

 

[Supreme]

The niqab is gaining popularity in many countries, like Egypt. I think the only place where it is losing popularity is in the gulf states where it was pretty much culturally enforced.

I was talking about the West, where the Niqab is worn by a micro-minority of Muslim women. In the Arab world, I am not surprised that the Niqab is popular.

Yes, I do... 'People of the Book', definitely.. respected (as a whole), definitely, but, regarding monotheistic... it would depend on how you look at it. I understand that Christians believe they are monotheistic and I understand that they worship only one God, but since I believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, it would still look to me that a Christian is taking as god other than God when praying to Christ (according to MY beliefs).

That's good to know.

I have read a book (and some online articles) written by Christians that say that MOST Christians in Arabia were Nestorians or Ebionites though... and, from what I understand, they did not believe that God and Jesus were co-equal, but they did believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for humanity's sins. I suppose that would make them similar to today's Unitarian Christians??? Not sure... I am curious about Unitarian Christians' beliefs... our mosque here in the States is side-by-side with a Unitarian Church. We share parking lots and have planned a kids' fun night where families from both 'congregations' attended. Yet, I've never talked with them about religion. Got to do that.

My friend who is a Unitarian Christian says that he believes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all exactly the same entity and that there is no difference between them, which is contrary to the Nicene Creed. I'm not sure if this is what all Unitarians believe, though.

Anyhow, the Qur'an mentions 1- Christians that believe in Jesus as only the Son, 2- Christians that believe Jesus is God, and 3- Christians who believe God is the third of three (which I assume is a way of referring to the Trinity). All three groups are classified as having false beliefs regarding God in the Qur'aan, but all three groups have always been considered Christians and People of the Book within Islamic history to my knowledge.

That's good to know.

 

[razeontherock]

I understand that Christians believe they are monotheistic and I understand that they worship only one God, but since I believe that God and Jesus are two separate entities, it would still look to me that a Christian is taking as god other than God when praying to Christ (according to MY beliefs).

I have read a book (and some online articles) written by Christians that say that MOST Christians in Arabia were Nestorians or Ebionites though... and, from what I understand, they did not believe that God and Jesus were co-equal, but they did believe that Jesus was the Son of God and died for humanity's sins. I suppose that would make them similar to today's Unitarian Christians???

Anyhow, the Qur'an mentions 1- Christians that believe in Jesus as only the Son, 2- Christians that believe Jesus is God, and 3- Christians who believe God is the third of three (which I assume is a way of referring to the Trinity). All three groups are classified as having false beliefs regarding God in the Qur'aan, but all three groups have always been considered Christians and People of the Book within Islamic history to my knowledge.

This is an interesting insight. I read this line of thought more and more from Muslims, and it always seems such a simple misunderstanding. Then I begin to try to clarify, and find that words fail. But your comment where you reference Unitarians (which I'm not) and Nestorians (not that either) seems to clarify it enough to respond to:

Jesus the Man is not and never was equal to the infinite G-d. Scripture backs this up, saying the Father gave the Son a pre-eminent place, (Lord) which He will use to bring all things into subjection to the Father. Of course that will require means that go beyond mere human flesh.

Does this make sense or add anything to the understanding of the Muslims here?

 

[JJWhite]

Jesus the Man is not and never was equal to the infinite G-d. Scripture backs this up, saying the Father gave the Son a pre-eminent place, (Lord) which He will use to bring all things into subjection to the Father. Of course that will require means that go beyond mere human flesh.

Does this make sense or add anything to the understanding of the Muslims here?

I don't know about all Muslims, but I've had many discussions about this with 'typical' Christians before. It all goes back to the two distinct, yet not separate natures of Jesus, I suppose.

 

[razeontherock]

Distinct but not separate? Sounds confusing to me (LOL)

Can't be understood w/o recognition of the Virgin birth. Where'd He get His Spirit from? Not the same place as us. The Word made flesh. And we are to be flesh made Word.

I guess that sounds confusing to you now, right? (LOL)

 

[JJWhite]

Distinct but not separate? Sounds confusing to me (LOL)

Definitely confusing... it's what most Christians tell me though... that Jesus as God and Jesus as Man are the two distinct natures of Jesus that are not separate... or, at least, were not separate during Jesus's life and crucifixion?

What do you believe if otherwise?

To a Muslim... God and Jesus are completely separate entities. Jesus is a creation of God. There is no Divine Jesus.

Can't be understood w/o recognition of the Virgin birth. Where'd He get His Spirit from? Not the same place as us. The Word made flesh. And we are to be flesh made Word.

I guess that sounds confusing to you now, right? (LOL)

Well, the Qur'aan does call Jesus 'A Word from God' and a 'Spirit from Him' (or soul- depending on how you translate rooh).

"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of God and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, God is but One God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is God as Disposer of affairs." (4:171)

We usually understand that the 'Word' was BE. God said 'Be' and Jesus was... He miraculously came into being within a virgin mother by the command of God.

So, yeah, we don't have anything about us going from flesh to word in our beliefs.

 

[razeontherock]

We usually understand that the 'Word' was BE. God said 'Be' and Jesus was... He miraculously came into being within a virgin mother by the command of God.

Well thank you for that, that's greatly encouraging! I had no idea. I'm not sure how that doesn't qualify as G-d's Son, but it seems like semantics from here on out?

So, yeah, we don't have anything about us going from flesh to word in our beliefs.

See this is the miraculous part of really being a Christian! Even a baby one. This is why it's really not an argument about dusty books or archeology, or even Theology. And why those who endlessly argue about it seem to have missed the point.

When you see the Word coming alive in your own life, Jesus' resurrection is no longer just an idea ...

 

[Mahammad]

The hijab is a religious tradition, women in Arabia pre-Islamic times didn't hide their hair, the burka is originally a golden mask that used to be worn by Bedouin women, http://www.snnam.com/vb/imgcache/2/527snnam.gif

nowadays the burka became a black mask, the burka and the niqab became from cultural traditions to religious ones, at least in my country, my grandfather said before Saudi Arabia was created, most Bedouin women didn't hide their hair, and Bedouins in general didn't know anything about their own religion.

 

[ApplePie7]

To a Muslim... God and Jesus are completely separate entities. Jesus is a creation of God. There is no Divine Jesus.

According to the authors' of the Koran, Jesus was never created.

Jesus is God according to the Koran, same as copied from the Holy Bible, its source.

Muslims need to start studying their book of faith and place less emphasis upon following the man-made abomination called islam.

 

[al7amdullilah]

According to the authors' of the Koran, Jesus was never created.

Jesus is God according to the Koran, same as copied from the Holy Bible, its source.

Muslims need to start studying their book of faith and place less emphasis upon following the man-made abomination called islam.

nowhere in the glorious quran does it say that jesus is god. and jesus is created by God, this is told in several places in the quran.

the story of al-imraan and also in the chapter of mary and so on.

I don't know where you get this nonsense from. I don't know if you know this but we study the quran almost daily. most of us get it from school and so forth. there are millions of children and people that have memorized the quran by heart, word for word, page by page. Every chapter even ayaat has a story behind it, which is recorded in history. Every chapter we start to memorize, we first begin to study it and so we know it by heart and then memorize it. Some do it while memorizing, and some do it after memorizing the chapter.

So yes we do study the quran. Muslims as a whole.
I dont know of any christian that knows the bible by heart (memorized). THere might be a few scholars that do, but you tell me how many there are.

 

[ApplePie7]

nowhere in the glorious quran does it say that jesus is god.

It's capital 'J' & 'G', brother...and, yes, it does...

and jesus is created by God, this is told in several places in the quran.

the story of al-imraan and also in the chapter of mary and so on.

3.59 states in the Arabic that Jesus always existed.

I don't know where you get this nonsense from.

What the Koran states is not nonsense...

I don't know if you know this but we study the quran almost daily. most of us get it from school and so forth. there are millions of children and people that have memorized the quran by heart, word for word, page by page.

Memorizing scripture has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon comprehension.

Every chapter even ayaat has a story behind it, which is recorded in history.

Yes...a Biblical story...

Many chapters are named in honor of the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Every chapter we start to memorize, we first begin to study it and so we know it by heart and then memorize it. Some do it while memorizing, and some do it after memorizing the chapter.

Again...memorization has no bearing upon comprehension.

So yes we do study the quran. Muslims as a whole.

I don't memorize the Koran, and yet I know it better than you, brother...

I dont know of any christian that knows the bible by heart (memorized). THere might be a few scholars that do, but you tell me how many there are.

Most Muslims have never even read the entire Koran....fewer still have even read the Holy Bible...

 

[al7amdullilah]

It's capital 'J' & 'G', brother...and, yes, it does...

No need, because he's not devine nor is he god. If it would be like this then yes; Allah is God, the One

3.59 states in the Arabic that Jesus always existed.

Im sorry this is just not correct. You make it appear that everything is about jesus, but it's not.

Have you even read the whole chapter, or even the before ayaat? This is not even the context.

3:59. Verily, the likeness of Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be!'' and he was.

Where does it say that he always existed? Nowhere my friend. Off course you can make it appear that its in the arabic, just like I can do with the original greek from 1 chapter and make it appear that its totally different in my rendering to the english.

What the Koran states is not nonsense...

Dont put words in my mounth. I mentioned that your comment is nonsense. Nothing in the Quran is nonsense.

Memorizing scripture has absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon comprehension.

Yes it does. Most of the chapters, I know the context and I know what they are about, just like all of the others that study it. So yes it does.

Yes...a Biblical story...

Many chapters are named in honor of the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Nope. So when jesus is refered to as the "slave of God", you say this is biblical? Ok good.

Again...memorization has no bearing upon comprehension.

see above

I don't memorize the Koran, and yet I know it better than you, brother...

Yeah sure you know it better.

Most Muslims have never even read the entire Koran....fewer still have even read the Holy Bible...

Then where do you live? You do realize we read the entire Quran in the month of ramadaan right?

You do realize we strive to memorize the whole Quran right?

I can also say this;
I have never met a christian that knows the bible better then I do, and Im serious too.