About Islam!

@Jon : I will explain more but I wasn't sure about something, so I just sent a request to my "Master"-it's not the way it is in Jediism I explained this one before- when he reply I will explain here more.

@Ren : Thanks and sorry, I've never read anything refer to Islam on any language but Persian or Arabic, That's why I don't know a lot about these words...

@The Old Doris : Be sure I would shout that " I am a Muslim Jedi" and I'm not scared of what others look at it, but I want to make them to see what it DO exist, not what they pretend to show.

I'll be the first one to ask this. Would you say that Muslim and Jedi are completely compatible? If not what compromises do you make? If they are completely compatible what forms your belief on this?

Also, when there are conflicts within those structures are you a Muslim first or a Jedi first?

If you don't believe this has any relevance in the real world I'll go grab someone who is a Jedi Christian second and she can relate a story to you with the reasoning she had and choices she made.

I think Jediism is a collection of different religions, and it have conflict with Islam just with names. "Allah" -> "The Force",...

I can say I'm a Muslim first, as I born one, but honestly I don't do all of those Islam ask for, some are hard for me, you know? I follow Jediism because it is a new way to look at world, somehow better than old ones.

No such thing as a wrong answer on something like this. That being said, this is enlightening it gives me a respect for your view. I am what I would a call a Forceist, or Forci, I believe in a deep energy that permeates things and makes all things up. I believe in an undercurrent that guides things, moves things, and is part of the world.

Finally I got an answer, here it is translated to English:

Imagine you have a room mate, you live in an apartment in separated rooms. He is too messy and you are tidy. Every day you have a party. They think you both are messy, while just your roommate is messy, unless you cleanup the whole apartment, this is exactly what Islam is. We have messy roommates, they live in their separated rooms, but they make all Islam look worse.

and after this there is some personal advices and a sign.

Sajjad Heydari wrote: Finally I got an answer, here it is translated to English:

Imagine you have a room mate, you live in an apartment in separated rooms. He is too messy and you are tidy. Every day you have a party. They think you both are messy, while just your roommate is messy, unless you cleanup the whole apartment, this is exactly what Islam is. We have messy roommates, they live in their separated rooms, but they make all Islam look worse.

and after this there is some personal advices and a sign.

Does the apartment block have a body corporate? :S I mean any religious head to assert some form of authority and leadership, and if not, I wonder why not.

If I'm not mistaking, you mean "why you don't yell at your roommate for his messy home?" Or "Why you don't say others it is his fault not yours?"

Well, we did so. But honestly tell me how many times you've heard Muslims are terrorist? There is advertising against us. Even between Sunnis, I've heard SOME of Sunni's master said that "IF you kill 7 Shia, heaven would be vajib to you!!!!" And I'm not saying all Sunnis are corrupted or all Shia are good, but we are less than 70 millions and Islam is about 1 billion. We don't have the power for that. The only Shia Muslim country is Iran, all others are Sunni..! If only we shout that some of Sunnis are wrong, you can Imagine a "Middle East" war, one side Iran, the other all Muslims country. My country have tasted that 6 time by now, one more is the only thing we need to be destroyed!

I think this picture can also explain a little about what I'm trying to say...!


__________
as I answered in Skype, there are these powers. Iran's leader for Shia and Saudi leader for Sunnis.

I might be a tad bit late on this. But I'll contribute an excerpt of a message I wrote on Muslims living in the West to another person on youtube. This is gonna be long so bear with me. I did a lot of research .

His message:
"i will, for humour's sake, answer your first question with a question: "At the cost of what [do we expect muslims to join us in the 21st century]?" and my [His] answer is: isn't the 21st century a better place to live than the 7th?"

---

My response to his message:
That depends on where you are in the world and in what class you were born in also. You wouldn't want to be born in India and China under poverty working in sweatshops would you now. Note they're not muslim countries. People from these countries could make the argument that the past was a better time. Economically, if you're poor then the 21st century isn't the best time for you. Serfs had a bit more rights that sweatshop workers. Just a tiny bit I must say. So the question you presented is a wrong question. It is eurocentric and biased towards those of the poorer classes.

On poverty. The 19th century was of course the time of the Industrial Revolution which was horrid time for labourers and children of working class families. Serfs during serfdom had a tiny bit of a life than the sweatshop workers of today which lives no different than the workers of the 19th century. However, and this is an important point, I'm of the thought that talking about this is irrelevant as a hard life, whatever the degree, is still a hard life and needs to be remedied by income equality, and more education and job opportunities. I wouldn't get into my platform of political stances because that's a very long paragraph. But comparing religious dogma to the issues of economic inequality and geopolitical interests, religious dogma as a problem is dwarved in comparison to other issues dividing the human race. Religion is the best tool to create friction for political and economic gain. This is why I see the hyped built arond new atheism as counterproductive and a distraction from more meaningful debates.

On ending the subjugation of women, that is quite the double edged sword. My feminist friends would beg to differ that the West subjugates women less than the Muslim east. The objectification of women are seen both in the advertisements of scantily dressed women in the West and the walking burqas in the East. So do you want to free women only for them to become objectified by a patriarchal West? Do not assume that many of the West's men are superior to the East's. I believe they should decide on their own, not the secular state nor their parents, whether or not they want to wear the niqab or the burqa or the hijab because it is their freedom of conscience. If I wanna cosplay in a mickey mouse costume, however absurd it is, for the rest of my life because I'm such a fan of mickey mouse, then wouldn't I have the freedom to do so despite however absurd I am.

I see the Islam as practiced by Sufi Muslims as a form of spirituality no less than that of buddhism, neopaganism, jainism, etc. I think it'd be best if you were to read up on what is Sufism. They have this very anti-authoritarian religious fervour. There's also this movie out that talks about Radical Islam (not of the taliban style) . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzlsLCkMJpI
We must understand that Muslims see Islam also as a form of identity, like jewishness. This can not be easily taken away from those who call themselves that as it brings meaning in their lives whatever form they see it in. That is my argument to defend their right to freedom of conscience. I do not disagree with you that we should critique their religion but to ridicule (and there's a difference) them as some sort of the Other (I'm a huge Slavoj Zizek fan too) is unwise because we're only creating feelings of alienation in them. They want to be accepted as Westerners too. They are western by culture and muslim by religion. You can be both. No muslim has said you must either be one or the other except for fundies. If we were to reject them because of their religion, we may risk alienating the lot and turning them towards fundamentalism. We have a hand in this and our hands either waves to shoo them away to the open arms of fundieism or to welcome them into the West as Westerners. It is a pipe dream to think muslims would give up their identity. One can have many identities that make up an individual.

On the question of the Quran. Like many other books it has its many literal and metaphorical translations and interpretations. I've once heard a sheikh on youtube, sorry I don't have the link, explaining that the penalty of apostasy being not physical death, but spiritual death. There are other interpretations of easily literally interpreted texts that I could go on and on about.

There exists a libertarian interpretation of the texts. I'm no muslim. I have great muslim friends though. This is what they understand regarding the contradictions found in the Quran. When I asked them about such contradictions, surprisingly, they recognize and acknowledge that there are contradictions in the Quran telling you to kill a person on the one hand or leaving him be on the other. The point is for you to choose which actions to be taken because everything must be done through your own free will and not that of your fear of God's judgement over your actions.

This verse I find interesting;
"If it had been your Lord's will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?" (Quran 10:99)

This in my opinion, I don't think that god was using a rhetorical question. He's asking what is in your heart. Whether you believe in individual free will or in becoming a sheep.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things." (Quran 2:256)

It says let there be no compulsion. nuff said.

There is diversity in Islam. Not just Sunni vs Shia. A more accurate analogy would be to compare Islam with Communism. Now in Communism you have from authoritarian to libertarian tendencies; Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, Maoism, Titoism, Trotskyism, Luxembourgism, and the most libertarian of all the council communists. All communists but with a diverse understanding of Marx. The same with Islam, from authoritarian to libertarian; Wahabbi/Salafism, Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Quranism. I would say Shia would be a tad bit more liberal than Sunni because of their practice of 'nikah mut'ah'. I might just be really ignorant on that part. Pardon.

Well I've only have two writers for you to look up. Hamza Yusuf & Tariq Ramadan.

Cheers.

Muslims like myself don't eat pork mostly because the swine is an Animal that eats it's own feces. This makes the food unclean and it makes the follower unable to pray correctly till it is cleansed out of your body.

Sirvach, what is the chemical mechanism by which eating feces makes pork "unclean"? What exactly is meant by "unclean"? Is pork more "unclean" than other meat, and how do you know this? How is it that such absurd, unexamined ideas still dictate behavior for vast numbers of human beings in the 21st century?

Daun, it's not a question of "Western" vs. Muslim, that's a misunderstanding. The Chinese are neither Western nor Muslim, yet they are clearly an important part of modern civilization. In my opinion, the real price of admission to modern civilization, the one uncompromisable principle, should be a willingness to be rational and to update beliefs in the face of evidence. The West may have embraced this idea first, but it's universal. The Chinese have done this in recent decades, and it has made them a great power. But embracing rationality has consequences, such as the reduction of the power of religion, which is what the Islamists fear. So they should be given a choice: embrace modernity and rationality, or be denied the fruits of scientific civilization. The same goes for all other forms of fundamentalism, whether Christian, Hindu, or what have you.