Is it a coincidence that the principles they apply in law, governance, economics, and human rights are coherent with the Quran?
It's got nothing to do with "religion" it's got everything to do with good guidance for human interaction, being applied by a consensus of people using their intellect, conscience, and humanity.
We were curious to see how the index tracks with the Democracy, and Press Freedom indices, so we put the figures side by side...
When Albert Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was: "Do you believe in God?"
> thread
And Einstein always answered: "I believe in Spinoza's god, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
"The philosopher whom Einstein admired most was Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Jewish philosopher, who was excommunicated by the Amsterdam synagogue and declined the Heidelberg professorship in order to live as a lens grinder, leading an independent life dedicated toโฆ
When someone says they want to protect the sanctity of Islam, they don't mean protecting the Divine (God) because it is absurd to think of a mortal human being standing in defence of the Almighty.
thread >
In fact, it is blasphemous to think of God as a weak Being in need of His creatures' protection.
What is meant truly when someone says they want to protect the sanctity of Islam is this: 'I want to protect my understanding of Islam'.
It is this conflation of the self and the religion that is at the root of the desire to insert oneself in the grand script as 'God/Islam's defender'. In the mind, there is a cosmic drama unfolding between the forces of good (i.e. me/us) and the forces of evil (they/them).
4:34 โฆAnd as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat themโฆ (Muhammad Asad)
4:34 โฆIf you have reason to fear ill-will from your wives, remind them of the teachings of God, then ignore them when you go to bed, then depart away from themโฆ (Safi Kaskas)
The reason I believe 1) the Qur'an is true is that it describes what people we see around do, in real-time, to a high degree of accuracy. 2) traditional Islam is not in the Qur'an.
This thread is a witness:
God: Here's a book of guidance for *anyone* who wants to live a righteous life (2:2)
Muslims: This is OUR book, and you "non-Muslims" have no right to interpret it. Can't even touch it, actually, if it's in Arabic.
(what about non-Muslim Arabs, how do they read?)
God: There is no compulsion in The Way (2:256)
Muslims: if you change your religion, you should be killed. If you have doubts, you should undergo rehabilitation. If you speak against it, you can be persecuted.
The average Malay Muslim has been told so often that he is incapable of understanding the Qur'an on his own, that he is utterly dependent on someone else's interpretation to the point that the interpretation is now akin to the word of God Himself.
thread>
As a result, these man-made interpretations cannot be questioned, and a different understanding of the verses cannot be comprehended or processed.
To be fair, there is no real basis for comparison, because he thinks he will not be able to understand a pure translation.
Because these interpretations have been accepted for centuries, the Qur'an is anchored to the period in which the interpretations were made, instead of being interpreted in light of the currently available evidence.
It's hard to defend your faith against detractors because there are so many similarities between the Taliban / ISIS and traditional Islam
Quran โ
Sunnah & Hadith โ
Ijma' (consensus) โ
Qiyas (analogy) โ
Even the attestation of faith is the same โ
thread >
In Shafi'i-centric Malaysia, there is even some amount of support for the Taliban.
So how can you glibly say "They are not Islam" to non-Muslims?
Are you even allowed to declare others who call themselves Muslims "non-Muslims"?
The minutiae of faith and actions are opaque to non-practitioners. Even practitioners themselves quibble over matters (hence ijma'), so how do you expect non-Muslims to know these fine details?