Progressive_Islam

Key phrase here is:

"Unless it was CLEARLY found in the Book of Allah without needing to be EXPLAINED"

Assalamualaikum Wrb to all the lovely people in this community and reading this post.

So recently I’ve been going through this community regarding the matter of Hijab, and honestly I found so many posts both supporting and criticizing the same.

So my question is clear: What is the approach towards Hijab or any head covering in general?

And most importantly, what should be our approach towards this matter?

Please forgive me if I’ve written or said something that others find objectionable or offensive.

This is unbelievable!

Are we supposed to ask shopkeepers and supermarket owners "Where is Allah?", before buying stuff from them?

It definitely explains why so many "Islamic states" like Afghanistan have failed whereas non-Islamic states such as Singapore have succeeded, due to the will of Allah.

"And Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change themselves. (Quran 13:11)

I was doing some more research into the Maturidis, which is the theology school that the Hanafis follow. Apparently, they believe in a lot of reasonable things, and though it is the school the majority of Muslims follow, I'm surprised that its presence is so obscured in the study of Islam.

- For example, Maturidis believe that revelation only confirms what reason already knows

- Good and evil, sin and righteousness are knowable through the fitrah, not solely because God declares them

- Faith requires intellect, reflection, and the contemplation of divine being and observation, not just blind acceptance

- The Divine attributes of God are not literal and have to be understood metaphorically without any degree of anthropomorphism involved

- Logic and philosophy are tools that enrich faith, as long as they’re done in the framework of the Quran and Sunnah

- Believing in the oneness of God is possible without revelation, but accepting Islam is still mandatory for attaining paradise

- Allah creates the possibilities, but humans choose between them. Therefore, whatever good or bad happens in this word will be towards the loss or benefit of the people

Being a Hanafi, I find the Maturidi way of thinking to be the most reasonable. It makes way more sense than what the Atharis or Ash'aris say, but I just don't see a lot of Maturidi aqidah being talked about.

So the reason I'm asking this question is: why is that the case? Being the most popular theological school, it SHOULD be the dominant way of thinking, yet a lot of discourse about Islam is dominated by either the Asharis/Atharis.

For Sunni Muslims, Ashura marks the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and the salvation of the Israelites. Ashura is celebrated in Sunni Islam through supererogatory fasting and other acceptable expressions of joy.

By contrast, for Shia Muslims, Ashura is a day of mourning as they annually commemorate the death of Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and the third Shia imam.

Do you fast, mourn or not do anything? For those who accept hadiths of course.

Some Muslims (islamists) today think that establishing a Caliphate is the sixth pillar of Islam. After a thorough reading of the Quran and research into some Hadiths, there doesn’t seem to be anything relating to a Caliphate.

For example, in Abu Dawud 4646, The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last THIRTY YEARS; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone HE WILLS.

The Prophet (SAW) said also that the only Caliphates will be the 4 after his death, and after that is kingship.

The Quran mentions that those who do not judge by what Allah had revealed are the disbelievers (5:44). Quranic exegetes like Ibn Abbas said this refers to minor kufr.

Verses like 2:30 mention a “khalifah” but it is in reference to humans, who Allah says will rule the Earth. No mention of a political caliphate, just mention of humans being the rulers of the planet which is true.

Frankly, there are only a few things that fall into judging by what the Quran has revealed, which only include some of the punishments for adultery, theft, murder, terrorism, etc, not full on state shariah law.

As for whenever the Quran mentions Sharia, it only does so in one verse (45:18) where it says: “Then we put you on a clear path (Sharia); so follow it and do not follow the ego of those who do not know.”

Nothing about Sharia or Islamic rulings being implemented as state law or whatever.

Scholars like Ali Benmakhlouf and Bernard Weiss (analyzing Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim) note that classical jurists viewed Shariah flexibly:

“Shariah was seen as a spiritual source… not a fixed code… no single book of laws.”

Ibn Abidin, the great Hanafi jurist also writes:

“Many rules change with the change of time… jurists should not rigidly adhere to classical books… else harm outweighs benefit.”

So, that brings me to my question. Where exactly does this concept of Sharia as state law come from?

• The Hadiths mention that the only Caliphates will be the ones after Muhammad (SAW) death and after that, it will only be whatever system of government the kings choose (by the will of Allah)

• The Quran only says to base legal judgment on what Allah had revealed, not literally make Islam the state law.

• The Quran ONLY mentions Sharia as a personal thing

• Classical scholars had nuanced views, and even the proto-Salafi Takfiri Ibn Taymiyya said that there is not a single version of what can be counted as Sharia

How can the act of merely visiting a Temple and looking at an idol can be haram in any way if you aren't worshipping said idol?

From what I know about Islam, there shouldn't be anything wrong with attending a non-Muslim festival as long as you refrain from taking part in any religious ritual that takes place there.

Why do Wahhabis and extremists always want to have superiority?

Why do they always WANT TO HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?

Why does it feel like they WANT to be right?

If you’re in a Muslim country, LET THE PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT. SHIAS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND SUNNIS CAN DO THE SAME. YOU ARE NOT ALLAH (SWT).

You can advise them in a civil manner. But not be passive aggressive or straight up aggressive.

Not to mention the fact that my country has a stupid “code of honor” which is straight-up late stage patriarchy. where you’re expected to do this and that without having a private personal life.

Sorry if this didn’t make sense but they just piss me OFF.

That is, not to mention the stupid hate against Shias.

Especially on social media. It’s like we did something horrible.

Why can people not co-exist in peace? I know, we’re not living in an ideal world.

There is no sunshine and rainbows.

But still, sectarianism is terrible for society.

Also, why is it that, in the Arab world, the ELDERLY feel like they have the right to know everything about your personal life.

Not to mention that they LITERALLY contradict the prophet’s treatment to his wives.

People’s belief: you should be masculine in front of your wife and not too tender or gentle. And that she MUST give you sexual intercourse when she has to.

The Prophet: literally emphasized tenderness, consent, and mercy.

Assalamu alaikum,

I've found the situation after the Iran-Israel conflict to be much worse than I could imagine, especially on social media in my country, Indonesia.

This YouTube channel one of the example:

The hate speech towards Shia Muslims is worsening, usually fueled by Wahhabi clerics and Turkey sympathizers.

They even label Shias as "kafir" and claim that anyone who dies in the war, whether Iranian or Israeli, will meet the same fate in hell.

I can understand if they criticize the Iranian authoritarian government, but I still can't comprehend the hatred towards Shia people just because they belong to a different sect.

It raises questions in my mind: why They're dehumanizing their brothers in Islam?

Islamic thought is reduced to Muslim thought, whereby Muslims can only explain what it means to be Muslim.

While there are dozens of studies on Christian and Eastern thinkers and how they contribute to understanding what it means to be human, rare is the case where a Muslim voice is allowed to speak beyond its religious identity.

And in the cases where a Muslim voice is allowed to speak beyond its Orientalist void, such as Rumi, it is rendered neutral of its Muslimness"

I've been doing research on the topic of why dogs are considered impure in islam and why we shouldn't keep them as pets.

But I've also read somewhere that we can actually keep them if they are used as guarddogsor for farming.

I wanted to know others thoughts on this.

Thanks in advance.

As we know Allah SWT ordered Ibrahim pbuh to sacrifice his son and in the last moment he stopped him, and Ibrahim was praised for his obedience.

While being obedient to Allah is the best you can do, I feel like it is human to have doubts, or maybe feeling hesitant to kill your own child.

And I wonder if Ibrahim actually had an idea before that this may be a test where Allah would intervene.

I have been wondering for a while now if stuff that has just a small bit of alcohol for preservative purposes.

Like vanilla or soy sauce.

We already discussed the verse about wife beating many times, and mostly came to an agreement that it can't be a physical punishment etc.

But what about lashing (24:2) and house arrest (4:15) as the punishment for adultery?

Do you think it's fair?

Is the common interpretations valid?

If so, why a physical punishment is now justified?

Western media often paints him in a bad light, and stuff such as controversial hadiths aren’t great for his character either.

It’s easy to like Isa because he is presented as a pacifist who never did anyone wrong.

My question is, what made you see Muhammad not only as a good person, but one of the best ever?

What is the Quranic / Islamic view on Adam and how the earth became populated?

In Christianity it’s commonly referred to as Adam’s children marrying each other which doesn’t exactly make sense due to incest.

And it also doesn’t fully align with science and the fact that there were earlier hominids on earth.

From what I gather, the Quran is pretty adamant on Adam being the first human - but how do we reconcile that:

1. It potentially doesn’t align with what we know scientifically about human evolution on earth

And

2. 2 people populating the earth with their children and their children only is incest?