Marocc

After you shoot children you have to compensate you know.

The different sects aren't interpretations of Islam. What I'm trying to say is that the very term "interpretation of Islam" just doesn't exist for a Muslim. Maybe for a non-Muslim just interested in studying about the religion. But Islam is a religion. Scripture can be interpreted but the religion cannot. Saying "interpretation of Islam" doesnt have any meaning. What your sisters choose to wear doesn't come from interpretation. I asked you to name a sect or a madhab that holds interpretation x correct. Hijab in Egypt is more about fashion than faith as it is for many Muslims elsewhere in the world.

There's no such thing as "interpreting Islam". Since you're so confident about the interpretation matter, I invite you to present to me some examples of the differing interpretations that you find so significant and are so sure about: -The object of interpretation -Two or more differing interpretations of it -source of these interpretations; a sect or madhab that holds them as correct. -How the interpretation(s) affect(s) Islam or Muslims (possibly relating to terrorism). -Why you think both or all interpretations are equally correct.

It means a barrier. The word is used in the Qur'an I think over a hundred times - never as a headscarf. That name was given to it much later. Its a barrier for instance between Muslims and non-Muslims and the people of Jannah and the people of Jahannam.

To some extent. Countries have a right to decide on their own laws and of course a person visiting must abide by those rules. These arent interpretations of the Qur'an but implementation of sharia and and best or worst interpretations of hadith. The punishment for blasphemy depends on the particular situation. Apostate, nothing happens, homosexual - I don't know, adulterers - I also am not sure. The animal isn't for Allah but for people. Is there a difference between doing it in Makkah and doing it in slaughterhouses all over the world? They have the freedom to choose. I just think it's sad if they choose not to wear it. That is one delusion. Then there are the ideas of why a woman wears it - which varies enormously, why Islam demands it, how both muslim women men feel about it, the different types of hijabs used, the word hijab in itself and also the fact that some women truly want to wear it and would not endure it if they couldn't.

This (is not true AND) : "But as Canadian animal rights lawyer Anna Pippus explains, "Slaughter without any stunning means the fully conscious animal will have their neck sliced and will experience pain and fear until they lose enough blood to lose consciousness." Stunning, on the other hand, "stops brain activity so they don't register the pain and suffering associated with being sliced into," she says." It is contradictory to this : " Section 77 of the Meat Inspection Regulations states that animals slaughtered in accordance with Judaic or Islamic law “shall be restrained and slaughtered by means of a cut resulting in rapid, simultaneous and complete severance of the jugular veins and carotid arteries in a manner that causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately."" I suppose we should just trust the activist instead of those who compiled the law. "of course, animal slaughter without adequate stunning also happens in traditional slaughterhouses across Canada. Mistakes are commonplace in a system that kills thousands of animals each day on an assembly line. The CFIA allows for a margin of error regarding stunning of 1-to-5 per cent depending on species, meaning a minimum of about 15 million animals per year can be cut and bled while still conscious. However, because the number of animals being ineffectively stunned is self reported by slaughterhouses, advocates believe the amount to be much higher." Perhaps most importantly: " A recent video on social media has brought these issues to the surface. The video appears to show a cow hoisted up by a leg, being skinned while possibly still alive, outside a temporary mosque in Milton, Ont. In the video, one man is reportedly heard saying: “Take a look, a cow is being butchered the halal way on Eid-al-Adha as a sacrifice,” in Urdu, the official language of Pakistan. The cow appears to move his head, though Halton Regional Police have said they do not believe the animal was alive at the moment, and are not pressing cruelty charges. The video is graphic and hard to watch."

If they were Muslims that's actually sad. Granted Egypt has gone back and forth with the hijab ruling - which has probably affected the indentity perception of Muslims there. Even Muslims who like to wear a headscarf may feel like taking it off if they are told they have to wear it. The same way some Muslims in the west upon criticism against head scarf actually start wearing it out of spite. Or start tying it in a more conservative fashion. It's the non-Muslim delusion about the headscarf that irritates most hijabis.

It goes both ways. You should not feel "too free" to try and make everyone believe bad things about Muslims or make Muslims act in a way that goes against their faith. Yes, it's people like you that make some employers demand that Muslims don't wear a hijab at work and that makes Muslim children afraid to go to school wearing a hijab - which is nothing but a piece of clothing.

No. Interpretation doesnt differ that much. And the little it does among some is because some are wrong.

The Quran is only in the Arabic language. This ^ is the translation of the meaning of the Qur'an and you have to read it with tafseer. Reading through the words of the translation of the meaning of the Quran without tafseer, thought and study, is not reading the Quran in any sense.

Nor did you read it, as shows here.

That's the jews actually. The old testament tells women to cover their heads.

After you stop quoting misquotiations from misinformation sites you can try to argue this way.

How do I know the color of the skin of *someone*? I didn't say anyone pretented to be a Muslim, though that may happen. I was expressing doubt about facts listed by someone known to be an unreliable narrator of incidents.

Because the abusers don't care. Farther more, I don't know if there even were Muslims. Or if the abusers were Muslims etc. A lot of assumptions for me. And probably for you as well. It's Internet after all.

I've seen it happen too.

Blah blah blah..the animal is calmed first and when the slaughter is done right they feel no pain.

Halal slaughter is more ethical than the way slaughter is done in the west.

Islam respects all creation. I.e. Muslims don't hate animals. But dog's saliva is impure and dogs aren't kept in homes. What beliefs? You saw internet abuse with your own eyes - committed by Muslims? Why did you expect a Muslim to help her? What did YOU do? If you didn't report it to the police you can't really afford to talk about it.. Because you distinctly said "police stations".

The Iranian government may well fall apart from the very mention of such a thing. Technically all governments track those whether as a whole or individually. That doesn't refer to outspoken criticism. There is usually a voice in a written text unless it is a formal text such a book of law. It is okay to implement laws that aren't mentioned in the Quran. Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) ordered a woman to be stoned because she confessed to adultery at least three times. She wanted to be punished. If a Muslim is punished by the sharia in the this life they believe they will not be punished for that same sin in the hereafter. That doesn't mean it's necessary to be punished by the law in order to be forgiven. In fact if a person repents so much what is the reason for the punishment to begin with? The problem is determining when the stonings took place. Before or after the relevant revelation within the Quran. This is still mainly interpreting the hadiths. Islam=submitting to the will of Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala). You have a point. With this type of propagandists you can often prove them wrong by simply reading the preceding verse and the following verse. Verse 4:90 "Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."

When people critise they often forget that if their own ideas were implemented everything would fall apart in a day or two. In other words, yeah you can, but that doesn't mean you should. Especially with such a tone. Hadiths don't need to be supported by the Quran per se. It is sufficient they are authentic and not contradicted by the Quran. By interpretation of Islam you might mean one's interpretation of what the religion should objectively be. But Islam literally means submitting to the will of Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) , which is why there is no such a thing as interpreting Islam for Muslims and for non-Muslims it is waste of time in practice because they do not believe. You just interpreted a hadith. Did you do well? Are you correct in the interpretation of it? I didn't express disagreement at all. I stated she's wrong. It's a fact for all who are educated in the matter (even non-Muslims). Christianity and Judaism have had several reformations. Actually a lot of Muslim countries are considered civilised. However, I wouldn't bet on that they care to be considered anything by non-Muslims. There's a reason they have their own countries with their own laws. Increase in the amount of terrorist strikes doesn't equal Islam becoming more extreme, not to mention more extremist.

That's not Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She says she is an atheist.

It's good you've done more than an average to find out but that doesn't qualify you to make decisions for nations about it - not to mention deciding on God's will. The Quran does mention the flogging and cutting off hands and feet. I thought you would consider them vile. Hadiths don't "interpret" Islam. They are simply things said around the time of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), based on which Muslims know about their history and about what is good for a Muslims and what is not. There is such a thing as interpreting of a Hadith.

She isn't just considered an apostate. She is one. So you think Islam is barbaric, ignorant and backward but practice living in denial rather than finding out what it's all about? It's not called interpreting Islam. No one knows about the timeline of those hadiths so there is no proof they came about after the revealed verses. Some of the punishments you dislike are in the Quran no? So is hadith thing really the core of your problem? Muslims may differ in thoughts about certain hadiths, but they don't reject any verses in the Quran. The reason I know she knows nothing is that I've heard her talk. that she's an apostate and says people should run away from Islam as fast as they can means she isn't the person to pretend to be on the side of Muslims. No, not even the women. It also means she's not the one to make demands for reforms. And her 'reforms' go far beyond sharia..