h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Perhaps take some out, and explain each one individually, instead of presenting them all in one block.

Yeah I could do that.
Adib

Or maybe I can't.

Adib

Hello.

Might I suggest an expansion of the article. I think it would strengthen it considerably...

You are aiming to clear up a number of misconceptions regarding Islam, and not striving to create a comprehensive guide. (Very sensible approach.) In this way, you are not merely informing, but rather engaging in a debate with others who have a different interpretation of Islam, and who have propogated the misconceptions with their words (or actions).

Since many of the people bound to read the article won't be familiar with Islam, it could be very instructive if you played the role of "the devil's advocate" in order to help readers understand the whole story.

It would be quite interesting if you:

1. Presented the misconception about Islam
2. Gave the basis for the misconcpetion (How did someone else's alternate interpretation of Islam give rise to the misconception? What is the basis of this alternate interpretation?)
3. Presented your ideas, citing sources as you see fit (you already have nice citations)
4. Summarise

It sounds like a lot of work, but I also think it would be an extremely interesting excercise!

Good luck,

- Art!

Well I have tried to that. Good idea by the way.

Adib

Any problems now?

Adib

Hello, the Entry has evolved since I last read it, and it's looking a lot better now. The introduction is still a bit loose. Maybe you could be more general, and leave the explicit mention of Osama out. Like (I have modified the first paragraph): "For example the media claims that terrorists like Osama Bin Laden are proper Muslims and that the evil things they do are supported by Muslims. The media goes even further and claim that this is what they believe in. This Entry will show that all terrorism in the name of Islam (like Osama's attacks on America) is actually the complete opposite of Islamic principles and morals."

Maybe you could also add that in Islam there is no intermediate between God and man. This is essential to explain why Terrorists think they are doing things in the name of Islam, while they are only doing it for someone else. Every muslim will have to justify his actions for himself - IIRC - So: suppose I am a muslim, if the Ayatollah told me to go kill Rushdie, I could - with all respect - say no, that's wrong. In the West we are constantly bowing to some so-called majorities will. Vietnam for Democracy's sake. Basically, it could be seen as terrorism in the name of democracy. Or bombing Irak in the name of democracy, it's more or less the same - I am not saying there's a better alternative, just noting that there is not much difference.

Well... let me stop here. I think this Entry is looking good, the title is suitable, and the introduction could be polished up.

HELL

BTW: I have read the backlog, and 'il viaggatore' IIRC commented that he would expect jihads and fatwahs in an Entry on Islam. Well there is one Entry called 'Islam' it is being Edited (A952832) and it doesn't contain mention of those, maybe you would want to take a look...

Hey I mention Jihad in this article. Anyway a Futwa is like Jihad as in it is miss represented over here. Not in the most loosely based translation can you make it say death penelty. Futwa actually means legal opinion. When you go to court and give you opinion of events this is Futwa. What happened way the Ayatollah said (This is basically what it would translate as really) In my own Legal opinoin Rushdie deserves to be put to death. Meaning there is a massive choice to do od not do on that subject. Plus yes what he wrote was bad but does not concetute death in Islam. This is because the Ayatollah decided to 'judge' as if he was living in Iran which is supposidly ment to be a Islamic country. Point is if he was living in Iran then he under Islamic law and most laws would be put to death as what he did would have been an act of treason. The only reason why places like England do not execute people who have commited Adultery is because England has signed an agreemant with Europe that the death penelty will not be used. But tecnically it is still in the books that treason is to be punished with death.
Unfortunatly the fact is that Rushdeie was not living in Iran and so it was not a act of Treason. Islamically we can not hurt him as there are peace treatys between Islamic countrys and western countres meaning that from a Islamic perspective he is thought of as disarmed and harmless as England will stop him causing trouble.

That is the actual Muslim view point on that whole issue from proper Islamic law. I can provide you with Quranic ayaats as proff if you wish.

Adib

NNNG!! Muzaak. I was talking about THE Entry on Islam, not this one.

"In my own Legal opinoin Rushdie deserves to be put to death."

That's the kind of reaction that makes people think Islam IS a religion of destruction, Muzaak.

And, you cannot justify death sentences just because some other countries do it. I mean, in Germany I cannot marry two women, even if they agree, just because in Iran I could.

"Unfortunatly the fact is that Rushdeie was not living in Iran and so it was not a act of Treason."

FORTUNATELY for Rushdie, no?

"Islamically we can not hurt him as there are peace treatys between Islamic countrys and western countres meaning that from a Islamic perspective he is thought of as disarmed and harmless as England will stop him causing trouble."

So, Iran IS a Islamic country??? And from Islamic point of view he should die, it's just the treaties that are in the way???

Now I am confused Muzaakboy... I thought Islam was about being peaceful and forgiving and tolerant etc.

"That is the actual Muslim view point on that whole issue from proper Islamic law. I can provide you with Quranic ayaats as proff if you wish."

At this point Ayaats don't prove anything to me...

HELL

Arrrggggghhhhhh No you have taken what I said out of complete context of howw I ment it. Now I am going to have to go in a lenthy talk about this. Sniff.

"In my own Legal opinoin Rushdie deserves to be put to death."

That's the kind of reaction that makes people think Islam IS a religion of destruction, Muzaak.
Yes but I'm not the one who said that I was giving you the translation of what he said basically! What I mean is that it is just a view point. No one has to follow it or obey it. As it is a view point. It is like when Bush and Blair say that they sould take out Sadam or Osama. Not every one agrees and not every one wants to follow them but it is there view point.
The difference is that When Bush and Blair give there view point we don't have much of a say in following them. What Ayatollah said was his view point and Muslims have a choice whether to follow it or not. I don't think you can condem the whole religion on one persons view point in Iran even if he is the countrys spiritual leader. We don't condem all Christians for the Crusades do we? And that all started by one man the Pope who actually has more power than Ayatollah does over the people of there religions.
It is just a view point nothing more nothing less. Futwa only means legal view point or for a fuller translation a legal viewpoint from ones own perspective.


"Unfortunatly the fact is that Rushdeie was not living in Iran and so it was not a act of Treason."

FORTUNATELY for Rushdie, no?
Quite right a miss spell on my part. But thats because I changed what I was saying ooops half way through the sentance dumb me. What I mean is that unfortunatly for Ayatollah the fact is that Rushdie was not living in Iran nd so it was not a act of treason.


"Islamically we can not hurt him as there are peace treatys between Islamic countrys and western countres meaning that from a Islamic perspective he is thought of as disarmed and harmless as England will stop him causing trouble."

So, Iran IS a Islamic country??? And from Islamic point of view he should die, it's just the treaties that are in the way???"

NO No NO. What I was saying is that Iran calls its self a Islamic country but a lot of things they do there are not actually in or are not allowed in Islamic law. What I am referring to is that even if he had commited treason (which he did not) then the fact that he is in England meands there is no punishment on him as Britain should stop him harming and attacking Islam again or they will be voilating the peace treaties with Islamic and so called Islamic countrys. If he had commited treason and was caught in Iran then he may have been put to death.
Explain after correcting what you said ok?

"That is the actual Muslim view point on that whole issue from proper Islamic law. I can provide you with Quranic ayaats as proff if you wish.

At this point Ayaats don't prove anything to me..."

Oh but I think it does. You see the law is dictated by the Quran and what is in the Hadith. The laws we are referring to here are all in the Quran.

Lets look at a little history first. What happened is that in the time of the prophet the Muslims would make peace with Pagens and christians etc and make peace treatys but these people kept on braking the treaties signed when it suited them. So what happened was Allag gave a Sura saying that they should when the others break a treaties wait four months in responce and if they keep up there bad ways of attacking Muslims or other people who live in the Muslim citys then Muslims should fight them untill they ask for peace or show they want peace. But only attack those who attack you.
Any way there came a time when what was to be done was that all peace treaties where to be dissolved as so many people where braking them while the Muslims stayed true to there word. So what happened was that the Muslims gave out a notice of four months to all people they had a peace treaty with telling them that after this point any acts of aggression will lead to war with them people. But much thought was also put in to it so that those who kept to there treaties in the past would be allowed to keep there treaties in the future.
Anyway it was at this point that the laws we are lookingat was revealed. What was happining was there was a lot of people who where saying they where Muslim and them effectivly spying on the Muslims and giving information to other people which is spying and we all know the penelty for it, but there was a difference.
So what happened at the time was that factions started to show on how to deal with them. One half of the Muslims wanted to kill them while the other side wanted to leave them alone. That was when the verses dealing with this was revealed.
What was said was that these people and those commiting trason should be killed. But there where to be 2 aceptians to it.
If they had asylum to a City where there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and whom ever owned the city then they where to be left alone. This is because the other city would stop theming from fighting or causing trouble to the Muslims otherwise that city would be going against its peace treaty. So they would disarm the person and make sure he would not cause trouble.
The second clause is if they the person commiting treason or spying is repentant. That is that he is sorry and promices he will not do harm to them again. In this case they where put under what we call parole but the Islamic version is a lot less hard than our version. Plus this Parole was greeted to those who did not wish to partake in war for or against the Muslims. Meaning that prisoners of war and people in the Muslims army where granted a parole if they did not want to fight.
Meaning we can now see that Rushdie would not be given the death penelty in Islamic law. Ayatoolah was bending what the Quran said to suite his opinion in some ways bt at the end of the day his opinion is his opinion and not that of the Islamic state.

Do you under stand now?

Adib

...the power of misspellings

I think now I understand your post. It just left me confused...

HELL

Glad you know under stand. Sorry to confuse you. I have to go know. I'm going to be away for three days as I'm going to my Nans birthday. See you all soon.
Feel free to right anything.

Adib

Salaam I'm back

Adib

Any progress planned for this, so we can get it into the EG?

Eid mubarak, by the way...

Eid mubarik. sakalat hai.

Any suggestions of progress on this? In what ares do you think it needs expanding?

Adib

I have included a little about the word Futwa at the end of the entry, what do you think know?

Adib

Hello again M.

As you are working on an entry about Islam and women, then perhaps you should take out the section on women here - it doesn't really fit with the title anyway.

I am glad to see that we are getting some entrys on Islam coming through now, the guide was certainly short on them before. Are there enough for this to be more of a University project? Or be released as a related series of entries? Then you could refer between entries for related information without one entry being too big and unwieldy.



k

Would it be safe to say that Islam is a religion claimed by some destructive people? Just as Christianity is a religion claimed by some destructive people? And Capitalism is an ideology claimed by some destructive people? And Communism? Etc. Who has the authority to speak for all people claiming to be followers of a religion, to say, "no, you're wrong, this is what you're supposed to believe"? I would suggest that any guide entry on any religion, if it is intended to be and Edited Entry, would have to make liberal use of a phrase such as "many followers believe that . . .". What do the Shias believe, the Sunnis the Sufis, the Wahabis, etc.?



anhaga

The fundamentals of Islam is the same between all Islamic sects that is The Quran is the exact word of God and the prophet Mohammad is his messanger. Meaning what is written in this Entry fits with all branchs of Muslims as I have used both Quran, Sunna and Hadith to support what has been said.

As for the women bit No I am going to leave it in here, it does not go in to detail on the subject of Women and just answers the usual questions about Women in Islam. Like beatings etc.
It should be part of this entry as the entry is about the misconceptions that are aired about Islam.
What the title of the entry is referring to is, is Islam a religion of violence and abuse etc that people say it is and is not ment in the physical sense entirely.

Adib