Teknevra

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
 

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.

 

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

 
 

US faith groups say House Republicans' probe into immigration work violates their religious freedom

Date: June 27, 2025

In: Sight Magazine

By: Jack Jenkins

A House investigation launched by two Republican congressmen into dozens of religious organisations and denominations, from the US Catholic bishops to the Unitarian Universalist Association, is being called a violation the groups' religious liberty.

On 11th June, US Representative Mark E Green of Tennessee, who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Representative Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, who is also part of the committee, announced plans for a probe of more than 200 non-governmental organisations they accused of being "involved in providing services or support to inadmissible aliens during the Biden-Harris administration's historic border crisis".

The lawmakers unveiled a letter they planned to send to all of the organisations. Among other allegations, the letter argues the Biden administration's reliance on non-profit groups signalled "those who arrived illegally or without proper documentation that they could expect such assistance, all expensed to American taxpayers, once they arrived in the United States".

The letter included a link to a lengthy questionnaire asking the groups if they had received any "grant, contract, or other form of disbursement from the federal government" or provided "legal services, translation services, transportation, housing, sheltering, or any other form of assistance" to undocumented immigrants or unaccompanied immigrant children.

They were also asked whether they had sued the Federal Government or filed any amicus briefs in legal proceedings since the beginning of the Biden administration "to the present."

Green and Breechen, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Accountability, did not respond to RNS' questions regarding the probe, nor did they offer a complete list of organisations under investigation or those that received the letter.

A press release released by the Homeland Security Committee named four organisations that were under scrutiny: the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Global Refuge. But according to a list provided to RNS by Rev Paul Brandeis Raushenbush - the head of Interfaith Alliance, which is working with faith groups and other organisations targeted by the probe on a potential response - more than 30 religious groups have received letters from the lawmakers.

"The targeting of these religious NGOs that are fulfilling central mandates of their faith by serving immigrant and refugee communities can only be understood as an attack on faith itself," Raushenbush said in a statement. "This administration continues to attempt to silence and restrict any religious groups or faith traditions not in lockstep with its radical and unpopular agenda."

RNS was unable to independently corroborate whether all of the groups on Raushenbush's list received a letter, but Bishop Dwayne Royster, a United Church of Christ pastor in Washington who heads Faith in Action, a faith-based organising group, said in an interview that his group was among those being investigated. He condemned the probe as "political propaganda" and evidence of "dramatic overreach" by the lawmakers.

"It's an invasion of religious liberty," Royster said, arguing that members of his group have the right to practice a form of faith "which says that there's no strangers amongst us, that we're all siblings."

Royster said the probe was "designed to have a chilling effect" on organisations like Faith in Action, but he declared, "I will be damned if they're going to stop us from doing what we do that we feel mandated and called to do, by God, to care for other human beings to the best of our ability."

Royster said the questionnaire wasn't relevant to Faith in Action's work. Asked if he intended to submit answers, he replied, "Not right now."

The Unitarian Universalist Association released a letter on Wednesday from Adrienne K. Walker, the denomination's general counsel, saying the UUA "did not receive any grant, contract, or other form of disbursements from the federal government" during the Biden administration. Walker went on to criticise the probe and questionnaire, which she said "appear to target the UUA and its members' fundamental rights to exercise their religious practices protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

She added that the denomination "objects to any use of the Letter, including the linked survey, to intimidate or interfere with Constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free exercise of religious practices."

The Catholic bishops' spokesperson Chieko Noguchi confirmed that the USCCB had received the letter and plans to respond. But she noted that while the USCCB has a long history of working with immigrants and refugees through various programs, those efforts were typically federally funded partnerships with the government.

"For over forty-five years the USCCB has entered into agreements with the Federal Government to serve groups of people specifically authorized by the Federal Government to receive assistance," Noguchi said in a statement. "This included refugees, people granted asylum, unaccompanied children, victims of human trafficking, and Afghans who assisted the US military abroad."

Several other organisations - CAIR; Network, a Catholic social justice lobby; and Global Refuge, a Lutheran group that works with refugees - declined to comment without denying they received the letter. Catholic Charities USA also declined to comment.

In 2023, Republican Representative Lance Gooden of Texas and three other congressmen sent letters to Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Service and Global Refuge - then called Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service - demanding they preserve documents "related to any expenditures submitted for reimbursement from the federal government related to migrants encountered at the southern border."

Gooden also sent a letter to then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas complaining that the Biden administration was "allowing non-governmental organizations...the freedom to aid and abet illegal aliens".

The allegations resulted in threats made against Catholic Charities staffers across the US and implanted the notion among far-right online influencers that aiding immigrants who had been processed by border officials, a core service of Catholic Charities, was "facilitating illegal immigration."

Brecheen has been active in right-wing religious circles, such as attending a 2024 worship gathering in the US Capitol rotunda led by Sean Feucht, an activist and promoter of Christian nationalism.

At a post-Inauguration Day prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral in January, Brecheen walked out when the cathedral's bishop, the Rt Rev Mariann Budde, asked President Donald Trump in her sermon to "have mercy" on immigrants and refugees. Brecheen later introduced a resolution in Congress condemning it as a "display of political activism" with a "distorted message". The resolution never left the committee.

 

I’m kind of new to all of this, and I’m not even sure yet if my beliefs align with Christianity, but I was wondering about this.

Whether it’s negative or positive, I was just wondering?

And if so, what does it say?

I hear a lot about gay people, but not so much about trans people.

 

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.

 

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.

view more: ‹ prev next ›