Zenshiite

People with closed minds cannot have dialogues, nor can they objectively review anything into which they enter with preconceptions. How can you approach the Qur'an if your mind is made up that it is "vile" and "murderous?" How can you review the life of Muhammad if you've already clearly made up your mind that he was some kind of tyrant? In complete contradiction with the recorded histories, in fact! Your assumptions are in complete contradiction with his known character before and after he was tasked with delivering the Message of the Qur'an. Furthermore, you keep obfuscating the situation by attempting to say that the early Muslim community wasn't oppressed and didn't have violence done against them. In fact, they signed treaties with their Meccan foes and when those treaties were violated(which is what the entire passage of Qur'an that I quoted was talking about) they fought in defense of themselves and their property and their innate rights. I supposed you hold the Huianan Tzu in disgust as well? How about the Yellow Turban Taoists? Warfare is an inevitability in human life, and ALL spiritual schools have formulated rules of warfare and codes of conduct on the battlefield. I was struck the first time I read excerpts from Huianan Tzu by how much the guidelines for warfare and governance resembled the guidelines of warfare and governance laid out by Muhammad and 'Ali. Moved, in fact. It is, in fact, a pretty large part of Taoism that sage-kings of the past used their mystical unveiling to guide their societies. Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and the Wen Tzu are always referring back to eras of the past shrouded in the mists of legend. If you're interested in true knowledge of the Islamic jurisprudence of warfare, here is a nice article. Jihad and the Islamic Law of War

^Man, you're so off base about Muhammad it's not even funny. The overwhelming majority of his followers were, in fact, the rejects of his society. Hence why he was persecuted and laughed at by the Meccan leaders.

Has anyone else noticed that vsaluki, joined just yesterday and even in his introduction post in the Lobby he starts attacking Islam from the get go. You've got to wonder about his purpose here, especially with obvious cut & pastes from anti-Islam websites. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to engage in this "debate" too much(after all, you cannot have a debate with people who have obviously made up their minds via their own very small very limited and clearly very targeted preconceptions-filled explorations into the vast tradition that is Islam) as we are in the last couple days of Ramadan and this is proving far too distracting during this time of reflection, devotion and self-purification. Needless to say, I could come up with more ahadith taking a positive view of women and talking them up than this vsaluki has posted in the negative. Ahadith are a mixed bag, no doubt. As for contextualizing Quranic statements, let's take for example this: [9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. That is a single verse pulled from a larger body, and to use that single verse distorts the entire message being delievered. [shakir 9:1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. [shakir 9:2] So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers. [shakir 9:3] And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. [shakir 9:4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [shakir 9:5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [shakir 9:6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. [shakir 9:7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). [shakir 9:8] How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors. [shakir 9:9] They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do. [shakir 9:10] They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits. [shakir 9:11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. [shakir 9:12] And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist. The entirety of the passage sheds some light on this particular verse, makes it clear that this is an order to fight those who have broken their treaties with the Muslims. Furthermore, when I said the Meccan polytheists resisted Muhammad's preaching I mean that they quite literally accosted him on a regular basis, threw entrails and other filth on him. When his preaching spread and people started following his preaching... the followers and their families were persecuted. The first martyrs of Islam were an elderly couple, the parents of prominent companion Ammar bin Asar. They were tortured and executed because of their belief in Islam. The Abyssinian Bilal was the slave of one of the Meccan leaders and because he professed Islam he was tortured until Muhammad told his companion Abu Bakr to buy his freedom. A group of Muslims, led by Jafar ibn Abi Talib, fled to Abyssinia because Muhammad told them they could take refuge with the Negus because he was a Christian king. The Meccans chased them there, then sent a delegation demanding their return... which the Negus refused to do. The Meccans leaders also persecuted Muhammad's entire clan and expelled them from Mecca and cut them off from trade, leaving them stranded in the desert for quite some time. It was during this period that Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, died. Shortly thereafter, the Meccan leaders plotted to assassinate Muhammad in the middle of the night. He came to know of this plan and fled to Yathrib, which came to be known as Medina, where he had been invited to mediate the disputes there between fueding tribes. Those Muslims that stayed behind in Mecca after most others had migrated to Medina where then persecuted and their property seized by the Meccans. This is what led, ultimately, to the Battle of Badr and warfare between Muhammad and the polytheist Arabs. He began as a raid on a caravan that was making off with the property of the Muslims, to get their belongings back. They ended up going into battle against an army of 1000 from Mecca with only 313 fighters. They won. I can tell you what history records. All vsaluki can do is come up with an alternate interpretation against the recorded history that suits his own polemic and the polemic of the Islamophobic, right wing Christian fundamentalists whose websites he's cutting and pasting from. I also find it amazing strange that a person can claim there is no spirituality in the Qur'an or Muhammad, and yet 'Ali(first Shi'a Imam, fourth Caliph, second only to Muhammad in all initiatic chains of transmission in all but one of the Sufi Orders), Fatima(the daughter of Muhammad, wife of 'Ali), Hasan(grandson of Muhammad, second Shi'a Imam and fifth Caliph), Husayn(grandson of Muhammad, third Shi'a Imam), Ali ibn al-Husayn(great grandson of Muhammad, fourth Shi'a Imam), Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Baqir(fifth Shi'a Imam), Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq(sixth Shi'a Imam, also in many of the Sufi chains of transmission), Musa ibn Jafar al-Kazim(seventh Shi'a Imam also in Sufi lineages), 'Ali ibn Musa al-Rida(eigth Shi'a Imam also very prominent in Sufi lineages), Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Hadi(ninth Shi'a Imam), 'Ali ibn Muhammad an-Naqi(tenth Shi'a Imam), and Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Askari(eleventh Shi'a Imam) have a wealth of supplications and philosophical and gnostic sayings all of which they link back to Muhammad. His very family. Especially 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn and 'Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abideen. 'Ali was basically raised from early childhood by Muhammad. To say what this member has said regarding the spirituality of Islam and its prophet is not only grossly inaccurate, but deliberately misleading and false. There are just some selections from the family of Muhammad: Imam 'Ali's Nahj al-Balaghah Sahifa al-Zahra of Fatima Sahifa al-Sajjadiya or the Psalms of Islam by Zayn al-Abideen Latern of the Path by Jafar as-Sadiq

It's pretty plain to me that this person seems to have joined this forum with an axe to grind specifically against Islam. He's been on the attack from introduction to some of his first posts... with cut 'n paste jobs from Islamophobic websites no less.

True enough. I'm just wondering, why Ramadan specifically?

Well, you've certainly laid out a great many claims, much of which fall flat if you had any intensive education and study in the field of Islamic studies, rather than Islamophobic tirades. You've also proven yourself quite adept at quoting Qur'an completely out of context. Not only with itself for each verse with the others surrounding them, but the historical context into which those verses were revealed. Furthermore, how do you justify your claim that the wars Muhammad fought were "offensive" given that it's well documented the Meccan polytheists were staunch in resisting Muhammad's preaching(the first full half of which was peacefully done), the historical record that shows the Jewish tribes siding with the Meccan polytheists against Muhammad, AND the constant references in the Qur'an to war that are coupled with "and do not be the aggressor, for Allah does not love the aggressor?" As to your extremely shallow, and fallacious claim that Muhammad never left anything behind that even approximates Sufism. It's laughable. I suggest you scour the supplications of Muhammad and his family for an authentic look at early Islamic spirituality. I'd also suggest you take a look at the thread in the Lobby called 'Greetings from Turkey' where I've included a sermon from 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, specifically about God. And also, Ibn al-'Arabi's formulation of Wahdat al-Wujud is based in the Qur'anic statement "wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of Allah." Of course, had you actually studied Ibn al-'Arabi you'd notice that his sources are almost exclusively Qur'an and ahadith. And you've also misconstrued Wahdat al-Wujud by calling it "pantheism." A mistake that Wahhabis tend to make as well. You also clearly don't have a grasp on the meanings of exoteric and esoteric. Please, take your vitriol elsewhere.

Historically speaking, the only group that's ever used suicide bombing in any way that I don't find morally reprehensible and even potentially justifiable under Islamic law is Hizbullah. They've always targeted military convoys or the like, specifically those on their land. I've never read of Hizbullah using that tactic in any other way. They've never sent anyone into a pizza parlor, for instance. Suicide bombing is the poor man's guided ballistic missile in some ways, and when it's used, not in an indiscriminate manner, but in a highly discriminate manner to target civilian people in civilian places it is reprehensible. When it's used in a discriminate manner to target the military forces that have invaded your home and whose guns are targeted at you and your children, it's a bit of a different story. And, of course, we shouldn't limit our understanding to this tactic being used only by Muslim fighters. It's a tactic that was, to my understanding, innovated by the Tamil Tigers. The fact is, radicalism in all its forms is merely a symptom of the deep spiritual malaise that our world is experiencing. The question really isn't one about "modernizing" or anything like that, in fact I'd say that modernizing is probably going to only make the situation worse. It's also not a matter of one side forcing upon the other it's vision for the other... that's a major problem with those in the West especially. We tend to cop a smug attitude about our own superiority, and it's an attitude that isn't warranted. It's like this notion that women covering their hair and bodies in public is a bad thing, what is demonstrably wrong with this practice? Why would you want to encourage women to abandon their traditional modesty? If your objection is fathers, husbands or brothers actually forcing this on their wives, daughters, mothers and sisters... well, you should realize that this is not the reality for the vast majority of Muslim women that do cover their hair. Many of them wish to remain devoted to God by adopting the modest dress mentioned in the Qur'an and the template of the most prominent of Muslim women. I find it odd that many people in the west take issue with hijab so much but don't have any problems with a nun's habit. You've got to wonder about the real motivations here, and whether or not that's simply a manifestation of a culture where-in most people don't have a public religious life anymore and it's "supposed" to be relegated to enclose structures like convents and monasteries. That's not at all the reality for Muslims, nor indeed many other religions in the world, where certain elements of Islamic practice are regarded as social responsibility. Hijab is one of them, and men also have hijab standards they have to meet. Both parties are enjoined to lower their gaze from the opposite sex, as well. It's truly mind boggling the arrogance that is assumed by people in the West when it comes to Islam especially. It's indicative of the imperialist tendencies still rife in our culture.

Sorry to resurrect another thread, I had done a search for that Ramadan thread I awoke from the dead because I saw it a couple weeks ago before I figured out how to log on... in the search I saw this one. First things first, let's say out right that Wahhabism/Salafism is a deviant sect of Islam that, while considering themselves to be quite orthodox, are in fact extremely heterodox. Even their beliefs about God run in contradiction to traditional Islam... namely, attributing a corporeal form to God. The also work pretty hard to distort the meaning of the Qur'an and hadith to suit their own ends. Also, I notice some contributors to this thread and others have a curious hostility to the hadith books, and to their own misunderstandings of Shariah, that is undoubtably rooted in a pretty huge ignorance of hadith and the science of hadith. Hadith are not, and never were meant to be, a completely "canonical" or flawless collection of the sayings of the Prophet(and in Shi'ism the Imams of his family as well). Certain scholars collected as many sayings as they could, then they developed a process of verification based on the reliability of the people said to have passed the story on. A complete hadith will usually have a long chain of narrators who transmitted the story. So and so, heard from so and so, that so and so was told by the Prophet this "...." If a person in that chain is considered to have had a bad reputation, the hadith is thrown out. The hadith is also to be thrown out if it directly contradicts the Qur'an. Also, the Shariah, the Shariah is something that took centuries to develop and it is continuing to develop. Sunnism is in a curious position with this because they have said the gates to ijtihad are closed with the founders of their four madhabs(schools) of law... Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki. Though there are those agitating for a return to ijtihad. Shi'a scholars still practice ijtihad in the main, which is why you'll find rulings amongst Shi'a scholars that abortions can be permissible under certain circumstances, and even the most vilified of Shi'a scholars in recent decades Ayatullah Khomeini issues his ruling(or juristic opinion) that sex change operations are permissible. Ijtihad, however, was never fully open to the vast majority of Muslims simply because it was something that was based upon religious knowledge specifically and isn't supposed to be done just at your own whim but with specific knowledge about the topic at hand. There are, unfortunately, some cases where the Shariah as conceived by fallible minds contradicts the Qur'an... for instance, stoning adulterers. The Qur'an doesn't distinguish between adultery and fornication, it uses the same word: zina. The prescribed punishment for zina is 100 public lashings. And even then there was some stipulation that it shouldn't mutilate or even really leave marks. It's a public humiliation for a crime that is considered quite destructive to society. It's also the only sin/crime for which mercy is not supposed to come into play. Execution is mandated for murder, but the family of the murdered is encouraged to forgive "for it is better if you but knew." As for apostasy, that has some specific conditions in relation to the person that was born into a Muslim family or a person who converted to Islam... but it also is intimately tied up with the status of the early Muslim community in Arabia and the challenges they faced where the apostate was usually switching to the other team and informing on the Muslims. It wasn't just that they left the religion(after all, the chapter in the Qur'an called "the Unbelievers(al-Kafirun)" says specifically "I will not worship what you worship, nor will you worship Who I worship. To you your religion, and to me mine") it was about literal betrayal of the community in time of war when the Muslims were quite literally being oppressed by the polytheists of Arabia. I don't think there's any religion where parents are too keen on their kids changing religions, heck my parents weren't even big Bible or church buffs but they still aren't comfortable with my conversion to Islam 10 years on. The same is true in Muslim countries, and I can't recall the last time I heard anything about anyone being executed for apostasy in any country but perhaps Afghanistan under the Taliban. Not even in the much maligned Iran, or the far worse Saudi Arabia. Sufism. Sufism is considered to be the heart of Islamic tradition. Where Sufis are vilified, it's usually in relation to anti-nomian "Sufis" who openly flout Islamic norms and there-by violate the very foundations of Sufism itself in the esoteric and exoteric teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and Imam 'Ali. They quite literally undermine their own practice when they don't stick with the foundational practices. Which brings me to the so-called "Universal Sufi Order." Inayat Khan was, simply put, mistaken in identifying Sufism or tasawwuf as being something universal. It's not. It cannot be. It was formed in the crucible of Islamic teaching by people steeped in Islamic teaching and daily life. Sufism's aim is toward the esoteric truth that all seekers aspire towards, but it's not the esoteric truth. And I think that's what you'd have to believe in order to make "Sufism/tasawwuf" out to be "universal." Sufism is not the same as Taoist esotericism, nor is it the same as Hindu or Buddhist or Christian or Jewish esotericism. It is unique to Islam and its practices are based upon Islam and the exoteric teachings of Islam. You cannot be said to be a Sufi and not also be a practicing Muslim, anymore than you can be a Dominican monk and not be a Catholic. Or a Shaolin monk and not be a Buddhist, or a Wudang priest and not a Taoist. Sufism without Islam is no different than New Age-ism. Back to the thing about Wahhabis/Salafis. I think Muslims need to confront their deviant take on Islam, but I don't think it will be done peacefully. Not on the whole, at any rate. There are those who will be reached intellectually and with better proofs than their "scholars" offer them; but there are some that are just so set in their way or brainwashed that they can't be react violently. And they will need to be fought, because they are spreading injustice in the world as equally as are those they've declared their enemies. Unfortunately, Wahhabism is backed by Saudi Arabia's oil dollars and they've pretty much flooded the market in the Muslim diaspora for books and what not. They are the shoddiest materials I've ever seen in my life, but then again... their main audience are the disaffected in American and European ghettos. Which is what really comes down to the real root of the so-called "radical Islam" problem. Injustice and iniquity. Wahhabism, like Christian and Jewish fundamentalism, is a modern reaction to the modern world and it's message resonates with those who feel or are slighted, poor, and oppressed. Be they feeling the oppression and exploitation that has come hand-in-hand with European and American colonialism, imperialism and neo-colonialism; or at the hands of their own countries' dictators who are backed by American and European money. This is especially true in the case of resistance movements and terrorist groups rallied under the banner of Islam. What are they saying that their beef is? Most of them are saying "it's because you stole our land and are oppressing our people or are supporting the oppressors of our people." Most are not saying "we hate you because your religion is different from ours." Also "radical Islam" is no more a monolith than Islam itself is. Hamas and Hizbullah, for instance, =/= al-Qai'da. If you want to solve that problem, then you remedy the circumstances that make people want to take up arms to fight against what they feel is threatening them. The US and Europe need to deal as harshly with Israel as they do with the Palestinians and Lebanese, because they can't be an honest broker otherwise and there will never be justice, and therefore peace, in the Middle East. That's just one key issue. Peace, Dawud

It fascinates me that you guys are observing fasting in specific relation to Ramadan. Please, explain your reasons. Not that you have to have any, but I'm curious.

Interesting thread. I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim. I think there are some questions that you're(all of your respondents as well) wrestling with or have wrestled with that you find off putting. Hell, for instance. Sufi Master Ibn al-'Arabi was a gnostic metaphysician and some of the stuff he had to say regarding Hell and it's rationality, as well as Heaven/Paradise, in relation to God is quite different from the notion that God is some petty being in the sky arbitrarily judging people for their intellectual goof ups. In essence, what is he says is that the universe is the place of manifestation of God's Names and these Names are usually categorized as Names of Majesty/Wrath/Justice and Names of Beauty/Mercy. Paradise and Hell are also realms in the cosmic order, so even there the Names of God have to be fully manifest and indeed even more manifest there than in this realm. So Hell is a result of God's self-disclosure as much as Paradise, just in a different way. There is, of course, even the hint of Mercy in Hell and Wrath in the midst of Paradise. We make our own Paradise and Hell, in what we do and what we believe... but also, just as much, in how we believe. I think one could be doctrinally "correct" and yet still so far off base that one is technically not a true believer because you've mistaken the signposts of your creed to be the final word on God's Nature which is so far beyond our comprehension that it defies definition and quantification. I'm not going to limit God by mistaking how I understand God's Wrath or Mercy to be the absolute truth of what those things are ontologically. I really don't know, what I believe as a Muslim and what I do as a Muslim just works for me. And I feel enriched investigating other traditions that pique my interest. One other thing, Christianity has been around a long time... I find it hard to believe that, with a little digging, there might be some pretty old material out there that addresses some of your concerns. It might be more mainstream or it could be something that was deemed "heretical" by the Nicean Council ages ago.If you still feel a strong connection to Christianity and the Christian experience, it might serve you well to really start digging as deeply as you can to the 2000 years of traditions... exoteric and esoteric. Don't just give up on it because most contemporary Christians don't vibe with you. Most contemporary Muslims don't vibe with me, but I'm sure having a blast exploring the deep and rich traditions that Islam has esoterically, exoterically and philosophically. Peace, Dawud

Salaam alaikum, My apologies to the Bums for going on with this. It's an interesting dialogue for me... not many Muslims I encounter have an abiding interest in Taoism and Taoist practices and Islam and it's esoteric dimension, aside from my Ba Gua teacher. Anyways, in the sense that you're using "Orthodox" I can see your point. There's really no one Orthodoxy in Islam. Other than the general agreement with Monotheism, the existence of the Unseen World(heavens, angelic beings, jinn), the prophethood of Muhammad and the veracity of the Qur'an. The critical thing I take from Imam 'Ali's sermon that I quoted above is that all our understandings of God are going to be colored by our own limited ability to conceive of the Divine Nature and that God is always greater than that(Allahu Akbar!). If we say God is One, what do we mean by that?(BTW, being Turkish have you ever read Ahmed Hulusi's books?) Do we mean that God is one numerically, implying a second or the possibility of a second? It takes an awful lot to be a heterodox Muslim, like... believing in prophets after Muhammad, or going to extreme notions like certain extremist Shi'a sects that have literally considered 'Ali to be an incarnation of God. Orthodoxy, in Islam, is primarily in the realm of actual practice and less in the realm of ideas. A small example, two of the more famous of the Prophet's companions Salman al-Farsi and Abu Dhar. This is a Shi'a hadith, but the Prophet famously said that if Abu Dhar were to be told what Salman knew he'd think Salman a disbeliever. Even amongst the Prophet's companions there were levels of knowledge and unveiling. So, yeah, the exoteric scholars often fall into the error of believing that they have all the knowledge there is to be had despite... especially in the case of the Shi'a ulama... having knowledge of hadith that indicate certain companions were privy to higher forms of knowledge than others. Regarding salat, it's a shame when people do things that they don't know the meanings of... however, even if one is ignorant of the specific meaning of... for instance... the Fatihah or Surah al-Ikhlas you derive a great deal of benefit just from reciting the verses in Arabic. Now, there's nothing particular about the Arabic language that makes it special except it was the language of revelation and just based on the Qur'anic statement that there's a healing for the reciter and listener there-in... I'd say just the recitation alone is of great benefit even without understanding. Of course, one should also strive for understanding. I personally don't speak Arabic, but I understand a few Surahs of the Qur'an and the words we recite in the various postures of the prayer on at least one level of meaning. The most exoteric level, that is. The postures of the salat are mentioned in the Qur'an in conjunction with the enjoining to perform salat. As well as references to reciting the Qur'an and salat. And of course, the Fatihah is referred to as the "Seven Most Oft-Repeated Verses" in the Qur'an. There's a good book that touches on all of this called The Book of Sufi Healing by Shaykh Moinuddin Chisti. There's a chapter on salat that deals with it in a yogic way, as well as a chapter specifically about the breathing practices inherent in the recitation of Qur'an and the effects those have on you. Anyways, the only thing I'm really saying is the exoteric practices are important in order to make strides in the exoteric realm, in whatever tradition you're following, if for no other reason than that the esoteric is constructed upon the exoteric or with the presumption that one is engaging in the exoteric. It's also a matter of balance, yin-yang, delving into the esoteric without the exoteric to groud you can cause you great harm... and, of course, binding oneself to the exoteric with no regard for the esoteric leaves one earthbound and often quite exclusionist and violent. That said, the sorts these days to make themselves out to be the only "orthodox" Muslims are Wahhabi/Salafi sectarians and their sentiments are quite heterodox when you look at the long standing traditional Islam. Right down to attributing to God a corporeal form, and their dispensing with traditional Islamic chivalry(futuwwah). Fi Aman Allah

Salaam alaikum wa Ramadan Mubarak, I just joined this forum as well. I'd like to ask a couple questions and perhaps make a few statements, to you re: Islam. Orthodoxy is not, as opposed to modern notions, a bad thing. All orthodoxy would mean, really, is that you adhere to the 5 pillars of Tawhid(Unity of God), Prophethood, daily prayer, fasting in Ramadan, paying of Zakat and a personal commitment to make the Hajj at least once in your lifetime. I personally see no reason why certain Taoist teachings and practices wouldn't be compatible with Islam, and I think that's born out by the esoteric side of Islam aka Sufism/Tasawwuf and theoretical gnosis('irfan). After all, all the most prominent and revered Sufi masters were themselves practitioners of exoteric orthodoxy... including Jalaluddin Rumi and Shaykh al-Akbar ibn al-'Arabi. Greater intellects than myself have discussed this much more thoroughly than I have; but the gist of it is that the esoteric unveiling really isn't truly possible with the exoteric structure to build upon. You find this even in the free wheeling Taoist circles with some quite rigid personal practices in many schools of Taoism. Quan Zhen and Wudang, for instance, lead a very strict lifestyle and practice while maintaining an inner openness. Which is precisely what Sufism and Islam is about. The Sufi structure is always Shariat(exoteric religious path), Tariqat(esoteric spiritual path), and Haqqiqah(unveiling of Inner Reality)... which are not so much stages, as layers. Shariat is the foundation upon which all other attainments are built. Even the concept of God/Allah in Islam might often be misconstrued. I think the fullness of what is Allah's nature is gleaned from Imam 'Ali's first sermon in Nahj al-Balaghah: That's a pretty elaborate way of expressing the same notion as "the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Eternal Tao." To sum up what I'm saying... food for thought: if you don't commit to a path, you'll likely never get to the Destination. Perhaps I'm being a bit to forward and presumptious, if so... please forgive me. Peace, Dawud

Some information on the various martial arts that were the bases for the bending styles in this show. Waterbending - Tai Chi Earthbending - Hung Gar, sometimes some Southern Mantis and other things Firebending - Northern Shaolin Airbending - Ba Gua Zhang Great show, not entirely enthused about the movie. Casting issues, have I.