NationStates Jolt Archive

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

I am not familiar with the Koran, so this hopefully will open up my eyes to it. Is it depicted in the Koran at all that the Prophet Muhammed led a brutal army to capture some city? Im not sure on the exact details, so I was hoping you can fill me in?

Is it true that Muslim Armageddon involves Jesus rising up and stating that Islam is the true path?

This is honestly what I've heard.

I know you cant speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I was wondering in your circle of family, friends and associates that share your faith- do you see America's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war against terrorism or against the Muslim faith?
Speaking as a Christian,with family and friends sharing my basic faith, we dont view this as a war against Islam at all. We see it as fighting against enemies-many of whom happen to be Muslims.

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

What's the whole deal about "you can go ahead and kill as many of us as you want, just as long as you get one infidel"?

Oh, and the 72 virgins???

What's the whole deal about "you can go ahead and kill as many of us as you want, just as long as you get one infidel"?

Hmm...my non-mod opinion is that this sounds flamey to me.

Hmm...my non-mod opinion is that this sounds flamey to me.

Not flamey, just wondering where it came from....

hmm..
I think I'll help out with some of the answering here metzia.
Firstly Halo-man, the 'deal' about "you can go ahead and kill as many of us as you want, just as long as you get one infidel" is a complete load of baloney produced by a man who is a leader of a group of Muslims who have, and had in the past, plenty of grievances with mainstream orthodox Islam, i.e the Shi'ites (Details will come if you require them, but i cant be bothered explaining all here..).
Many, many Mulsim scholars across the world have stood up and condemned them, their methodology of producing change, their clear stupidity, and their lack of compassion for innocent life.
The seventy-two virgins, you must have heard of, is the reward for one who is killed in war defending Islam, not attacking those who are not soldiers on the field. It is the reward of martyrdom, and no doubt the desire of most men.. BUT it is not given to suicide bombers, and such ignorant idiots. Jihaad has certain regulations which must be observed, and from amongst these is that the only men who are to be fought and killed are those who resist with arms. Those who surrender, or pose no threat to you security are not be harmed, The greatest example of this clemency I can give you is the example of Salaah-ad Din or Saladin to the West, who spared the lives of all the men, women and children of Jerusalem, not because he felt it would make him a name, or it would be his good deed for the day, but because it was required of him in Islaam.
So anyway I hope ive filled some gaps in your knowledge..

hmm..
I think I'll help out with some of the answering here metzia.
Firstly Halo-man, the 'deal' about "you can go ahead and kill as many of us as you want, just as long as you get one infidel" is a complete load of baloney produced by a man who is a leader of a group of Muslims who have, and had in the past, plenty of grievances with mainstream orthodox Islam, i.e the Shi'ites (Details will come if you require them, but i cant be bothered explaining all here..).
Many, many Mulsim scholars across the world have stood up and condemned them, their methodology of producing change, their clear stupidity, and their lack of compassion for innocent life.
The seventy-two virgins, you must have heard of, is the reward for one who is killed in war defending Islam, not attacking those who are not soldiers on the field. It is the reward of martyrdom, and no doubt the desire of most men.. BUT it is not given to suicide bombers, and such ignorant idiots. Jihaad has certain regulations which must be observed, and from amongst these is that the only men who are to be fought and killed are those who resist with arms. Those who surrender, or pose no threat to you security are not be harmed, The greatest example of this clemency I can give you is the example of Salaah-ad Din or Saladin to the West, who spared the lives of all the men, women and children of Jerusalem, not because he felt it would make him a name, or it would be his good deed for the day, but because it was required of him in Islaam.
So anyway I hope ive filled some gaps in your knowledge..

That's what I was wondering.

Thank you. :)

Not flamey, just wondering where it came from....

Whoops.

Sorry.

Anytime halo-man,
And 'Noble-Men' without wanting to start up an Islaam vs. Christianity thread, because I really am feeling tired, and i have exams to revise and sit - maybe after that I'll get involved in similar discussions- but, yes, it is true that is our belief, because we believe Jesus was a man, not god, and that when he preached his message of worshipping the 'Father', 'who is in Heaven' then that was Monotheism, and all other elements were added afterwards (BTW, I may not respond to Christians on that point of contention, because it will only distract me from History revision..) Therefore Jesus was upon the religion of 'submission' (which in Arabic produces 'Islam') to the one true God (not himself) and therefore he will naturally return and condemn men who call him God, and have introduced Greco-Roman elements into what was once a pure monothesitic faith..
That good enough for you?

Anytime halo-man,
And 'Noble-Men' without wanting to start up an Islaam vs. Christianity thread, because I really am feeling tired, and i have exams to revise and sit - maybe after that I'll get involved in similar discussions- but, yes, it is true that is our belief, because we believe Jesus was a man, not god, and that when he preached his message of worshipping the 'Father', 'who is in Heaven' then that was Monotheism, and all other elements were added afterwards (BTW, I may not respond to Christians on that point of contention, because it will only distract me from History revision..) Therefore Jesus was upon the religion of 'submission' (which in Arabic produces 'Islam') to the one true God (not himself) and therefore he will naturally return and condemn men who call him God, and have introduced Greco-Roman elements into what was once a pure monothesitic faith..
That good enough for you?

That is a rather good explanation.

Anytime halo-man,
And 'Noble-Men' without wanting to start up an Islaam vs. Christianity thread, because I really am feeling tired, and i have exams to revise and sit - maybe after that I'll get involved in similar discussions- but, yes, it is true that is our belief, because we believe Jesus was a man, not god, and that when he preached his message of worshipping the 'Father', 'who is in Heaven' then that was Monotheism, and all other elements were added afterwards (BTW, I may not respond to Christians on that point of contention, because it will only distract me from History revision..) Therefore Jesus was upon the religion of 'submission' (which in Arabic produces 'Islam') to the one true God (not himself) and therefore he will naturally return and condemn men who call him God, and have introduced Greco-Roman elements into what was once a pure monothesitic faith..
That good enough for you?

That clears things up nicely,

Thank you.

And good luck in the exam.

I hope it helped

Is it true that the "72 virgins" or whatever is actually a mis-translation and should be a bowl of fruit? It makes sense, as the cornucopia was then a powerful symbol in many religions.

Lol, no Tactical Grace. It is probably what it proposed by certain ignorant elements of the Islamic world, but no it does refer to such, and its potency in othe religions is of no real siginificance to Muslims, or Islam. Usually people have certain apologist motives in explaining them as such, and that is so that they can avoid the 'embarrassment' of answering questions about polygamy infront of their Western counterparts..

Vanikoro
I am not familiar with the Koran, so this hopefully will open up my eyes to it. Is it depicted in the Koran at all that the Prophet Muhammed led a brutal army to capture some city? Im not sure on the exact details, so I was hoping you can fill me in?

Could you be a little more specific ie: give the name of the city in question?

The Noble Men
Is it true that Muslim Armageddon involves Jesus rising up and stating that Islam is the true path?

This is honestly what I've heard.

Generally yes that is accurate.

Carnivorous Lickers
I know you cant speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I was wondering in your circle of family, friends and associates that share your faith- do you see America's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war against terrorism or against the Muslim faith?

I am a convert to Islam and although my family is Christian in name, in practice it is more or less deist. I am an American by birth and was raised in a Christian church until I was around 9 or 10. My political views aren't really going to mirror those of someone raised in Egypt for example.

Speaking for myself: I don't see this war as being against the Muslim faith, else the Qur'an would be banned at home and burned abroad and Muslims would be forced to convert or die as in the old crusades. Despite what some may say America is not imperialist and by its own constitution can not go about Holy wars. There is even precedence in the form of the Barbary wars and specifically the treaty that ended them that backs this up. The United States having no declared war on Islam essentially means that all the terrorists are making war illegally according to Islam.

Haloman
What's the whole deal about "you can go ahead and kill as many of us as you want, just as long as you get one infidel"?

Oh, and the 72 virgins???

Both involve verses being taken out of context. Killing, and war in particular are always limited to "fighting in the way of Allah" which is defined as fighting defensively. Killing prisoners is not alllowed and killing innocent civilians is pretty much a one way ticket to hell.

With regard to the virgins: 7, 70, 700, etc... are all numbers that represent a large amount. Think of it as an "infinity +1" type of expression. Regardless heaven itself is described metaphorically in Islam and is believed to be beyond human conception.

Lol, no Tactical Grace. It is probably what it proposed by certain ignorant elements of the Islamic world, but no it does refer to such, and its potency in othe religions is of no real siginificance to Muslims, or Islam. Usually people have certain apologist motives in explaining them as such, and that is so that they can avoid the 'embarrassment' of answering questions about polygamy infront of their Western counterparts..
Don't troll. :rolleyes:

I am not looking for a racist / white supremacist interpretation here, a historian and linguist whose name I do not recall has actually looked at the languages at the time and suggested that the meaning of some expressions has changed with time. If you don't know, don't reply.

salam-u- alaykum, Metzia
I thought I'd help out

salam-u- alaykum, Metzia
I thought I'd help out

Salam, and thank you.

I once dated a Muslim guy, I am christian (practicing Catholic by the way). He said that it was okay to marry because our two religions were so similar, but if we ever married, I must commit to raising my children Muslim.

Also, I wasn't supposed to meet his family until we were extremely serious b/c it was wrong to date someone outside of his faith.

Was this just his family? Or is it a prevailing thing to date only your own faith background? He was an from Lebanon. Maybe it is a country thing? I think there was an issue about me being the "wrong race" also which he attributed to his faith.

Also, why could he not wear silk? Not even a silk tie?

Listen Tactical Grace, I dont appreciate ignorance mixed with arrogance,
so let me make it clear..
The explanations i take on these issues are not from people writing in the last 50 or so years. I'm tlking about the scholars in the past, such Imam Shafi'ee, amongst many undreds of thers..(If you dont know who they are, then dont propse that I am the ignorant one) Your historian, firstly, to be writing in a language you understand, is not going to be an Arab, and so therefore will not understand as much about the language's development than an Arab who writes and contributed to the introduction of new grammar. - such was the depth of knowledge that the ancient scholars had, of both arabic, and the use of it in religious dogma. This interpretation has stood for many 100's of years, and was proposed by the very earliest scholars, therefore dont propse to know more about it than they did, and do not uphold the workings of a historian bereft of in-depth Arabic experience. These men were the intellects of the ancient world and certainly knew more about interpreting narrations of the prophet Muhammad than you, I , or this so-called historian who has eluded your memory..

I once dated a Muslim guy, I am christian (practicing Catholic by the way). He said that it was okay to marry because our two religions were so similar, but if we ever married, I must commit to raising my children Muslim.

Also, I wasn't supposed to meet his family until we were extremely serious b/c it was wrong to date someone outside of his faith.

Was this just his family? Or is it a prevailing thing to date only your own faith background? He was an from Lebanon. Maybe it is a country thing? I think there was an issue about me being the "wrong race" also which he attributed to his faith.

Racism is forbidden in Islam so it was not your race they would object to (on religious grounds), however it is generally expected that one's spouse would either be of the same religion or convert though ultimately its up to the individuals involved.

To expand upon that SuperGreatPeople. A Muslim should make no judgement based on race, with regards to acceptability for marriage or companionship, etc The fact that the family did, was clearly cultural debaseness, and his attributing it to Islam was wrong in the extreme. It must be in relation to the hatred for whites that developed as a result of the crusades, and the black slave triangle, where white imperialists were associated to Christians, who were in turn labelled the enemy. Therefore to summarise very quickly hundreds of years of hatred from the British Empire, etc. His famil's dislike of a 'white' woman was not because of Islam, as their is no racial discrimination on pure Islam doctrine, but because of culture and prevalent attitudes.

Finally the issue of why your being christian was a point of tension between you and the family, is because your religion, is the one thing in life you can change, and to a devout follower of his religion, he is going to wish to marry and rear children who are gong to abide by his spiritual codes of conduct..
Therefore in modern society people marry each other because they like a person's personality, or because they find someone beautiful, wealthy etc. For a Muslim the most important criterion is religion, and just as easily justified.The notion that christians and muslims can wed is correct, as the 'People of the Book' can easily be convinced by someone they love, -as is the case with anything i.e that you will listen to the one who is close to you-, that Islam is the better alternative. If the person was not willing to accept that, then naturally the marriage wouldn't go ahead anyway..

With regards to silk, then it is a symbol of excessive wealth and finery, as in those times only wealthy kings or leaders wore such finery, and so it was shunned by the poor, destitute Muslims. For women it was allowed as they would not show it off in public anyway, and also because it was a symbol of patriachal power, so no restriction was placed upon them.

Racism is forbidden in Islam so it was not your race they would object to (on religious grounds), however it is generally expected that one's spouse would either be of the same religion or convert though ultimately its up to the individuals involved.

Although most religions are like that.

Carnivorous Lickers [/b]
I know you cant speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I was wondering in your circle of family, friends and associates that share your faith- do you see America's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war against terrorism or against the Muslim faith?

I am a convert to Islam and although my family is Christian in name, in practice it is more or less deist. I am an American by birth and was raised in a Christian church until I was around 9 or 10. My political views aren't really going to mirror those of someone raised in Egypt for example.

Speaking for myself: I don't see this war as being against the Muslim faith, else the Qur'an would be banned at home and burned abroad and Muslims would be forced to convert or die as in the old crusades. Despite what some may say America is not imperialist and by its own constitution can not go about Holy wars. There is even precedence in the form of the Barbary wars and specifically the treaty that ended them that backs this up. The United States having no declared war on Islam essentially means that all the terrorists are making war illegally according to Islam.


Ok-thanks for the answer. I hope your views are the more common among Muslims. This shouldnt become a holy war.

Listen Tactical Grace, I dont appreciate ignorance mixed with arrogance, so let me make it clear...
And when you speak of "ignorant elements in the Islamic world", clearly your sources are not in any way biased. Please. You may have read much more than me, but if it is as politically tainted as your words imply, yours is an imperfect wisdom.

If you really are well read, do your subject a favour and avoid the language of the trolls I have seen pass through here over the years.

is that ia reference to me having used it already, or the potential for 'someone like me' to use it? (the language of the trolls im referring to)

is that ia reference to me having used it already, or the potential for 'someone like me' to use it? (the language of the trolls im referring to)
It's just that your original post sounded like it could have been written by the Stormfront crowd that was over here in 2003. :eek: Really. Perhaps that was not your intention, but they certainly had their distinct brand of Cultural Imperialism Lite, as anyone who can remember that far back will recall.

Also, I apologise for my anger,but you simply assumed that i didnt know what i was talking about, without realising that i said earlier i would make my responses brief..
My 'imperfect wisdom' as you refer to it is, is less imperfect however, compared to people whose motivations i understand and perceive in the islamic world. Yes you are right i have studied, i do not wish to brag (not that that is bragging to a Muslim) and so therefore i know more than certain Shi'ite, Khar'ijee 'scholars' would purport to know, and i can direct any muslim to *real* scholars, who know far more than me, and can support their 'wisdom' and 'assertions' with clear-cut evidence.

Hope I got the atribution right . . .


With regard to the virgins: 7, 70, 700, etc... are all numbers that represent a large amount. Think of it as an "infinity +1" type of expression. Regardless heaven itself is described metaphorically in Islam and is believed to be beyond human conception.

Much like the Biblical 40 days and 40 nights then . . .

Note to Christians: An "Ask a Christian" thread would have been much more welcome than a "Do you want to become a Christian" one as the former does not look like an attempt to gain converts.

lol, cultural imperialism?
Did you think i was a racist, white imperialist, when im actaully an asian, Muslim, history student?
Wow, never realise my words could be so misleading..hmm

lol, cultural imperialism?
Did you think i was a racist, white imperialist, when im actaully an asian, Muslim, history student?
Wow, never realise my words could be so misleading..hmm
LOL, no harm done, then. :D

Good, good
Anyway people I've got to go away for about 9 hours, my bed beckons, so hopefully metzia can continue answering questions, cos im a busy person as of tomorrow, REVISION!
bye all.

Good, good
Anyway people I've got to go away for about 9 hours, my bed beckons, so hopefully metzia can continue answering questions, cos im a busy person as of tomorrow, REVISION!
bye all.
heheh, on the forum page, your name looks funny next to the arrow.

Is it true that theres a phase in the Koran that says that the prophet can take as many wives as he wishes, and this privilige only applies to him?

Is it true that theres a phase in the Koran that says that the prophet can take as many wives as he wishes, and this privilige only applies to him?

According to Muhammad Ali's commentary under 33:50:

That his wives were lawful for the Prophet goes without saying. It appears that this revelation came after 4:3, which limits the number of wives a man can take under exceptional circumstances to four. The Prophet was, however, told that he should not divorce the excess number for this reason.

The marriages of the Holy prophet have furnished his critics with the chief implement of attack on him, and the low-minded missionary has gone so far as to call him a voluptuary on that account, though he dare not apply that word to the husband of a hundred wives. Therefore I give below the full particulars regarding the Prophet's marrigages. His life as regards his marrigages may be divided into four periods. Briefly these are: (1) A celibate life up to twenty five. (2) A married state iwht one wife from 25 - 54. (3) Several mariiages from 54-60. (4) No further marriage after 60. As regards the first period, the life of a celibate youth living in a warm country till 25, the testimony of a hostile writer like Sir William Muir is that "all authorities agree in ascribig to the youth of Muhammad a modesty of deportment and and purity of manners rare among the people of Mecca". In fact i Arabia at the time profligacy was the order of the day and it was among people who prided themselves on loose sexual relations that the Prophet led a life of transcendent purity.

Then comes the second period from 25 to 54. His first marriage was contracted when he was twenty-five years of age, and the widow Khadijah whom he married was forty years old, i.e., fifteen years his senior. It was with her , and her alone, that he passed all the years of his youth and manhood until she died three years before the Hijrah, when he was already an old man of fifty. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give the lie to those carpers who call him a voluptuary. After her death, while still at Makkah, he married Saudah, a widow of advanced age. He also married 'A'ishah, his only virgin wife, while at Makkah, but her marriage was consumated five years afterwards in the 2cnd year of the Hijrah.

Then followed the flight to Madinah, and subsequent to the Flight he had to fight many battles with his enemies, the Quraish, or such tribes as sided with the Quraish. The result of these battles was a great discrepancy between the number of males and females, and as his favourite followers fell in the field of battle fighting with his enemies, the care of their famiilies devolved upon the Prophet and his surviving companions. In the battle of Badr fell Khunais, son of Hudhafah, and the faithful 'Umar's daughter Hafsah was left a widow. "Umar offered her to 'Uthman and Abu Bakr in turn, and she was at last married by the Holy Prophet in the third year of the Hijrah. "Abd Allah, son of Jahsh, fell a martyr at Uhud, and his widow Zainab, daughter ofKhuzaimah, was taken in marriage by the Prophet in the same year. In the next year Abu Salamah died, and his widow, Umm Salamah, was taken to wife by the Prophet. The events are narrated in the last section leading to Zainab's divorce by Zaid; the Prophet married her in the fifth year of the Hijrah under circumstnaces already narrated. Umm Habibah was one of his devoted followers who fled to Abyssinia with her husband, 'Ubaid Allah, who there became a Christian, and when he died his widow found comfort in being taken as a wife by the Holy Prophet in the seventh year of the Hijrah.

Beside these widows of his faithful followers whom it fell to his lot to take under his protection, the Prophet took three widows of his enemies in marriage, and in each case this ste led to the union and pacification of a whole tribe. These three, Juwairiyah, Maimunah, and Safiyyah he married in the years six and seven of the Hijrah. Regarding one of these it is sufficient to note that, when the Prophet took Juwairiyah for a wife, over a hudred families of the tribe of Bani Mustaliq, to which tribe she belonged, wer at once liberated by the Muslims.

The fourth period is that when war came to an end; a reference to this is contained in v.52: "It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this".

Thus it will be seen that all the marriages of the Prophet were due either to feelings of compassion for the widows of his faithful followers or to put a stop to bloodshed and ensure union with some tribe. Compare also 4:3a where it is shown that the permission for polygamy was given under similar circumstances; in fact many of the companions had to follow the example of the Prophet.

The Prophet was specially allowed to retain all his wives when the number allowed was brought down to four in the case of other believers. This was the only privelige allowed to the Prophet and it is to this that the words, especially for thee refer (in 33:50). What God ordained for the believers is contained in 4:3, and on the revelation of that verse any Muslim who had more than four wives had to divorce the excess number.

Lots of Q's...

Are women allowed to take multiple husbands?

If not, how does Islam deal with this apparent contradiction with it's aspirations of 'equality'.

What did Mohammed see when he slept upon the site of the ruined Jewish Temple (Now the Dome of the Rock) and ascended to heaven?

Did Mohammed have a 'betrayal' at any point in his life? How did he deal with it?

Does Islam support philosophical study beyond the Koran? (I know that some variations will not even sing verses as they feel the words are perfect and adding a tune is tantamount to hubris)

Does Islam ban sculpture or images that depict human forms? If so why?

Are there any other religious books beyond Koran?


Thanks in advance.

Racism is forbidden in Islam so it was not your race they would object to (on religious grounds), however it is generally expected that one's spouse would either be of the same religion or convert though ultimately its up to the individuals involved.

race, theoretically, does not matter in islamic marriages, but religion does.

A muslim male is allowed to marry a ahl-e-kitab (people who follow the book , viz, jews and christians), but the children are automatically muslim and must be brought up so.

If I remember correctly, the children have no say in this and when they leave the faith, they will be considered as apostates.


A muslim male is not allowed to marry anybody outside the trio of Jew/Christian/Islam faiths. For ex, a muslim male marrying a Hindu / Budhist / Atheist etc will not be considered marriage in the islamic sense.



A muslim woman, on the other hand, do not have any such rules.

She simply CANNOT marry anybody outside the faith, be it be a Jew or Christian.

Her marriage to a non-muslim will not be considered as marriage and to put it bluntly, I have heard it said that she is committing something called "Zina" (fornication) for which she is punishable in an islamic court.


ADDED LATER:

Muslim males and females can marry converted folks as long as conversion to Islam is before the marriage for the marriage to be considered as a marriage.

How much of the Qur'an is true

Evilness and Chaos
Are women allowed to take multiple husbands?

Here is a section of the introduction to the Qur'an written by Maulana Muhammad Ali, it should help you get a better understanding of the Islamic views of gender roles:

From the introduction to the Qur'an Part 6: The Position of Women

Spiritually women raised to the position of men

This is another subject on which great misunderstanding prevails. The belief that, according to the Qur'an, woman has no soul s almost general in the West. Probably it took hold of the mind of Europe at a time when Europe had no access to the Qur'an. No other religious book and no other reformer has done one-tenth of what the Holy Qur'an or the Holy Prophet Muhammad has done to raise the position of woman. Read the Qur'an and you find good an righteous women being given the same position as good and righteous men. Both sexes are spoken of in the same terms. The highest favour which God has bestowed upon man is the gift of revelation, and we find women, to whom the Divine revelation came, spoken of along with men: 28:7, 20:38, 3:42

Further, where the Holy Qur'an speaks of the great prophets of God, saying "And mention Abraham in the Book" (19:41), "And mention Moses in the Book" and so on, it speaks of women in the same terms: "And mention Mary in the Book" (19:16). No other religious book has given such a high spiritual position to woman.

The Qur'an makes no difference between man and woman in the bestowal of reward for the good he or she does: 3:195, 4:124, 16:97, 40:40

Also, 33:35, speaking of good women alongside of good men, enumerates every good quality as being possessed by women exactly as it is possessed by men and ends with the words: "Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward". With God, therefore, according to the Qur'an, there is no difference between men and women, and morally and spiritually they can rise to the same eminence.

Woman is the equal of man in rights of property

On the material side, too, we find no difference, except what nature requires for its own ends. A woman can earn, inherit and own property and dispose of it just as a man can, and the Holy Qur'an is explicit on all these points: 4:32, 4:7, 4:4

Woman, in Arabia, had no rights of property; nay, she herself was part of the inheritance, and was taken possession of along with other property. She had no right to the property of her deceased husband or father. The Qur'an took her from this low position and raised her to a position of perfect freedom as regards her property rights and her right to inheritance, a position which, among other nations, she has only partly attained and that after centuries of hard struggle.

Polygamy

It is, however, asserted that polygamy and the seclusion of women, as enjoined in the Holy Qur'an, have done more harm to woman than the benefit conferred on her by bestowal of property rights. The fact is that a great misunderstanding exists on these two points. Monogamy is the rule in Islam and polygamy only an exception allowed subject to certain conditions. The following two verses are the only authority for the sanction of polygamy, and let us see how far they carry us:

"And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then marry only one or what your right hand possesses. This is more proper that you may not do injustice." (4:3)

"And they as thee a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them; and that which is recited to you in the Book is concerning widowed women, whom you give not what is appointed for them, while you are not inclined to marry them" (4:127)

Now the first of these verses allows polygamy on the express condition that "you can not do injustice to orphans", and what is meant is made clear by the second verse, which contains a clear reference to the first verse in the words, "that which is recited to you in the Book is concerning widowed women". The Arabs were guilty of a double injustice against widows: they did not give them and their children a share in teh inheritance of their husbands, nor were they inclined to marry widows who had children, because the responsibility for the maintenance of the children would in that case devolve upon them.

The Qur'an remedied both these evils; it gave a share of inheritance to the widow with a share also for the orphans, and it commended the taking of such widows in marriage, and allowed polygamy expressly for this purpose. It should, therefore, be clearly understood that monogamy is the rule in Islam and polygamy is allowed only as a remedial measure, and that, not for the sake of the man, but for the sake of the widow and her children. This permission was given at a time when the wars, which wer forced on the Muslims, had decimated the men, so that many widows and orphans were left for whom it was necessary to provide. A provision was made in the form of polygamy so that the widow should find a home and protector and the orphans should have paternal care and affection.

Europe today his its problem of the excess of women, and let it consider if it can solve that problem otherwise than by sanctioning a limited polygamy. Perhaps the only other way is prostitution, which prevails widely in all European countries and, where the law of the land does not recognize it, it is recognized in practice. Nature will have its course, and allowing illicit intercourse is the only other alternative to polygamy.

Seclusion

As regards the seclusion of women, the Qur'an never prohibited women from going out of their houses for their needs. In the time of the Prophet, women went regularly to mosques, and said their prayers along with men, standing in a separate row. They also joined their husbands in teh labour of the field; they even went with the army to the field of battle, and looked after the wounded, removing them from the field, if necessary, and helped the fighting-men in many other ways. They could even fight the enemy in an emergency. No occupation was prohibited to them, and they could do any work they chose. The only restrictions on their liberty are contained in the following verses:

"Say to the believing men that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is Aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passion and do not display their adornment except what appears thereof. And let them wear their head coverings oer their bosoms" (24:30,31)

Now the real restriction contained in these verses is that both men and women should, when they meet each other, cast down their looks, but there is an additional restriction in the case of women that they should not display their adornment with the exception of "what appears thereof". The exception has been explained as meaning"what is customary and natural to uncover". That women went to mosques with their faces uncovered is recognized on all hands, and there is also a saying of the Holy Prophet that, when a woman reaches the age of puberty, she should cover her body except the face and the hands.

The majority of the commentators are also of opinion that the exception relates to the face and the hands. Hence, while a display of beauty is forbidden, the restriction does not interfere with the necessary activities of woman. She can do any work that she likes to earn her livelihood, for the Holy Qur'an says plainly, as already quoted, that women shall have the benefit of what they earn. A limited seclusion and a limited polygamy do not, therefore, interfere with the necessary activities of a woman; they are both meant for her protection and as preventives against loose sexual relations, which ultimately undermine society.

What did Mohammed see when he slept upon the site of the ruined Jewish Temple (Now the Dome of the Rock) and ascended to heaven?

For a detailed description it would be best to ask him. [/mild humor] As I understand it he was in Heaven and was there presented with the Qur'an.

Did Mohammed have a 'betrayal' at any point in his life? How did he deal with it?

He lived in Mecca for many years as a Muslim until, IIRC, his Uncle died. At that time the powerful nobles who previously had been friendly ran him out. There were a number of Muslims who, when faced with the relatively enormous armies of the Qur'aish, deserted. On a number of occasions various other tribes broke treaties and either assaulted him and the other Muslims or aided other tribes in their aggression against the Muslims.

Does Islam support philosophical study beyond the Koran? (I know that some variations will not even sing verses as they feel the words are perfect and adding a tune is tantamount to hubris)

Yes. Islam encourages study and the advancement of science and knowledge in general. It is a pity that the political climate in most Islamic countries no longer supports such advancement. Music is a disputed subject as there are some groups who say it is haram altogether and others that say it is only haram if the message is haram (promotion of sex, drugs, and violence/hatred).

Does Islam ban sculpture or images that depict human forms? If so why?
Not to my knowledge, although depiction of either Muhammad or Allah is not allowed. It had to be clear that Muhammad was not God, nor should he be worshipped as God and that his appearance was irrelevant, rather it is the message he brought that people should be concerned with. Idolotry is also condemned for 1)taking worship from Allah and 2)being foolish since worshipping a rock or lump of metal doesn't exactly do any good.

Are there any other religious books beyond Koran?

There is also the hadith, which are sayings and the example of the Prophet. They are collected in various books and are judged valid to various degrees based on the lineage of each hadith (who heard/saw it happen and told it, who heard that and passed it, who heard that and passed it, and so forth). Hadith with missing links in the chain do not hold as much validity. While you will probably find a copy of the Qur'an at a local bookstore or library, I've been hard pressed to find anything but excerpts of hadith.

el bumpo

metzia
Qur'an Part 6: The Position of Women

Spiritually women raised to the position of men



if indeed women is "spiritualy raised to the position of men" then why is it said in the koran that a woman's word carried only half that of a man's ?

how do u explain this verse ?

2:282] O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness; and the scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so he should write; and let him who owes the debt dictate, and he should be careful of (his duty to) Allah, his Lord, and not diminish anything from it; but if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding, or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other; and the witnesses should not refuse when they are summoned; and be not averse to writing it (whether it is) small or large, with the time of its falling due; this is more equitable in the sight of Allah and assures greater accuracy in testimony, and the nearest (way) that you may not entertain doubts (afterwards), except when it is ready merchandise which you give and take among yourselves from hand to hand, then there is no blame on you in not writing it down; and have witnesses when you barter with one another, and let no harm be done to the scribe or to the witness; and if you do (it) then surely it will be a transgression in you, and be careful of (your duty) to Allah, Allah teaches you, and Allah knows all things.




also, I have never gotten a meaningful explanation for Muhammed's (pbuh and pbutrou) marriage to 9 year old Ayesha and his marrying his own nephew's wife ( a nephew whom he has claimed to be like a son)

can u explain them?

what was the pressing need to marry them and marrying so many wives when the koran mandates only upto four wives?

(typo corrected)

is it true that most muslims dont like al queda and osama bin laden

How do most Arab Muslims feel about the Nation of Islam, an African/African-American sect/denomination/whatever? They've said some pretty disgusting things about white people and Jews specifically, and I was wondering how an Arab Muslim views them. Also, what is more appropriate: moslem or muslim, or Mohammaden?

Note to Christians: An "Ask a Christian" thread would have been much more welcome than a "Do you want to become a Christian" one as the former does not look like an attempt to gain converts.

I agree wholeheartedly - and I'm finding this thread very interesting and educational indeed (and so far, very civil) - keep it up! I'd start a similar one for Judaism but I fear my answers would be very imperfect ones.

Threads like this are far more useful than squabbling, any effort to promote understanding of other faiths and cultures is to be applauded.

but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other;

As women did not take much part in business, and were therefore unable to understand the transaction, two women were required instead of one man as witness to a contract and its terms. This has nothing to do with spirituality.

also, I have never gotten a meaningful explanation for Muhammed's (pbuh and pbutrou) marriage to 9 year old Ayesha and his marrying his own nephew's wife ( a nephew whom he has claimed to be like a son)

can u explain them?

what was the pressing need to marry them and marrying so many wives when the koran mandates only upto four wives?

The marriage to Ayesha was not consumated until four years later. That is relatively young in today's society but very common even just 2 centuries ago.

As explained earlier the Prophet married many women who were widows because they needed to be provided for and their husbands had died fighting alongside the Prophet in various battles. He also married the widows of some of his enemies to establish peace. When peace was established he married no more.

This link may better explain it:
http://islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=6161

The point about adoption probably had to do with men adopting sons and discarding their mothers.

is it true that most muslims dont like al queda and osama bin laden

Those who are educated enough to recognize that his war is unjust and realize that he has deliberately targetted civilians do not like Osama Bin Laden. I, being an American, have an especially negatively biased view of him.

How do most Arab Muslims feel about the Nation of Islam, an African/African-American sect/denomination/whatever? They've said some pretty disgusting things about white people and Jews specifically, and I was wondering how an Arab Muslim views them. Also, what is more appropriate: moslem or muslim, or Mohammaden?

I am not Arab, but I can tell you that I have no love for NOI. Elijah Muhammad was a fraud who preached racism and violence and claimed to be a prophet. This is unacceptable by Islamic standards. As Malcolm X found when he went on the Haj racism is not acceptable in Islam; he later denonunce Elijah Muhammad and was later assassinated, many believe, for having denounced him.

Muslim is probably most appropriate and Mohammaden least appropriate. Unlike Christianity Islam does not deify its Messenger. Where Christ is consdiered God and Christians therefore find it appropriate to name their faith after him, Islam is first about the Qur'an (believed to be the word of God) and second about Muhammad.

Thanks for your replies Metzia, you've cleared up a lot of issues for me.

I've tried reading Qur'an a few times but as is ususal with archaic, translated texts the meaning tends to become lost or confused unless one can devote extensive effort into study. I have kept my ears open however and I'm full of questions about things I've heard in interviews with Islamic scholars or on the news.

Some more Q's:

I understand that the Qur'an was written over a period of time, and that while most of the Qur'an is concerned with furthering peace, some of the later statements in Qur'an are 'warlike'?

Linked to this, I have heard that in the case of two statements in Qur'an contradicting each other, most Islamic scholars would take the later statement as the 'true' interpretation, and that this is why Islamic extremists feel safe to dismiss some of the more peaceful aspects of Qur'an and still consider themselves Muslim. Is this true?
Is this acceptance of the 'later' statement replacing the earlier statement written in Qur'an or is it merely a convention adopted ad-hoc?

I have heard that under strict Sha'ia law (Qur'anic law?) a non Muslim living in an Islamic state is prevented from contributing to the governance of the nation? And that they are not afforded all of the legal rights given to a Muslim?

Is strict Sha'ia law compatable with a Democractic system of governance? Ie: Would clerics voluntarily relinquish governmental power if they were voted out by the population, or does Qur'an consider this an assault upon Islam, at which point a 'defensive war' (Jihad?) is allowable?
Does Sha'ia law even allow for consultation with the people on issues of national importance?

Why is it that some Women wear the Hajib or Burkha when Qur'an states that the hands and face may be uncovered?

Is it a sin to convert away from Islam? Does 'sin' exist in Islam for that matter?

What of someone who follows some of the precepts of Islam, but not all of them, are they considered to be Muslim or heretic?

And a personal question:

What is your favourite thing about Islam?

Thanks for your replies Metzia, you've cleared up a lot of issues for me.

You're welcome

I've tried reading Qur'an a few times but as is ususal with archaic, translated texts the meaning tends to become lost or confused unless one can devote extensive effort into study.

Here is a link to a reliable translation of the Qur'an with commentary:

http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

I understand that the Qur'an was written over a period of time, and that while most of the Qur'an is concerned with furthering peace, some of the later statements in Qur'an are 'warlike'?

The Qur'an was revealed during a time of frequent war and this is key to understanding the more warlike verses. On a number of occasions the various other tribes, generally led by the Qur'aish attacked the Muslims. It was not until this happened that Muslims were given permission to fight at all and then only defensively. They were not to execute prisoners and could not harm civilans. In addition to the verses dealing specifically with how war was allowed to be conducted were verses describing various scenes from history or that allude to historical events. It is relatively easy to use verses that depend on the reader's knowledge of their historical context for meaning out of context where education is poor and knowledge of history lacking as is the state of things throughout much of the Middle East.


Linked to this, I have heard that in the case of two statements in Qur'an contradicting each other, most Islamic scholars would take the later statement as the 'true' interpretation, and that this is why Islamic extremists feel safe to dismiss some of the more peaceful aspects of Qur'an and still consider themselves Muslim. Is this true?
Is this acceptance of the 'later' statement replacing the earlier statement written in Qur'an or is it merely a convention adopted ad-hoc?

The Surahs of the Qur'an are not in chronological order. Islamic Extremist leaders, generally care little for actually following Islam, preferring to use it as a tool and a rallying point against those they have disagreements with. Throughout Islamic history there have been takfiri, who unjustly declare their political opponents to be non-Muslim or anti-Muslim in an effort to, ironically, get around Islamic rules. They use the logic that if their opponents are not Muslim they are against Islam and therefore are at war with Islam. They were able to sway people this way against people who actually were Muslim, using it against Westerners who aren't Muslim to begin with is an easier strategy for them. Nonetheless their strategy is flawed if they want to use Islam as their premise for war. The Qur'an states clearly that there is no compulsion in religion, but as I said they aren't really interested in Islam so much as securing stronger political positions.

I have heard that under strict Sha'ia law (Qur'anic law?) a non Muslim living in an Islamic state is prevented from contributing to the governance of the nation? And that they are not afforded all of the legal rights given to a Muslim?

It is true that non-Muslims living in an Islamic state are not allowed to participate in government, the obvious reason being that they would not exactly have reason to keep true to Islamic governance. Rights granted to non-Muslims have varied from time to time and from state to state. In some states they were given the normal rights, save position in government, and were given an extra tax but in exchange were excused from military service. It is in situations like this where religious tolerance was promoted that nearly every empire that has enacted such a state of affairs has prospered. At other times rulers have not been so kind or so faithful to Islamic rules for how those of other faiths should be treated.

Is strict Sha'ia law compatable with a Democractic system of governance? Ie: Would clerics voluntarily relinquish governmental power if they were voted out by the population, or does Qur'an consider this an assault upon Islam, at which point a 'defensive war' (Jihad?) is allowable?
Does Sha'ia law even allow for consultation with the people on issues of national importance?

If a cleric were elected into office in a secular democratic government then presumably he would step down again if he were voted out of office. An assault upon Islam would involve the banning of the Islamic religion, rounding up and execution of Muslims, seizure and destruction of the Qur'an wherever it is found. These are actions that would merit a Jihad, in my opinion.

Worthy of note though, is that the Qur'an uses Jihad much more often in reference to internal struggle and not an actual war.

Why is it that some Women wear the Hajib or Burkha when Qur'an states that the hands and face may be uncovered?

For the most part it is due to local culture.

Is it a sin to convert away from Islam? Does 'sin' exist in Islam for that matter?

It is not a sin per se, but it is an easy way to be ostracized by the Islamic community, though not by mandate, simply because it would make little sense to other Muslims to convert out of Islam.

What of someone who follows some of the precepts of Islam, but not all of them, are they considered to be Muslim or heretic?

Officially all one need do to become Muslim is pronounce that Allah is the one God and Muhammad is his messenger. However if someone pronounces the words but does not actually practice Islam he or she is considered a hypocrite. Generally it is left to Allah to sort out such matters and it is not believed to be the place of man to judge such things as the sincerity of one's Muslimhood. The Qur'an speaks frequently of hypocrites and it does not exactly paint them in a positive light, generally denouncing them as those who will face a painful chastisement, abide within the fire, etc.

What is your favourite thing about Islam?

Aside from being a religion of peace Islam not only takes a firm stance against racism but also is all inclusive of other religions. According to Islam Prophets have been sent to all peoples of the Earth and although their teachings have been altered they are still to be respected. Among these other prophets are those like Siddartha Gautama for example.

Many thanks again Metzia, sorry most of my questions have been mostly downers.

Many thanks again Metzia, sorry most of my questions have been mostly downers.

Thats okay, they were good questions and refreshing given the usual caliber of questions I get.

bump

How do you weigh Sin? And how good is 'good enough' for Allah to enter into the Kingdom of heaven?

How do you weigh Sin? And how good is 'good enough' for Allah to enter into the Kingdom of heaven?

Me personally? By the harm it causes I suppose. Good enough to enter into Heaven is generally described as such that one's good outweighs one's bad. Allah is ever merciful and wise and it is He who makes that judgement.

Someone told me that the prophet Mohamed had many wives, and one of them was only seven when he married her. Is that true?

This is what I understand of Islam so far (there are probably several mistakes, please correct them):

The God of Islam is the same God of Christianity. The God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses. Jesus, contrary to the Christian point of view, was not the messiah but was a prophet who did not die on the cross to forgive our sin. Around 600 AD, God spoke directly to Mohammed (sp?) who then recorded the words of God in the Koran.

Anything wrong with this explaination? Why don't you see Jesus as the messiah?

The God of Islam is the same God of Christianity. The God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses.

More or less yes that is correct.

Jesus, contrary to the Christian point of view, was not the messiah but was a prophet who did not die on the cross to forgive our sin.

This depends on how you define Messiah I suppose, but if you define it as being the son of God then you are correct: Islam does not believe him to be as such.

Around 600 AD, God spoke directly to Mohammed (sp?) who then recorded the words of God in the Koran.

It is believed Gabriel was the one who gave the Qur'an to Muhammad on orders from God.

Why don't you see Jesus as the messiah?

I'll assume that by Messiah you mean son of God. Answering for myself: I found the Christian idea of a trinity ... well, unrealistic, and I could never get a straight answer from any Christian authority on the matter and often found discrepancies between different Christians on exactly what the trinity was. Some would tell me that Jesus was God incarnate on Earth and then was God again when he died and ascended into heaven, many tell me that he was God but God was also simultaneously in heaven and simultaneously a holy spirit that occasionally descended upon men. Jesus as simultaneously entirely man and entirely God mad no sense to me.

I believe Jesus was a good man and a Prophet who taught people to be peaceful despite, or perhaps because of the massively overpowering Roman army. I believe he was wrongly shunned by the Jewish governing council because they wanted a figure who would lead a full scale revolution against the Romans and that Jesus was wise enough to realize that any such revolt would be doomed to failure.

Edit: fixed spelling mistake

bump

Wow. I have learned so much from reading this thread. Thank you.

I have a question: I worked with a Muslim and she said her husband and her pray at the same time everyday, even if they are apart, so they can "pray together." Is this common? I would figure that if prayer is a time when you are closest to Allah, wouldn't it be a personal thing and not a "married" thing?

I have also read that in the "end times," according to Islam, that women will act like men and men will act like women. What does this mean? What does the Qur'an say about male and female roles? Would it really be so bad if the woman worked and the man stayed home and raised the kids?

Also, are women obligated to have kids? What if a woman would choose not to have kids and instead have a career? Could her husband force her to have kids?

Thank you!!

There was a previous thread on Sharia. I was actually going to go to the local mosque to ask about an full explanation of it, but since you have graciously offered to explain all things muslim please explain it from your point of view . Many Thanks

I love this thread,answered loads,will keep looking at answers to other questions

Wow. I have learned so much from reading this thread. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I have a question: I worked with a Muslim and she said her husband and her pray at the same time everyday, even if they are apart, so they can "pray together." Is this common? I would figure that if prayer is a time when you are closest to Allah, wouldn't it be a personal thing and not a "married" thing?

Well all Muslims are supposed to pray at the same time of day although times are different depending on where you live. You're right it isn't really supposed to be a married thing.

I have also read that in the "end times," according to Islam, that women will act like men and men will act like women. What does this mean? What does the Qur'an say about male and female roles? Would it really be so bad if the woman worked and the man stayed home and raised the kids?

The "end times" are relatively similar between religions in this aspect. Mostly I would presume due to homophobia. Because males are generally more physically capable they are expected to do more of the physical work required by the household and are expected to be the ones fighting in war. Women are allowed to fight in emergency situations and historically were always near the battle fields to help wounded soldiers.

Also, are women obligated to have kids? What if a woman would choose not to have kids and instead have a career? Could her husband force her to have kids?

Women are not obligated to have children according to Islam (local culture may see things otherwise) and it is certainly not permissible for a husband to force such a thing. Doing so would be tantamount to rape and definitely grounds for divorce. Interestingly, in Islam if one member of the married couple refuses to have sex with the other over a number of years it is grounds for divorce (such would be the case if a man were to abandon his wife or should the two have shall we say "irreconcilable differences").

Thank you!!

You're welcome.

Would it really be so bad if the woman worked and the man stayed home and raised the kids?

No, not really but you'll find that sort of situation would generally not come about in most predominantly Muslim countries because such countries are generally not so economically advanced as to produce that kind of situation in the first place. Personally, I believe that men and women should share in raising children.

There was a previous thread on Sharia. I was actually going to go to the local mosque to ask about an full explanation of it, but since you have graciously offered to explain all things muslim please explain it from your point of view . Many Thanks

Here is a brief explanation:

http://islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2947

jabba huts,

Unbacked assertions don't exactly do much to make your case.

Feel free to point out where in the Qur'an is terrorism promoted.

Does salvation play any role in Islam, like it does in Christianity?

Does salvation play any role in Islam, like it does in Christianity?

In the sense that one lives with Allah in one's heart, struggles to do good as Allah has commanded and is rewarded for doing so with Heaven, yes.

Ok, that makes sense to me, thanks for answering that for me

Ok, that makes sense to me, thanks for answering that for me

You're welcome.

First question. Is it true that the peaceful Prophet led an army? Did that army kill anyone?

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming termina


I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.


Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.


to answer your post:

The Palestinians are not the blame for everything wrong with the middle east. Its a boiling point of many different clashes all at once. Everything from the 3 most prominent religions coming from the same area, to outside interference to inside corruption. There is no one source for anything that happens in the middle east.

You may have personal beliefs against the UN but the reason that the US keeps in it is mainly political, though openly its to help the world find peace. They use it as a political tool to gain things that they seek in their governmental ideas and goals, just as most other nations do themselves. The only reason there are so many scandals in the UN is because people often times put their own agendas in first, before thinking of their common man.

The UN is only as good as its members make it. Just as any government body, the rules are but an outline of what could be, and when the rules get set aside, as often times they do in all things, the whole thing appears to be a cancer, but is just an infection that needs to be treated and repaired.

Whats the point of saying that Islam came 600 years after Jesus? According to the Bible there were many prophets that came during close time periods, and actually its only by modern terms that there aren't more prophets. It used to be a pretty standard thing to have a Prophet. You say that they pinched all the ideas, as in stole them all, but at the same time you are saying that they are terrorists, does that mean the Christianity is terrorism as well, since according to your statement thats where all the ideas came from.

You seem to be a misinformed person that feels that placing all the blame for trouble in the middle east is some how going to make things better, but I warn you, such thinking is the same that has led to massacres through out history. To blame one race/religion/people for all the problems in an area is an idea that borders concepts that the world does not need to reopen, WWII comes to mind.

First question. Is it true that the peaceful Prophet led an army? Did that army kill anyone?

The army was only formed when Islam was under siege. Being peaceful is not the same as pacifism. The Qur'aish would have without hesitation executed every Muslim who did not return to the polytheistic way of life.

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

Very good, my brother. You've done very well with this thread as Allah has dictated you would. Insh'Allah, you will continue to answer questions with authority and truth.

As for myself, I've made it abundantly clear that I am not to be taken seriously on the internet; but Allah be praised that I have brothers like you who will take the time.

I have one quick suggestion, though. Take not thanks and praise, for all praise is due to Allah. :)

That said, I will leave you to it.

Sala'am.

What foods, if any, are not considered fit for consumption by Muslims? What expectations are placed on individuals by the religion, such as keeping one's head covered, daily prayer and so on?

I don't really know, but pork is an issue.
Mainly probably because pork can easily make you sick in warm climates. That's probably why Jews don't eat pork either.

So it is a Muslim idea to use violent means rather than say peaceful protest? Is this behavior promoted in the Koran? Im just saying this becuase a professor told me once that Islam is the only religion (other than a select few out-dated polytheistic) where the centeral diety actually promotes the use of violence, where most other religions promote peaceful means.

So it is a Muslim idea to use violent means rather than say peaceful protest? Is this behavior promoted in the Koran? Im just saying this becuase a professor told me once that Islam is the only religion (other than a select few out-dated polytheistic) where the centeral diety actually promotes the use of violence, where most other religions promote peaceful means.

Fighting is allowed only for defense; Muhammad was not content to sit by and watch his whole community be slaughtered by an enemy devoid of ethics, neither is Allah content to forbid the good people from defending themselves. Muhammad organized his people, and though they were greatly outnumbered by the Qur'aish, fought and won. Whereas a pacifist would have you lie down and take the beating or die without lifting a finger in defense - one who is peaceful will not look for a fight but is willing to defend his or her self, community, and country when necessary. Islam promotes peace, not pacifism.

Out of curiosity, what did this professor teach?

How much are middle eastern countries in general influenced by Islam as opposed to local customs. I'm sorry if this is a bit too vague but from what you say a lot of the things that middle eastern countries are criticised for seem to condemned by Islam. I was thinking in terms of public executions of children as young as nine in Iran or the bans in some countries on women standing for government.

Thanks :)

So Allah raises the life of his followers above his non-followers? Their beliefs rather than thier souls determine their value? So dying with blood on your hands is more acceptable to Allah than dying with dignity and self pride?

So Allah raises the life of his followers above his non-followers? Their beliefs rather than thier souls determine their value? So dying with blood on your hands is more acceptable to Allah than dying with dignity and self pride?

How did you get all that from Islam allows you to defend yourself? Your "only because my professor..." line is worn thin by that post.

Was Mohammed a good General?

Not in the sense that he didn't kill prisoners, but did he have good tactics?

I'm somewhat into military history and I'm intrigued to know how he fought his war... of course if Allah smote the Qur'ish with lightning bolts I suppose he wouldn't need to be much of a General at all! ;)

How much are middle eastern countries in general influenced by Islam as opposed to local customs. I'm sorry if this is a bit too vague but from what you say a lot of the things that middle eastern countries are criticised for seem to condemned by Islam. I was thinking in terms of public executions of children as young as nine in Iran or the bans in some countries on women standing for government.

Thanks :)


Maybe women could stand in government, as long as they were elected as a pair!

Okay that's not funny I apologise :rolleyes:

How much are middle eastern countries in general influenced by Islam as opposed to local customs. I'm sorry if this is a bit too vague but from what you say a lot of the things that middle eastern countries are criticised for seem to condemned by Islam. I was thinking in terms of public executions of children as young as nine in Iran or the bans in some countries on women standing for government.

Thanks :)

You are correct in your assessment. Much of what you see done "in the name of Islam" is really done in the name of power. The Iranian government is particularly guilty of this as are a number of others. Middle Eastern countries are for the most part run by dictators whose sole occupation is maintaining their power by whatever means necessary. Abusing religion is not beneath them, nor is genocide. Many are, in essence, evil people. Saddam was among them, as was Arafat. The cultural problems found in Islamic countries stem from a number of factors including the poor economic and political situations faced by many of the people living there. The abysmal education system is also a top problem since you need to know the historical references in order to understand the Qur'an.

Asslamoalaikum.

In regards to local vs. religious influences of culture vs. Islam in these countries, it is safe to say that a lot of the laws created aren't created for the purpose of abiding by Shariah, but for the purpose of the maintenance of power. The basis of women not standing in government is not religious, but rather cultural (and oppressive might I add). The style of government and the degrading moral situation that can be seen in the governments in a lot of the middle eastern countries (due to a lack of checks and balances instated against the government) causes twisted and illogical laws to be implemented. Often times, the rulers will (for the sake of appearances) claim these laws are in 'the spirit of Islam', something which should be scrutinized heavily before being accepted.

In essence, a majority of the laws found in some middle eastern countries are functions not of religion, but of local culture, tradition, or whims of government (where applicable).

Now, onto to Vanikoro's comments:
Assuming that this professor exists I can tell you right away that his views are wrong. To understand the Quran you have to understand the historical situation at the time of the revelation of the chapters. Allah allowed Muslims to defend themselves, not to mindlessly slaughter others for no reason. Let me cite a historical example. After the Battle of Badr, (the first battle of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) the prisoners that the Muslims took were treated with great dignity. The prisoners were fed bread, meat and milk, whereas their captors ate dates. The prisoners were released on the basis of what ransom they could offer (the educated taught others, skilled workers worked for a while, while those who could not offer any ransom were just let go). Contrary to your, oops, your professors beliefs, Islam is a religion of peace, not of war. But it is not a relgion of pacifism, by which I mean to say, that when attacked, Muslims have a right to defend themselves. Seems logical....so who is this prof and what does he teach?

Salam

la bump

This is really interesting, thank you.

Asslamoalaikum.

In regards to local vs. religious influences of culture vs. Islam in these countries, it is safe to say that a lot of the laws created aren't created for the purpose of abiding by Shariah, but for the purpose of the maintenance of power. The basis of women not standing in government is not religious, but rather cultural (and oppressive might I add). The style of government and the degrading moral situation that can be seen in the governments in a lot of the middle eastern countries (due to a lack of checks and balances instated against the government) causes twisted and illogical laws to be implemented. Often times, the rulers will (for the sake of appearances) claim these laws are in 'the spirit of Islam', something which should be scrutinized heavily before being accepted.

In essence, a majority of the laws found in some middle eastern countries are functions not of religion, but of local culture, tradition, or whims of government (where applicable).

Now, onto to Vanikoro's comments:
Assuming that this professor exists I can tell you right away that his views are wrong. To understand the Quran you have to understand the historical situation at the time of the revelation of the chapters. Allah allowed Muslims to defend themselves, not to mindlessly slaughter others for no reason. Let me cite a historical example. After the Battle of Badr, (the first battle of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) the prisoners that the Muslims took were treated with great dignity. The prisoners were fed bread, meat and milk, whereas their captors ate dates. The prisoners were released on the basis of what ransom they could offer (the educated taught others, skilled workers worked for a while, while those who could not offer any ransom were just let go). Contrary to your, oops, your professors beliefs, Islam is a religion of peace, not of war. But it is not a relgion of pacifism, by which I mean to say, that when attacked, Muslims have a right to defend themselves. Seems logical....so who is this prof and what does he teach?

Salam

So, could you enlighten me on the works of Zangi, and his relevance to modern concepts of jihad?

Also, could you tell me the difference in the concept of jihad when comparing Sunnis to Shi' is?

Ill leave the professor out of it, but now Im wondering. I heard that Islam was the only religion that not only promotes violence, but whos leader uses horrible act of violence (ie war). And why dont they promote pacifism - life -? Why is it important that his devote followers stay on earth and kill men instead of dying with pride and self virture according to Muslim principles? Im sorry if this is offending anyone, but I want to get some shady facts straight.

So, could you enlighten me on the works of Zangi, and his relevance to modern concepts of jihad?

Also, could you tell me the difference in the concept of jihad when comparing Sunnis to Shi' is?

Still waiting for an answer to these questions...

And why dont they promote pacifism - life -? Why is it important that his devote followers stay on earth and kill men instead of dying with pride and self virture according to Muslim principles? Im sorry if this is offending anyone, but I want to get some shady facts straight.

Among Muslim principles is that one should defend one's self and one's family. Killing is supposed to be a last resort. Perhaps there is nothing you value enough to fight for, that is not the case with me.

[QUOTE=MetziaAmong Muslim principles is that one should defend one's self and one's family. Killing is supposed to be a last resort. Perhaps there is nothing you value enough to fight for, that is not the case with me.[/QUOTE]

This sort of goes against all historical evidence and indeed current evidence, of Muslims using it as a last resort, or being against violence that promotes their religon, please spare me the' its a minority' bullshit too.

This sort of goes against all historical evidence and indeed current evidence, of Muslims using it as a last resort, or being against violence that promotes their religon, please spare me the' its a minority' bullshit too.

I didn't say what is, I said what should be, according to Islam. If you do not understand such a disinction then I'll try to make it clearer.

I didn't say what is, I said what should be, according to Islam. If you do not understand such a disinction then I'll try to make it clearer.
But isnt Jihad the centre of the Islamic faith? Converting people against their will?

I am a Muslim and have read through some of the posts and think that Metzia has answered the questions very well. There is unfortunately a very prevalent biased view against Islam as being 'violent' and promoting it etc.
If you research Islamic history for any length, you may be surprised to find that the faith has been tolerant, egalitarian (racially), and very advanced. It is very difficult to find any history of genocides from a time when there was great fanaticism. The aforementioned 'Saladin', who is a great hero, was very tolerant. Andalusia (around 100AH-800AH or 800 AD-1500AD) is a relatively well-known example where Muslims, Jews and Christians lived side by side and conversed openly. Another example is Mughal India where similar fairness was usually shown between Muslims, Hindus and the other groups. The Ottoman Empire however was more brutal in its latter secular days however so maybe that is a factor to the European sort of turkophobia. The later sultans became quite unIslamic (after Selim maybe but im not sure)

Terrorism is a recent phenomenon and has many factors, usually related to oppression (or seemed oppression, dont want to make this controversial) and some bad leaders. People like Saddam do not represent Islam at all, he did however seek some extremist allies after the first gulf war (some may notice he changed his flag). Many of the other leaders are the same families allied to the colonialists back in the day and are still present but they have many allies in the west. There is chauvinism but it is often cultural rather than religious. Most of Prophet Muhammad's (Peace be upon him) intial supporters were women as it gave them more freedom.

I hope I have clarified any misconceptions about Islam.

Where can I get a turban in texas? I want to know, I so want a turban.

snip..
I hope I have clarified any misconceptions about Islam.

No, your theorys seem to go against the daily news reports 4 some reason...

Where can I get a turban in texas? I want to know, I so want a turban.

I suggest you find your local white milita and ask them...

But isnt Jihad the centre of the Islamic faith? Converting people against their will?

Jihad as an internal struggle to do good is central to Islam. Jihad as holy war is not. Jihad as killing innocents and forcing conversions is a perversion.

Interesting how this works ...

Jesus preached love and brotherhood, a central core of the Christian faith. Love thy enemy. Impressive. Powerful. Mention the Crusades, Witch Burnings, Inquisition, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, etc. and the standard response is either "They're not truly Christian" or "That was evil men in power abusing the uneducated".

Fine. Acceptable.

Qur'an teaches love and brotherhood, a central core of the Islamic faith. Make peace and reconciliation between your two contending brothers (49:10). None of you have faith until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself. Impressive. Powerful. Mention ibn Laden, 9/11, the Taliban, Wahhabism, Mullah Omar, etc. and give the response "That is not truly Islam" or "That is evil men in power abusing the uneducated" and suddenly it isn't good enough.

Not fine. Not acceptable.

For every one evil you can name done in the name of Islam, I can name three done in the name of Jesus.

So why are Muslims the one called upon to apologise and justify and beg forgiveness on their knees? Why should some born and raised suburban American who happens to be Muslim be held any more accountable for Mullah Omar than a born and raised American who happens to be Christian is held accountable for Torquemada?

It makes no sense, folks.

"Signs of His Power are His creation of heaven and of earth, and the varieties of tongues and skins; in all of which are sermons for the wise." (30:22)

I have a valid question:
What is the real meaning of jihad ? I've been told by my history teacher that jihad is an internal stuggal inside one's self between good and evil. However, there is so much going on that confuses me. So, was my teacher right and the media had it completley wrong.

It would be sweet if it was true.

I could name a lot more for existentiallism vs. either Islamic or Christian faith - but nevertheless, a good point Keruvalia.

Still, it saddens me that people would associate any wrong doing of any sort with religion in general, the same goes for the association of evil and a lot of things... guns, fame, fortune - there is a commonly abused thread there, the association of any of these things and dastardly acts performed by them, in their name, or for them disolves into little more than an excuse.

In the end, this argument would become cyclic - it has no beginning and no end. Power corrupts, money contorts, religious zealots become confused in their own rhetoric... its the human mind, and these problems are borne of a hunger that lingers within. The problems of religious fundamentalists in any regard or in any faith, are the problem and the cure just the same as money, or fame, or anything else.

Sami Arabia
Another example is Mughal India where similar fairness was usually shown between Muslims, Hindus and the other groups.

BS.

Except Akbar, everybody else were the bigotted rulers who plundered the land, enforced Jaziya tax on non-muslims, destroyed temples and converted people by force.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his own father to get to throne and publicly executed the 9th Sikh Guru and four sons of the tenth and last Guru.

Akbar's rule was fair precisely because he was an apostate and found his own religion Din-e-lahi. He never forced it on anyone and so the religion died with him.

Of all the muslim rulers, the only fair ruler was an ex-muslim.

Jihad as an internal struggle to do good is central to Islam. Jihad as holy war is not. Jihad as killing innocents and forcing conversions is a perversion.

And how does Jihad accomplish this good in an internal struggle?
Why arent muslims worldwide rising up against this perversion of Jihad?
Surely the majority could overcome this 'minority' with ease you would think?

Interesting how this works ...

Jesus preached love and brotherhood, a central core of the Christian faith. Love thy enemy. Impressive. Powerful. Mention the Crusades, Witch Burnings, Inquisition, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, etc. and the standard response is either "They're not truly Christian" or "That was evil men in power abusing the uneducated".

Fine. Acceptable.

Qur'an teaches love and brotherhood, a central core of the Islamic faith. Make peace and reconciliation between your two contending brothers (49:10). None of you have faith until he desires for his brother what he desires for himself. Impressive. Powerful. Mention ibn Laden, 9/11, the Taliban, Wahhabism, Mullah Omar, etc. and give the response "That is not truly Islam" or "That is evil men in power abusing the uneducated" and suddenly it isn't good enough.
Not fine. Not acceptable.
For every one evil you can name done in the name of Islam, I can name three done in the name of Jesus.
So why are Muslims the one called upon to apologise and justify and beg forgiveness on their knees? Why should some born and raised suburban American who happens to be Muslim be held any more accountable for Mullah Omar than a born and raised American who happens to be Christian is held accountable for Torquemada?
It makes no sense, folks.
"Signs of His Power are His creation of heaven and of earth, and the varieties of tongues and skins; in all of which are sermons for the wise." (30:22)

A central part of the Quran is also holy war on unbelievers known as 'Jihad' where it says convert them by the sword. Jesus in his teachings never mentioned converting believers by the sword, a fact you conveniantly left out.
I dont condone past Christian attocitys any more than I condone Islamic ones, but at least we have aborted this practice of conversion, Islamists appear to have not.
And no, Bush and the Western Alliance isnt proof of modern Christian conversion either.
Do you have any statistics to support your 'three for one' attrocitys committed in the name of Christ v Islam?
Or is it just more wishfull conjecture?

A central part of the Quran is also holy war on unbelievers known as 'Jihad' where it says convert them by the sword.

That is absolutely false. Nothing in Qur'an says to wage holy war on unbelievers or convert by the sword and I defy you to give me any verse that says it does. Jihad is an internal struggle, not an external one.

Qur'an says that there is to be no compulsion in religion and that war may only be fought in self-defense.

Do you have any statistics to support your 'three for one' attrocitys committed in the name of Christ v Islam?

I don't need statistics. My challenge stands. I will name three evils done in the name of Christ for every one evil you can name done for Islam.

That is absolutely false. Nothing in Qur'an says to wage holy war on unbelievers or convert by the sword and I defy you to give me any verse that says it does. Jihad is an internal struggle, not an external one.



True.

But what about the requirement of a muslim to "spread the word" ;)

Qur'an says that there is to be no compulsion in religion

What about the apostates ?

Aren't apostates punishable by death?

True.

But what about the requirement of a muslim to "spread the word" ;)


Talking about Islam and forcing or coercing people to convert is completely different. Dawa, for example, is a combination of things. A Muslim is to show Islamic life by living the example. Being a good person, being kind, being generous, being modest, and being welcoming. By example, people will see that being a Muslim probably isn't all that bad. The other part of it is asking questions when asked. Not walking up to people on the street or knocking on doors or berating strangers, but by answering questions with open and honest answers based in Qur'an. Dropping a stack of pamphlets in a public place is also perfectly acceptable.


What about the apostates ?
Aren't apostates punishable by death?

According to Hadith, yes. According to Qur'an, no. This is one of the reasons I reject Hadith. It contradicts Qur'an way too often for it to be valid. Someone who is Muslim and then rejects Islam is putting him or herself at odds with Allah, but it is Allah who is the final judge in such matters.

"Verily, the only deen (Way of Worship) that is acceptable to Allah, is Islam (submission and obedience to His Will in sincerity and peace)." (Qur'an 3:19)

"Allah leads astray whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases. He is the Mighty, the Wise." (Qur'an 14:4)

Those who go apostate must be granted to chance to return. If we kill the apostate before they have the chance to reconcile with Allah - even if that takes 50 years - then we are the murderer and are failed in the eyes of Allah.

could you explain this:::: ?

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

A central part of the Quran is also holy war on unbelievers known as 'Jihad' where it says convert them by the sword. Jesus in his teachings never mentioned converting believers by the sword, a fact you conveniantly left out.

Do supply the verses wherein that is stated.

could you explain this:::: ?

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

The indoctrination of Palestinian children to seek Death for Allah - Shahada - has been PA policy since the start of the war in October 2000, the most prominent means being the indoctrination via music videos.

I think this speaks well enough for itself. People seeking political power exploiting religion and children isn't exactly novelty.

could you explain this:::: ?

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

No more so than I can explain this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/97/2368/640/god%20hates%20fags.jpg

People use religion to recruit children into their retarded causes all the time. It's nothing new.

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

What part of the Quran is it that gets interpreted as meaning that voting is sin?

What part of the Quran is it that gets interpreted as meaning that voting is sin?

rofl ... now that's a new one on me ...

Care to elaborate as to where this interpretation is used?

rofl ... now that's a new one on me ...

Care to elaborate as to where this interpretation is used?

I dont know. My cousin was at a surgery in Luton during the election with a Labour and a Conservative candidate (surgury for American people, is where MP's meet with their constiutants and they get to ask questions and ask them to raise issues in Parliment on their behalf) when a group of Muslims distrupted the entire event by shouting that voting is "daka" or something begining with D, which I'm guessing is Arabic word for Sin or something. So I'm curious why exactly they would think that.

So I'm curious why exactly they would think that.

I wouldn't know ... I've never heard of it before. I can't imagine where anyone would get that idea. I'm not sure what "daka" means, though.

Talking about Islam and forcing or coercing people to convert is completely different. Dawa, for example, is a combination of things. A Muslim is to show Islamic life by living the example.

Fair enough. But often it gets perverted into "our duty is to convert" !



According to Hadith, yes. According to Qur'an, no. This is one of the reasons I reject Hadith. It contradicts Qur'an way too often for it to be valid.

Again fair enough.

BUT, how do you expect the vast majority of musims who are non-arabs to understand what is actually written in the Koran. As such modern day arabs themselves do not have an intuitive understanding of Koran, the Koran being in a far too nuanced classical Arabic !!

Also, the Koranic injunction that the Koran CANNOT be recited in any other language than Arabic.

Methinks, this is the undoing of Islam....this lead to the rise of the Mullah class and his ignorant flock looking up to him to interpret their religion for them.

So enter the hadiths and the ridiculous fatwas like "Muhammed did not shave his armpits for 40 days, So thou shall not shave for 40 days" etc.

That is the Islam that is being practised by the vast majority.

I wouldn't know ... I've never heard of it before. I can't imagine where anyone would get that idea. I'm not sure what "daka" means, though.

My cousin had the idea that it may be something to do with the notion that earthly authorities are set up by Allah, and thus humans chosing them would be sinful. Is that a Muslim idea?

My cousin had the idea that it may be something to do with the notion that earthly authorities are set up by Allah, and thus humans chosing them would be sinful. Is that a Muslim idea?

No. As a matter of fact, after Muhammed's (pbuh) death, the very first Caliph was elected by the people. Choosing your leaders is a very Muslim idea.

There's a particularly good article on it here:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/democracy.htm

No. As a matter of fact, after Muhammed's (pbuh) death, the very first Caliph was elected by the people. Choosing your leaders is a very Muslim idea.

There's a particularly good article on it here:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/democracy.htm

Cool, thanks for that.

bump

What is the significance of the crescent moon?

* I apologize if this question has already been asked but there were over one hundred posts in this thread and I didn't have time to go through them.

If the Hadiths are so viloent and discriminatory and generally horrible to non-believers of Islam why are they still in circulation?

What is the significance of the crescent moon?


Originally, there was no Islamic symbol. However, the crescent moon was adopted when the Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453 and Osman, founder of the Ottoman Empire, kept the flag that was already in place as his own.

Islamicly it has absolutely no significance whatsoever.

If the Hadiths are so viloent and discriminatory and generally horrible to non-believers of Islam

They're not.

Originally, there was no Islamic symbol. However, the crescent moon was adopted when the Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453 and Osman, founder of the Ottoman Empire, kept the flag that was already in place as his own.

Islamicly it has absolutely no significance whatsoever.

I thought Constantinople was a Christian city before Turkish conquest, so wouldn't the symbol have been a crucifix?

I don't know if it's been answered yet, but here's one.

Why do so many Muslims hate Christians?

(Aside from the fact the Americans are attacking the Middle east)

Why do so many Muslims hate Christians?

Because they're misinformed or believe that Christians are out to get them. The Qur'an says that the People of the Book (Christians, Jews) should be treated with the utmost respect.

Why are so many Muslims so angry? Is it because they can't relax with a beer and a bag of pork rinds?

I thought Constantinople was a Christian city before Turkish conquest, so wouldn't the symbol have been a crucifix?

No. The Turkish flag was the crescent moon. I don't know of any nation that has ever had a crucifix on their flag.

Why are so many Muslims so angry?

I wasn't aware there were so many predisposed to anger. Oh, sure, you've got some pretty miffed about having their houses bombed, but I suppose that would make anyone pretty annoyed.

Why do so many Muslims hate Christians?


I am not aware of any Muslims who hate Christians. At least, not *just* because they're Christian.

Which branch of Islam are you a part of?

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

is Jesus mentioned in the Koran?

Which branch of Islam are you a part of?

There is only one way to be Muslim. If prodded, I admit to Sufi leanings, though.

is Jesus mentioned in the Koran?

Yes. Here and there.

I am not aware of any Muslims who hate Christians. At least, not *just* because they're Christian.

Here are some who do:

http://www.google.com/search?q=church+bombed+iraq&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Here are some who do:

http://www.google.com/search?q=church+bombed+iraq&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I believe those bombings to be in retaliation for the occupation or for the desecration of Mosques in the US and other places, not to punish Christians. Qur'an states quite clearly that Christians are to be treated with respect.

I believe those bombings to be in retaliation for the occupation or for the desecration of Mosques in the US and other places, not to punish Christians. Qur'an states quite clearly that Christians are to be treated with respect.
What mosque desecrations in the US?

It seems to me that the only ones attacking and desecrating mosques are the terrorists who use suicide bombers to attack mosques in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why aren't mainstream muslims protesting against Al Quaeda, who have blown up shiite mosques in Iraq, and both shiite and sunni mosques in Pakistan rather than blowing up Iraqi christian churches?

What mosque desecrations in the US?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how Muslims in America were treated in the 6-8 months following 9/11.

Why aren't mainstream muslims protesting against Al Quaeda, who have blown up shiite mosques in Iraq, and both shiite and sunni mosques in Pakistan rather than blowing up Iraqi christian churches?

You're saying mainstream Muslims blow up Iraqi Christian churches? You're also saying mainstream Muslims *don't* protest against Al Qaeda?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how Muslims in America were treated in the 6-8 months following 9/11.



You're saying mainstream Muslims blow up Iraqi Christian churches? You're also saying mainstream Muslims *don't* protest against Al Qaeda?
1 I haven't seen or heard of much anti-muslim activity in the USA.

2 Got me there. Mainstream muslims don't blow stuff up. Still, I haven't heard of any protests against al quaeda. Maybe they don't make the news, maybe they don't happen. I don't know.

1 I haven't seen or heard of much anti-muslim activity in the USA.

2 Got me there. Mainstream muslims don't blow stuff up. Still, I haven't heard of any protests against al quaeda. Maybe they don't make the news, maybe they don't happen. I don't know.

Well ...

1. http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=1967 Plenty of other stuff there, too.

2. Outside the US, the US itself is the biggest danger to Muslims. Al Qaeda rarely bombs Muslims ... the US does it with alarming frequency lately. So, they protest the US. Inside the US, the Muslims who protest against terrorist organisations are generally mixed in with the other hippies protesting.

I believe those bombings to be in retaliation for the occupation or for the desecration of Mosques in the US and other places, not to punish Christians. Qur'an states quite clearly that Christians are to be treated with respect.

Respectfully, the problem is serious. I'm trying to reconcile what the Koran says with what you're saying about Moslems not hating Christians.

I can't agree that it's retaliation for mosque desecrations in the US - I'm not aware of any, the scale of retaliations is far in excess of what might be possible, and even if there were offenses, is this an appropriate response?

The problem is not just in Iraq - here's a quote from Indonesia:

"In the past four years 900 churches have been bombed in Indonesia with most of the bombings taking place in Poso, Celebes and in Ambon."

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4kfgyNjDHVMJ:www.christianity.ca/mission/global/2004/12.000.html+number+of+churches+bombed&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

An elementary google will turn up some alarming numbers of attacks on Christian churches. In predominantly Moslem countries. And as far as I know no reciprocal attacks on mosques.

DC has asked a good question: where's the outrage? Lots of outrage about Guantanomo - and some hard questions had to be asked - but not too much that I can see from Moslems on this issue. It would defuse tensions a lot if there were some.

Let's face it. If a group of people is linked (rightly or wrongly, I'm not arguing which) in many people's mind with terrorism, shouldn't they vocally denounce the terrorists as loudly and often as possible? Isn't that just good common sense from a PR perspective? In the 30 Days program on Islam they were discussing just this issue at the dinner table. One muslim guy said he didn't need to appologize for what the terrorists did. Clearly he doesn't, but in the interests of his people he should denounce what the terrorists did.

Respectfully, the problem is serious. I'm trying to reconcile what the Koran says with what you're saying about Moslems not hating Christians.

"Those who believe in the Qur'an, and those who follow the Jewish scripture, and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness - shall have their reward with their Lord. One them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (Qur'an 2:62)

"...nearest among them in live to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because among them are men devoted to learning, and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"If it had been your Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?! No soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah" (Qur'an 10:99)

Can you quote the same from Christian texts?

I can't agree that it's retaliation for mosque desecrations in the US - I'm not aware of any

And because you are not aware, it does not exist?


DC has asked a good question: where's the outrage? Lots of outrage about Guantanomo - and some hard questions had to be asked - but not too much that I can see from Moslems on this issue. It would defuse tensions a lot if there were some.

Apparently not because we constantly express outrage over terrorism - a rudimentry Google search will show you that - and it goes ignored or instantly forgotten.

The problem is: You don't ask for outrage, you ask us to apologise. I will never apologise for something I didn't do.

Let's face it. If a group of people is linked (rightly or wrongly, I'm not arguing which) in many people's mind with terrorism, shouldn't they vocally denounce the terrorists as loudly and often as possible?

No. However, we do it all the time anyway.

Simple Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=islam+denounces+terrorism&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US)

I, personally, do not. I only ever need say it once, and I have, publicly.

"Those who believe in the Qur'an, and those who follow the Jewish scripture, and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness - shall have their reward with their Lord. One them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (Qur'an 2:62)

"...nearest among them in live to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because among them are men devoted to learning, and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"If it had been your Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?! No soul can believe, except by the Will of Allah" (Qur'an 10:99)

Can you quote the same from Christian texts?



And because you are not aware, it does not exist?



Apparently not because we constantly express outrage over terrorism - a rudimentry Google search will show you that - and it goes ignored or instantly forgotten.

The problem is: You don't ask for outrage, you ask us to apologise. I will never apologise for something I didn't do.
I just did a google search using the words "outrage over terrorism" In the first three pages of results the only results containing the word muslim or muslims were not outrage over terrorism, but outrage over guantanamo and such.

I also found one truly alarming fact. Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress I find to be both attractive and talented, seems to think 9/11 was justified.

No. However, we do it all the time anyway.

Simple Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?q=islam+denounces+terrorism&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US)

I, personally, do not. I only ever need say it once, and I have, publicly.
I guess I used the wrong keywords.

Keruvalia,

Do you believe in the concept of "Ummah" ?

In case the practices / laws of the land you live are in contradictory to the Islamic injunctions what will you do?

for ex, Islam forbids the collection of "interest". Will you work in a bank that charges interest ?

<snip>
Can you quote the same from Christian texts?


And because you are not aware, it does not exist?


Apparently not because we constantly express outrage over terrorism - a rudimentry Google search will show you that - and it goes ignored or instantly forgotten.

The problem is: You don't ask for outrage, you ask us to apologise. I will never apologise for something I didn't do.

Please let me make one thing clear. By means is this directed at you personally - no apology required by you for the actions of others. Nor do I intend a Moslem:Christian debate and I sincerely hope one does not develop. You will not find me quoting scripture back at you.

In a greater sense, many of the political and religious contentions are over perceptions. The issues with the Koran abuse at Guantanomo seems as much over the perception of disrespect as it is about whether it actually occurred - or whether it was one Koran or a hundred.

I am suggesting that the last thing needed is religious tension. There appears to me that there is potential for that. The perception in some quarters is that Moslems are not concerned about church destruction and the murder of Christians because there is little visible sign of outrage - certainly not near the outrage as expressed over the Guantanomo incident.

Spiritual leaders within the Moslem faith could take this issue to the media and help reduce this perception - denouncing these actions would be better yet. Moslems can explain, as you have, that these actions are wrong. Government leaders should take action against the criminals and provide a safe environment. In the end, actions speak louder than words, though, since it's all about perceptions.

Do you believe in the concept of "Ummah" ?

Of course I believe in the community. Would be silly not to. Communities, after all, exist. :)

In case the practices / laws of the land you live are in contradictory to the Islamic injunctions what will you do?

You mean if the law of the land contradicts Qur'an? If that is the case, then I will seek to get the law abolished or changed - by starting a petition and heading off to city council. I hold no loftiness to Hadith or Sunnah any more than I do any text of historical interest.

for ex, Islam forbids the collection of "interest". Will you work in a bank that charges interest ?

Great question! Yes, if I needed the job to take care of my family, I would work in a bank that charges interest. However, I would not open a bank that charges interest. Yes, I do use credit cards, but I pay the entire amount every month and, thus, avoid indulging in Riba.

Nice paper on it here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~elgamal/files/interest.pdf

certainly not near the outrage as expressed over the Guantanomo incident.

Which I have yet to see any Christian apologise or express any outrage over. You ask us for something you cannot give yourself?

Spiritual leaders within the Moslem faith could take this issue to the media and help reduce this perception

I believe Imams should spend their time teaching Muslim youth that such actions are wrong. Oh wait ... they do! Just not in front of cameras. Sorry.

This thread is really interesting, i had no knowledge of the muslim faith. I just knew that alot of people hated it because of a few incidents. Yes 9/11 was terrible, but to hate an ENTIRE freaking religion for 1 incident is just.. insane? Adolf Hitler was a Christian and killed 6 MILLION jews.. hmm a total of 10 million dead vs thousands, who would you hate more?

I am agnostic (i dont like the definition of Aethism), I study Catholism and Christianity in general, does anyone know any good sites where i can start to study Islam in depth? or an English version of the Koran? I find religion in general very interesting and would like to learn more about as many as i can

Which I have yet to see any Christian apologise or express any outrage over. You ask us for something you cannot give yourself?



I believe Imams should spend their time teaching Muslim youth that such actions are wrong. Oh wait ... they do! Just not in front of cameras. Sorry.

Plenty of Christians feel very strongly against desecrating the Koran. You may recall that the country engaged in a heated debate, to put it mildy, on this issue. There have been intensive investigations, soldiers have been disciplined over abuse charges (above and beyond desecration charges), the Secretary of Defense has been invited to resign. Full focus of the nation on this issue. That's a lot of outrage.

Would you agree that perceptions of religious discrimination are dangerous, that the acts are wrong, and that it's wise to act to prevent further misunderstanding?

I am concerned of the church issue because of the scale of it - hundreds of them damaged and people murdered. So far nothing has happened, but it has potential. My previous post mentioned possible solutions, that's all - not demands of any kind. As if anyone would grant them to me anyway.

sometimes it's sad to think how many people will kill others using religion to justify their actions

BTW, I just got back from watching Kingdom of Heaven.


anyways, another question.

Are the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish God all the same, or is there a difference as far as things like how merciful his is and things like that?

Are the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish God all the same, or is there a difference as far as things like how merciful his is and things like that?

Yes, same god. Exactly.

that's what I thought

BTW, I think it's safe to mention, I'm a Christian

Of course I believe in the community. Would be silly not to. Communities, after all, exist. :)


Communities exist yes, but what do you share with a muslim in, say southern Thailand ?

Apparently those folks are now having a seperatist war going on, now that due to unabated population growth, they are majority in certain areas.

How much do you "share" with this guy in southern Thailand who is part of this "ummah"? Would a faraway muslim's sufferings pain you more than a nearby non-muslims sufferings ?

I remember a Quranic verse (or is it hadith, dunno, pl correct if wrong) saying something like , i am paraphrasing from memory, " this ummah is one ummah and if one part is affected, all the parts feel it"

So, granted there is no caliph to declare an official jihad, but there are jihads going on everywhere in the interface between muslims and non-muslims in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Thailand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uighurstan (Sinkiang) ...pretty much in any border of the dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb.

What is your position on this? Are you not required to "help" out your ummah ?
If you feel like they are in the wrong, are you not required to tell them and campaign for the right way ? The muslims who engage in such types of activities are also your ummah, right ?

Apparently, those muslims have managed to take a monopoly over Islam and their voice is what we hear, not yours. It may be unfair but it is the way it is. Non-muslims can judge islam only by the behavior of muslims, not by the lofty ideals that you claim to be in the Koran. The onus is on you to shut the extremist in your religion, not on us non-muslims to try and find out who is the true muslim or what does true Islam say.

In this matter, I feel like moderate muslims (the so-called majority) has FAILED MISERABLY.

You mean if the law of the land contradicts Qur'an? If that is the case, then I will seek to get the law abolished or changed - by starting a petition and heading off to city council. I hold no loftiness to Hadith or Sunnah any more than I do any text of historical interest.


Which part mandates the Jaziyah tax ? koran or the hadiths ?

If you are running a country now, will you levy Jaziyah tax from me?


Great question! Yes, if I needed the job to take care of my family, I would work in a bank that charges interest. However, I would not open a bank that charges interest. Yes, I do use credit cards, but I pay the entire amount every month and, thus, avoid indulging in Riba.

Nice paper on it here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~elgamal/files/interest.pdf

If you are in a position where you can sustain your family by working elsewhere, what will you do?

Also, do you pay your zakat?

<snip>

If you feel like they are in the wrong, are you not required to tell them and campaign for the right way ? The muslims who engage in such types of activities are also your ummah, right ?

Apparently, those muslims have managed to take a monopoly over Islam and their voice is what we hear, not yours. It may be unfair but it is the way it is. Non-muslims can judge islam only by the behavior of muslims, not by the lofty ideals that you claim to be in the Koran. The onus is on you to shut the extremist in your religion, not on us non-muslims to try and find out who is the true muslim or what does true Islam say.

In this matter, I feel like moderate muslims (the so-called majority) has FAILED MISERABLY.

<snip>


Thank you, Aryarvartha - well said. There has been despicable behavior by Moslems that has not been adequately addressed by the majority.

What is your position on this? Are you not required to "help" out your ummah?


Only if I am able. I have a family to take care of, so I cannot go running off to Thailand willy nilly. Taking care of my children is more important than the greater Ummah.

If you feel like they are in the wrong, are you not required to tell them and campaign for the right way ? The muslims who engage in such types of activities are also your ummah, right ?

It depends. Al Qaeda has been declared apostate. I am under no obligation to them whatsoever.

Apparently, those muslims have managed to take a monopoly over Islam and their voice is what we hear, not yours. It may be unfair but it is the way it is.

That's not my concern. The judgement of men is not something I seek. Allah is all knowing and wise, men are bitter fools.

Non-muslims can judge islam only by the behavior of muslims, not by the lofty ideals that you claim to be in the Koran.

I claim nothing in the Qur'an that is not there.

In this matter, I feel like moderate muslims (the so-called majority) has FAILED MISERABLY.

Only because you refuse to listen. It is more comfortable for you to think us all terrorists.

Which part mandates the Jaziyah tax ? koran or the hadiths ?

Qur'an. But only in Islamic countries.

If you are running a country now, will you levy Jaziyah tax from me?

Only if it were an Islamic country.

If you are in a position where you can sustain your family by working elsewhere, what will you do?

Take the different job.

Also, do you pay your zakat?

Frankly, that's none of your business. It is nobody's business. It is between me and Allah.

Only if I am able. I have a family to take care of, so I cannot go running off to Thailand willy nilly. Taking care of my children is more important than the greater Ummah.


Hypothetically, If you have no family obligations, what then?

Also , you missed the part How much do you "share" with this guy in southern Thailand who is part of this "ummah"? Would a faraway muslim's sufferings pain you more than a nearby non-muslims sufferings ?


It depends. Al Qaeda has been declared apostate. I am under no obligation to them whatsoever.


Neither Al-Quaeda, nor the taliban, nor the International Islamic Front which is an umbrella organization of many muslim terrorist organizations like the Lashkar E Toiba, Jaish E Mohammed, Harkat ul Mujahideed, Sipah e Sahaba, Lashkar e Jangvi, nor their ideological supporters like the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (a recognised political party of ulema which runs the actual show in Pakistan) and their MILLIONS OF FOLLOWERS are aware of this.

Yes, you are under no obligation to them whatsoever. But they are fighting in your name. They are claiming to be the real muslims. And they have succeeded in convincing many of us, (not me personally, but metaphorically) of that.

This Ummah is a funny thing. Muslims claim collective glory under the Ummah concept but fail to take collective responsibility.


I claim nothing in the Qur'an that is not there.


It still remains your claim.


Only because you refuse to listen. It is more comfortable for you to think us all terrorists.

Heh.

Take that back. I never ever thought or wrote anything to the effect that I am comfortable in thinking all muslims are terrorists.

How would like if I say that, I think it is more comfortable for you to claim victimhood of being painted with a broad brush, when most of you remain mute when the terrorists are wreaking havoc in your name.

Heck, it is not like the terrorists suddenly fall out of the sky. They grow up in muslim societies. They are tolerated and funded by some parts of the Ummah.
I can conclusively prove that more than 70 % of civilian population in Pakistan sympathise with Al-Quaeda and they are like more than 100 million and atleast 95% of Pakistanis support Jihad against India. And they all claim to be doing this in the name of Islam.


Qur'an. But only in Islamic countries.

Only if it were an Islamic country.


What constitutes an Islamic country? Is there any Islamic country now? Was there any such country in history?

So you would levy a tax on me for me for being just a non-muslim over and above what I have to pay normally. Why is it not discrimination ?

Would you like to pay a tax in a secular country just for being a muslim? I will also give you the standards sops like exemption from being conscripted to war.

PS: I know of instances where Jaziyah tax was levied on non-Islamic countries.


Frankly, that's none of your business. It is nobody's business. It is between me and Allah.

Thread says "Ask a Muslim". :rolleyes:

No problem, if you don't want to say. Was just curious.

70 % of civilian population in Pakistan sympathise with Al-Quaeda and they are like more than 100 million and atleast 95% of Pakistanis support Jihad against India.
As a Pakistani, I doubt that. 90% of the Pakistanis I know don't want to start another war with India. 100% of the Pakistanis I know think Al-Qaeda is giving Islam a bad name.

100% of the Pakistanis I know think Al-Qaeda is giving Islam a bad name.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%)

http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/20/pakistan.htm
ISLAMABAD — T-shirts and turbans bearing the image of Osama bin Laden and the words "World Hero" are big sellers at the open market. So are fake credit cards and $50 bills with his picture and the phrase "In Osama We Trust." But forget about buying cassettes and CDs of his fiery teachings where he says, "Every American man is my enemy." They sold out hours after last Tuesday's attacks at six times the normal price. "Osama has become like a god for the Muslim people," said Aamir Khan, 21, as he waved a white Taliban flag and led an anti-American protest outside the city's Red Mosque. "America and Pakistan should be warned: If they try to kill Osama or attack our Afghan brothers, we will wage war against them. American and Pakistani blood will flow in the streets."
..
Bin Laden has become a folk hero here to many. More than 12,000 Pakistani parents named their newborn sons "Osama" last year. Some 5,700 named their infants "Jihad," hospital officials say.

In Peshawar, many shops have added "Osama" to their name in the hope of attracting more business. Among them: Osama's Sweet Cakes and Osama's Brake Jobs, Lubes and Radiator Repair.

Appears you do not know many Pakistanis. :) You must be a non-resident Pakistani.

As a Pakistani, I doubt that. 90% of the Pakistanis I know don't want to start another war with India.

There is a difference between not wanting a war with India, which will lead to sure destruction , and supporting/tolerating/funding Jihadis who have a declared objective of killing Indians in Jihad.

For ex, the recent terrorist attack on the Ayodhya temple by suspected Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists. Sure 90% Pakistanis don't want a war with India, because an overt war will be destructive to them. But terrorist attacks like these will not lead to war and so your point about 90% Pakistanis not wanting war with India is not applicable here.

But, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the leader of LeT is in Pakistan, his terrorists organisation has offices in Pakistan, they collect funds from normal Pakistanis in the name of Jihad.

for ex,

http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/27ariban.htm
Fund-raising by ordinary Pakistanis for terror/mayhem in India

One of the facts that has been reported by multiple sources is that the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, better known as the Lashkar-e-Tayiba raised Rs 780 million from donations from ordinary people, during last month's Eid celebrations -- far more, than previous years, according to The Friday Times.

This comes as somewhat of a shock, since the Lashkar, in its brochures, periodicals and posters, is not particularly shy about announcing its intentions or even depicting trophy pictures of dead Indians. While the Jaish-e-Mohammad has openly declared that 'jihad means killing,' the Lashkar has made its motto 'Killing Hindus is the way forward.' So ordinary Pakistanis openly and knowingly raised millions of rupees in a few weeks to support terror in India. Sort of clashes with the outward appearances of mehman-nawazi -- does it not?

Now, let me suggest a simple thought experiment -- To get an idea about what it takes to raise this kind of money in donations -- think about how hard would it be to raise Rs 780 million in donations in a few weeks time in India. Exactly, how much public support would you need to raise that kind of money? While you do think this one through -- remember, a. Pakistan has a seventh of the population of India, b. Pakistan's per capita income is about 20% less than India's, hence, less spending money c. Lashkar is only one of the terrorist groups raising money during Eid and d. raising money for this purpose is explicitly banned, hence illegal in Pakistan.

Perhaps it is most illuminating to start with the report of one particular fund-raising meeting, held for the Lashkar in early March. Mohammed Shehzad, a respected Pakistani journalist, reports:

'The popular perception that only unemployed youth, poor men or school dropouts are attracted by the jihadi outfits proved wrong last week when a section of the country's elite responded overwhelmingly to the jihad call of the country's top militant donating their real estate property, cash, and sons. Hafiz Mohammad Said, the firebrand chief of the defunct Lashkar-e-Tayiba addressed a select gathering in Islamabad at the Ahle-Hadis mosque in the I-8 sector-the secluded enclave of country's top civil bureaucracy, last Sunday.'

It would seem the country's elite will do anything to satisfy their lust for terror and mayhem including giving up large sums of money, land and in some cases, their own promising careers.

'To motivate the audience, Said repeatedly quoted the largesse of the First Muslim Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakar Siddique. "Would you follow Siddique?' Said posed a question spurring the audience's zeal. The audience was charged emotionally. "I donate my two young sons for jihad in Kashmir and 500,000 cash," announced one among the audience. The 'donor' was a merchant. A woman who was not among the audience but listening to Said's sermon [audible for miles through powerful loudspeakers] sent her jewelry worth 300,000 through her son for the mujahideen's widows. The woman, Dr Rookaya Khan, was a physician.'

'Three brothers -- Asghar, Anwar and Akbar, 19, 22, and 24 respectively -- enrolled themselves for jihad training. Asghar had done his A-level from Beaconhouse [probably the most expensive chain of school.] Anwar was an intern with a five-star hotel. Akbar was marketing executive with a multinational.'

It seems, sacrificing their own children to kill Indians is not too difficult a step, as we see:

'A woman entered the assembly and gave her 2-year baby boy to Hafiz Said. "I am donating him for jihad!" publicised the woman. "We appreciate your donation. But he is too young. Keep him with you as our trust. When he would be a grown up boy, we will train him for jihad and he will earn a good name for you," responded Said. The woman was a landlord. "I am the mother of four sons. What happens if I donate one son for jihad, he embraces martyrdom and earns heaven for all of us!" said she rationalising her decision.'

Shehzad goes on to say, that almost everyone present there donated generously for jihadi terror, with a total collection of about 1.2 lakhs. Of course, collecting money in the name of jihad had been banned by the Musharraf regime since March 2001.

When asked about this open fund raising by a proscribed terrorist group, Pakistani Interior Minister Hayat does his deny-deny-deny-at-any-cost act. 'Hafiz Said was soliciting donations for the social welfare cause under the banner of Jamat-ud-Dawa [the new name of Lashkar-e-Tayiba]. 'Since Jamat-ud-Dawa is not an outlawed outfit and undertakes humanitarian work, therefore, the government cannot proceed against it,' :rolleyes: he says.

But, these are not isolated incidents -- in fact, the same Pakistani businessmen who are salivating at the thought of and begging to be able to do business with India, literally fall over themselves to give money to the terrorists. The Daily Times of Lahore, reported on one such fund-raising incident in late November:

'LAHORE: Tehrik Khuddamul Islam Ameer Maulana Masood Azhar on Friday was given millions of rupees by businessmen from Lahore's posh and industrial areas for Kashmiri mujahideen. Maulana Azhar said he would personally deliver the donations to the mujahideen. "He took four sacks full of rupees with him," a TKI source told Daily Times. He met with businessmen after the Friday prayers and asked them to give zakat to mujahideen. He also visited the industrial areas of Lahore on Sheikhupura Road and addressed people at an iftar dinner at a factory.'

Every time Pakistani terrorists execute a 5-year-old Zahida, blow up a 15-year-old Arifa or beat a 9-year-old Nazia to death --we have to remember that the funds for salaries, logistics, arms and potential insurance for these terrorists comes from somewhere. Sure, some of this does come from the Pakistani army and US largesse, but a lot of it comes from ordinary Pakistanis who knowingly write checks to kill Indian children.

I am not too far off in saying that 95% of Pakistanis support Jihad in Kashmir.

90% of Pakistanis not wanting an overt war with India is another matter, and it actually indicates why they favor the Jihad type war. Can keep on denying and mouth platitudes like "Islam is peace , Jihad is internal struggle , Islam is mercy on mankind from Allah, la illah il allah Muahmmedun rasool ullah etc"

There are still suckers who fall for that.

Roshni,

Let me illustrate further.

There is this Moulana called Masood Azhar in Pakistan. Shortly after being released in exchange for the hostages of the hijacked Indian plane IC-814 , he formed the organization called Jaish-e-Mohammed ( Army of Mohammed ) - a nice name I should mention.

The formation of the outfit was endorsed by the chiefs of the main three religious schools, Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai of the Majlis-e-Tawan-e-Islami (MT), Maulana Mufti Rashid Ahmed of the Dar-ul Ifta-e-wal-Irshad and Maulana Sher Ali of the Sheikh-ul-Hadith Dar-ul Haqqania.

He calls himself "Amir" and he collects donation from Pakistanis and his organization has been "banned" by Musharraf, although to no effect since he is still there running his outfit. His outfit is closely linked to the Taliban and JeM is also under the IIF sponsored by OBL. His jihadis carry out deadlt attacks in Kashmir including fidayeen types.

Most infamous attack was on the Indian parliament on december 13 which almost led to a full blown war between India and Pak.

This guy is there in Pakistan. His organization is still running. As shown in the above link he has collected money through donations from ordinary Pakistanis.

And this is what he has to say

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/03dec08/national.htm#8
In Islam only meaning of Jihad is killing: Jaish chief

NEW DELHI, Dec 7: Chief of banned militant outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed Maulana Masood Azhar has said that in Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing, even as another militant group supporter asked Pakistan to declare that suicide bombing against west was Jihad.

"In Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing, and those who projected the concepts of Jihad Akbar and Jihad Asghar were against Islam," Azhar was quoted by an Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt as saying.

Azhar was speaking at a gathering at Pattoki in Pakistan organised by another banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Jihad Akbar is supposed to be non-violent while Jihad Asghar is supposed to be the war by the sword.

He said it was a conspiracy against Islam to say that Jihad was not killing.

Another supporter of militant groups in Pakistan, Justice (retd) Javid Iqbal said at a seminar in Lahore that Pakistan and the Islamic world should declare that suicide bombing against the west was actually Jihad.

It was the United States that was doing terrorism and not the suicide bombers of various organisations, he was quoted by daily Jung as saying. (PTI)

Considering that Azhar is a moulana whose organisation was endorsed by the Ulema of Pakistan and Azhar being patronised by the MMA parties and his terrorist org being funded by Pakistanis and he being untouched by Musharraf , I am thinking .. well.. if he says that then it must be true.

I don't see the ulema declaring his statement wrong and I don't see the government putting him in jail for terrorism and I damn well don't see any Pakistani lifting a finger against him and his terrorists.

You get my point?

Hypothetically, If you have no family obligations, what then?

Then I would do what I can, when I can.

Also , you missed the part

If there is even one Muslim in the world suffering, I am suffering with them.

Neither Al-Quaeda, nor the taliban, nor the International Islamic Front which is an umbrella organization of many muslim terrorist organizations like the Lashkar E Toiba, Jaish E Mohammed, Harkat ul Mujahideed, Sipah e Sahaba, Lashkar e Jangvi, nor their ideological supporters like the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (a recognised political party of ulema which runs the actual show in Pakistan) and their MILLIONS OF FOLLOWERS are aware of this.

I wouldn't know the exact numbers of those who follow said groups, but I bet it pales in comparison to the total number of Muslims. What they've convinced the uneducated masses of really isn't my problem. Like I said, I'm indifferent to the judgment of men. All they can do is kill me.

This Ummah is a funny thing. Muslims claim collective glory under the Ummah concept but fail to take collective responsibility.

We do take collective responsibility ... just not on TV.

It still remains your claim.

Not just my claim. It's also not just a claim. It's really easy to verify.


Take that back. I never ever thought or wrote anything to the effect that I am comfortable in thinking all muslims are terrorists.

It was a general "you", not you specifically.

And they all claim to be doing this in the name of Islam.

Trouble is ... they can't back up their claims with anything in Qur'an and, thus, are making false claims and, thus, are not doing anything in the name of Islam.

What constitutes an Islamic country? Is there any Islamic country now? Was there any such country in history?

A country founded on Qur'an and whose laws reflect Islam. There are a few of them. Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

So you would levy a tax on me for me for being just a non-muslim over and above what I have to pay normally. Why is it not discrimination ?

It's for a purpose. It's paying protection money basically. Like you pay taxes for the police. It's not discriminitory. In a Muslim country, all Muslim men help to serve as military or police or whatnot and non-Muslims are under no such obligations, hence, the tax.

PS: I know of instances where Jaziyah tax was levied on non-Islamic countries.

Strange ... but ok.

Thread says "Ask a Muslim". :rolleyes:

Well ... some questions shouldn't be asked. It's like asking someone's income or other personal information. Besides ... I didn't make the thread. :p

There is this Moulana
Yeah, after I read this part I was instantly reminded of a recent trip to Pakistan. My family and a few others were talking about how the moulanas have an unfair fundamentalist control over the people.

The government could step in but then of course they would be disfavoured by the moulanas which may lead to the people disfavouring the government. But the fact remains that the secular/moderate Muslims want to be left alone by the extreme moulanas of Pakistan.

Anyone who says "In Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing" is seriously misinformed. Nowhere in the Qur'an is Jihad mentioned in the context of war or violence. If you can find it in that context, I'll give you a cookie.

Yeah, after I read this part I was instantly reminded of a recent trip to Pakistan. My family and a few others were talking about how the moulanas have an unfair fundamentalist control over the people.

The government could step in but then of course they would be disfavoured by the moulanas which may lead to the people disfavouring the government. But the fact remains that the secular/moderate Muslims want to be left alone by the extreme moulanas of Pakistan.


I did guess correctly that you must be a non-resident Pakistani. :)

there is a contradiction in your statement

you said "The government could step in but then of course they would be disfavoured by the moulanas which may lead to the people disfavouring the government. "

But then if the people really disfavor the moulanas and be "left alone" why would they disfavor the government which could step in ?


Anyone who says "In Islam the only meaning of Jihad was killing" is seriously misinformed. Nowhere in the Qur'an is Jihad mentioned in the context of war or violence. If you can find it in that context, I'll give you a cookie.

Why should I bother about what is in the Koran ?

The Moulana is saying that. He is endorsed by the chiefs of the main three religious schools. He collects funds from civilian Pakistanis. He and his organization is untouched by Musharraf, the president.

Obviously he is the correct one. :D I mean he is clearly hijacking your religion and you are either a mute witness or a silent supporter or worse, a closet jihadi and I have no means of knowing who you are.

I have it on good authority that the moulana is in Pakistan and he is reportedly in "house arrest". When the guy was released in exchange for the hijacked airplane, Pakistan denied that he was in the country. Now I dunno how he is in "house arrest" when he is not supposed to be in the country.

So please contact the moulana and tell him that he is seriously misinformed ? :) maybe he will change his ways :rolleyes:

Apparently his org is still recruiting jihadis to be sent into kashmir and Afghanistan.

I wouldn't know the exact numbers of those who follow said groups, but I bet it pales in comparison to the total number of Muslims. What they've convinced the uneducated masses of really isn't my problem. Like I said, I'm indifferent to the judgment of men. All they can do is kill me.



Oh but I know. Not exact numbers, but I can safely say that its 159,999,999 out of 160 million total official population (barring Roshni ofcourse :D )

Seriously,

The pew poll shows that 65 % admire Osama alone and it is safe to presume not for his flowing beard.

If you include favoring Jihad against India, I am sure it would shoot upto atleast 95 %.

That's like 150 million.

Add to that the followers of the Jammat in Bangladesh, that should be somewhere around 20-30 million.

Add to that the jihadis and jihad supporters in southern thailand, the Abu Sayef groups in Philippines and the assorted jihadi groups elsewhere in arabia and chechnya etc...

I figure that the percentage of muslims who believe that Jihad is a justified means of killing a kafir should be more than a pale comparision.

Again, the actual jihadi who does the actual act is less than 1%. But the percentage that supports and funds and tolerates them is what is frightening. And it is not a pale comparision. The situation is worse than you think and is worsening every day.

You should hear the stuff that comes out of the loudspeakers in madrassahs, it will scare the daylights out of you.

Trouble is ... they can't back up their claims with anything in Qur'an and, thus, are making false claims and, thus, are not doing anything in the name of Islam.


The trouble is they don't have to back up their claims.

They ARE the ulema who is authorised and recognised to make these claims.

Take the case I mentioned above. Who here has the guts to tell Moulana Masood Azhar that he is wrong ?

I haven't seen anyone telling him that !

You can personally shrug off saying it is not your responsibility. But then the moulana is still recruiting more jihadis and nobody is putting a stop to it and I am getting affected by the moulana's activities and on top of it I should be the one to prove that he is making a wrong claim regarding your religion ?

Is it not the primary responsibility of your community to keep your bad elements under control. Is it not a failure that people like that Moulana can claim whatever he likes and nobody dares to tell him that he is wrong?



It's for a purpose. It's paying protection money basically. Like you pay taxes for the police. It's not discriminitory. In a Muslim country, all Muslim men help to serve as military or police or whatnot and non-Muslims are under no such obligations, hence, the tax.


It is discriminatory since I don't have a voice in me paying a tax which I would rather not pay and when the only alternative to avoid the tax is to convert to Islam.

Lemme propose a tax which is to be passed in , say the US. Its like the same law, all non-christians need to pay a special tax and if you pay the tax, you will get the same exemptions that the Jaziyah tax is supposed to give me.

Would you pay such a tax ?


Strange ... but ok.


Not strange. It was the norm during the Islamic rule in Indian subcontinent - economic pressure to convert.

Take the case I mentioned above. Who here has the guts to tell Moulana Masood Azhar that he is wrong ?

Got his phone number? I'll tell him. He won't listen.

Is it not the primary responsibility of your community to keep your bad elements under control. Is it not a failure that people like that Moulana can claim whatever he likes and nobody dares to tell him that he is wrong?

He has an Army. I do not. What would you have me do?

Lemme propose a tax which is to be passed in , say the US. Its like the same law, all non-christians need to pay a special tax and if you pay the tax, you will get the same exemptions that the Jaziyah tax is supposed to give me.

Would you pay such a tax ?

If the US were a Christian country, yes.

Got his phone number? I'll tell him. He won't listen.

He has an Army. I do not. What would you have me do?



LOL. you got me there.

Maybe you could declare a fatwa against him for hijacking your religion. :D

I understand your predicament. Like I said before, it is unfair muslims like you are going to be stereotyped, but I don't really see a way out ... since the noise of the extremists drown out all other voices.

LOL. you got me there.

Maybe you could declare a fatwa against him for hijacking your religion. :D


Already did .... nobody listened. ;) Incidently, I have spent the last several weeks writing letters to the Imams, Mullahs, and other religious leaders I can find addresses for and therein is contained all of the hippie peaceful sufi-like Islam that I practice, citing Qur'an, imploring them to do exactly what you've asked me to do.

Not heard back from anyone. Not been blown up yet, either. :D

It seems like nobody wants to bell the Jihadi cat !

Fatwas from areas like Spain or America etc do not make any impact.

The real problem is in areas like the Afghanistan - Pakistan belt and in the Iraq -Jordan belt. The reform has to start or reach there.

Have you thought about connecting with like minded muslims and mass mailing or publicising your letters in the net, thus forcing the Imams and Mullahs to respond ?

How well versed are you in Arabic ?

The jamaat-ud-dawa ,parent / political body of Lashkar-e-toiba (army of the faithful) has a website http://jamatuddawa.org/index.htm where they say such wonderful things as

Allah Says,

"O you who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do you give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which has come on to you, driving out the messenger and you because you believe in Allah, your Lord?

If you have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship) Do you show friendship unto them in secret, when I am best aware of what you hide and what you proclaim? And whosoever does it among you, he verily has strayed from the right way. If they have the upper hand on you, they will be your foes, and will stretch out their hands and their tongues towards you with evil (intent) and they long for you to disbelieve.

(Surah Al-Mumtahina)

Again in Surah "Al-Maida", Allah Says,

“O You who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians (disbelieves) for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who take them for friends is (one) of them.

Lo! Allah guide not wrongdoing folk. And thou seest those in whose heart is a disease race towards them, saying: We fear lest a change of fortune befall us. And it may happen that Allah will Vouch safe (unto thee) the victory, or a Commandment from His presence. Then will they repent them on their secret thoughts."

Thus in these verses, Allah has decreed that a Muslim, who takes side with the unbelievers during a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, will be counted among the unbelievers, implying that he too will be entitled to Allah’s wrath.

The courage and resoluteness and Islamic dignity that is being displayed by our brethren Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and else where in the world is indeed commendable and Allah will surely protect them.

We warn the Pakistani rulers in special and Muslim governments all over the world in general to fear Allah and not to race for the friendship with disbelievers and not place their territories and resources at the disposal of the infidels.

These Muslim lands and their resources are Allah’s gifts and no ruler has a right to utilize these against the Muslims. It is a misfortune that our rulers are afraid and even impressed by America and India but they don’t fear Allah. They must keep in mind that nothing will protect them against Allah’s wrath. If our rulers and masses don't fear Allah despite all the obvious, let them be a witness that we have conveyed them Allah’s commandment.

Let it also be made clear that in this war against Muslims, Islam and Quran we are totally with Muslim and Quran.

We will live and die for Islam. May Allah grant us courage to fulfil our pledge.

The website is supposed to be taken down, since LeT has been declared a terrorist org by US. Many local ulema are Jamaat members.The Jamaat itself is backed by the MMA mullahs (all recognised islamic scholars) who are part of the ruling coalition in Pakistan.

And you cannot say they are far away and do not affect you. The Virginia Jihad case where six terrorists were arrested were all LeT members.

Salam
First of all somebody has GOT to teach me how to bookmark this. I couldn't find this for quite a while. Now I'm going to try to deal with an arguement brought up by Aryvartha (my apologies if I spelt it wrong):

"While the Jaish-e-Mohammad has openly declared that 'jihad means killing,"

To disprove this, regardless of the number of scholars who have accepted this man or organization I would like to draw attention to the general accepted definition of Jihad as declared by all four major schools of thought in Islam (If you want information on those, tell me, I'll research it, or someone more knowledgable than myself will answer). It is clearly stated that there are three types of Jihad: 1) The Jihad of intentions, 2) The Jihad of words and 3) The Jihad of action. Might I also draw attention to the fact that the third Jihad can only be invoked in cases of defence. The first Jihad is to battle your own conscience to do the right thing, the second is to spread the knowledge of Islam or defend it to those who attack it or wish to be informed, and the last is to defend oneself using action if attacked. Check up the end notes of any Unabridged Quran (ones with English translations and notes are widely available) and it will correspond not with what the Jaish-e-Mohammad endorses, but what the majority of Muslims endorse, myself included.
In essence, there are several fundamental organizations that do things contrary to the teachings of Islam (or basic morals for that matter) in the name of religion. I advise that common sense, objectivity and utmost discretion be used when trying to judge these organizations as legitamite in terms of Islamic 'compatibility' (lack of better word). So, case closed

And Avyratha, if you have a beef with Pakistan, take it up in a separate thread, not in one involving Islam, as the two are different things....or perhaps you were misinformed in thinking they were.

Salam once again

Salam
Now I'm going to try to deal with an arguement brought up by Aryvartha (my apologies if I spelt it wrong):

"While the Jaish-e-Mohammad has openly declared that 'jihad means killing,"

To disprove this, regardless of the number of scholars who have accepted this man or organization I would like to draw attention to the general accepted definition of Jihad as declared by all four major schools of thought in Islam
<SNIP>

I advise that common sense, objectivity and utmost discretion be used when trying to judge these organizations as legitamite in terms of Islamic 'compatibility' (lack of better word). So, case closed


My whole point is, don't disprove to me.

Disprove it to the moulana who says that. I have no need to understand what Jihad means. What do I care ?

I see the moulana saying that. I see him being accepted by all the recognised religious leaders (sunnis, not shias, but shias hardly have any say) of his country. I see him getting funds from his countrymen. I see him not put to jail for his actions by his government. That's good enough for me to take his claims legitimate. Legitimate or not, he is out to kill me, that itself is enough for me to take him seriously. :D

So instead of you advising me what Jihad is , I suggest you try and advise HIM what Jihad is, because he is the guy who is hijacking your religion, NOT ME.


And Avyratha, if you have a beef with Pakistan, take it up in a separate thread, not in one involving Islam, as the two are different things....or perhaps you were misinformed in thinking they were.

Salam once again

I am not misinformed. 160 million pakistanis are misinformed.

Let the thread owner or Moderators make the decision on what consitutes Off-topic.

FYI The state calls itself Islamic republic of Pakistan and the popular slogan in the state is "Pakistan ka matlab kya - la illah il allah" - ( "What is the meaning of Pakistan - No God but Allah") . :rolleyes: Simply put No Islam = No Pakistan. It's that involved whether you like it or not.

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

you-> :eek:oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:sniper:<-Me

Okay, here's a tricky one:

Would it bother you to be stopped more often at airports than white people if it increased the probability of stopping a terrorist act?

To clarify, I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists or anything like that. Rather, I'm noting that the percentage of terrorist attacks against the United States by Muslims is inordinatly high. Given that security can't inspect everyone, would you deem it an acceptable violation of your personal freedoms to be checked more often on the grounds that limited resources require airport officials to pick out those they deem most likely to be a threat?

you-> :eek:oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:sniper:<-Me


Umm ... I really don't think that's appropriate.

My whole point is, don't disprove to me.


Okie my turn to ask a question. :)

What do you think of the Nation of Islam? Do you consider them Muslim? They sure consider themselves Muslim, but everything they teach contradicts Islam in so many ways that it is impossible for anyone with a little knowledge to consider them Islamic.

We (Muslims) refer to their particular thing as "Farrakhanism". Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik) became a great Muslim martyr after his return from Saudi when he began teaching true Islam and we embrace him as a hero, so don't count him in the Nation mix.

If you do, why do you?

If you don't, then why do you consider terrorist organisations, whose messages completely contradict Islam in so many ways that it is impossible for anyone with a little knowledge to consider them Islamic, to be Muslim?

Would it bother you to be stopped more often at airports than white people if it increased the probability of stopping a terrorist act?


"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Benjamin Franklin

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

Benjamin Franklin

The fact that a famous guy said it does not make it true though.

The fact that a famous guy said it does not make it true though.

No, anyone could have said it and it would be equally true.

However, it answers your question better than the simple "No" I had originally planned.

I disagree with the statement though. Consider, as I always suggest to people World War Two Great Britain:

During the Second World War, London had to go into black out every night so the Germans couldn't find and bomb it. However, in order to make sure this system worked, London police were given permission to go into homes without warrants to close people's blinds and turn off lights. A breach of civil liberties, yes, but certainly one that was worth it when you consider the other option was death.

This situation is hardly as clear cut, but that's why I ask.

During the Second World War, London had to go into black out every night so the Germans couldn't find and bomb it. However, in order to make sure this system worked, London police were given permission to go into homes without warrants to close people's blinds and turn off lights. A breach of civil liberties, yes, but certainly one that was worth it when you consider the other option was death.


Heh ... we just had Civil Defense teams shouting "PUT OUT THAT LIGHT!!" now and then. They weren't allowed to enter homes ... and the Germans never bombed us. ;)

Heh ... we just had Civil Defense teams shouting "PUT OUT THAT LIGHT!!" now and then. They weren't allowed to enter homes ... and the Germans never bombed us. ;)

You speak as if you were there...

You speak as if you were there...

I wasn't. I can, however, watch the History Channel and now and then I read a book.

I wasn't. I can, however, watch the History Channel and now and then I read a book.

And I'm saying that history tends to get fairly easily romanticized by even the most venerable institutions.

And I'm saying that history tends to get fairly easily romanticized by even the most venerable institutions.

I understand that, but it's easy enough to look up the rules under which the Civil Defense teams had to conduct themselves. You can also watch tv shows and cartoons from the time period and see the men and women in the C/D helmets shouting their famous shout. I also have grandparents who lived during that time and tell stories.

Between history and art lies the truth.

Okie my turn to ask a question. :)

What do you think of the Nation of Islam? Do you consider them Muslim? They sure consider themselves Muslim, but everything they teach contradicts Islam in so many ways that it is impossible for anyone with a little knowledge to consider them Islamic.

We (Muslims) refer to their particular thing as "Farrakhanism". Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik) became a great Muslim martyr after his return from Saudi when he began teaching true Islam and we embrace him as a hero, so don't count him in the Nation mix.

If you do, why do you?

If you don't, then why do you consider terrorist organisations, whose messages completely contradict Islam in so many ways that it is impossible for anyone with a little knowledge to consider them Islamic, to be Muslim?

First off, Since I am not a practising muslim, I cannot judge who is a true muslim or not. My personal opinion is, No, I do not think NOI are muslims since they are claiming another prophet when Muhammed has clearly said "no more prophets after me".

Having said that since the NOI folks do not pose me any danger, I have no issues with them calling themselves Muslims or whatever. It is your internal issue.

The muslims I mentioned above, pose a serious danger to me. They are literally out to kill me. I have lost friends to this "Jihad" of theirs. My native city was attacked with a series of bomb blasts. Just the other day, a sacred temple of mine was attacked by jihadis with the intent to destroy the sacrosanct of the temple.

So it does make it kinda important for me to know what I am dealing with. It makes me take their claims serious.

Like I said before, they are not isolated fringe types. They ARE the mainstream in countries like Pakistan. I know fully well that they are not humans, let alone be muslims. But it kinda is too much to expect me, a victim of their terrorism, to understand what Koran is and what Jihad is, when the moulana in question can claim such a thing with impunity and gets patronised by respected ulema of the country, get funds by donations from the people and carries so much clout that the military ruler cannot touch him.

It is not my concern to read the Koran and understand its nuances and understand its verses in context and identify a "good" muslim from a "bad" muslim. I already have enough problems saving my hide from the moulana's army. If he is claiming false things and hijacking your religion, is it not your duty to prevent him from abusing your religion instead of trying to convince me that he is not a true muslim or that he is using the koranic verses wrongly ?

I am not a muslim so I don't care who is a true muslim or not and what is said in the Koran and all. The moulana's claim is good enough for me. Shut him up. That's the only way. The best way to control noise is to stop it at the source. :)

Outside the US, the US itself is the biggest danger to Muslims. Al Qaeda rarely bombs Muslims ... the US does it with alarming frequency lately.

0.0

Al-Qaeda is directly responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq on a daily basis. You only hear about the occasional killing of civilians in Iraq by US forces and then by accident, not deliberately.

Besides, the Al-Qaeda people (I think) aren't really Muslim. They claim to do things in the name of Allah and all but do they really follow the religion? And they are willing to tell their people any thing so that they will blow them selves up.

encore bump

Go ahead, ask away. I'll answer to the best of my ability or refer you to a source that can better answer.

I have a question, why make a thread like this? If in fact you are muslim, it seems like you are stereotyping yourself or something. I don't know, it just seems odd to me to make a thread such as this one.

I have a question, why make a thread like this? If in fact you are muslim, it seems like you are stereotyping yourself or something. I don't know, it just seems odd to me to make a thread such as this one.

If Muslims get stereotyped as a people who are open about their faith and treat others with respect because of what I'm doing here then that is, so far as I'm concerned, not a bad thing.

Of course that's not a bad thing, but I just don't get the point in making this thread. It's like if I made a thread that said 'ask the christian' I don't know, it seems wierd to me thats all :) But I don't think that being open is a bad thing, I think it's an excellent thing.

Of course that's not a bad thing, but I just don't get the point in making this thread. It's like if I made a thread that said 'ask the christian' I don't know, it seems wierd to me thats all :) But I don't think that being open is a bad thing, I think it's an excellent thing.

Well, on my first visit to these forums I saw flame wars between christians and atheists, flame wars over evolution, flame wars over how evil or saintly Bush is, this topic seemed like a good idea for a change of pace. Besides that you constantly hear about how Muslims need to publicly condemn terrorism, well here I am doing exactly that, and just as important, by interacting with other people and letting them know more about my religion I'm helping (in a small way) to bridge the divide between Muslims and the rest of the Western community. People are bound to fear what they don't know, but when they get to know each other they tend to relax and get along just fine.

Well, on my first visit to these forums I saw flame wars between christians and atheists, flame wars over evolution, flame wars over how evil or saintly Bush is, this topic seemed like a good idea for a change of pace. Besides that you constantly hear about how Muslims need to publicly condemn terrorism, well here I am doing exactly that, and just as important, by interacting with other people and letting them know more about my religion I'm helping (in a small way) to bridge the divide between Muslims and the rest of the Western community. People are bound to fear what they don't know, but when they get to know each other they tend to relax and get along just fine.

If people are bound to fear what they don't know, why don't I fear muslims. You know after those attacks on 9-11 everyone has kept a 'close eye' on the muslim population, making it seem like they are all guilty for the attacks; it sickened me the way people acted and still act. People shouldn't try to isolate people of another religion because of a particular mishap. People disgust me when it comes to discrimination, I can't be around them.

Anyway, my father is one of those ignorant SOBs and I can't stand to talk about religions with him, I was telling him about how great Gandhi was, helping India gain independence and all that, and he chimes in and says 'Well hes not greater than Jesus' And I'm like 'We're talking about a simple man, once a lawyer that changed the world, not a supernatural man/spirit' But yea, my father is so stubborn, I'm glad I will NEVER be like him.

If people are bound to fear what they don't know, why don't I fear muslims

A fair argument, although I was talking about people in general and not you specifically.

it sickened me the way people acted and still act. People shouldn't try to isolate people of another religion because of a particular mishap. People disgust me when it comes to discrimination, I can't be around them.

I agree 100%. I was raised in a community where from childhood everyone was taught not to discriminate. It is worrysome when I hear my fellow countrymen speaking of rounding up all the Muslims and placing them in "camps" until the war is over. It was wrong to do that to the American citizens of Japanese decent in WWII and wrong to do that to American citizens who happen to be Muslims now. Have you by chance seen the "30 days" episode where they had a man dressed as a Muslim walk around trying to get people to sign a petition to protect the rights of law abiding American Muslims citizens? They didn't say how many he finally got, but they seemed to infer he got few if any. This is not how America should be.

I have a question - was Mohammad's wife Aisha a nine year old girl?

Then comes the second period from 25 to 54. His first marriage was contracted when he was twenty-five years of age, and the widow Khadijah whom he married was forty years old, i.e., fifteen years his senior. It was with her , and her alone, that he passed all the years of his youth and manhood until she died three years before the Hijrah, when he was already an old man of fifty. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give the lie to those carpers who call him a voluptuary. After her death, while still at Makkah, he married Saudah, a widow of advanced age. He also married 'A'ishah, his only virgin wife, while at Makkah, but her marriage was consumated five years afterwards in the 2nd year of the Hijrah.

c/p from earlier

Do you think the Muslim leaders in the West should do more to denounce the extremist members of their faith (Pronounce fatwas against them etc).

I've heard condemnation, but no fatwas.

c/p from earlier

So it was consumated when she was 14 and he was fifty-five?

can i ask? in the koran is it a muslims duty to covert as many non believers as possible?

* does it say

can i ask? in the koran is it a muslims duty to covert as many non believers as possible?

I think you mean 'convert'.

Freudian slip much?

also what is the deal with jews and muslims
why do muslims so badly require that piece of land?
when the jews have nt had a county they can call a religious home for over two thousand years

convert yes i do mean that

Do you think the Muslim leaders in the West should do more to denounce the extremist members of their faith (Pronounce fatwas against them etc).

I've heard condemnation, but no fatwas.

I think the media pays little attention to Muslims denouncing terrorism because if they did then their scary news story and guaranteed ratings go away. You haven't heard of the fatwa issued by an Islamic comission representing 70% of mosques in Spain against Bin Laden declaring him an apostate having committed the crime of istihlal (roughly: making up your own religious rules). You also probably haven't heard, despite its publication in the 9/11 commission report, that Bin Laden and his band of unmerry rejects aren't qualified to issue fatwas in the first place about anything much less war, or that there are qualifications for issuing fatwas.

can i ask? in the koran is it a muslims duty to covert as many non believers as possible?

Not in the same way that conversion is so important to Christianity. In Islam, being a Muslim is not a one way ticket to heaven and likewise neither is not being a Muslim a one way ticket to hell.

can i ask? in the koran is it a muslims duty to covert as many non believers as possible?

No. Qur'an 2:256 "Let There Be NO Compulsion in Religion". It is every Muslim's duty to answer questions, but never to convert anyone unless they ask.

also what is the deal with jews and muslims
why do muslims so badly require that piece of land?
when the jews have nt had a county they can call a religious home for over two thousand years

That is more a local and relatively recent dispute resultant of poor management by British overlords. Historically the Jews were treated relatively well under Islamic rulers.

I have a question - was Mohammad's wife Aisha a nine year old girl?

I've seen historical sources pointing to her being anywhere from 9-15 when they married. It varies. However, it is universally agreed that the marriage wasn't consumated (that means they didn't do it) until she was at least 15.

I'm curious as to what it matters, though. He married her to take care of her after her parents died so the local yokels wouldn't turn her over into a life of slavery. He didn't marry her because he was a pedophile. At the time, the best way to protect her was to marry her.

oh and just so you no i am nt jewish
i am catholic
we christians do nt believe forced conversions is right.

also i also believe that muslims from the middle east have little understanding of christianity and other religions

if you do nt believe in forced conversion why does it seem ok to kill a non believer in ure religion

also can muslims understand that calling jesus a Prophet may offend some christians

That is more a local and relatively recent dispute resultant of poor management by British overlords. Historically the Jews were treated relatively well under Islamic rulers.


so what were the crusades for then

why should the jews be ruled by islamic leaders?
as seen in iraq muslims very much dislike american occupation

if you do nt believe in forced conversion why does it seem ok to kill a non believer in ure religion

Nowhere in Islam does it condone the killing of a non-believer. The death penalty is only handed out for one thing in Qur'an and that's unrepented murder.

also can muslims understand that calling jesus a Prophet may offend some christians

I suppose. Though calling Jesus "god" or "the son of god" is equally as offensive to Muslims. There is none beside Allah and Allah had no children.

so what were the crusades for then

Christian control of Jerusalem. The Christians lost.

Nowhere in Islam does it condone the killing of a non-believer. The death penalty is only handed out for one thing in Qur'an and that's unrepented murder.



I suppose. Though calling Jesus "god" or "the son of god" is equally as offensive to Muslims. There is none beside Allah and Allah had no children.

so what is an Infidel?
my understanding of it is a non believer and if you look at previous posts (maybe to pages back) it is ok to kill an infidel

why should the jews be ruled by islamic leaders?


I don't think anyone is saying they should. I believe it was merely stated that they were treated well when they were. Jews have been treated better in Muslim countries then they ever have been treated in Christian ones.

so what is an Infidel?
my understanding of it is a non believer and if you look at previous posts (maybe to pages back) it is ok to kill an infidel

The word "infidel" is not used once in Qur'an. It is not ok to kill anyone except the enemy combatants in a time of war. War can only be in self-defense and killing innocent civilians is a sure ticket to Hell.

ok so we lost the crusades
but england a christian country held palastine and other islamic counties for a long time

The word "infidel" is not used once in Qur'an. It is not ok to kill anyone except the enemy combatants in a time of war. War can only be in self-defense and killing innocent civilians is a sure ticket to Hell.

i have nt read the koran so i do nt no what is in it?

one last question

you lived in a christian country like many people
do and they declared war on the country your family origionally came from e.g.
saudi arabia, iran would you consider ureself at war with ure families country of origin or the christian country that you lived in?
(the war is just by the way

if you do nt believe in forced conversion why does it seem ok to kill a non believer in ure religion

Its not okay. Throughout the Qur'an we are told never to fight, much less kill, save in self defense.

also can muslims understand that calling jesus a Prophet may offend some christians

This one got me chuckling. I can understand that some may be offended that others have a different belief regarding the one they believe to be their lord and savior. However, can Christians understand that Muslims probably don't greatly appreciate having their Holy texts referred to as "the devil's empty rhetoric," their Prophet referred to as any number of insulting things, or for that matter themselves being blanket labeled as terrorists, or being harassed at their mosques by Christians aren't so hesitant to convert by force.

Can the average Christian see that Islam teaches that Jesus is an honorable Prophet and realize that is far from disrespecting him?

so what were the crusades for then

Christians in Western Europe, finally having recovered enough from the fall of Rome to exert power, first wanted to grab up the Holy Land followed by, like most powers of the day, the rest of the world.

i have nt read the koran so i do nt no what is in it?


Perhaps you should.

you lived in a christian country like many people
do and they declared war on the country your family origionally came from e.g.
saudi arabia, iran would you consider ureself at war with ure families country of origin or the christian country that you lived in?

Interesting question. Not because of the nature of it, but the assumption that I am Middle Eastern because I am Muslim. A mere 12% of the world's Muslims are Arabs. The vast majority of Muslims are Asian.

I am an Irish Jew who lives in the US. The US isn't a Christian country, but I suppose if they attacked Ireland ... well ... yikes.

Being Muslim is a choice. You're not allowed to convert anyone ... not even your own children. Nobody is born Muslim.

why should the jews be ruled by islamic leaders?

I must have missed where I said they should be.

as seen in iraq muslims very much dislike american occupation

Nobody is happy with an occupation. I guarantee you though, they are much less happy with Zarqawi and his group than Americans.

ok so we lost the crusades
but england a christian country held palastine and other islamic counties for a long time

Okay?

if you do nt believe in forced conversion why does it seem ok to kill a non believer in ure religion

Its not okay. Throughout the Qur'an we are told never to fight, much less kill, save in self defense.

also can muslims understand that calling jesus a Prophet may offend some christians

This one got me chuckling. I can understand that some may be offended that others have a different belief regarding the one they believe to be their lord and savior. However, can Christians understand that Muslims probably don't greatly appreciate having their Holy texts referred to as "the devil's empty rhetoric," their Prophet referred to as any number of insulting things, or for that matter themselves being blanket labeled as terrorists, or being harassed at their mosques by Christians aren't so hesitant to convert by force.

Can the average Christian see that Islam teaches that Jesus is an honorable Prophet and realize that is far from disrespecting him?



firstly i asked a question and i was open to an honest answer (which i believe i got)
yet you then instisted on condeming christianity and christians without asking myself or other christians if this was true you also presume that all christians go about converting as if it was their lifes mission yet. you find it rude for us to assume you are all terorists (which i also believe is untrue)

yet you then instisted on condeming christianity and christians without asking myself or other christians if this was true you also presume that all christians go about converting as if it was their lifes mission yet.

Where in this thread has Christianity been condemned?

Keruvalia it is very difficult for sombody to read the koran if they can not read arabic.

also whos side would you be on if america when to war with ireland?

i believe it is here "being harassed at their mosques by Christians "who" aren't so hesitant to convert by force."

Keruvalia it is very difficult for sombody to read the koran if they can not read arabic.

Qur'an is published in many languages.

http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/

also whos side would you be on if america when to war with ireland?

Hard to say for sure. I don't automatically back the US in everything it does. Dissent is a founding principle in the US.

i believe it is here "being harassed at their mosques by Christians "who" aren't so hesitant to convert by force."

Surely you must acknowledge that there are those who call themselves Christian who do some rather nasty things in the name of Jesus. We know that just because they say they're Christian doesn't make them Christian any more than Osama bin Laden callilng himself Muslim makes him Muslim.

i have nt read the koran so i do nt no what is in it?

one last question

you lived in a christian country like many people
do and they declared war on the country your family origionally came from e.g.
saudi arabia, iran would you consider ureself at war with ure families country of origin or the christian country that you lived in?
(the war is just by the way

I am an American citizen by birth born to a Christian family. Immigrants may or may not side with their country of origin depending on what drove them from that country in the first place.

This is an excellent online copy of the Qur'an with extensive commentary and Arabic

http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

firstly i asked a question and i was open to an honest answer (which i believe i got)
yet you then instisted on condeming christianity and christians without asking myself or other christians if this was true you also presume that all christians go about converting as if it was their lifes mission yet. you find it rude for us to assume you are all terorists (which i also believe is untrue)

I hardly condemned Christianity, but I did feel it was necessary to point out that antagonism has existed on both sides. I know Christians are not supposed to be harassing people, but some do it anyway. The difference is that there are many people who don't know one way or the other if Muslims are supposed to be committing acts of terrorism because they don't know what is in the Holy Qur'an.

Again, I know that Christians are not supposed to be harassing people, but it can not be denied that it happens and that those doing so are not good Christians and likewise those committing terrorist attacks are definitely not good Muslims if they can be considered Muslim at all.

I've just been reading this thread and I have found it very interesting; only a couple of days ago I was in London with my mother and we were discussing the fact that many people know nothing of Islam and would probably be surprised to learn that a lot of their preconceived ideas of it are false. Neither of us are members of any religion but being brought up in London amongst a wide variety of people I knew a little of Islam and the other major world religions (I now know a little more - thanks!) My mother on the other hand is quick to admit that she doesn't know anything about Islam but is interested in learning more, so I might email her about this post (although she rarely picks up her email :headbang: ) My school also ensured we had a well-rounded education in major religions, rather than just Christianity, which is what I found when I moved to the provinces :rolleyes:

Anway, something that I believe to be relevant to this discussion: firstly, I must admit to being surprised that no-one here has mentioned the bombings that took place a couple of weeks ago in London, but I guess most of the posters here are from the US. Anyhow, what I really wanted to add is that here in Britain (and especially in Leeds, the city the majority of the bombers came from) Muslims are making a big effort to condemn the attacks very publicly. Many have admitted that they may have been a little naive in the past and/or turned their backs when extremists have preached hatred in the name of Islam here. There is currently a distinct message coming from the Muslim community that this will no longer be ignored and that full co-operation with the police is expected from anyone who has any information, Muslim or otherwise.

I hope this fulfils the spec of widespread condemnation that certain people on this board have been looking for. I also wish to add that I have lived alongside Muslims for many years and have found the vast majority to be ordinary decent people. The minority of trouble-makers were guilty only of being lary, threatening young men in exactly the same mould as their white counterparts. It is realistic to understand that there are good and bad people in any subset of society, but the behaviour that I found offensive was that which made them less Islamic, if that makes any sense. (Hanging around in gangs, being rude to women, disrespecting people in general really.) They were no more Muslim in my eyes than the white lads were Christian.

Anway, something that I believe to be relevant to this discussion: firstly, I must admit to being surprised that no-one here has mentioned the bombings that took place a couple of weeks ago in London

There were already plenty of other threads on that line.

Nice post, by the way. :)

Aha, I see. I've only been following this one :)

Thank you :)

I hardly condemned Christianity, but I did feel it was necessary to point out that antagonism has existed on both sides. I know Christians are not supposed to be harassing people, but some do it anyway. The difference is that there are many people who don't know one way or the other if Muslims are supposed to be committing acts of terrorism because they don't know what is in the Holy Qur'an.

Again, I know that Christians are not supposed to be harassing people, but it can not be denied that it happens and that those doing so are not good Christians and likewise those committing terrorist attacks are definitely not good Muslims if they can be considered Muslim at all.


you cannot compare terrorism to harassment?


also another question do you take everything in the koran as the complete truth.

i know that in christianity not everything written is absolute truth

Friday Drivers if you want to here about what hapened in london
i was their on the train near kings cross when it blew up
when i tried to contact my family to say i was ok the telephone networks were jamed then when i had left the station the bus blew up which i could hear.

people like the ira have attacked london before and have gone for civillians in fighting for their country
they would nt blow themselves up they would plant the bombs in cars and bins
(in the center of london their are no longer any litter bins in the street as a result of the attacks)
yet the terrorists who had attacked us previously had never been born in our country used our schools our healthcare
yet the bombers those suicide bombers who attacked us had. after all we as a country had given them

you cannot compare terrorism to harassment?

I'm not sure if you mean this to be a question or a statement.

do you take everything in the koran as the complete truth.

I have yet to come across something in the Holy Qur'an which, when explained, caused me to question its truthfulness.


i know that in christianity not everything written is absolute truth

Perhaps you should consider other religions then.

you cannot compare terrorism to harassment?

I'm not sure if you mean this to be a question or a statement.

do you take everything in the koran as the complete truth.

I have yet to come across something in the Holy Qur'an which, when explained, caused me to question its truthfulness.


i know that in christianity not everything written is absolute truth

Perhaps you should consider other religions then.

Like Discorianisim, nothing writtien in Discrodianisim is true, nor is it false.

I can see where the, so called, Islamic extreamists are coming from because the U.S and U.K wars are not really directed at the leaders of the countries they... don't like (!?! they are the world police after all !?!) but at the general (inocent) masses. I am Atheist, but I can sympathese with the Exthreamist, untill they become extream. I would not like anyone killing the people I had shared my life with, why should they because some dumb ass texan doesn't like them because he daddy didn't!? I don't think violence is the solution to the problems though.

It isn't really like the extreamist are acting on behalf on the entire Muslim population, if they are acting in a way that reflects Islam at all. It isn't really Jihad, just an excuse to kill the Bastards that killed so many across the world. I personally think that fair enough, but I don't agree with Violence in the first place.

Targeting Innocent Civilians is ALWAYS wrong and yet both 'sides' do it. the Americans are the worst at it with their, shoot now, think later strategy (if you can call it that.

you cannot compare terrorism to harassment?

I'm not sure if you mean this to be a question or a statement.

do you take everything in the koran as the complete truth.

I have yet to come across something in the Holy Qur'an which, when explained, caused me to question its truthfulness.


i know that in christianity not everything written is absolute truth

Perhaps you should consider other religions then.

see trying to change somones religion
i am quite happy with what i have got and dont plan on changing.

people like the ira have attacked london before and have gone for civillians in fighting for their country

...

yet the terrorists who had attacked us previously had never been born in our country used our schools our healthcare
yet the bombers those suicide bombers who attacked us had. after all we as a country had given them

Absolute nonsense: what country were the IRA members born in? Where were they educated? What nation's healthcare system did they use?

Absolute nonsense: what country were the IRA members born in? Where were they educated? What nation's healthcare system did they use?

ira members were born in ireland lived in lreland some in northern ireland.
which if you didnt know has its own tax system its own health care system and is pretty much delt seperatly to england

ira does stand for
Irish Republican Army

see this link for more information on their ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

also just checking but did they ever blow themselves up

ira members were born in ireland lived in lreland some in northern ireland.
which if you didnt know has its own tax system its own health care system and is pretty much delt seperatly to england

I happen to live there, pal, born and bred. Its tax system is the same as the rest of the UK, hypothecation does not take place: funding for state run services such as health and education come from the same pot as the rest of the UK.


after all we as a country had given them

Are you claiming that Northern Ireland is a foreign country?