Questions about Islam (Ask Away!)

[Dumuzi]

Hi Dumuzi,

First I want to say how excited I am that this forum has a Muslim thread, definitely influenced my decision to sign up!



Hey Heka!

Glad you decided to sign up :) You do have a very interesting background. Indonesia has the biggest Muslim population in the world.

As Raphaeline has mentioned, I did address your questions in a previous post. I'd advice you to watch the video I posted because it talks about both questions, as opposed to just the second one. I go into more detail about the second question in my post.

Also if you still have any questions after reading my reply, or if you want me to clarify something that I said, let me know right away!

[Consciousness]

Dumuzi,

Your answer is not answering the question, I appreciate the time and effort you put in on your posts so i will give you some country's where Islamic and sharia law are in function, these may not be the most populated of country's but where the systems named are in place,

Afghanistan Islamic law
Iran Islamic law
Libya Islamic law
Nigeria Sharia
Oman Sharia and tribal custom laws
Saudi Arabia Islamic law
Sudan Based on Islamic law
Yemen Islamic law

Hope this helps in finding the answer to my question.

Modi


Resurrecting an old question.

The closest Islamic state that has been established is Iran and Saudi arabia. There are some problems here though. Firstly Iran is a Shia nation. So many Sunnis will reject its an Islamic state. In Iran women can vote, but they cannot run for President etc.


Saudi Arabia is mixed with Islamic law and other secular laws. Saudi Arabia will be very Islamic in certain aspects, but yet allow usury (which is forbidden) in their banking systems and a lot of other errors. One such errors is allowing the US to have bases in Saudi Arabia. This is something that the Prophet Muhammad would never want as he on his death bed asked for the expulsion of Jews and christians from the arab peninsula. This is attributed to Sahih bukhari and Sahih muslim. The fact is there is no such Islamic state as Dumuzi pointed out. The Taliban was most likely one of the closest (perhaps closer than even Iran and for sure closer to an Islamic state than Saudi arabia).

I do not think there is really equality between men and women in Islam. But the question is what type of Islam are we speaking of? The Sufi sects are much more lenient and within some of those circles i would say women are given more equality. But there is a lot of things in the Quran that may show inequality. Again its all based on how you interpret the Quran. Here is a verse:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (Surah 4 Ayah 34).

Many people defend this verse stating from ahadith that the hitting is 'light'. Some likened it to hitting a woman with a handkerchief or a feather. Sufis have a more esoteric explanation of this verse in relations to the soul. But a lot of orthodoxy will maintain this practice. Theres ahadith attributed to Aisha (one of the wives of the Prophet) who complained after this verse was revealed that men were hurting women even leaving (green marks). In defense of the verse we are told that when a man hits the woman he should not leave a mark, draw blood, or break bones.

If i read the Quran as it is this is troublesome. But I will say perhaps a Sufi interpretation would be better.

Again it all goes back to sects, paths, and who you ask concerning these things, You will get 101 answers.

[Dumuzi]

Hey Consciousness

Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion in this thread. But I have to say that I disagree with some of the points that you have brought up. Fro example:


What they are referring to are Meccan verses. These were the revelation before hijrah (migration to medina).

While the historical background that you mentioned is 100% correct, it's not correct to state that 'peaceful' verses were only revealed during the time of Mecca. This is an ayah found in Surat Al-Baqarah, which was revealed in Madinah: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." [2:256]

The verses of the Qur'an complete each other. There is no contradiction between verses that talk about fighting and verses that talk about being kind and just to non Muslims. Because the verses that talk about fighting explain why and when to fight, and why and when to not fight. I say more about this post in my previous post. (Don't want to make this too long)


The closest Islamic state that has been established is Iran and Saudi arabia.

Are you suggesting their law is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah? These countries (and others) use the word Islamic the same way North Korea uses the word Democratic in its name. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that doesn't permit women to drive, I wish they'd explain to other Muslims how this makes sense. If Islamic law was applied in Saudi Arabia, most of their rulers would be trialed for lots of crimes. But most of them are above the law.

The original poster was giving me examples of 'Islamic' countries and was asking about women that can vote. I mentioned that they do vote in those countries, except Saudi Arabia, where even men cannot vote most of the time. I also explained how the biggest Muslim countries in the world had female leaders (presidents and prime ministers). Of course, that doesn't mean they don't have serious women issues over there. But that's another topic.


I do not think there is really equality between men and women in Islam.

Both men and women are equal in front of god. Again here are examples from the Qur'an:

"Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer - We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do."

"And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed."

"And their Lord responded to them, "Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated or were evicted from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed - I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah , and Allah has with Him the best reward.""

The second verse is actually from the same Surah that you mentioned that talks about 'beating' women.

However according to Islam, men and women are different. Which is why different rules apply to them. That doesn't mean they aren't equal in front of god, just like you see in the examples that I have given.


Again it all goes back to sects, paths, and who you ask concerning these things, You will get 101 answers.

I advice anyone wanting to learn about Islam to read straight from the source and make up your own mind. It's important to learn from scholars if you want to go deeper, but don't let the whole different schools of thought or sects get in the way. In Islam we have the advantage of having the Qur'an. There are no different versions of it, and there's only one language. Use this advantage to learn about Islam, as opposed to believing ever thing they say on the TV.

[Consciousness]

While the historical background that you mentioned is 100% correct, it's not correct to state that 'peaceful' verses were only revealed during the time of Mecca. This is an ayah found in Surat Al-Baqarah, which was revealed in Madinah: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." [2:256]



9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.

Without a doubt offensive fighting was ordained. There is no compulsion in religion, yes but also no. It says you cant force someone to convert to Islam. Yet it ordains fighting Jews and Christians until they are subdued giving jizya.

By the way you do not want to read what Imam Al-Ghazali says about the verse 9:29 that I quoted. I will not post it here unless asked for it, but lets just say it goes along with earlier post about the treatment of jews and christians in the Islamic state.



Are you suggesting their law is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah? These countries (and others) use the word Islamic the same way North Korea uses the word Democratic in its name. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that doesn't permit women to drive, I wish they'd explain to other Muslims how this makes sense. If Islamic law was applied in Saudi Arabia, most of their rulers would be trialed for lots of crimes. But most of them are above the law.

Okay we can establish that Saudi Arabia has many Shariah type rulings. Firstly it has the Islamic scholars counsel. 2ndly many Shariah punishments are given. This include stoning, executing witches (yes indeed), cutting the hand of the thief, and sometimes crucifixions. I heard an Imam once say that he wishes that in America we could see heads being chopped off so we would avoid haram.

You say that if there was an Islamic state the rulers would be placed on trial for crimes. This is absolutely false. Show me proof that there is some democratic system of checks and balance on the ruler. You cannot even go on the streets and talk against the ruler. This is from many of the great scholars of Islam such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn hajar, ibn Kathir, as suyuti, and many more. Why? Because these are acts of the khawarij. That is why there have been leaders such as Muawiyah and others. The scholars say you must advise the ruler personally. In other words that means no protest and calling people to fitnah (discord).

Again in the Sahih

Auf ibn Maalik narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,


“The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you. You pray over them and they pray over you. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you. You curse them and they curse you.” They said, “O Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), shall we fight and oppose them over that?” He replied, “No, not as long as they establish the prayer among you. No, not as long as they establish the prayer among you. If someone is appointed over a person and he sees some act of disobedience to Allah from him, he should dislike what he does of disobedience to Allah but he should not remove his hand from obedience.”

There is plenty of scholars of Ahluh Sunnah that I can quote from if you request that from me. As you know the Ulama (scholars) use Qur'an and ahadith as proof.



The second verse is actually from the same Surah that you mentioned that talks about 'beating' women.

Yes I am quite aware of this. None of these verses abrogate the fact that you can hit women. It also doesn't abrogate the many other verses on inequality such as this one

"And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her." (Surah 2:282).

Again the hadith that goes with it confirms it. The Prophet mentions that this is due to the woman's intellect.


However according to Islam, men and women are different. Which is why different rules apply to them. That doesn't mean they aren't equal in front of god, just like you see in the examples that I have given.

So if the man is out of line can the woman also lightly hit the man as the verse I had posted 4:34?


I advice anyone wanting to learn about Islam to read straight from the source and make up your own mind. It's important to learn from scholars if you want to go deeper, but don't let the whole different schools of thought or sects get in the way. In Islam we have the advantage of having the Qur'an. There are no different versions of it, and there's only one language. Use this advantage to learn about Islam, as opposed to believing ever thing they say on the TV.

I think this is the best advice also.

Ong Thung Thunoraya Nama

- - - Updated - - -

I do not want to hijack this thread. So I will not post anything unless you ask for any clarification on anything I said.

Ong Thung Thunoraya Nama

[Heka]

Ok thanks very much everyone.

Now let me recap to see if I'm getting it:

Taqiyyah is denying ones faith in order to avoid persecution, and the earlier/later argument isn't valid because violence is only permitted in certain situations to certain, named, parties....?

also I thought the answers must be in here somewhere, but as much as I would love to, I'm not likely to read every page. So thanks Raphaeline.

[Dumuzi]

I don't mind that we are having this discussion, I bet we can both learn greatly from it! I just wish you weren't mentioning so much misinformation that can easily cleared up by checking just the Qur'an in most cases. Let me show you.


Without a doubt offensive fighting was ordained.

The reason I mentioned the "There is no compulsion in religion" verse is because you made the claim that there are no 'peaceful' verses in the revelation that was received in Madinah. I showed you one example, so clearly your claim is false.

And again, I never said there was no fighting that was ordained upon Muslims. My main point is that the reason given to Muslims to fight, has nothing to do with the points that you have mentioned. Just look a few verses BEFORE the one that you have posted, it says: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [9:13]

It gives not one reason, but THREE reasons on why fighting has been ordered here. One of them, as you can see, is the fact that they had begun to fight the Muslims first.

And if you go further back, in the same Surah, it talks about protecting the polytheists. "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." [9:6]

This verse is mentioned right after the order to fight them has been given in the verse before it. It is talking about a time where there was a truce between the Muslims and the Polytheists, right after they broke their oath against Muslims. fighting in general, if you'd like I can talk about that in my next reply.

I haven't commented on the topic of Jizyah, because you are still talking about


By the way you do not want to read what Imam Al-Ghazali says about the verse 9:29 that I quoted.

You are giving mixed messages. Should we or should we not rely on these scholars to understand the message of the Qur'an. One time you say they influenced the sources of Islam and changed them. And then when it suits you, you think we should rely on them to understand this verse. What I'm saying is that, they are great scholars but just like everyone else, they've made mistakes. I can also show you different opinions about verses like this one. But my whole point is that if you look at the Qur'an the message becomes quite clear if you want to form your own understanding. I've shown you where the Qur'an contradicts the claims that you have made. Or are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars is above the verses of the Qur'an itself?


Okay we can establish that Saudi Arabia has many Shariah type rulings.

Lots of countries have Shariah type rulings, doesn't mean they are based on Shariah. As a side note, it seems you are only focusing on one branch of Shariah, which is the punishments branch, and even that, the Saudi government has deviated greatly from it. But to get back on topic you are making completely false claims again:


You say that if there was an Islamic state the rulers would be placed on trial for crimes. This is absolutely false.

The messenger said, "The best Jihad is to speak a word of truth to a tyrant ruler".

He also said, “By Allah, if Fatima the daughter of Mohammed stole something Mohammed would cut off her hand”.

According to your argument no one should be allowed to put his daughter on trial because she's the daughter of the ruler. Most princes of Saudi Arabia are above the law. A clear violation of Shariah.


It also doesn't abrogate the many other verses on inequality such as this one

You mentioned witnesses. What about this verse, which holds the witness of women above that of men? "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;" [24:8]

Early in this Surah it describes the accusation of the husband that his wife has cheated on him and it explains how the witness of the wife is above that of the husband. You still didn't show me where I made a false claim that they are equal before god. I've shown my evidence from the Qur'an.

I can go into detail about the topic of hitting women if that's what you want. I'll just leave you with the fact that prohpet Muhammad has spoken against it in several sayings.

[Consciousness]

Me too I am always open to learning.

When you say by checking just the Qur'an should we exclude hadith from our talks? The reason I ask is as I said earlier muslims would not know the proper way to pray in the masajid if it were not for ahadith. Some instances in the Qur'an you need hadith to understand what is happening. The Qur'an was given in bit by bit pieces and taught so sometimes you need some explanation from hadith. I am willing to just use Qur'an as well.


The reason I mentioned the "There is no compulsion in religion" verse is because you made the claim that there are no 'peaceful' verses in the revelation that was received in Madinah. I showed you one example, so clearly your claim is false.

I said that fighting was bestowed to the Ummah in the medina period. This is when they were able to fight in defense. At first defensive jihad is mentioned only. This makes sense, because Muslims were in no strength to launch extensive offensive wars (such as the Romans and Persians). It was only later that offensive jihad was prescribed. This was when the Ummah was strong. That is why the Prophet wanted to dispatch fighters to combat Persians and also Romans.


And again, I never said there was no fighting that was ordained upon Muslims. My main point is that the reason given to Muslims to fight, has nothing to do with the points that you have mentioned. Just look a few verses BEFORE the one that you have posted, it says: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers." [9:13]

It gives not one reason, but THREE reasons on why fighting has been ordered here. One of them, as you can see, is the fact that they had begun to fight the Muslims first.

And if you go further back, in the same Surah, it talks about protecting the polytheists. "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." [9:6]

This verse is mentioned right after the order to fight them has been given in the verse before it. It is talking about a time where there was a truce between the Muslims and the Polytheists, right after they broke their oath against Muslims. fighting in general, if you'd like I can talk about that in my next reply.

I haven't commented on the topic of Jizyah, because you are still talking about

Yes and I agree with these points, but this again is referring to defensive jihad. It does not yet take into consideration the offensive jihad that is prescribed.

From the Qur'an itself we have the permissibility for Jihad offensively

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (Surah 9 ayah 29).

below is an authentic hadith (the isnad is considered authentic by ijma)
This hadith is taken from the authentic book Sahih al-Muslim(3261) narrated that Buraydah said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a commander to lead an army or a raiding party, he would advise him to fear Allaah with regard to himself and the Muslims with him, then he said: “Fight in the name of Allaah and for the sake of Allaah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allaah, fight but do not steal from the war booty (before it is shared out), betray, or mutilate. Do not kill children. If you meet your enemy of the mushrikeen, call them to three things, and whichever one of them they respond to, accept that from them and leave them alone. Then call them to Islam and if they respond, accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse but they pay the jizyah, then they have responded to you, so accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them…”

So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told his commanders to call the kuffaar to Islam whilst wielding their swords over their heads. If they refused to become Muslim then they should pay the jizyah with humility. If they refused then there was nothing left for them but the sword – “If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them”


u are giving mixed messages. Should we or should we not rely on these scholars to understand the message of the Qur'an. One time you say they influenced the sources of Islam and changed them. And then when it suits you, you think we should rely on them to understand this verse. What I'm saying is that, they are great scholars but just like everyone else, they've made mistakes. I can also show you different opinions about verses like this one. But my whole point is that if you look at the Qur'an the message becomes quite clear if you want to form your own understanding. I've shown you where the Qur'an contradicts the claims that you have made. Or are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars is above the verses of the Qur'an itself?


Using the Qur'an itself with the verse above 9:29 also reveals the fact of offensive jihad. I understand that verses prior are talking about defensive jihad. I accept that because in Islam there is both offensive and defensive jihad.


The messenger said, "The best Jihad is to speak a word of truth to a tyrant ruler".

He also said, “By Allah, if Fatima the daughter of Mohammed stole something Mohammed would cut off her hand”.

According to your argument no one should be allowed to put his daughter on trial because she's the daughter of the ruler. Most princes of Saudi Arabia are above the law. A clear violation of Shariah.

Yes, but Fatima is not the ruler. As I pointed out you cannot revolt against the ruler unless you can establish clear kufr (disbelief) on behalf of the ruler. So if the ruler lets say is bowing down to the cross or making statements of kufr (such as insulting the Prophet) then the masses can revolt. If the ruler is just corrupt, but has not committed kufr then you must obey unless he obey and not cause discord.

- - - Updated - - -


You mentioned witnesses. What about this verse, which holds the witness of women above that of men? "But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;" [24:8]

Early in this Surah it describes the accusation of the husband that his wife has cheated on him and it explains how the witness of the wife is above that of the husband. You still didn't show me where I made a false claim that they are equal before god. I've shown my evidence from the Qur'an.

Yes, but you cannot take this ayah to court concerning property etc. That is why it is more difficult for a woman to establish herself in the ruling system when it comes to property and even other accusations.

Now commenting on the hadith you were responding to we can look at ibn kathir's commentary: (Note that he quotes Sahih Muslim again an authentic narration)

Ibn Katheer said:
Two women are to take the place of one man because women are lacking in reason, as Muslim narrated in his Saheeh… from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O women, give in charity and seek forgiveness a great deal, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.” A wise woman among them said, “Why is it, O Messenger of Allaah, that we are the majority of the people of Hell?” He said, “Because you curse too much, and you are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you.” The woman asked: “O Messenger of Allaah, what is wrong with our common sense and our religion?” He said: “Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, and you spend some nights (and days) in which you do not offer prayer and in the month of Ramadan (during the days) you do not observe fast, that is a failing in religion.”
(Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/336)

Again another verse from the Quran

“Allaah commands you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”
[al-Nisa’ 4:11]

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason I cannot put the rest of my post. It says I exceeded the limit

[Dumuzi]

For some reason I cannot put the rest of my post. It says I exceeded the limit

I won't reply yet. But you can continue your reply below now that I posted this.

[Consciousness]

Okay its working now


I can go into detail about the topic of hitting women if that's what you want. I'll just leave you with the fact that prohpet Muhammad has spoken against it in several sayings.
Well lets see what the Prophet said in again the authentic text of sahih Muslim (which has ijma consensus that its authentic)
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218.
Now just to make myself clear to other people on the forum I am not against Islam. Like I said I enjoy the Sufi interpretations of the Qur'an. I just simply think that politics (as is what happen to christianity) infiltrated the religion and caused these teachings to enter into the minds of the masses. I think there is indeed great wisdom in the Qur'an. In my personal opinion I just think things were changed including the Book itself.

[anunitu]

I see much interchange between both of you. As Dumuzi knows I have much respect for all belief systems. What I see as a problem for all beliefs is the tendency to not understand the very BASIC parts and get hung up in the esoteric bits and pieces and forget the very simple tenets.

[Consciousness]

Yes for sure. I agree. Like I said I am not against Islam I just think it has become political, but this is not true for all. As Dumuzi is a great example. His interpretation could indeed be aligned with the true intent of the Qur'an. I am enjoying reading the books of Ahmad Hulusi on the Qur'an and Allah. Here is his website with free books http://www.ahmedhulusi.org/en/

His books are very esoteric in regarding everything in the Universe as being Allah. And that all things are manifestations of Allah's names. I will have to make another thread discussing some great Sufi masters.

[Dumuzi]

Thank you for your reply.


Using the Qur'an itself with the verse above 9:29 also reveals the fact of offensive jihad. I understand that verses prior are talking about defensive jihad. I accept that because in Islam there is both offensive and defensive jihad.


I've already commented on that verse before, but I will add that it seems you are confusing two things. In this verse it is describing the people Muslims are fighting. It does not mention the reason behind fighting them. The reason to fight are mentioned in the verses before it.

You also seem to say that offensive war is waged against others for not being Muslim (or not accepting the Jizyah), while my claim, supported by the Qur'an, is that such a war is only waged against the oppressors. Let me give you another example of this from the Sunnah, since you mentioned the fighting of non Muslims from both the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Are you familiar with the letters sent by Muhammad, peace be upon him, to the rulers around him? I'd like to show you two examples that prove the point I am trying to make.


Letter of the Prophet Muhammed to the Negus (king of Ethiopia)

In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, who is no god but him, the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure the believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his soul just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way.

Notice how this letter is an invitation to Islam. No threat was given and no warning is given to the king. That is because this Non Muslim king was a just king. Earlier in history he even protected early Muslims from the Pagans of Arabia.

Now compare this letter with the following one:


In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: (This letter is) from Muhammad son of Abdullah to Heraclius the Great (ruler) of the Romans (Byzantines). Peace be upon him, he who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to submit your will to God; submit your will to God and you will be safe, and God will double thy reward, and if you reject, thou you bear the sins of persecuting Arians.

(And I recite to you God's Statement:) (O Muhammad): 'and people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but God and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside God. Then, if they turn away, say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims' (those who have surrendered to God).

See, how there is a threatening tone in this letter, in contrast to the one before it? Both of those kings are non Muslim, but in this case the letter mentions the persecution of Arians. Those were people who were monotheists and were persecuted by the Romans. For that reason offensive war, as you put it, was waged against that king.

The main factor that determines whether or not fighting is allowed is how these non Muslims treat the believers. Actually a clear and direct verse(s) of the Qur'an explains that quite beautifully and nicely:

"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers." [60:8-9]

These verses help us further understand the verses which you have mentioned, not taking into account the verses I mentioned which come before it. It also explains the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, regarding the people he ordered us to fight. Again and again the Qur'an talks about tolerance to other people and makes sure the reasons to fight are quite clear. Yet, it seems you want to ignore every single verse in the Qur'an, especially the ones that help us understand the ones you have mentioned.


Yes, but Fatima is not the ruler. As I pointed out you cannot revolt against the ruler unless you can establish clear kufr (disbelief) on behalf of the ruler.

Shes the daughter of the ruler! I compared that with Saudi Arabia today. Clearly, they are not following this Hadith in regards to the sons and daughters of the ruler.

As for revolting against the ruler, I have shown you a Hadith were it contradicts your claim. Furthermore, Muhammad, peace be upon him said, "There is no obedience to a created one in a sin against the creator". (لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق) If a ruler is ordering injustice or a sin, no Muslim should obey him, this is quite clear from this Hadith.

Another good example is found in the speech of Abu Bakr, first ruler of Muslims after Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said, "O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me; and if I act wrongly, then correct me. Truthfulness is synonymous with fulfilling the trust, and lying is equivalent to treachery. The weak among you is deemed strong by me, until I return to them that which is rightfully theirs, insha Allah. And the strong among you is deemed weak by me, until I take from them what is rightfully (someone else’s), insha Allah. No group of people abandons military/armed struggle in the path of Allah, except that Allah makes them suffer humiliation. And evil / mischief does not become widespread among a people, except that Allah inflicts them with widespread calamity. Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. And if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience. Stand up now to pray, may Allah have mercy on you”

Again, there are many examples, but one cannot pick and choose, you have to take all sources into consideration. Obeying a ruler that commits injustice is clearly against Islam.

(to be continued after someone posts)

[MaskedOne]

insert post break here

[Dumuzi]

Thanks MaskedOne! (offers you Jihadi pizza made from the flesh of dead infidels)

PART II of my reply (Revenge of the Sheikhs)


Now just to make myself clear to other people on the forum I am not against Islam.

You claim that it's OK according to Islam to beat the crap out of your wife, and to kill others for their religion, and yet you are not against Islam? :p

You mentioned in the end two issues regarding equality between men and women in Islam. First you mentioned the witness of men and women, and then you mentioned inheritance.

As for the first issue, I already mentioned that it depends on the situation. In some cases you have to take the witness of two women (in case one errs, according to the Qur'an) and in other situations the witness of a woman is above the witness of a man. Like I mentioned, according to Islam women and men are different, the reason why you need two female witnesses in some situations is to relief women of the responsibility that arises from having to witness against someone alone. This has nothing to do with the quality of her witness, as proven by other situations where only her witness is enough.

Second issue regarding inheritance. Again, this depends on how the female is related to the deceased. In some situations she gets an equal amount, in others she can inherit while the male doesn't. And in some cases, like you've mentioned, she takes half the amount of a male. That's the case in comparing daughters to sons of a deceased father, for example.

But why does the male take double in that situation?

It's quite simply really, when you look at other rules in Islam. The male has the religious obligations of taking care of his wife and children in financial matters. A female according to Islam, has the right to her own property and money, which no man can take away from her. (That's something that wasn't very common before Islam, and even wasn't common in the Western world a century or less ago.)

In other words the money given to the male belongs to him, his wife, his children and sometimes even other relatives that he is responsible for financial wise. While the money given to a woman belongs only to herself. So even from a pure mathematical point of view, this is quite fair.

I must repeat that all of these issues have nothing to do with how equal men and women are before god, as I've shown in the verses I posted. Those are all worldly matters that can easily be explained by the difference in obligations and rights between the two genders.

I also forgot to comment on the wife beating issue, so here it goes.

Before going into the Qur'an and hadith, I will mention that most scholars have spoken against domestic violence and explained the root word of daraba as a very light tap that is meant to be symbolic rather than physical. As for the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, it couldn't be more clear. Sayings of the messenger of Allah, may peace be upon him:

1. "Do not beat the female servants of Allah"

2. "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you."

3. “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?”

4. Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

5. Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

And if you look at the Qur'an in the same Surah that you quoted, it mentions earlier:

"O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. [B]And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good." [4:19]

So how can Allah order men to be kind to women and then order them to beat them later? Doesn't make sense.

[Consciousness]

You also seem to say that offensive war is waged against others for not being Muslim (or not accepting the Jizyah), while my claim, supported by the Qur'an, is that such a war is only waged against the oppressors. Let me give you another example of this from the Sunnah, since you mentioned the fighting of non Muslims from both the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Based on your claim you are suggesting that offensive jihad is only against oppressors. This is absolutely false and the consensus of the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah oppose you in this. You are to invite the Kuffar (nonbelievers) to Islam. If they refuse then you offer them to pay jizyah. If they refuse then you fight them. There is ijma on this. That is why I can quote to you if you like from scholars and ahadith (there is actually quite a lot of information on this) supporting offensive jihad. Its not just when other nations are oppressing. No, it includes expanding the Islamic state by occupying other lands and establishing shariah there. You can fight those that do not have a covenant with Muslims.

Commentary on 9:29 from Ibn kathir (a scholar of Tafsir mind you)

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day) (9:29) until,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(And feel themselves subdued) (9:29).
Allah's pardon for the disbelievers was repealed.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Qatadah and As-Suddi said similarly: It was abrogated by the Ayah of the sword." (Mentioned above). ]

Heres the link to verify http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemid=


Notice how the Qur'an abrogates previous verses on the kuffar.
From scholarly source again:
It is further explained to call the unbelievers towards the true Religion of Islam and to fight against them, if they are unwilling to accept this true Religion. (Fathul Qadeer)

If an Islamic state is established and there is no defensive Jihad and the Muslims are strong. Then the Imam is REQUIRED to launch offensive jihad. Again this is by ijma (consensus). Look at Fatawa Shami
Fatawa Shami: “It is required of the Imam (leader) of the Muslims to dispatch the army routinely once or twice a year towards the kufr countries. It is also the duty of the Muslim public to assist the Imam in this noble cause. If the Imam does not send an army, then he will be considered sinful."


I am glad you showed the letters of the Prophet, but that does not negate the other statements from the Prophet or his earliest companions on the issue of offensive jihad. Btw earlier I had quoted the hadith (classed as Sahih by ijma) of the Prophet not disapproving of one of his companions killing the woman who insulted the Prophet. She was not oppressing anyone she simply said nasty things about the Prophet. So the man killed her with a sword or dagger.


As for revolting against the ruler, I have shown you a Hadith were it contradicts your claim. Furthermore, Muhammad, peace be upon him said, "There is no obedience to a created one in a sin against the creator". (لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الخالق) If a ruler is ordering injustice or a sin, no Muslim should obey him, this is quite clear from this Hadith.

I agree that if the ruler is trying to make you do something forbidden you do not have to obey him. This is established, but you cannot revolt. This is ijma. Read about the khawarij and what the early Salaf (first 3 generations of muslims including the Prophets companion) had to say about revolts. Its forbidden.

The Prophet said, “Whosoever sees something from his leader of sin, then let him hate whatever occurs from sin. And let him not remove his hand from obedience, since whoever removes his hand from disobedience and splits off from the Jamaah (united body), then he dies the death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times of ignorance).’’ Recorded by Bukhari and Muslim
The Prophet said “Listen and obey, even if the ruler seizes you and beats your back.” Recorded by Muslim

- - - Updated - - -


You claim that it's OK according to Islam to beat the crap out of your wife, and to kill others for their religion, and yet you are not against Islam?

No you are putting words in my mouth. I already quoted ahadith of the Prophet talking about how you can 'lightly beat' your wife. I already showed that you can hit your wife as long as you do not 1. Break the bone, 2 cause bleeding, or 3 leave a mark. Its also forbidden from hitting the face. You would have to hit another part of the body.

I agree on the part about inheritance. This is how I also explained the differences with women away. Yes the man gets more share of the inheritance, but must share with the the (sister ie. woman). I get this, but the fact that the woman cannot be in control of the wealth herself would be troublesome to me, but I wont press this matter.

I also see the evidence you posted about the Prophet speaking against beating women. Again we have the quote from the Qur'an itself

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.(Surah 4 ayah 34).

Now you quote these ahadith which I can accept, but you cannot also ignore the other ahadith plus this quranic ayah. In your 4th example you quote from abu dawud while I quoted from Bukhari and Muslim (which have greater authenticity by consensus of scholars).

And earlier you said people should just read the Quran alone. It would be troublesome to explain away surah 4 ayah 34.

- - - Updated - - -

Check this out from Sahih Muslim showing the Prophet himself hitting his wife

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you."

In defense of the Prophet the translation is not correct in stating he struck her chest, but more so a PUSH. The fact of the matter is he did physically touch her in an aggressive manner and it 'caused her pain'. Thats narrated directly from Aisha one of his wives.

Now in my opinion I am not saying the Prophet was a wife beater. I think like i said before Islam became political and that is why we have these contradictory narrations. But if you accept (as it seems you are Sunni) the consensus of the scholars you would have to accept these things. Even though the Prophet tells you to treat women rightly there is still permissibility to strike.

[Dumuzi]

Hey Consciousness

Before I go into my detailed response I must say that I don't mind disagreements and all, but I don't appreciate deception. You post something and then make a part of it in bold letters and increase the size of it so everyone can see it when skimming, and then later it turns out it's actually a complete wrong translation. If you had done this without knowing, the bold plus size thing, then I can understand that. But to do that knowing the correct translation? I just can't agree with that.

And since you mentioned Aisha, here's what Aisha herself has said about this topic in Sahih Muslim:

'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious. (Book #030, Hadith #5756)

I don't have much more to add to this topic other than the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, speaking against beating women and ordering us NOT to beat women. It doesn't get more direct than that. So if that doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

You do make a good point about the verse in the Qur'an, which is why I mentioned two important points regarding that. First, the very same Surah orders men do deal with kindness towards women (so how can it order them to beat the crap out of them at the same time?). Secondly, the Arabic word daraba can have a wide range of meaning which is why scholars have explained it does NOT mean to beat women, especially when put in contrast with the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that don't leave room for doubt regarding the meaning behind this verse. And Allah knows best.


Based on your claim you are suggesting that offensive jihad is only against oppressors. This is absolutely false

I have supported my claim with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars are above that of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala? If you post the opinion of some scholars I have a ton of other scholars that say otherwise, but in the end, to reach a conclusion about this topic we'd have to go back to the source. What does the source tell you?

The argument of abrogation does not apply here, because it only applies when a ruling is changed regarding a topic, such as something that is general that is made more specific or the other way round and so on. When it comes to the topic of how to deal with non Muslims who are not oppressive or fight Muslims, the ruling is never changed.

You also seem to ignore the many verses of the Qur'an that directly deal with this topic.

If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! [10:99]

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." [18:29]

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. [60:8]

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. [2:256]

And even regarding the verse that you posted, I already explained how it deals with a group of non Muslims who began fighting Muslims first and kicked them out of their homes. In a verse earlier it even tells Muslims to protect those polytheists who seek the protection of Muslims, since there was a treaty between them. Here are the two verses I mentioned earlier:

Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. [9:13]

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. [9:6]

As you can see it specifically mentions that those non Muslims began fighting Muslims first. Ignoring that seems to change the meaning completely. And most people will ignore it and never talk about it in order to deceive readers as to the meaning of the Qur'an.


I am glad you showed the letters of the Prophet, but that does not negate the other statements from the Prophet

They prove exactly what I want to say. Why did the early Muslims fight the Romans but at the same time didn't fight Ethiopia? Aren't they both non Muslim countries? If we apply your logic, can you tell me why those early Muslims didn't have a war against their King?

The main difference, according to my claim that I have supported from the Qur'an, is that unlike the King of Ethiopia, the Roman persecuted most people that didn't follow their religion. In Egypt, they were even oppressing Egyptian Christians because they didn't follow their Church.

Another thing that can set explain this matter once and for all, is to ask yourself, why was the permission to fight given to Muslims in the first place? What's the first verse that was revealed regarding fighting?

Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.

[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
[22-39-40]

I always like to bring up the fact that the Ayah mentions churches and synagogues before mosques. So the whole reason a Muslims were given the permission to fight proves what I want to say.

You brought up other interesting points about other issues in your post, but I don't want to make this too long, and I'm tired. I will reply to the rest later today.

Have a nice day. ;-)

[Consciousness]

Before I go into my detailed response I must say that I don't mind disagreements and all, but I don't appreciate deception. You post something and then make a part of it in bold letters and increase the size of it so everyone can see it when skimming, and then later it turns out it's actually a complete wrong translation. If you had done this without knowing, the bold plus size thing, then I can understand that. But to do that knowing the correct translation? I just can't agree with that.

Did not the Prophet 'lahad' (push) Aisha to the extent where she mentions that it caused her pain? Do you think its permissible if my wife makes me upset for me to push her on the chest to an extent where it causes her pain? you are apologizing that is all your doing. You are running away from the issue by ignoring it and presenting other evidence (you sometimes do this using the same books I quoted from such as Sahih Bukhari and Muslim) yet you deny what I post?


I don't have much more to add to this topic other than the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, speaking against beating women and ordering us NOT to beat women. It doesn't get more direct than that. So if that doesn't change your mind, I don't know what will.

You say he orders you not to bead women yet the Qur'an allows it as I have exhaustively stated so using surah 4:34. not only that I showed you how the Prophet pushed Aisha.

Why should I continue on quoting from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (the most authentic texts after the Qur'an) if you are going to ignore them with other quotes? Either the consensus of the scholars (which reaches back to the Companions of the Prophet) are wrong and you are right, or they are right and you are wrong.

You accuse me of being deceptive yet I gave the correct translation beneath the hadith. I kept the hadith in tact because that is how it is 'usually' translated as Muhammad struck Aisha. Regardless if it is STRUCK or PUSH Aisha felt pain. You cannot bring yourself to accept that Muhammad caused physical pain for Aisha (thats your problem not mine).


You do make a good point about the verse in the Qur'an, which is why I mentioned two important points regarding that. First, the very same Surah orders men do deal with kindness towards women (so how can it order them to beat the crap out of them at the same time?). Secondly, the Arabic word daraba can have a wide range of meaning which is why scholars have explained it does NOT mean to beat women, especially when put in contrast with the Sayings of Muhammad, peace be upon him, that don't leave room for doubt regarding the meaning behind this verse. And Allah knows best.

You are committing bidah (innovation). You are saying that now the verse does not mean to beat women in 4:34? I already showed you Tafsir from scholars of Tafsir. I am sure you know who the Mufasirun are (scholars of Tafsir). So for some reason you have greater knowledge then the 'orthodox' commentators of the Qur'an some of which are direct disciples of the Prophet. This is absurd and DECEPTIVE to say the least!


I have supported my claim with evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Are you suggesting the opinion of some scholars are above that of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala? If you post the opinion of some scholars I have a ton of other scholars that say otherwise, but in the end, to reach a conclusion about this topic we'd have to go back to the source. What does the source tell you?

So my ahadith I posted from AUTHENTIC text from Prophet Muhammad's own lips are false? If Bukhari and Muslim (again the most authentic text after the Quran) quoting Muhammad is not enough for you (except when it suits you) then why bother carrying on a conversation? Just be true to yourself that yes indeed the Prophet allowed these things. I again will bring up about the fact that Muhammad sat by and did nothing to his disciple who killed an innocent woman whose only crime was saying negative things about the Prophet (Again SAHIH BUKHARI).


The rest of your post you just post some more 'defensive' jihad quotes without posting any offensive jihad quotes to substantiate your claims. Now somehow the Islamic state is in charge of fighting oppressors of other countries? Yea sure, but then again what do I know I only know of whats in the most authentic books such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well as the ijma (consensus of the scholars).

Need i remind you that ijma (consensus) is something that its obligatory to follow since the scholars have full agreement on something? But then again you are more intelligent then the major scholars dating back to the direct disciples of the Prophet Muhammad.

Have a good morning (maybe its evening in Egypt?)

[Heka]

This all looks fascinating guys, but I'm struggling to read every word. I am assuming though that in there somewhere someone confirms my deductions in response to my questions?

~~~~
Sorry, I'm realising how harshly that comes across (I'm a teacher and I'm still at school at 9pm writing reports UGH). I just don't have the time of patience now to read every word, and I'm hoping that I do understand what I was trying to understand....

What ever it was :(

[Consciousness]

Hi Heka,

You can listen to Dumuzi's view. His view would be yes fighting is restricted only against oppressors and that the only reason for offensive fighting against other nations is to fight oppressors.

[Heka]

Thanks for the quick reply Consciousness (I struggle to spell that every time!), but my questions were about taqiyyah..... :D

[Consciousness]

Taqiyyah is denying ones faith in order to avoid persecution, and the earlier/later argument isn't valid because violence is only permitted in certain situations to certain, named, parties....?

Yes taqiyyah is in order to avoid persecution and death. Like having a sword to your neck while someone is asking you if you are Muslim. You are allowed deny that your a Muslim as long as you have imaan (faith in your heart).

the earlier and later is referring to defensive and offensive jihad, but I think we have exhausted this thread with our views on that lol.

[Heka]

Excellent! haha thanks for that... And I don't think I want to read too much further into the jihad stuff. My brain hurts enough as is... TA!

[Consciousness]

yea theres no need to read too much into it. it was just a friendly debate dumuzi and I were having.

[Heka]

Yeah I know :) It really does look fascinating, but now is jut not the time for me unforuntately!

[Tylluan Penry]

Here's a bit of a strange query, it came up years ago when I last visited Egypt. Someone mentioned that left-handedness is frowned on there (okay, maybe it's related to Islam, maybe not, but I didn't know where else to put this question). I would think, since Arabic is written right to left, that it would actually be easier for a left hander (you should see my mirror writing!)

Anyway, it may seem a rather slight question but I'd really like to know!
Shukran!

[Dumuzi]

Here's a bit of a strange query, it came up years ago when I last visited Egypt. Someone mentioned that left-handedness is frowned on there (okay, maybe it's related to Islam, maybe not, but I didn't know where else to put this question). I would think, since Arabic is written right to left, that it would actually be easier for a left hander (you should see my mirror writing!)

Anyway, it may seem a rather slight question but I'd really like to know!
Shukran!

Not strange at all TP!

It's part of the Sunnah (the way of Muhammad, peace be upon him) to do certain things with our right hand. Now this is different from someone being left handed. In this case someone is just using their dominant hand for their daily activities. What I'm talking about is using your right hand to greet or eat and so on. We also begin washing our right side when we have to clean ourselves. There are many examples!

But no, being left handed says nothing about your worth as a Muslim in front of god :)

[Tylluan Penry]

Thanks! I've often wondered! :)

[anunitu]

There was(is) a certain belief in Christian(perhaps even before that) that a left handed person was evil because left it seems is considered wrong in some way.

http://leftyfretz.com/15-left-handed-people-superstitions-myths/

I hope this link helps

[Hawkfeathers]

In Italian, the word for 'left' is 'sinistra', as in the English word 'sinister'.

[Gleb]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. In common, how do Muslims treat those who are not Muslim? What would a Muslim person say to a Pagan, Jewish or Christian person?

[Heka]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. In common, how do Muslims treat those who are not Muslim? What would a Muslim person say to a Pagan, Jewish or Christian person?

In my experience, Muslims have no issue with people of other religions. They generally think of religion being your own business.

If D is around he will have a better answer then that though :P

[Gleb]

In my experience, Muslims have no issue with people of other religions. They generally think of religion being your own business.

If D is around he will have a better answer then that though :P
Nice! I studied with two Muslims for a year, and they were awesome. They accepted all other students and everyone accepted them in return.

[Dumuzi]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. In common, how do Muslims treat those who are not Muslim? What would a Muslim person say to a Pagan, Jewish or Christian person?

As per the instructions of the Qur'an, Muslims are supposed to treat non Muslims with not only justice, but even more than that, with kindness. The Qur'an says:

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." [60:8]

It also talks about being just with human beings over all in several places, here's one of them:

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do." [5:8]

There are also narrations by Muhammad, peace be upon him, about the same topic, here's one of them:

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.”

And finally I will mention their right to believe what they want, which is also mentioned in the Qur'an, here's one example:

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!" [10:99]

I really hope that answers your question :)

[Gleb]

As per the instructions of the Qur'an, Muslims are supposed to treat non Muslims with not only justice, but even more than that, with kindness. The Qur'an says:

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." [60:8]

It also talks about being just with human beings over all in several places, here's one of them:

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do." [5:8]

There are also narrations by Muhammad, peace be upon him, about the same topic, here's one of them:

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.”

And finally I will mention their right to believe what they want, which is also mentioned in the Qur'an, here's one example:

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!" [10:99]

I really hope that answers your question :)
Thanks, Dumuzi. But I am not sure I understand the first part.
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just."

[Dumuzi]

Thanks, Dumuzi. But I am not sure I understand the first part.

It's talking about people who are not fighting Muslims for their religion, nor driving them out of their homes. It is those people, who are peaceful towards Muslims that the verse is talking about.

[Gleb]

It's talking about people who are not fighting Muslims for their religion, nor driving them out of their homes. It is those people, who are peaceful towards Muslims that the verse is talking about.
Aaaah... Now I see. Thank you :)

[Siloh]

Hey Dumuzi. Seems like the other Abrahamic "Ask A..." threads are experiencing some hiatuses, so maybe it would be helpful for me to gain a Muslim perspective on one of my questions concerning Jesus, to you, as I understand, a prophet.

So I've been attending a Baptist church for completely non-religious reasons, and you probably don't recall but I was raised Jewish. I am also attending bible study and Sunday school (I know, but really, totally unrelated to religious interest: I'm learning a new language that these meetings employ). Anyway, all their talk about Jesus and Jews got me looking into some stuff about Jesus, because a lot of what they say about Jews and Jesus are totally new to me. I mean there are things they say Jews do and they look to me for confirmation and I have no clue what they're going on about, so then I go home and look into it. It's bizarre, but going to church is somehow making me more Jewish in that it encourages me to study the religion I was raised in.

On to my confusion. So the Baptists are always talking about how Jesus showed himself to be the true son of God and the messiah, and they talk about all the stuff he did to convince the Jews that he was what he proclaimed. Well, I've poked into this a bit to see why exactly Jews refute Jesus as the messiah or son of God, and frankly I assumed that at least somewhere I would see Jewish scholars referencing him as a sort of prophet rather than moshiach, but this is not so.

Actually, the rejection of Jesus seems to go so far as to call him a false prophet, a false messiah, and all around someone who is the antithesis of these things, because he didn't fit the bill, so to speak, and performing these miracles while clearly not being the messiah (according to Jewish prophecy) simply shows him to be not just a liar but a really bad guy who has done serious damage to the Jewish people, who of course believe they are God's people.

Sooo... Given that Muslims share ancient common ground with the Jews, how did Muslims develop this belief that Jesus was in fact a prophet, and is it problematic for Muslims that Jesus proclaimed himself the messiah if Islam does not recognize him as such? How do you explain to Christians that Islam does not view Jesus as the son of God in the sense that they do but that you see him as an integral prophet in Islam? According to the Baptists here, Jesus was not ambiguous about announcing his identity as God, the son of God, and the messiah come to deliver them. Frankly my job as a Jew refuting Jesus as God on earth or anything resembling the voice of God seems a bit simpler than saying he was not the messiah but he was a prophet, given the assertions I hear made about Jesus fully laying claim to being the messiah.

Thanks in advance for any guidance on this topic. I am super appreciative.

[MaskedOne]

I've heard the distinction once or twice before but could you break down the whole Sunni/Shiite divide. From the outside it looks like it influences far too much of the Mid-East political landscape and I'm not entirely sure why.

[nbdy]

Siloh, I would be interested to know where in the Christian Bible Jesus lays claim to being the messiah. I was shunned at age 16 for deciding, based upon deep study of scripture, that Jesus was the son of God only inasmuch as we are all children of God.

MO, I was told by an Islamic friend that the big rift occurred because some thought the leader must be a blood relative of the Prophet (Shia) and others thought that the leader should be elected by consensus of the faithful (Sunni). Most Muslims are Sunni.

[Dumuzi]

Sooo... Given that Muslims share ancient common ground with the Jews, how did Muslims develop this belief that Jesus was in fact a prophet, and is it problematic for Muslims that Jesus proclaimed himself the messiah if Islam does not recognize him as such? How do you explain to Christians that Islam does not view Jesus as the son of God in the sense that they do but that you see him as an integral prophet in Islam? According to the Baptists here, Jesus was not ambiguous about announcing his identity as God, the son of God, and the messiah come to deliver them. Frankly my job as a Jew refuting Jesus as God on earth or anything resembling the voice of God seems a bit simpler than saying he was not the messiah but he was a prophet, given the assertions I hear made about Jesus fully laying claim to being the messiah.

Thanks in advance for any guidance on this topic. I am super appreciative.

Really interesting questions, Siloh!

First of all some ground rules. The main source for what a Muslim believes is the Qur'an. And the Qur'an does give us some information about Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. For example one part says the following about him:


[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is. And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel [3:45-48]

So as you can see, we believe Jesus, peace be upon him, to be a messenger and prophet of god, and we don't have a problem with titles like Messiah or the fact he did many miracles that are mentioned in a lot of places in the Qur'an. The only problem we have is to make Jesus a part of a trinity, which makes up god.

And to get back to ground rules. Muslims believe in the Torah and the Gospel, as mentioned above for example. The problem is that we believe in the Torah which was revealed to Moses, peace be upon him, and the Gospel revealed to Jesus, peace be upon him. We do NOT believe what we have today is the same book that was given to these prophets. A lot of Christian historians will agree with that. You see, we have the Gospel according to Mark, according to Luke etc. But there is no Gospel according to Jesus.

So with all of that said, we don't really automatically take things that are written in the Bible to be the exact verbatim word of god. Which should answer your question about how we explain our different beliefs about Jesus, peace be upon him.

Another VERY important point that I'd like to mention. If you take the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, himself in the gospels. He never makes the claim to be god, nor does he mention a trinity anywhere! In fact, there is no mention of a trinity anywhere in the bible by all the prophets of god. And in some places, he even directly makes sure people don't confuse him with god!



Matthew 19:16-17
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.




John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


It is my opinion that there is great ambiguity when it comes to Jesus, peace be upon him, in Christianity. There is a lot of doubt when people actually read what he allegedly said about himself. I'd like to end this reply with the following thought. There is a very important verse in the Bible, which I think explains everything going on here. It shows you that the difference between Christianity and Islam when it comes to Jesus, peace be upon him, is simply that Christianity is a religion about Jesus, while Islam is the religion of Jesus. For he submitted to god and prayed to god just like Muslims do (his mother even dresses like Muslim women ;) )



Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Notice how he pushes away those that do things in HIS name? Some today even call their religion after Christ. But it is those the do the will of the Father that enter heaven. Which is why we choose to submit (being Muslim in Arabic) to god, and god alone.


O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. [4:171]

Hope that answers your question :)

[Heka]

D, your replies are always awesome. Come back and teach us.

[Odahviing]

D, your replies are always awesome. Come back and teach us.

^What he said.^

I think the entirety of the internet just got a little less stupid thanks to that.

[Heka]

^What he said.^

I think the entirety of the internet just got a little less stupid thanks to that.

She*

/10fyis

[anunitu]

Damn Heka,ya done gone and had the "Sex Change"???

[Heka]

Damn Heka,ya done gone and had the "Sex Change"???

The politically correct term is 'gender reassignment surgery'. Just because I was born in a mans body, doesn't mean I was ever male...

[B. de Corbin]

^What he said.^

I think the entirety of the internet just got a little less stupid thanks to that.

That would require open minded reading. Don't hold your breath.

[Odahviing]

She*

/10fyis

Oh, sorry. Writing too fast. :)

[Heka]

Oh, sorry. Writing too fast. :)

Tis all good. I like that I can flit between the sexes...

[Siloh]

Thank you. That does answer the questions I put to you. However, it seems I have even more questions for the Baptists.

I try not to ask them many questions, though. The more my mouth is open in their vicinity, the more I think I'll draw unnecessary attention to myself.

One more question, a really odd one... Do Muslims believe there are djinn in our midst today?

[linz]

Hi.. I have just joined and have read some of the posts but not all.... Just to say i think we should all be more tolerant of all religions/ people. Me and my daughter, then aged 17 visited Egypt and the men treated us both with upmost respect. I have to say however it was the start of Ramadan and we both covered our bodies and wore headscarves out of respect for the culture/ religion of the place we were visiting.

[CrazyAfterlife]

Not sure if this was already asked but I'll just ask anyway. What's with the whole Sharia law thing? I think Egypt doesn't have as much of it like Saudi Arabia or Iran but they do hunt down gays and bi's and imprison them for being so((Probably why I could never be a Muslim even if I wanted to. xD)). Just curious.

[DragonsFriend]

Just as all Christians are not militant either are all Muslims. The radical Muslim leaders take control and the more militant radicals respond. If the moderates try to stop them they are targeted so it goes on.

[Dumuzi]

Sorry, I have neglected this thread. Time to get it back in shape!


Do Muslims believe there are djinn in our midst today?

The Qur'an tells us about many things which we cannot see in our physical world, so to speak. This includes Angels, Heaven and Hell and so on. One of the creatures that God has created, which are mentioned in the Qur'an, are the Jinn. They are like us, in terms of some are good some are bad, some are Muslim some are not and so on.

There is a Surah in the Qur'an call The Jinn (https://quran.com/72), if you want to read it, but it's not the only place the Qur'an talks about them. We believe God send Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Qur'an for all creation, including Humans and the Jinn.

You can listen to it being recited here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MdeBStG630) (with English translation).

[Shahaku]

I am actually fascinated by the Jinn, it seems a much more moderate view point than what Christianity has with demons. From what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, D) Lucifer or Satan was one of the Jinn and said that he would do everything he could to tempt humans away from Islam to prove to Allah that we are not perfect or some such. Some Jinn agreed with him and helped him, but not all. It's probably one of the things that stuck with me the most.

[Dumuzi]

I am actually fascinated by the Jinn, it seems a much more moderate view point than what Christianity has with demons. From what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, D) Lucifer or Satan was one of the Jinn and said that he would do everything he could to tempt humans away from Islam to prove to Allah that we are not perfect or some such. Some Jinn agreed with him and helped him, but not all. It's probably one of the things that stuck with me the most.

You are correct, Shahaku.

I'm paraphrasing here, but basically Iblis (that's the name given to him in the Qur'an, comes from the Arabic word that means to despair or to lose hope) thought he was superior to humans because he's made out of fire, while humans are made from mud. So the 'Original Sin' in the Qur'an is actually arrogance or even racism if you think about it! The Qur'an then teaches us that it's your actions and knowledge that raise you up above the level of angels or take you down below the level of even animals, rather than who you are or what you are made of.

Iblis then asks God not to punish him until judgement day, and God accept his request. Of course, what I really find interesting, is that the Qur'an itself negates the whole excuse of 'the devil made me do it', using the very words of the devil himself:


And Satan will say when the matter has been concluded, "Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called to your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I deny your association of me [with Allah] before. Indeed, for the wrongdoers is a painful punishment." [14:22]

I really love that Ayah.

[Lydia]

Here's a question for you, Dumuzi:
What is the exact number of times that the Koran states that non-muslims, aka kafirs (e.g. everyone on this forum other than yourself), will burn in hell? I've counted at least 20 times, but I've only searched through a small part of the Koran. I found one reference that states that there are "about 500" of such verses ( http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/hell-and-hate.aspx ), and it quotes a few excellent examples thereof, but then it states that those 500 verses are just mentions of hell- not necessarily about non-believers going there. My guess is that the answer to my question is somewhere between 100 and 200.

[Dumuzi]

What would Allah do with your punishment [4:147]

Hey Lydia!

I don't have an exact number but I'm sure it is way more than 20 times. More importantly, it's not just a mention of hell, but the Qur'an is also very vivid in describing hell and its punishment. And it paints a very graphic picture when it comes to hell. So there is no doubt that both heaven and hell are real places according to the Qur'an, the book gives both glad tidings for those who do good, but is also a warning for all mankind.

To go into further details, however, in regards to your question... A non Muslim according to Islam is not guaranteed hell, and a Muslim is not guaranteed Heaven. Most scholars have agreed that, generally speaking, there are 3 groups of non Muslims, and each of them will have different kinds of judgements.

1. Those who have learned and understood the message of Islam and rejected it. Here, the ayat about hell are applied to them.

2. Those who neither learned or knew anything about the message of Islam.

3. Those who have only received a distorted message of Islam either from websites like the one you quoted above, or directly from corrupt Muslims who gave a bad example of Islam to others, causing them to not want to follow such a corrupt religion.

The people of the last two groups, if they die as non Muslims, will not be judged like the first group. Evidence for that in the Qur'an are plenty, but here is one of them:


Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger. [17:15]

So unless a human being was able to receive the actual message of Islam, they cannot be judged like those who clearly rejected the message.

Allah also says in the Qur'an:


But only one who comes to Allah with a sound heart [26:89]

So he will judge us in accordance to what is in our hearts, and only he knows what's truly inside, and what kind of human beings we are, regardless of the labels we use to describe ourselves to others.

I would also like to go back to the very first ayah I quoted. What will he do with our punishment? What benefit does he get? In another ayah he says Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them. As if he only created us to show us mercy. In one saying of Muhammad, peace be upon him, he says that God has created a home in the highest heaven for every single human being. The Qur'an says that his mercy encompasses all things. So sadly, the punishment of hell is to those who actively rejected the message completely. It's a reality according to the Qur'an, no doubt about it, but it also opens the door for everyone who wishes to enter into his mercy and forgiveness. In the end it's our responsibility and choices that determine that.




Another important part of your question is the word kafir. Actually, I'm a kafir as well! The word, linguistically speaking means someone who covers. It was used by the Arabs to describe farmers, for example, and in one ayah in the Qur'an it's used like that as well. However, you are right, it is mostly used to describe people who reject, or cover the truth, cover their eyes and ears from seeing and hearing the truth and so on.

And it's also used to describe Muslims. You see I'm a kafir when it comes to Zeus, Krishna, Horus and so on.

More importantly, these very harsh and severe descriptions are many times used to talk about specific kinds of non Muslims. You see these ayat were revealed in response to specific kinds of non Muslims who were actively fighting, torturing and even killing Muslims simply for their religion. So they are talking about the lowest of the lowest kind of human beings, because of their actions and not simply because of their beliefs.

Lastly, this is just a friendly advice, just reading the intro to the page you linked, it's so full of errors and false claims, it's not even funny. This is like learning about Paganism from the Westboro Baptist Church. With that said, you shouldn't take my word for it, can go into detail and provide evidence for my claims against that page if you want me to do so. But I don't want to derail or make this too long.

In any case, I hope I was able to answer your question in a clear and direct way. If you need me to expand on any matter I spoke about, please let me know, I tried to make this as short as possible.

Have a nice day!

[Heka]

Hey Lydia!

I don't have an exact number but I'm sure it is way more than 20 times. More importantly, it's not just a mention of hell, but the Qur'an is also very vivid in describing hell and its punishment. And it paints a very graphic picture when it comes to hell. So there is no doubt that both heaven and hell are real places according to the Qur'an, the book gives both glad tidings for those who do good, but is also a warning for all mankind.

To go into further details, however, in regards to your question... A non Muslim according to Islam is not guaranteed hell, and a Muslim is not guaranteed Heaven. Most scholars have agreed that, generally speaking, there are 3 groups of non Muslims, and each of them will have different kinds of judgements.

1. Those who have learned and understood the message of Islam and rejected it. Here, the ayat about hell are applied to them.

2. Those who neither learned or knew anything about the message of Islam.

3. Those who have only received a distorted message of Islam either from websites like the one you quoted above, or directly from corrupt Muslims who gave a bad example of Islam to others, causing them to not want to follow such a corrupt religion.

The people of the last two groups, if they die as non Muslims, will not be judged like the first group. Evidence for that in the Qur'an are plenty, but here is one of them:

So unless a human being was able to receive the actual message of Islam, they cannot be judged like those who clearly rejected the message.

Allah also says in the Qur'an:

So he will judge us in accordance to what is in our hearts, and only he knows what's truly inside, and what kind of human beings we are, regardless of the labels we use to describe ourselves to others.

I would also like to go back to the very first ayah I quoted. What will he do with our punishment? What benefit does he get? In another ayah he says Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them. As if he only created us to show us mercy. In one saying of Muhammad, peace be upon him, he says that God has created a home in the highest heaven for every single human being. The Qur'an says that his mercy encompasses all things. So sadly, the punishment of hell is to those who actively rejected the message completely. It's a reality according to the Qur'an, no doubt about it, but it also opens the door for everyone who wishes to enter into his mercy and forgiveness. In the end it's our responsibility and choices that determine that.

So Id be better off not hearing the true message of Islam then, incase i reject it? Haha

[Dumuzi]

So Id be better off not hearing the true message of Islam then, incase i reject it? Haha

Surely, rejecting to hear the message is still a form of rejection, right? :-P

Just be sincere in your heart and ask to be guided to the truth whatever it may be. You'll be guaranteed to receive something wonderful, god willing :)

[anunitu]

Not to disparage any religious beliefs,but it seems there is a LOT of judging of people not part of said religion. I see this in Christianity,and it seems a base of most Abrahamic belief systems.(Note I am outside most "Dogmatic" beliefs,and tend to follow what I connect to and feel,rather than what I would be told to follow. I have no animosity toward "Dogmatic" systems,but could not follow something I did not connect with in spirit and soul. Just my belief that what is written does not mean it has a spiritual connection.

It should be also understood,I myself am a very eclectic person,and I find spiritual connection from "Some" parts other belief systems.

[Shahaku]

D, isn't there a belief in Islam that there are multiple levels of heaven and hell and there's an existence somewhere in the middle that most people would fall into?

[Dumuzi]

D, isn't there a belief in Islam that there are multiple levels of heaven and hell and there's an existence somewhere in the middle that most people would fall into?

There are indeed different levels of heaven and hell, but all human beings end up in either one of them. You may be talking about what's known as Al A'raf (The Heights, or The Elevations) which is a place between heaven and hell where people whose good deeds are equal to their bad deeds go to, to be judged by God. The Qur'an talks about them in a Surah which has the same name.

So the Qur'an tells us about these people who are right between heaven and hell, which in the end are entered into heaven because of God's mercy. We also learn they are people whom those who entered hell have claimed that God will never show them mercy, so God turns to those people in hell and asks, aren't those the people whom you swore would not receive my mercy? And then he enters them into heaven.

So basically, we should never make a claim about whom God will enter heaven and who he won't. I'm sure we all know people who others have judged and claimed they'd never be worthy of heaven or God's mercy. So we should never make that mistake, lest we end up like those people in hell.

Here are the ayat from the Qur'an:


And between them will be a partition, and on [its] elevations are men who recognize all by their mark. And they call out to the companions of Paradise, "Peace be upon you." They have not [yet] entered it, but they long intensely.

And when their eyes are turned toward the companions of the Fire, they say, "Our Lord, do not place us with the wrongdoing people."

And the companions of the Elevations will call to men [within Hell] whom they recognize by their mark, saying, "Of no avail to you was your gathering and [the fact] that you were arrogant."

[ Allah will say], "Are these the ones whom you [inhabitants of Hell] swore that Allah would never offer them mercy? Enter Paradise, [O People of the Elevations]. No fear will there be concerning you, nor will you grieve."

[Heka]

Surely, rejecting to hear the message is still a form of rejection, right? :-P

Just be sincere in your heart and ask to be guided to the truth whatever it may be. You'll be guaranteed to receive something wonderful, god willing :)

Haha yeah I know. I keep an open mind 😉

[Heka]

There are indeed different levels of heaven and hell, but all human beings end up in either one of them. You may be talking about what's known as Al A'raf (The Heights, or The Elevations) which is a place between heaven and hell where people whose good deeds are equal to their bad deeds go to, to be judged by God. The Qur'an talks about them in a Surah which has the same name.

So the Qur'an tells us about these people who are right between heaven and hell, which in the end are entered into heaven because of God's mercy. We also learn they are people whom those who entered hell have claimed that God will never show them mercy, so God turns to those people in hell and asks, aren't those the people whom you swore would not receive my mercy? And then he enters them into heaven.

So basically, we should never make a claim about whom God will enter heaven and who he won't. I'm sure we all know people who others have judged and claimed they'd never be worthy of heaven or God's mercy. So we should never make that mistake, lest we end up like those people in hell.

Here are the ayat from the Qur'an:



So when people tell you that you're going to hell (usually christians) they actually have no right to say that? Haha

[anunitu]

I do wonder about something,having been brought up in a belief that rejects ANY religious symbol(SDA,and they use no cross as they believe that is Idolatry) I should let you know I am no longer a part of that belief. My question is about any image of Mohamed not being allowed,and why this is a part of the Muslim belief?

- - - Updated - - -

I did find this explanation from CNN,and it seems to be the same thing as SDA's not wanting anything that could become an Idol.

CNN Story here. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/)

I do find this fact very enlightening.

[Medusa]

Islam actually doesn't dig images of any human beings. It's to prevent idol worship. It's actually something I like. The idea that God isn't some white dude with blue eyes being represented across the globe makes me happy. I bet for believers it's a closer feeling to their god. You sorta are forced to deal with god as what it is, an omnipotent being. As opposed to a Santa Clause god. You won't be mistakenly adding human attributes to it. Know what I mean?

I could be off. But that's the gist I got.

[anunitu]

I can dig it Sister Dragon mistress...

[Heka]

Islam actually doesn't dig images of any human beings. It's to prevent idol worship. It's actually something I like. The idea that God isn't some white dude with blue eyes being represented across the globe makes me happy. I bet for believers it's a closer feeling to their god. You sorta are forced to deal with god as what it is, an omnipotent being. As opposed to a Santa Clause god. You won't be mistakenly adding human attributes to it. Know what I mean?

I could be off. But that's the gist I got.

^^this. Love it.

[Juniper]

This isn't exactly Islam related but it's the only Abrahamic that thread active and it sorta applies; I stopped saying "bless you" when people sneezed and instead say "Gesundheit" because I don't feel it's my place to 'bless' people. And I'm German, so there.

[anunitu]

Interesting Juni,I never thought of the "bless you" as being kind of taken a place of being a person to bless..as I remember it being said as a kid,it was God bless you.

Anyway good point. If I remember the story,you say the bless you,because people thought sneezing could allow a person to be invaded by an evil spirit.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is an explanation on "Bless you" (http://www.snopes.com/language/phrases/blessyou.asp)

[Medusa]

I say Satan bless you. I honestly do.

[Heka]

I say Satan bless you. I honestly do.

😂😂😋 i love it. I'd give rep for this but I'm on the stupid app.

[anunitu]

Done Heka.but cause it is duce,you have to do Negative rep to show. I did your Rep for you..

[MaskedOne]

There are indeed different levels of heaven and hell, but all human beings end up in either one of them. You may be talking about what's known as Al A'raf (The Heights, or The Elevations) which is a place between heaven and hell where people whose good deeds are equal to their bad deeds go to, to be judged by God. The Qur'an talks about them in a Surah which has the same name.

So the Qur'an tells us about these people who are right between heaven and hell, which in the end are entered into heaven because of God's mercy. We also learn they are people whom those who entered hell have claimed that God will never show them mercy, so God turns to those people in hell and asks, aren't those the people whom you swore would not receive my mercy? And then he enters them into heaven.

So basically, we should never make a claim about whom God will enter heaven and who he won't. I'm sure we all know people who others have judged and claimed they'd never be worthy of heaven or God's mercy. So we should never make that mistake, lest we end up like those people in hell.

Here are the ayat from the Qur'an:

Soooo.....

If I ever end up in hell and feel a need to limit the amount of incoming company then I should start condemning people as loudly as I can in the hope that Allah shows them all mercy to spite me?

Can I exploit this feature while I'm still living? Preferably without eating a lightning bolt?


No. I'm not being particularly serious. If nothing else, I'm pretty sure that Allah will catch on to what I'm doing and return the favor in practical jokes (or large objects applied to my head, depending on his mood at the time). I just find the idea amusing.

[anunitu]

So,Mask is this kind of an Orange one move to limit the immigrant incoming to your own private Hell?...And who is tapping your phone?

[Heka]

Done Heka.but cause it is duce,you have to do Negative rep to show. I did your Rep for you..

Haha yeah I have been around long enough to know about Duce's negative rep lol. And thanks :)

[Chessa]

Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain duce's negative rep?

[anunitu]

Long story,you might ask Juni or Thal..

[MaskedOne]

Not to derail the thread, but can someone explain duce's negative rep?

Medusa enjoys being infamous so the admins keep her rep arbitrarily low. Barring an act of mod, it would take a concerted effort by all senior members +ing every post she has to have a hope of getting her in the green. You aren't likely to find anyone who naturally gets a rep that low because being adequately offensive is more likely to end in a ban.

[Heka]

Medusa enjoys being infamous so the admins keep her rep arbitrarily low. Barring an act of mod, it would take a concerted effort by all senior members +ing every post she has to have a hope of getting her in the green. You aren't likely to find anyone who naturally gets a rep that low because being adequately offensive is more likely to end in a ban.

So if you like something, you neg it, not pos it.

[Medusa]

My neg rep also serves a purpose of the forum. When trolls come to visit, they tend to hit up the 'evil' poster and show what a badass they are. I'm just bait for Mo.:=I:

[anunitu]

That,and ya know Duce looks really good in Red...

[MaskedOne]

So if you like something, you neg it, not pos it.

The best way to express an opinion when repping Medusa is to make a comment when you give rep. Some people + good things with her, others - good things. Just add a comment. Either way, no one will have an actual significant effect on her rep (it's -99 million and lots of change).


My neg rep also serves a purpose of the forum. When trolls come to visit, they tend to hit up the 'evil' poster and show what a badass they are. I'm just bait for Mo.:=I:

:cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu:

[Heka]

The best way to express an opinion when repping Medusa is to make a comment when you give rep. Some people + good things with her, others - good things. Just add a comment. Either way, no one will have an actual significant effect on her rep (it's -99 million and lots of change).

:cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu::cthulhu:

Should give a comment for your rep all the time any way i reckon.

[anunitu]

I left a comment to Duce that it was from you through me.

[Heka]

I left a comment to Duce that it was from you through me.

Haha thank you mi' desr

[Dumuzi]

My question is about any image of Mohamed not being allowed,and why this is a part of the Muslim belief?


Pictures of all prophets and messengers of God, including Jesus and Moses, peace be upon them, are not allowed in Islam because it creates a type of idolatry. As soon as people start giving these images religious value or higher status, they have taken the first step into associating creations with the creator, which is the biggest mistake you can do in Islam.

Evidence for this are plenty in the real world and history, for example, Christians lighting candles in front of a picture of Mary, or keeping pictures of saints with you for protection and so on.

Edit: What Medusa said is also very accurate.

- - - Updated - - -


Soooo.....

If I ever end up in hell and feel a need to limit the amount of incoming company then I should start condemning people as loudly as I can in the hope that Allah shows them all mercy to spite me?

Can I exploit this feature while I'm still living? Preferably without eating a lightning bolt?


No. I'm not being particularly serious. If nothing else, I'm pretty sure that Allah will catch on to what I'm doing and return the favor in practical jokes (or large objects applied to my head, depending on his mood at the time). I just find the idea amusing.

Judgement is over after one is already in hell or heaven. And yes, saying that so and so will never receive the mercy of God is something very bad to do, it's a sure way to earn negative points. But God doesn't just give those people mercy to spite others.

Of course, if you just want something you don't have to wait till after judgement or go through 'loop holes', you can just ask God straight for it. Even Satan, according to the Qur'an, went to God asking to postpone his punishment, cause he realized and knew God is his master, and God answered his prayer.

I just think, and who am I to say really, if you're going to ask for something anyways, and it's the extra room you want, wouldn't it be nicer to get a sweet place in heaven where options are a bit more than in hell? ;-) Just sayin, all you have to do is ask, and you shall receive, God willing.

[MaskedOne]

Was pretty sure that wouldn't work out well. It just seemed like a funny picture to have souls in hell deciding to try and get people still living assured passage into heaven by collectively condemning said individuals at the top of their lungs. It's also possible my sense of humor is warped...

[anunitu]

Warped.....well perhaps just a little...I myself "Might" have warped into a new dimension....

[Dumuzi]

Was pretty sure that wouldn't work out well. It just seemed like a funny picture to have souls in hell deciding to try and get people still living assured passage into heaven by collectively condemning said individuals at the top of their lungs. It's also possible my sense of humor is warped...

It is a quite interesting idea to say the least! :D

[B. de Corbin]

I want to apologize in advance for this - this is not my belief at all - but I have just been reading a bunch of junk by the likes of Mike Flynn et al., claiming that Islam is not a religion, that it is actually a political movement using religion as a mask.

How would you respond to something like this?

example, from Pat Robertson:


ROBERTSON: The question would be, ladies and gentlemen, if a million Christians want to go to Saudi Arabia and say, "We want to pray," you can't pray in Saudi Arabia. You can't have religious literature in Saudi Arabia. You can't get together in Bible study groups in Saudi Arabia. As far as having special places for foot-washing and all that, no way. You will abide by Sharia law because they're in control.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law. In the Quran, it says it very clearly. There are two spheres. One is the Dar al-Harb, which is the realm of war. The other is Dar al-Islam, which is that part that's under submission to Islam. There is no middle ground. You're either at war or you're under submission. Now, that's the way they think.

Now, sure, over here, you've got Islam light and you've got all these various things, but the idea is we don't want just accommodation, we want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth. That's Saudi Arabia. We don't want that here in America. If they don't like it here in America, then let them go to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to Yemen, to all those wonderful nations around the Middle East.

[Juniper]

Isn't that what the Crusaders did with Christianity?

[anunitu]

Seems like this interaction between these two Abrahamic branches has been raging for a VERY long time. I suppose one should also include Judaic belief also. It is Ironic that these 3 seem to follow the same deity,but can not come to an understanding about how this worship should be handled.

Just my reasoning that religion can at times be one of the worst aspects of human interaction.(and this is just my considered opinion)

[B. de Corbin]

Isn't that what the Crusaders did with Christianity?

That's bad.

But I can be worse - isn't it one religion trying to control the laws and behavior of their population by claiming to maintain a set of laws and behavior based on a holy book than to claim that some other religion is trying to control laws and behavior of their population by forcing set of laws and behavior based on a holy book.

(How's that for a linguistic mobeus strip?)

[Dumuzi]

I want to apologize in advance for this - this is not my belief at all - but I have just been reading a bunch of junk by the likes of Mike Flynn et al., claiming that Islam is not a religion, that it is actually a political movement using religion as a mask.

How would you respond to something like this?

example, from Pat Robertson:

Don't apologize! It's actually a very important topic that comes up a lot. So it has to be addressed. Now, there are many ways to answer this, and I'm not sure where to begin, so I'll just try to choose one way for answering this, but if you want me to focus more on other specifics I didn't directly address, please let me know!


The question would be, ladies and gentlemen, if a million Christians want to go to Saudi Arabia and say, "We want to pray," you can't pray in Saudi Arabia. You can't have religious literature in Saudi Arabia. You can't get together in Bible study groups in Saudi Arabia. As far as having special places for foot-washing and all that, no way. You will abide by Sharia law because they're in control.

The argument here is as follows, Saudi Arabia does X, therefor Muslims are (or Islam is) X.

The simplest way to answer this is to point out that the House of Saud formed Saudi Arabia in 1938, that's when this country was formed. Islam came about 1400 years before that.

And while he's right that Christians would face problems praying in Saudi Arabia, he's forgetting 2 important points:

1. Muhammad, the messenger of God, allowed his Christian visitors (The Najran Christians) to stay in his mosque and pray inside. As in, not only did he allow Christians to pray, they did it inside his own mosque! Here's a translation from a Sirah (biography) book:

"Ibn Ishaq said, "Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Az-Zubayr said that, `The (Najran) delegation came to the Messenger of Allah in Al-Madinah, entered his Masjid (Mosque) wearing robes and garments, after the Prophet had prayed the `Asr prayer. They accompanied a caravan of camels led by Bani Al-Harith bin Ka`b. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah who saw them said that they never saw a delegation like them after that. When their worship time came, they stood up to perform their worship in the Prophet’s Masjid. Messenger of Allah said: “Let them (worship)” and they prayed towards east."

2. Muslim nations across the globe are full of places of worship for non Muslims. Egypt has a lot of historic and beautiful churches. Actually, the Egyptian Pope used to live in exile, because the Roman Church persecuted and killed Egyptian Christians, it wasn't until the Muslims defeated the Romans in Egypt, that he was told to come back because it was safe now for him.

Also, in other countries like Afghanistan and Iran, things weren't always the way they are now. And I'm not speaking about ancient history, I'm talking about the 50's and the 60's. In Afghanistan universities were filled with women. Pat Robertson should really criticize his own government instead of Islam for how things changed there. During the cold war, his government decided to collect lunatics from around the globe to fight the soviets for them (see Rambo III for some laughs). When the war ended, those lunatics destroyed Afghanistan. In Iran they had a functioning democracy after revolting against the Shah. America directly interfered to bring that dictator back and catapult Iran to what it is today. So maybe Pat Robertson should have a word with his government officials for turning these countries into what they are today.


In the Quran, it says it very clearly. There are two spheres. One is the Dar al-Harb, which is the realm of war. The other is Dar al-Islam, which is that part that's under submission to Islam. There is no middle ground. You're either at war or you're under submission. Now, that's the way they think.

The burden of proof is upon him. Where exactly does the Qur'an say there are only two spheres? It's either a mistake out of ignorance or a lie. The Qur'an is very clear about matters of religious freedom and on how to treat non Muslims. There are many examples for these two topics but I'll mention two of them, that I think everyone should learn so you know how to answer and refute these people.

And if your Lord had willed, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? [10:99]

In other words, if God wanted to, he could have made all mankind believers, if that was his goal or will. Do YOU then want to force people to become believers against their will? Who do you think you are!

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. [60:8]

This is the clearest statement on how a Muslim should treat a non Muslim, who's not waging war against him, nor driving him out of his home. I would like to point out that the Arabic word translated as kindness here, is used in another place in the Qur'an in regards to how one should treat their parents. In other words, Allah has chosen the same word for kindness in how we should treat parents and how we should treat non Muslims. This puts an emphasis and elevates the treatment of non Muslims, and how important it is.


Now, sure, over here, you've got Islam light and you've got all these various things, but the idea is we don't want just accommodation, we want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth. That's Saudi Arabia. We don't want that here in America. If they don't like it here in America, then let them go to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to Yemen, to all those wonderful nations around the Middle East.

Quick replies. Something that will scare Pat Robertson is that most of the American laws are already in agreement with Islamic law. Dun Dun Dunnn! I should point out that there is no book called Shariah Law where Muslims get their rules, rather it is the laws and rules that can be derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah of the messenger of God. So you'll find many different opinions across the different schools of thought.

Women dressed in Burqas. As far as I know, only in Afghanistan do they have this law. In Iran and Saudi Arabia they also have a dress code for the head covering. No other country has this! And speaking of women and Muslims...

What is the biggest Muslim country in the world? (since we wanna talk about examples) It's Indonesia. About 220 million Muslims. They had a female President. Last time I checked Pat Robinson never had a woman as a president.

Maybe it's an exception? What's the second biggest Muslim country in the world? Pakistan. About 175 million Muslims. They had a female Prime Minister. Twice!

Exception? What's the third biggest Muslim country? Bangladesh. About 125 million Muslims. They also had a woman as President. So looks to me that most of the Muslim world has no issue with electing a woman to be the leader of the country, pretty cool if you ask me.

Anyways, I tried to cover all the points mentioned, but like I said in the beginning, if there's some area you want me to focus on, just let me know. Hope that helped!

[Heka]

Thought, and this applies to all Abrahamic traditions - all the holy books have bits that can be taken out to mean "we are a lovely religion and we love you" and bits that can be taken out to mean "smite him". I have not read any holy book in full (im young, give me time) but i figure there would be a balance, and people just like to pull out the bits relevant to them.

[B. de Corbin]

Thanks! Excellent response.

I've known enough to know these guys are wrong, but I haven't known enough to have a good reply.

Know I do. ;)

[Constantine]

How do Muslim's generally view the era of the Crusades? Is it still held as a point of contention in some circles? Is it viewed as being Christendom's fault? Just curious.

[Dumuzi]

How do Muslim's generally view the era of the Crusades? Is it still held as a point of contention in some circles? Is it viewed as being Christendom's fault? Just curious.

This is more of historical question than it is religious. The way a Muslim would study these events really depends on where they went to school. So a Canadian Muslim might have a different view than a Brazilian, Australian or Chinese Muslim, know what I mean?

So the following answer is just my own experience which does NOT represent the views of all Muslims, it's just a personal answer from me, that has nothing to do with Islam as a religion and more to do with my own, lots of times flawed, understanding of certain historic events.

The Crusades are viewed as the European rulers' attempt to invade and exploit the rich lands of the Arabs, misusing and misrepresenting Christianity to gain support from their people against the 'Infidel' Arabs. It's similar to what would later happen to South and Central America by the invading Europeans.

Mostly, it's used as criticism of Europe at the time, politically speaking, and has less to do with Christianity as a religion. It is also worth mentioning that Salahudeen (Saladin) is held in very high regard among Muslim as a historical figure.

On a lighter note...

An old Egyptian movie about him can give you an idea on how we view these events, if you have 2 hours to kill :D But it has less to do with history and more to do with how the audience feels and thinks about the issues brought up when talking about the Crusades.


https://youtu.be/QUtmvv1F8OA?t=17s

It has English subtitles.

[anunitu]

i find this compelling and wish D was here to speak on it

i think D would have understood my interest.


https://youtu.be/B5YzQcoY4QE

- - - Updated - - -

i find this compelling and wish D was here to speak on it

i think D would have understood my interest.


https://youtu.be/B5YzQcoY4QE

- - - Updated - - -

not sure how i got two youtube links in here

- - - Updated - - -

mask could you fix it?

[Tawny]

[post deleted my user]