Want to convert but...

Schuhart

I find this thread seems to end a little in the air, with a yawning gap in the middle that people are not rushing to fill. I think its possible to advance a little further to the point.

Indeed, only the Arabic version of the Quran is authoritative and there is no ‘official’ English translation. However, the three translations available on islamonline.net (an accepted source of reasonable Islamic material) all substantially agree on this point.

Surah (An-Nisaa’ (Women))Ayah Number 34
Yusuf Ali's Translation ….., (And last) beat them (lightly); ….
Pickthal's Translation ….. and scourge them…..
Shakir's Translation …… and beat them…...

Also, illustrating that this is the generally accepted understanding, there’s plenty of scholarly advice out there explaining that this is not giving husbands carte blanche to hit their wives as the mood takes them. But they don’t really dispute that this passage means exactly what it says on the tin. This scholarly advice goes into enough detail to tell us that early commentators said beating should only be done with a miswak, suggesting early commentators were pretty clear that beating was on the agenda.

Those advices usually go on to explain that a miswak is a ‘tooth stick’, I guess in the hope of conjuring up an image of someone hitting you with a toothbrush. However, a miswak would be more on the scale of a cane – as might be used by teachers in schools up to recent times. There’s a picture of someone selling miswak here, to give people an idea of what those scholars seemed to have in mind.

Hence, this depiction of the term being hard to translate is less than convincing. Its more a case that as society has moved on the need to find some way of fudging the meaning has become more acute – hence this suggestion that the traditional understanding can now be overturned. If the text can be so vastly misunderstood by generations of Islamic scholars, one might wonder at the point of regarding the Quran as perfect if its meaning is so elusive.

(I’d also frankly wonder at reading a modern meaning into the word ‘separate’ – but tbh I don’t think we even have to go there as the traditional sense of the verse seems clear).

What seems reasonably clear is that the Quran is extremely advanced for its time. According to the Quran, Meccans were in the habit of leaving their unwanted baby daughters to die. Telling them that they could only hit their wives for a substantial reason after clear warnings was, I don’t doubt, a massive advance in its day. But the only thing that seems to require us to pretend the Quran says something different is because this statement is now just plain embarrassing.

We might well pose a supplementary question of ‘Why bother trying to pretend scriptures said that all along, when we can see they didn’t?’. The only working answer is people like religions and want to bring them along for the journey. The question that follows from that – why people want to bring religion along on the journey - is what keeps our post count in the atheism forum steaming along.

the_new_mr

That last post was in breach of rule #3 of the forum charter Schuhart. Be careful with that sort of thing in the future.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

I find this thread seems to end a little in the air, with a yawning gap in the middle that people are not rushing to fill. I think its possible to advance a little further to the point.

Indeed, only the Arabic version of the Quran is authoritative and there is no ‘official’ English translation. However, the three translations available on islamonline.net (an accepted source of reasonable Islamic material) all substantially agree on this point.

Surah (An-Nisaa’ (Women))Ayah Number 34
Yusuf Ali's Translation ….., (And last) beat them (lightly); ….
Pickthal's Translation ….. and scourge them…..
Shakir's Translation …… and beat them…...

Also, illustrating that this is the generally accepted understanding, there’s plenty of scholarly advice out there explaining that this is not giving husbands carte blanche to hit their wives as the mood takes them. But they don’t really dispute that this passage means exactly what it says on the tin. This scholarly advice goes into enough detail to tell us that early commentators said beating should only be done with a miswak, suggesting early commentators were pretty clear that beating was on the agenda.

Those advices usually go on to explain that a miswak is a ‘tooth stick’, I guess in the hope of conjuring up an image of someone hitting you with a toothbrush. However, a miswak would be more on the scale of a cane – as might be used by teachers in schools up to recent times. There’s a picture of someone selling miswak here, to give people an idea of what those scholars seemed to have in mind.

Hence, this depiction of the term being hard to translate is less than convincing. Its more a case that as society has moved on the need to find some way of fudging the meaning has become more acute – hence this suggestion that the traditional understanding can now be overturned. If the text can be so vastly misunderstood by generations of Islamic scholars, one might wonder at the point of regarding the Quran as perfect if its meaning is so elusive.

(I’d also frankly wonder at reading a modern meaning into the word ‘separate’ – but tbh I don’t think we even have to go there as the traditional sense of the verse seems clear).

What seems reasonably clear is that the Quran is extremely advanced for its time. According to the Quran, Meccans were in the habit of leaving their unwanted baby daughters to die. Telling them that they could only hit their wives for a substantial reason after clear warnings was, I don’t doubt, a massive advance in its day. But the only thing that seems to require us to pretend the Quran says something different is because this statement is now just plain embarrassing.

In actual fact Schuhart it is not embarrassing at all.
My earlier post indicated one translation of the verse..that being to separate, and that post also said 'Islam does not condone beating women...and the link to scholarly advice you gave also reiterates the exact same thing.

IslamOnline.net wrote:

This verse neither permits violence nor condones it.

In fact I want to thank you for posting that link ( i don't know how to insert the link as you did so I'll post it here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016760&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FPrintAskAboutIslamE

I would encourage anyone who wonders about the verse to read it.

I felt this explains succinctly the position behind the translation of 'beat lightly' and I am not embarrassed in the least. I also think either of the translations is valid as the word has various meanings.

the_new_mr

Normar wrote:

But by name the Qu'ran and Allah does mention Wine.....

Medina has already pointed out the difference between worldly wine and wine of the hereafter in her post. Please re-read it. You should try and be open minded about something like this. If you don't believe in an after-life then that's another story but there's no point arguing about the different kinds of wine if you don't. The main thing that should concern you is that Muslims believe that the wine on earth is different to the wine in the after-life. I don't really see the point in you arguing against this.

And to address the point of the translation of the word:

Now I have already pointed out that I believe it to be separate and not beat.

But, even if it were to mean beat (and please note that I'm stressing the if here), it is certainly only to be lightly. You should know that the picture of the miswak that Schuhart linked to has the man holding a bag of big sticks which are cut down to be miswaks like the ones he's holding in his left hand. Really no bigger than a toothbrush and not dense at all. You couldn't hurt someone with one of these even if you wanted to.

And finally, as I have already said, I do believe the word's proper translation to be separate and not beat. Incorrect translations have happened in the past. Once again, please allow me to be lazy and quote myself from a previous post.

the_new_mr wrote:

Let me give you an example of how scholars had it one way for ages before changing their interpretation after new evidence became apparent to them.

In Surat Al-'Alaq, verses 13 to 16, which read as follows according to Yusuf Ali:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?; Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?; Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,- ; A lying, sinful forelock!"

Now, we can see here the word forelock. This was the word translated from the arabic word nasaya by both Ali and Pickthal.

dictionary.com defines forelock as follows.

dictionary.com wrote:

A lock of hair that grows from or falls on the forehead, especially the part of a horse's mane that falls forward between the ears.

Now, the correct meaning of the word nasaya is actually forehead (or front of the head) and not forelock. However, it appears that both Ali and Pickthal thought to themselves that since the forehead is attached to the forelock then God meant that they would be dragged by their forelock since that made more sense to them at the time with the information they had available to them at that time (Ali and Pickthal are relatively old translations).

Recent discoveries in science have shown that the part of the brain responsible for controlling whether one's actions will be good or bad, whether they will perform good deeds or bad deeds and whether or not they will tell the truth or lie is the frontal part of the brain (another of the scientific miracles in the Quran). Looking at verse 16 again with this knowledge, we should see:
A lying, sinful forehead!

So, the word nasaya meaning forehead was all along the most accurate meaning. When you think about it, God would have no bother pulling someone by their forehead instead of their forelock since He is, after all, God and is able to do all things.

Both Shakir and Asad use the word forehead instead of forelock. Verses 13-16 according to Shakir:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Have you considered if he gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back?; Does he not know that Allah does see?; Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead,; A lying, sinful forehead."

There is no question now that the most apparent correct meaning at this time is forehead and not forelock.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote: »

And finally, as I have already said, I do believe the word's proper translation to be separate and not beat. Incorrect translations have happened in the past. Once again, please allow me to be lazy and quote myself from a previous post.

I find it a bit disturbing that there are so many mistakes over incorrect or "different" translations of the Quran.

Surly the maker of the heavens and the earth could have transmitted his words in a clear way, which was not open to misinterpretation only a few hundred years later ???

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote: »

That last post was in breach of rule #3 of the forum charter Schuhart. Be careful with that sort of thing in the future.

In fairness, I can appreciate that from your point of view a link to the ‘Eight I Really Rather You Didn’ts’ (or possibly any Flying Spaghetti Monster link) is dismissive of religion in general. But I can presumably make the same essential point – that what we seem to see is religion changing and converging on what secular thought would suggest is correct morality, rather than secular thought converging on religious revelation. While satirical, I think the FSM material actually summarises that commonsense morality very well. But, in search of a more ponderous statement, so does the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

Medina wrote: »

My earlier post indicated one translation of the verse..that being to separate, and that post also said 'Islam does not condone beating women...and the link to scholarly advice you gave also reiterates the exact same thing.

What that advice actually says is

Islam actually prohibits men from hitting women, except in one very limited case when the wife is continuously rebellious and disobedient—not when she disobeys one request—and only as a last resort after all else fails.

So, indeed, that scholar does confirm that the verse permits beating – but under strict controls. It also says nothing about the word meaning ‘to separate’, so it doesn’t really confirm that contention. What the scholar actually says is

The Arabic verb daraba is better understood as “hit” rather than “beat”

by which he means that what is intended is a single light blow and not repeated heavy hitting. So, to be honest, I don’t find this ‘separate’ meaning convincing at all – other than as a technique to fudge the meaning of an otherwise clear verse. That said, I similarly would recommend people read that advice. He usefully puts the verse in the context of a conception of men and women having different roles.

.. in marriage, the man is named responsible for protecting, decision-making, and breadwinning; in return he has a right to have a quiet, orderly home and a loving wife to come home to who doesn’t make his life difficult with constant bad temper, nagging, or aggressive attitude.

The woman is named skilled homemaker, loving mother, and faithful counselor; in return she has a right to be provided for fully by a caring, faithful, protective husband who honors her and respects her individuality. Both should be equally supportive, loving, and caring. Both merit respect and support from their partner.

Least there be any misunderstanding, I’m not saying for a minute there’s anything wrong with someone freely choosing to hold to that conception. All I’m really saying is if someone asks if the Quran permits a husband, ultimately, to hit a disobedient wife as a form of discipline the answer is a fairly plain ‘yes’.

the_new_mr wrote: »

You should know that the picture of the miswak that Schuhart linked to has the man holding a bag of big sticks which are cut down to be miswaks like the ones he's holding in his left hand. Really no bigger than a toothbrush and not dense at all. You couldn't hurt someone with one of these even if you wanted to.

At which juncture we’d say ‘what’s the point, why have such a meaningless provision’. Bear in mind, I’m not making this up or putting some wild interpretation on the verse of my own making. I’m simply reporting what apparently reliable Islamic scholars say. tbh, this suggestion of the meaning being ‘separate’ seems to be the claim that needs proper corroboration, seeing as how none of the translations on islamonline.net support that reading. Is there any reasonable translation of the Quran in use by anyone that suggests that meaning?

DinoBot wrote: »

I find it a bit disturbing that there are so many mistakes over incorrect or "different" translations of the Quran.

It certainly provokes thought. I mean, if we take this suggestion that generations of Islamic scholars have been so wrong about this verse, how do we know (for the sake of argument) the Quran is calling on people to be modest? Maybe the translations to date are wrong, and its actually mandating free love. And before anyone says ‘that’s ridiculous’ consider how what seems to be a fact – that the Quran allows a wife to be chastised is limited circumstances – is now suggested by some to be totally wrong, and the verse means the couple should have a trial separation. Who’s to say a similar level of error is not embedded in other things that scholars have take for granted for centuaries?

the_new_mr

DinoBot wrote:

Surly the maker of the heavens and the earth could have transmitted his words in a clear way, which was not open to misinterpretation only a few hundred years later ???

The Creator of the heavens and the earth is Perfect. Humans are not.

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness, I can appreciate that from your point of view a link to the ‘Eight I Really Rather You Didn’ts’ (or possibly any Flying Spaghetti Monster link) is dismissive of religion in general. But I can presumably make the same essential point – that what we seem to see is religion changing and converging on what secular thought would suggest is correct morality, rather than secular thought converging on religious revelation. While satirical, I think the FSM material actually summarises that commonsense morality very well. But, in search of a more ponderous statement, so does the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

Sorry Schuhart, don't try to dress it up. If you think you could make your point with a link to the UN's human rights then I suggest you do that then in the future. The rule is there in black and white (or black and purple as the case may be) in the forum charter.

If you don't stick to it then you are in breach of the forum charter and if you are in breach of the forum charter then you leave moderators with no choice but to ban you. You bring interesting points to the conversation Schuhart so please don't put me in that position. I think everyone here can see that I'm fair but I can't be too much softer than I already am. Consider that a warning on your third ban which would, of course, become a permanent one. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Schuhart wrote:

Least there be any misunderstanding, I’m not saying for a minute there’s anything wrong with someone freely choosing to hold to that conception. All I’m really saying is if someone asks if the Quran permits a husband, ultimately, to hit a disobedient wife as a form of discipline the answer is a fairly plain ‘yes’.

Well, you can say that if you want but I think that at this stage we've already shown how the word "adriboo" can also mean separate and how it more readily fits in with other verses in the Quran and how the only justification are from a couple of hadith and how there are other hadith that talk against hitting wives.

It's important to remember that, as I've already said in this post, humans are imperfect. That's life really. Such a verse would most likely have been misinterpreted in the past when times were so different. There is the possibility that it was interpreted like that back then because that's how it was meant to be interpreted back then. That's just an idea though. And I recently read that the mention of the miswak actually belongs to Imam Shafie and not the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) but I don't have a reference for this now I'm afraid.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote: »

The Creator of the heavens and the earth is Perfect. Humans are not.

What a strange answer.

Are you saying that because humans are not perfect we are incapable of translating the word of god correctly ? The words that came from him to us.

So is Allah incapable of transmitting his word to us imperfect beings correctly ?


IMO our imperfections should not hinder a creator from communicating with us.
Unless this is one of the limits of Allah. Is it ?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote: »

Don't say I didn't warn you.

If you’d banned me yesterday I could not credibly say I hadn’t been warned many times, and I do know that I get a considerable amount of slack. If you strictly implemented the charter in relation to my posts I would have been banned long ago. If you ever feel it necessary to do it, you’ll find no complaint from me.

the_new_mr wrote: »

Well, you can say that if you want but I think that at this stage we've already shown how the word "adriboo" can also mean separate and how it more readily fits in with other verses in the Quran and how the only justification are from a couple of hadith and how there are other hadith that talk against hitting wives.

I’m not sure that catches the position. It’s not so much that I say this because I want. I’m simply stating the position as explained by scholars. They say that mild chastisement is permitted, but only where there is sustained disobedience by an unrepentant wife. I’ve even done a little digging to see if Dr. Jamal Badawi has commented on the matter (as any article of his I’ve read tend to have very gentle interpretations of scripture) and, when quoted here, he seems to follow the same essential line.

If the problem relates to the wife's behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.

(Note: Dr Badawi goes on to identify Hadiths that prohibit wife-beating – I’m just concentrating on this question of ‘separate’.)

This reading of ‘separate’ does not seem to be supported by any of the usual translations, or by qualified scholars. Hence, the balance of the situation is that on the one hand we have the accepted position of reputable scholars. On the other we have a meaning that does not seem to be supported by substantial expertise. In other contexts, we are warned against reading controversial verses in the Quran without necessary scholarly explanations.

the_new_mr wrote: »

Such a verse would most likely have been misinterpreted in the past when times were so different. .

Indeed, but does this not potentially undermine every interpretation of the Quran that conflicts with the UN Declaration on Human Rights?

the_new_mr wrote: »

I recently read that the mention of the miswak actually belongs to Imam Shafie and not the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) but I don't have a reference for this now I'm afraid.

I’d take that if the reference to miswak was in an authentic Hadith, it would have been cited in one of the opinions so I’m sure your recollection is right. However, the article I’ve linked to this post says

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided.

which provides further support for the view that this verse mandates mild chastisement after warnings, and has nothing to do with separation. It would hardly be meaningful to talk of a separation that doesn’t leave a mark and avoids the face.

Look, at the end of the day it’s defensible as a lifestyle choice if a couple opt for a relationship with these features. Many people freely choose to do things that are far more painful, including the acting out of submissive roles, simply in search of sensation.

I just don't like seeing a gap in the discussion with one side trying to make out that the Quran mandates wife beating and the other trying to make out it says nothing about chastising wives at all, when the facts of the matter seem to be readily available in reasonable articles by reputable scholars.

the_new_mr

DinoBot wrote:

What a strange answer.

Are you saying that because humans are not perfect we are incapable of translating the word of god correctly ? The words that came from him to us.

So is Allah incapable of transmitting his word to us imperfect beings correctly ?


IMO our imperfections should not hinder a creator from communicating with us.
Unless this is one of the limits of Allah. Is it ?

One of the reasons for living is that it's a test. A test to see how we will interpret the verses revealed to us from God. If God wanted all of humanity to "get it" without fail then that would happen but that's not what He wants. He wants us to use our brains and to try and make our best efforts to understand his verses.

Having said that, we are not always meant to completely understand everything revealed:

Al-Imran:7
"He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations--They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed."

Schuhart wrote:

If you’d banned me yesterday I could not credibly say I hadn’t been warned many times, and I do know that I get a considerable amount of slack. If you strictly implemented the charter in relation to my posts I would have been banned long ago. If you ever feel it necessary to do it, you’ll find no complaint from me.

As long as you're clear. Just be more aware of what you post. If it means re-reading the charter daily then I suggest you do that

As for your argument about separate. I see your point in that most scholars say that it's a mild chastisement and they could be right. All I'm saying is that it makes more sense to me that it's separate. I know it's a minority opinion but it's still my opinion. Only God knows what's really the truth and we ask for His guidance. And as has been said countless times by now, if it is hit then it's only lightly.

Schuhart wrote:

I just don't like seeing a gap in the discussion with one side trying to make out that the Quran mandates wife beating and the other trying to make out it says nothing about chastising wives at all, when the facts of the matter seem to be readily available in reasonable articles by reputable scholars.

I see your point and agree with you to a certain extent. However, although we should all look to the scholars with their wide range of knowledge for help in understanding, that's not to stop us using our own mind. I'm not really sure who first put forward the idea of separate but it's a fair argument but it seems that they've put a good amount of thought, effort and research into the subject. After all, what is a scholar but a man or woman who tends to know more than your average person?

May God guide us all to the truth.

normar

the_new_mr wrote: »

Medina has already pointed out the difference between worldly wine and wine of the hereafter in her post. Please re-read it. You should try and be open minded about something like this. The main thing that should concern you is that Muslims believe that the wine on earth is different to the wine in the after-life. I don't really see the point in you arguing against this.

I have re read what Medina has posted. And I have also re-read the relevant verse in the Qu'ran. There is no difference in the Qu'ran between "wordly wine" as you call it, and the "Heavenly wine", and to say that there is a difference is to ignore what the Qu'ran is actually saying .

This is what the Qu'ran says about wine. The only wine that humans know about and which is described as we would understand it.

Muhammad (47) 15
(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink;……

Al-Nahl (16) 67
And from the fruit of the date-palm and the vine, ye get out wholesome drink and food: behold, in this also is a sign for those who are wise.



Again I put it to all this is unequivocal. This is wine as we know it. And to deny this is wine which is being talked about, is to contradict human critical faculty. If wine is good in the "afterlife" then it is contradictory to say it is bad on earth.

the_new_mr wrote: »

The main thing that should concern you is that Muslims believe that the wine on earth is different to the wine in the "after-life"

There is absolutely no basis for this statement. Just because you believe it does not make it a reality. Just because millions believe still does not make it true. You have not one piece of empirical evidence for such a statement as this above. Beliefs are not facts. They are just that: beliefs.


It is a full contradiction to state that wine in heaven is good and wine on earth is bad. It is a contradiction similar to many utter contradictions in all revealed religions.

It remains for me this: humans beliveing in something they cannot possibly know. Sure they can "believe" but this is not knowing.


Normar

the_new_mr

I believe that for the translation of verse 67 of surat Al-Nahl, you selected the translation of Yusuf Ali. Although I like Ali's translations, I feel that Pictall and, even more so, Asad to be more accurate (especially after I read the Arabic text).

Al-Nahl:67 (Asad)
"And [We grant you nourishment] from the fruit of date-palms and vines: from it you derive intoxicants as well as wholesome sustenance -in this, behold, there is a message indeed for people who use their reason!"

Al-Nahl:67 (Pictall)
"And of the fruits of the date palm, and grapes, whence ye derive strong drink and (also) good nourishment. Lo! therein, is indeed a portent for people who have sense."

The footnote for Asad's translation reads as follows:

The term sakar (lit., "wine" or, generically, "intoxicants") is contrasted here with rizq hasan ("wholesome sustenance"), thus circumscribing both the positive and the negative properties and effects of alcohol. Although this surah was revealed about ten years before the Qur'anic prohibition of intoxicants in 5:90-91, there is no doubt that their moral condemnation is already implied in the above verse (Ibn `Abbas, as quoted by Tabari; also Razi).(Quran Ref: 16:67 )

So, we can see here that God is in fact contrasting the good with the bad.

As for your suggestion that the wine on earth is the same as that in heaven, I think that if we look more closely at verse 47 of As-Saffat and verse 19 of Al-Waqi'a, we can see that God is describing wine and highlighting the fact that the wine in heaven does not cause intoxication unlike the wine on earth (obviously a comparison with wine on earth).

As-Saffat:48
"Free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom"

Al-Waqi'a:19
"No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer intoxication: "

normar wrote:

There is absolutely no basis for this statement. Just because you believe it does not make it a reality. Just because millions believe still does not make it true. You have not one piece of empirical evidence for such a statement as this above. Beliefs are not facts. They are just that: beliefs.

I think you completely misunderstood me. What I meant was that this is what Muslims believe and it's really no skin off your nose.

Anyway, you're free to have your own opinion on the matter.

normar

the_new_mr wrote: »

I think you completely misunderstood me. What I meant was that this is what Muslims believe and it's really no skin off your nose.

Anyway, you're free to have your own opinion on the matter.

Thank you the_new_mr.

In a mature and democratic society people are free to believe what they wish. It is their right. They may become Muslims or Christians or any of many religions. But as to whether "it's really no skin off my nose" as you claim above well we must disagree there.

I watch the news and read the papers. I see what happens in the name of religious causes the world over. From the use of Downs Syndrome Women as proxies for suicide bomers in Iraq, to the position of the Catholic Church opposing the use of condoms in the battle against aids, to the incredible declarations from the Iranian president that there are no homesexuals in Iran.

So I see it as very much as "skin off my nose" what people believe in. I reserve the right to question and to comment on these beliefs.

..

Jrad

C_Breeze wrote: »

Dont bother converting and just live your chosen lifestyle

I agree, dont bother! Sounds hard!

the_new_mr

normar wrote: »

Thank you the_new_mr.

In a mature and democratic society people are free to believe what they wish. It is their right. They may become Muslims or Christians or any of many religions. But as to whether "it's really no skin off my nose" as you claim above well we must disagree there.

I watch the news and read the papers. I see what happens in the name of religious causes the world over. From the use of Downs Syndrome Women as proxies for suicide bomers in Iraq, to the position of the Catholic Church opposing the use of condoms in the battle against aids, to the incredible declarations from the Iranian president that there are no homesexuals in Iran.

So I see it as very much as "skin off my nose" what people believe in. I reserve the right to question and to comment on these beliefs.

..

Every statement you made in that post (with the exception of the statement of the president of Iran... of which I can make no statement due to my lack of knowledge of the true situation of homosexuals in Iran) has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. If you are pissed off at the idea that Downs Syndrome Women are being used as suicide bombers in Iraq then I assure that I am even more pissed off about it because not only is it an incredible injustice to these women, it's also being done in the name of Islam and giving Muslims a bad name.

Perhaps you can realise that I don't support such atrocious acts? What people do in the name of religion often has nothing to do with religion itself. Human history is filled with examples of people using religion to further their sinister goals. And it is also filled with examples of people furthering their sinister goals without the use of religion. I say that the problem is not religion. The problem is some people in the world who will use any excuse to perform their evil acts.

Kotek Besar

the_new_mr wrote: »

..Perhaps you can realise that I don't support such atrocious acts? What people do in the name of religion often has nothing to do with religion itself. Human history is filled with examples of people using religion to further their sinister goals. And it is also filled with examples of people furthering their sinister goals without the use of religion. I say that the problem is not religion. The problem is some people in the world who will use any excuse to perform their evil acts.

Hear hear.

wotisthere

Why dont you do us a favour and emigrate to eastern lands where you can join all your BROTHERS .Traitor !

St0n3d

C_Breeze wrote: »

Dont bother converting and just live your chosen lifestyle

Well said.

I use a wide varietys of religions to base my beliefs on , but at the end of the day, perception will always take the bigger part. What we experience in this life or the next and what we see and feel, change or views and opinions on a religion.

You are accepted with or without alcohol. Although if the religion is oblidged to be drug free or " Clutch" free. then i would take the first step and work on the drink.

To say you drink because your Irish is very stereotypical , but thats controversial with the fact that '"most" irish people drink because they want to or its out social methods. The need for drinking is the exact same as the need for nicotine, although im unaware of people giving up nicotine for a religion.. Why ? Because.. (i'm only gonna say this once) WE ARE IRISH, It is burnt into our brains when born, We are alcoholics , born breed through a society of Irish Drunks, led to believe its the thing to do..

Its typical brainwashing, I myself do not drink , but i have, I removed the need and want to drink by looking at it from a clear / non brainwashed brains point of view.

Believe me , iv seen the worst of alcohol , lost friends and family to it. If you really want to choose your new religion are your path in life, see alcohol for what is really is and take your path.. I wont even go into the bad effects it has on your body, mentally and otherwise, i dont need to. You know yourself.... SO why do it? Honestly. IM not critising, but look at it from a clear mind, One whos doesnt need alcohol to socialise, nor to have fun. Its brainwashing. Nothing more.

The actual buzz off alcohol is so slight to the whole in your wallet, mental health, confidence , appearance.. Must i say more?

irishconvert

Assalam Alaikum everyone,

Wow, I don't know what happened to this thread since I last checked in but it has turned into a load of off-topic bickering

Anyway, just a quick update, I took my Shahada today I am still on a high. The brothers in the mosque were very supportive, welcoming and helpful. I almost felt like a bit of a star with everyone shaking my hand and welcoming me!

As for the drinking I have not drank alcohol in 3 months and don't miss it much at all. Ok, it can be a bit difficult when I'm out with friends who drink but I am getting used to it. But overall I feel that my life has improved a lot becuase I am not drinking anymore. Another thing I have noticed is that I am getting back to the frame of mind I was in when I was younger before I ever touched a drop of alcohol. In a way I feel that alcohol stole some the person I was and now I'm getting it back. My eyes have also been opened to all the problems caused by drinking which I was blind to before.

St0n3d

Congratz.

Now get some sleep o.O

Hobbes

wotisthere wrote: »

Why dont you do us a favour and emigrate to eastern lands where you can join all your BROTHERS .Traitor !

Might I remind people to read the charter and understand the rules. Thanks.

Kotek Besar

irishconvert wrote: »

Assalam Alaikum everyone,

Wow, I don't know what happened to this thread since I last checked in but it has turned into a load of off-topic bickering

Anyway, just a quick update, I took my Shahada today I am still on a high. The brothers in the mosque were very supportive, welcoming and helpful. I almost felt like a bit of a star with everyone shaking my hand and welcoming me!

As for the drinking I have not drank alcohol in 3 months and don't miss it much at all. Ok, it can be a bit difficult when I'm out with friends who drink but I am getting used to it. But overall I feel that my life has improved a lot becuase I am not drinking anymore. Another thing I have noticed is that I am getting back to the frame of mind I was in when I was younger before I ever touched a drop of alcohol. In a way I feel that alcohol stole some the person I was and now I'm getting it back. My eyes have also been opened to all the problems caused by drinking which I was blind to before.

Wa'salam!

I'm so so happy for you mate! It's truly a wonderful thing what you've done. You will be showered in blessings now and all your sins have been wiped. Welcome to a clean slate!

Reading your very post increased my Iman. You did that mate, alhamdulillah.

I can't tell you how amazing this is. And what you say about the drink is also very true. Ah man, God bless you man. :):)

BuffyBot

Congratulations It's good to hear you've come to a desicion you're happy with!

Medina

irishconvert wrote: »

Assalam Alaikum everyone,

Wow, I don't know what happened to this thread since I last checked in but it has turned into a load of off-topic bickering

Anyway, just a quick update, I took my Shahada today I am still on a high. The brothers in the mosque were very supportive, welcoming and helpful. I almost felt like a bit of a star with everyone shaking my hand and welcoming me!

As for the drinking I have not drank alcohol in 3 months and don't miss it much at all. Ok, it can be a bit difficult when I'm out with friends who drink but I am getting used to it. But overall I feel that my life has improved a lot becuase I am not drinking anymore. Another thing I have noticed is that I am getting back to the frame of mind I was in when I was younger before I ever touched a drop of alcohol. In a way I feel that alcohol stole some the person I was and now I'm getting it back. My eyes have also been opened to all the problems caused by drinking which I was blind to before.

Salam Aleikum IrishConvert

SubhanAllah that is great, am so happy for you!!!
May Allah swt reward you and give you the best in this life and in the next.
You are as clean and pure as a new born child , so pray lots to Allah swt for your prayers may be most acceptable.
well done with the drinking, it takes a strong person to overcome it, and Allah swt loves those who strive for Him.

Walaikum salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

blackthorn

Wa alaikum assalam Irish,

Congratulations!

the_new_mr

irishconvert wrote: »

Assalam Alaikum everyone,

Wow, I don't know what happened to this thread since I last checked in but it has turned into a load of off-topic bickering

Anyway, just a quick update, I took my Shahada today I am still on a high. The brothers in the mosque were very supportive, welcoming and helpful. I almost felt like a bit of a star with everyone shaking my hand and welcoming me!

As for the drinking I have not drank alcohol in 3 months and don't miss it much at all. Ok, it can be a bit difficult when I'm out with friends who drink but I am getting used to it. But overall I feel that my life has improved a lot becuase I am not drinking anymore. Another thing I have noticed is that I am getting back to the frame of mind I was in when I was younger before I ever touched a drop of alcohol. In a way I feel that alcohol stole some the person I was and now I'm getting it back. My eyes have also been opened to all the problems caused by drinking which I was blind to before.

Wa Alaykom Al Salam!!!

Massive congratulations brother!! May Allah reward you in this life and the next and grant us all entry into the highest place in Paradise. Ameen.

I was very very very very happy to read your post. So sorry I'm so late. Better late than never though, right?

And well done on giving up the drink. It'll please you to know (if you don't already know) that God really loves it when you give up something you love for His sake. Masha Allah (it is as God wills it).

Congrats again!

Hero Of College

Why does Isslamm receive these converts with such gusto, after all, Jesus and Moses are prophets in the eyes of the Koran, and both preached:

1. I am the Lord Your God, Who Brought You Out Of The Lands of Egypt, Do Not Place Other Gods Before Me.

NOW....assuming that Islam reveres Moses as a Prophet, and Moses gave this commandment, and CHristians who convert {revert, whatever:rolleyes:} in fact break this commandment, then how does Islam regard these converts? As trustworthy? Afterall, those who have strayed once will stray again, no??

How does Islam reconcile this breach of faith and trust by the convert with its own Reverence of Jesus and Moses, given that the Convert has gone against the word of those held in high esteem by Islam?

Or is it a convenience of modern life that the convert is welcomed in, merely to bolster the flock???

Hero Of College

benifa wrote: »

Wa'salam!

I'm so so happy for you mate! It's truly a wonderful thing what you've done. You will be showered in blessings now and all your sins have been wiped. Welcome to a clean slate!

Reading your very post increased my Iman. You did that mate, alhamdulillah.

I can't tell you how amazing this is. And what you say about the drink is also very true. Ah man, God bless you man. :):)

So is my slate dirty? Given that I have not converted?? SHould I too convert to save myself??

Kotek Besar

Hero Of College wrote: »

So is my slate dirty? Given that I have not converted?? SHould I too convert to save myself??

Yes.

Hero Of College

benifa wrote: »

Yes.

Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.

24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god: for they said, Our god hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, which slew many of us.


25 And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison house; and he made them sport: and they set him between the pillars.


26 And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon them.


27 Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.


28 And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.


29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.


30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.


31 Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the buryingplace of Manoah his father. And he judged Israel twenty years.



Even as a Sinner Samson was respected by the Lord, and the Lord did not forsake him, and Samson did great violence unto the Phillistine. There is no compulsion in Religion, and he who believeth shall be saved.