Understanding Islam for Dummies

masadjie

Good illustration to understand what Islam is. I don't know who create this, but I have read it and it seem helpful to be first jump start to know about Islam. And since it is illustrated as a comic I believe it will interesting for many to read.

masadjie

AhSureTisGrand

To be honest the guy with the sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other looks utterly badass and I would join any such religion at the drop of a hat

Recon

So the Quran is "the exact words of god".....even all the stuff about killing people who don't belief in that god?

masadjie

Recon wrote: »

So the Quran is "the exact words of god".....even all the stuff about killing people who don't belief in that god?

I am pretty sure you never read Qur'an. There is no one verse in Qur'an which allow killing people who don't believe in God.

hivizman

masadjie wrote: »

I am pretty sure you never read Qur'an. There is no one verse in Qur'an which allow killing people who don't believe in God.

Really? What about Surat at-Tawbah 9:5? In the Sahih International translation, this reads: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Recon

It is true that I have not read the quran from cover to cover but I have read parts or it. And like the bible I find it funny when either a muslim or a christian tries to explain away the incredible amount of violence and intolerance in their "holy" books. Whether it be against gays, women, non-believers, there is a lot of hatred in those two books.

All of the examples of violence from these books that I have below are copied and pasted from various sites but I've checked them in my own copy of the relevant book. And you're welcome to too of course.

Quran
killing non-believers
4.89 :
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

anti-women: 1 man is worth 2 women
2:282
"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"

if a women doesn't do as her husband says...beat her
4:34
Men are the managers of women, because of the advantage Allah has granted some of them over others, and by virtue of their spending out of their wealth. So righteous women are obedient, care-taking in the absence [of their husbands] of what Allah has enjoined [them] to guard. As for those [wives] whose misconduct you fear, [first] advise them, and [if ineffective] keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them. Then if they obey you, do not seek any course [of action] against them. Indeed Allah is all-exalted, all-great.

Bible
getting a bit bored now but there are a number of passages in the bible saying to kill gays, stone unruly children, beat or women

Both of these books are touted as being "the word of god" in one form or another...

hivizman

Recon wrote: »

Quran
killing non-believers
4.89 :
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

To be fair to the Qur'an, this verse needs to be read in context. Here is the passage from Surat al-Nisaa 4:88-90, using the Shakir translation:

What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.[88]
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.[89]
Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.[90]

The specific context for this is the period of conflict between Muhammad and the Muslims of Madinah, on the one hand, and the remaining polytheists of Makkah, on the other, from around 622 to 630CE. The passage tells the Muslims that they can fight the polytheists in self-defence - verse 4:90 dilutes the impact of verse 4:89, read on its own, considerably.

The verse I quoted earlier from Surat al-Tawbah is commonly attributed to the period after the Muslims entered Makkah around 630CE, when recalcitrant tribes were given the chance of accepting Islam, but if they didn't, they were to be regarded as enemies. Some commentators claim that the impact of the verse relates only to this situation, and is not a general call for Muslims to kill polytheists. On the other hand, the verse has been used by jihadists as a general justification for attacks on non-Muslims.

masadjie

hivizman wrote: »

Really? What about Surat at-Tawbah 9:5? In the Sahih International translation, this reads: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

As far as I understood there is a history (Asbabun Nuzul) before Allah sent down the verse to prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in At Tawbah : 5. The verse is related to Threaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muslim and Musyrikin (Quraish) Mecca which should be valid for 10 years. The war is happen because Musyrikin does not keep the promise to obey the treaty.

The description about Treaty of Hudaybiyyah can be found in wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

So my point is : Islam does not allow killing people without reason. In this verse (At Tawbah : 5) Allah allow Muslim to fight and kill Musyrikin (Quraish and his ally) because they have breach the treaty,

CMIIW

Recon

hivizman wrote: »

To be fair to the Qur'an, this verse needs to be read in context. Here is the passage from Surat al-Nisaa 4:88-90, using the Shakir translation:



The specific context for this is the period of conflict between Muhammad and the Muslims of Madinah, on the one hand, and the remaining polytheists of Makkah, on the other, from around 622 to 630CE. The passage tells the Muslims that they can fight the polytheists in self-defence - verse 4:90 dilutes the impact of verse 4:89, read on its own, considerably.

The verse I quoted earlier from Surat al-Tawbah is commonly attributed to the period after the Muslims entered Makkah around 630CE, when recalcitrant tribes were given the chance of accepting Islam, but if they didn't, they were to be regarded as enemies. Some commentators claim that the impact of the verse relates only to this situation, and is not a general call for Muslims to kill polytheists. On the other hand, the verse has been used by jihadists as a general justification for attacks on non-Muslims.

So you're saving that it all makes perfect sense to kill the non-believers if you've first given them a chance to convert to believing in your invisible man in the sky, and they choice not to?.... Sounds very peaceful.

EDIT: during a time of war or not. I can't see how a religion that claims to be peaceful can follow the teachings in a book saying that if a tribe (s) doesn't convert to their religion they should die.........

masadjie

Recon wrote: »

EDIT: during a time of war or not. I can't see how a religion that claims to be peaceful can follow the teachings in a book saying that if a tribe (s) doesn't convert to their religion they should die.........

I think you misunderstood what the verses said.
[4:88] actually provides guidance to the Muslims to unite and face the hypocrites.

[4:89] "... but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them ..."
It means that if a hypocrite turn back after become a muslim it is allowed to kill them. That is because hypocrite is very dangerous especially for Islam.

So considering above verses (4:88-89), in general, Islam does not allows killing people except they are hypocrites, i.e pretending to coverts to be a Muslim but actually he is not. He just want to do something bad to Islam religion. And then after he finished he turn back from Islam to his previous faith.

philologos

The last two slides on the second picture are very questionable. Many other faiths including Judaism and Christianity refer to these things quite clearly and can be referred to as ways of living.

I find the method of justification in Islam quite different to that of Christianity. One has to work to earn God's forgiveness and love. I find that Christianity differs in that God loves us even when we are sinners, God loved us so much that He came through His Son Jesus to save the world, and to guide them to glorify God in this world as a result of praise and thankfulness for His death and resurrection.

Recon

masadjie wrote: »

I think you misunderstood what the verses said.
[4:88] actually provides guidance to the Muslims to unite and face the hypocrites.

[4:89] "... but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them ..."
It means that if a hypocrite turn back after become a muslim it is allowed to kill them. That is because hypocrite is very dangerous especially for Islam.

So considering above verses (4:88-89), in general, Islam does not allows killing people except they are hypocrites, i.e pretending to coverts to be a Muslim but actually he is not. He just want to do something bad to Islam religion. And then after he finished he turn back from Islam to his previous faith.

Oh right, that makes complete sense and sounds completely non-violent and peaceful altogether, silly me for being mistaken.... [/sarcasm]

The book is still telling people to kill other people because of their beliefs.

roonimirza

Guys not sure, how serious you are about this topic on understanding Islam but simply, Islam is all what you can do good for humanity .. and common sense is most closed to Islamic laws.. any how..there is no point in debate..unless we start from really beginning.. and define..is Islam simply a religion.. how West understands it or is it more than that.. and a complete set of guidelines to live your life..Again.. only if you really interested in this topic..then recommend you to have read..http://www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/ICR/ICR.htm.. and if not..plenty of other exciting stuff out there to do..but one thing.. I dont wanna leave you short with.. then if you have any questions.. which are disturbing you.. do get those answers..but just have read before..as we be unable to understand.. if we start in the middle.. all the best

Mark Hamill

masadjie wrote: »

[4:89] "... but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them ..."
It means that if a hypocrite turn back after become a muslim it is allowed to kill them. That is because hypocrite is very dangerous especially for Islam.

So this quote supports the notion that apostates from islam should be killed?
Edit: aren't people who convert to islam from other religions called "reverts"? Does this not imply that everyone who is not muslim is a hypocrite and therefore should be killed?

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

Really? What about Surat at-Tawbah 9:5? In the Sahih International translation, this reads: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

"There is no compulsion in Islam (Qur'an, 2:256)" :rolleyes:

masadjie

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So this quote supports the notion that apostates from islam should be killed?

But the right to carry out the punishment, solely in the hands "aliyul amri" (government with Islamic Law), not in the hands of individuals. Thus the social security / safety was not compromised, the atmosphere of crisis can be stemmed, and we can not let any person acting as a judge for that case 'apostates'.

That's is what I understand from that verse [4:89]. Remember that Islam is "Rahmatan Lil 'Alamin", means blessing for the whole world and its content, as we believe that Islam is the religion of blessing for all mankind.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Mark Hamill

masadjie wrote: »

But the right to carry out the punishment, solely in the hands "aliyul amri" (government with Islamic Law), not in the hands of individuals. Thus the social security / safety was not compromised, the atmosphere of crisis can be stemmed, and we can not let any person acting as a judge for that case 'apostates'.

So yes then?

masadjie wrote: »

That's is what I understand from that verse [4:89]. Remember that Islam is "Rahmatan Lil 'Alamin", means blessing for the whole world and its content, as we believe that Islam is the religion of blessing for all mankind.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Its an odd kind of blessing that requires you to kill people who disagree with it.

masadjie

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So yes then?

The short answer is : No.
Explanation:
As I wrote in previous post

masadjie wrote: »

So considering above verses (4:88-89), in general, Islam does not allows killing people except they are hypocrites, i.e pretending to coverts to be a Muslim but actually he is not. He just want to do something bad to Islam religion.

In addition:
The death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple acts of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) never killed anyone solely for apostasy. This being the case, the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy and sedition. [Arkan Huquq al-Insan fi l-Islam (Bases of Human Rights in Islam), Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li-l-Malayin, 1979, cited in Kamali]

You can find more detail explanation about this in this link.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its an odd kind of blessing that requires you to kill people who disagree with it.

I didn't say that. I don't think there is any religion which allows to do something as you said above.

I know there are many propaganda out of there which makes some people misunderstanding to Islam. But actually as I said before Islam is Rahmatan Lil 'Alamin.

Mark Hamill

masadjie wrote: »

In addition:
The death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple acts of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) never killed anyone solely for apostasy. This being the case, the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy and sedition. [Arkan Huquq al-Insan fi l-Islam (Bases of Human Rights in Islam), Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li-l-Malayin, 1979, cited in Kamali]

You can find more detail explanation about this in this link.

Ah, Ok, I understand now, the crime is treason, not apostasy. In the past they where seen as linked, but thats not necessarily the case now. As your link shows though, this is a distinction lost on many Islamic scholars even today.

Donatello

A major problem for Islam is that there is no central and authoritative body to interpret the Koran and which is universally accepted by all Muslims. Some Muslims are moderates and do not sanction violence. But others do, and they accuse the moderates of being not Islamic enough. So it goes that the most powerful and aggressive groups of believers seize power and enforce their variety of Islam on everyone else in an Islamic State. They can use the Koran to justify their behaviour, and indeed can implement, using the Koran, Sharia Law, crushing all those who oppose. Thus it will always be that the most powerful and violent Islamic groups will seize power.

I don't see any way around this for the Muslim religion.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

A major problem for Islam is that there is no central and authoritative body to interpret the Koran and which is universally accepted by all Muslims. Some Muslims are moderates and do not sanction violence. But others do, and they accuse the moderates of being not Islamic enough. So it goes that the most powerful and aggressive groups of believers seize power and enforce their variety of Islam on everyone else in an Islamic State. They can use the Koran to justify their behaviour, and indeed can implement, using the Koran, Sharia Law, crushing all those who oppose. Thus it will always be that the most powerful and violent Islamic groups will seize power.

I don't see any way around this for the Muslim religion.

There's no central and authoritative body to interpret the Bible that is universally accepted by all Christians. Seems to me to be a much more general problem

Donatello

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

There's no central and authoritative body to interpret the Bible that is universally accepted by all Christians. Seems to me to be a much more general problem

For Catholics, there is, and the divine mandate is to gather all into the Catholic Church. That's the way the Lord willed it. Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

For Catholics, there is, and the divine mandate is to gather all into the Catholic Church. That's the way the Lord willed it. Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

Thing is the all other churches think they're right, just as all the imams think they're right

Donatello

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Thing is the all other churches think they're right, just as all the imams think they're right

The Catholic Church has a lot more going for it than any mere denomination.

If you would like to explore this topic further, the following site is good:
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church has a lot more going for it than any mere denomination.

If you would like to explore this topic further, the following site is good:
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/

Your response boils down to, "But we're actually right!" All the others think the same thing

philologos

To bring this back on topic. The pictures are interesting if not a little two slanted towards the Islamic perspective, do you have any more OP?

masadjie

AhSureTisGrand

masadjie wrote: »

One is wearing a mini-skirt and revealing top and the other wears a hijab... How would people look at each of them? Who would be more respected and who has more chance to be molested?

Probably best left out in future that bit :L

philologos

It also assumes that men are the only ones who lust.

donaghs

A comic is an interesting method of communicating the message. Especially considering the aversion of many Muslims to the depiction of living beings!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

Mark Hamill

There is a lot of odd assertions in the hijab comic:
1) Women are less likely to ogle than men Really?
2) Why is wearing mens clothes humiliating? If it was, why would women choose to do it?
3) On the two girls going shopping... well respect is an odd thing, its actually a bit subjective. You could say that miniskirt girl is being respected for her body but not her mind and hijab girl is being respected for her mind (in reality, I would imagine that she would receive indifference from men, not respect, but never mind) but neither woman is receiving respect for both. Some people like being respected for their physical looks (they put a lot of effort into them).
4) Its a bit odd to say the hijab offers you freedoms when it is a strict rule (if not a law) that you have to wear it. If a woman has a right to maintain her modesty, then she has the right not to.
5) The answer to the last question is the extent of covering up is what people have a problem with. To westerners it seems overkill and we wonder at why you cant just wear simple long skirts and covering tops if you want to be modest. (personally I have no problem with the hijab, I dont think it really crosses the line into overkill territory, although I do think the burka does).

oceanclub

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Probably best left out in future that bit :L

Frankly, it's a ridiculous assertion based on the stats for female harrassment in, say, Egypt.

P.

Jaafa

philologos wrote: »

It also assumes that men are the only ones who lust.

Both men and women are required to lower their gaze when possible and act modestly.

philologos

Jaafa wrote: »

Both men and women are required to lower their gaze when possible and act modestly.

Yes, but the cartoon suggests this.

The rules of clothing for men and women are different because women are less likely to ogle men than the other way around.

Jaafa

philologos wrote: »

Yes, but the cartoon suggests this.

Yes I agree that is incorrect. And their are a few other things in it I don't agree with,but I think overall its accurate.

click_here!!!

Western women don't go around nearly naked all of the time. I think that this is an exaggeration.

It depends on the weather, where the woman is going, and so on.

I like these comics though. They seem informative, although a bit biased.