Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The great big "Ask about Islam" thread
Comments
-
first of, no 12 year old can be married in the states, 15 in a very rare case with the permission of a judge.
"The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. Common law marriage is not recognized."
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-
By definition a Pedophile is "a person who is sexually attracted to children" or an exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent childreSecondly you missed the crux of my question. also I do not use the term pedophile as an insult, it is simply a descriptive term for someone that has sex with children which you freely admit Mo did.
Muhammed was not sexually attracted to children nor did he marry Aisha for such purpose review my answer ~
His first marriage was to a widowed women 15 years older then him, review my answer ~Also "child bride" is a larger problem in muslim countries, probably stems from the head honcho having a penchant for the young and the whole massive disparity with female education! Also it's worth noting Mo was 53 when having sex with a 9yo so his later marriage to mostly widowed women is hardly surprising bearing what age he would have then been!
After the answer I gave what exactly is your problem with this?I shall try to be clearer, the facts are Mo married a 6 yo girl
I was detailing the life and customs 1400 years ago during a 7th century and put Muhammad(pbuh) marriage to Aisha in the context of the time ~now I appreciate you shall engage in mental gymnastics to present this as normal
Review my answer as you seem to have not read it probably, you continue to compare a 9 year old living 1400 years ago with a 9 year old now, and I have explicitly discussed how Aisha is not a child by today definition of a Child and or that 1400 years ago, she herself have said: ‘When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty).’ (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109) indicating that she considered her self a fully mature and capable women even at what appears to be such a young age.as I will freely admit it was different times but could the messenger of God not have said sex with children is wrong?
Non of Muhammed (pbuh) morals are different from what you might deem acceptable and normal in fact he had the highest and most perfect morals any human might wish to archive. Your whole point was based on his marriage to Aisha and as I explained this is not an issue of morality.and if his morals were so different to today
Can you point out a teaching of Muhammad or Islam which you consider to be outdated?then how can you base your life on a outdated book?
The issue of wife beating was address in the thread "Women rights in Islam" am going to post the answer given here for you to discuss further.like beating your wife?
The questioner asked:
Replay:Also the Koran gives the man the right to beat his wife as has been agreed on and another thread here. Islam is deeply misogynistic there is little doubt.
End Quote...Defender Of Faith wrote: »This issue is usually taken out of context as shown by you, but when you take this verse into context and exploring the wisdom of the ruling behind it, it actually provide a solution for you when dealing with domestic violence.
- Domestic violence: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/islamic-solution-to-end-domestic-violence_b_1307305.html
But taking a look at the empty context you gave with giving any qualification by saying "Islam premit you to beat your wife" we can see a contradiction when compared to the actual teachings of Islam and that of the prophet.
He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?”, In another narration: ‘Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbors. And I command you to take good care of the women.’ Prophet Muhammad explicitly admonished Muslims, "Do not beat your wives." He led by example and never struck his wives, therefore demonstrating in word and in deed that Muslim men cannot harm women for any reason.
On the light of the above an alternative more valid interpretation to the word "idriboo" due to the complexity of the Arabic language and taking the context of the verse into account is "to separate, to part" rather then "Hit them lightly"*
*http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html0 -
Due to bringing up the Issue of slavery and Islam I though It's better to write a stand alone answer for this, which again I apologize for its length as the Issue of slavery & Islam cannot be answered in 1 word sentence
Now am not sure if your simply stating a point by implying "Islam permit slavery" or trying to demonize Islam by saying it does either way you need to understand a couple of points:Sex with your slaves etc? Are parts of the Holy book outdated in your opinion?
Islam started in 610 A.C slavery had long existed before hand, it wasn't Until 1865 that it was abolished in the US and as late as 1970 in the middle east.
Slavery it self was endemic in the Arab society and the whole world in general, there is no specific date that charts the beginning of slavery but without a doubt that it had begun thousands of years before Islam. When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need. There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.
Should Islam or any other system have sought to stop the institute of slavery all at once it would lead to universal anarchy and disturbance in which both masters and slaves would suffer. The masters' loss is clear, and as for the slaves they would find themselves without anyone to take care of their needs, unaccustomed to independence and self reliance they would in most cases seek to satisfy their needs through criminal assaults and extortion. Crimes of all sorts would spread widely, society would suffer incurably and there would be no more peace or security.'
In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Islam actively encourage the freedom of slaves and it was the first religion to do so, and it gave immense rewards for freeing slaves.The prophet freed 63 slaves his wife Aisha freed 67 and keep in mind that the prophet was living a very poor and humble life to the point were he sometimes was found wrapping a stone around his stomach from hunger.In total, his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves, one of the prophet closest companions was a slave whom he freed and adopted before adoption was abolished later.
The Hadeeth which states the blessing and rewards for freeing slaves are numerous a whole chapter on Sahih Muslim and Bukhari* are dedicated for them.
*http://www.searchtruth.com/book_disp...6&translator=1
The Qur’an teaches that freeing the salves is a great virtue (90:13). One of the expenditures of zakah (obligatory charity) is to spend the money for the freedom of the slaves (9:60). It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.
"And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them" 24:33
He Prophet (S) also ordered for slaves to not be forced into having sexual intercourse:
"Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)"
Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free.
Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
Slaves felt humiliated at being called slaves. He advised his companions not to say "my slave" or "my slave-girl" but to say, "my son" or "my daughter." He also told the slaves not to call their masters "lord" for Allah alone was the Lord. He was so kind to slaves that his last admonition before he died was, "Fear Allah in regard to your slaves." Abu Dharr (ra) was one of the converts and Muhammad (saw) praised him for his honesty. Once he abused a non-Arab slave, who complained to the Noble Prophet (saw) about this.
He reprimanded Abu Dharr (ra) and said, "You still have some traces of Days of Ignorance; these slaves are your brothers. Allah has given you authority over them; if they are not suited to your temperament, sell them. Don't harm Allah's creatures. Give them to eat what you eat; and to wear what you wear. Don't give them that much work which they cannot do. If you assign a piece of work to them which is beyond their capacity, then give them a helping hand to finish their work."
Once Abu Masud Ansari (companion) was beating his slave when he heard a voice behind him say, "Abu Masud! Allah has more power and control over you than you have over this slave." Abu Masud (ra) turned and saw that it was Allah's Messenger (saw). He said, "O Allah's Messenger! I free this slave for the pleasure of Allah." Prophet Muhammad (saw) replied, "If you had not done so, the fire of Hell would have touched you." When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (companion) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore. One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: ‘What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants?’ Then he called the servants and they ate with them.
In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibly of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property as was the norm. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.
But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.
Source on Islam & slavery:
http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/shariah-based-systems/imamate-and-political-systems/175038-status-of-slave-women-in-islam.html?Political_Systems=
http://www.beautifulislam.net/prophethood/muhammad_mercy.htm#slaves
http://islamqa.info/en/948400 -
I cried when I was in Abu Dhabi in my youth. A girl of 15 was being flogged .
She had been married since the age of 7 to a man 60 years older than herself and was caught 'having contact' with a gardener.
Also many girls were imported from Pakistan for Nikah Mu'tah.
As for slavery in modern day arab countries... let's not go there.
I left as soon as I could in 1981. I couldn't justify living there, for no money, or 'wonderful' lifestyle. My parents came back a couple of years later.0 -
I cannot help but sympathize with you my friend & I understand how you felt at the time nor do I doubt your words, however please do not judge or form an opinion about Islam based on the actions of some individuals or certain situations, but rather question whether such acts follow the spirit of Islam & the ruling regarding them and we will answer as in all honesty I cannot think of a modern Muslim country that fully implement and follow the spirit of Islam today.yellowlabrador wrote: »I cried when I was in Abu Dhabi in my youth. A girl of 15 was being flogged .
She had been married since the age of 7 to a man 60 years older than herself and was caught 'having contact' with a gardener.
Also many girls were imported from Pakistan for Nikah Mu'tah.
As for slavery in modern day arab countries... let's not go there.
I left as soon as I could in 1981. I couldn't justify living there, for no money, or 'wonderful' lifestyle. My parents came back a couple of years later.
Your question regarding the pictures I left for the other brothers who might be able to answer in a more wiser approach, nor did I live in the middle east during such time to comment. But I can tell you that such policy no longer apply.0 -
I appreciate you taking the time to reply in a polite manner, still it's just brainwashed excuses for child rape (it's a 52 year old riding a 9 year old, and evolution has not changed what a 9 year old is radically over the short time period of 1400 years!) excusing hitting your wife lightly or raping slave wives of people you killed in war! but of course it's all good because they are set free after (wtf) it truly is a terrible religion :-(0
-
Advertisement
-
I have replied giving authentic sources and references to the period in question, & have proved the falseness of your statements or rather corrected your question. Excuse me for coming out of my way and calling you the only individual who is mislead here by having this taint image of Muhammad(pbuh) drawn in your head and refusing to change it even when the truth is presented since it fiercely challenge the character you believed Muhammad(pbuh) be.I appreciate you taking the time to reply in a polite manner, still it's just brainwashed excuses for child rape (it's a 52 year old riding a 9 year old, and evolution has not changed what a 9 year old is radically over the short time period of 1400 years!)
You have not challanged or refuted any thing I have said, if anything I do not think you have taken the time to seriously read and reflect upon what I wrote, but most of your statement thus far came from your own subjective sentiment and have not been backed up with any evidence or proof. However I do appreciate your presence as you have raised questions on a number of important issues.
I have given my replay and proven what you have said is false, we are not giving excuses here we are putting matters you taken out of contexts, into contexts and perspective. You are free to stick with your own opinion even when proven false, however if you wish to advocate it please back it up or at least refute what I have said, since this is a question-answer thread, I invite you to open another thread to continue the discussion if you wish.excusing hitting your wife lightly or raping slave wives of people you killed in war! but of course it's all good because they are set free after (wtf) it truly is a terrible religion :-(0 -
Defender of Faith,
Do you have anything else to do but put long and rambling posts up here ?0 -
This is an "Ask about Islam" thread, if you wish to ask a question feel free to do so my friend. I have taken the time out to provide answers regarding some controversial issues concerning Islam and only 2 posts so far you can describe as being "long" as by their very nature they cannot be answer in a yes or no manner.from_atozinc wrote: »Defender of Faith,
Do you have anything else to do but put long and rambling posts up here ?
It takes one sentence to ask a question but sometimes an essay to answer.0 -
from_atozinc wrote: »Defender of Faith,
Do you have anything else to do but put long and rambling posts up here ?
Take a month off for trolling.
0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »I cannot help but sympathize with you my friend & I understand how you felt at the time nor do I doubt your words, however please do not judge or form an opinion about Islam based on the actions of some individuals or certain situations, but rather question whether such acts follow the spirit of Islam & the ruling regarding them and we will answer as in all honesty I cannot think of a modern Muslim country that fully implement and follow the spirit of Islam today.
Your question regarding the pictures I left for the other brothers who might be able to answer in a more wiser approach, nor did I live in the middle east during such time to comment. But I can tell you that such policy no longer apply.
Funny how in all the major faiths that it is always the individual that is wrong and never the faith.
And this very week a young man is being flogged for his blog. What was his offence again ?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I've read through most of this thread and it's an interesting read, so thanks to all contributors. I have a couple of questions that I've been wondering about and this is what the thread is for I guess.
1. Why is portraying Mumammed in an image blasphemous and portraying Jesus in an image is not? Is it because Muhammed is the most holy prophet to Muslims, and Jesus is an ordinary level prophet to you, or is there a different reason such as something in the Koran?
2. Most of the views I've seen expressed by the Muslims in here point to the more moderate (or less angry I guess) side of Islam. Why is it that most of the Muslim countries seem to tend more to the extreme side do you think? I know that here in the west we hear mostly of the bad side of things, but it seems like there are very few Muslim countries where the general rules of society are in line with the understanding, peaceful and compassionate side of Islam rather than the side that uses rules to control people. Is this something that can be put down to individuals wanting power and using religion to control the population (much like the Catholic church would have done in Ireland to an extent in the not so distant past) where the vocal minority rule the silent majority, or in a lot of the middle eastern / north african countries do most of the population support some of the stricter interpretations?
3. The likes of Malaysia/Morocco/Indonesia seem to me (with little knowledge admittedly) to be some of the less extreme Muslim majority countries. Even in these places though, what is the view of other religions and freedom to worship who/what you want? There is the old cliché of 'death to the infidel!' sometimes, but what are the attitudes of people in the above, or even most, Muslim countries to Christians/Hindus/whatever? Is freedom to worship (or not as the case may be) something that most Muslims would like as a principle in any country or is there a belief that there is only one true religion and people should all be Muslims?
4. In some of the more moderate Islam countries are things like alcohol legal (outside of hotels for foreigners)?
I probably had some more semi linked questions to the above but I think the above is a start. My knowledge is very low as you can see and hopefully none of the questions are disrespectful or anything. I personally was raised Catholic but I don't have any religious belief now although I'm still interested in knowing about other cultures and beliefs.
Thanks in advance for any replies.0 -
I'll add my non-Muslim point of view to some of your questions.1. Why is portraying Mumammed in an image blasphemous and portraying Jesus in an image is not? Is it because Muhammed is the most holy prophet to Muslims, and Jesus is an ordinary level prophet to you, or is there a different reason such as something in the Koran?
Idolatry of any form is forbidden in Islam. You go into a mosque and the walls are bare, aside from perhaps some Arabic decoration. Simplicity is the order of the day. While I do not agree with the hysterical reaction to depiction of the Prophet, in my limited western knowledge, I can actually see how Muslims would get offended.2. Most of the views I've seen expressed by the Muslims in here point to the more moderate (or less angry I guess) side of Islam. Why is it that most of the Muslim countries seem to tend more to the extreme side do you think? I know that here in the west we hear mostly of the bad side of things, but it seems like there are very few Muslim countries where the general rules of society are in line with the understanding, peaceful and compassionate side of Islam rather than the side that uses rules to control people. Is this something that can be put down to individuals wanting power and using religion to control the population (much like the Catholic church would have done in Ireland to an extent in the not so distant past) where the vocal minority rule the silent majority, or in a lot of the middle eastern / north african countries do most of the population support some of the stricter interpretations?
I would say it is more two other reasons - single-minded determination to be right (and to make sure that the world knows that you are right) and western media's quest for a soundbyte ("Oh look, here's some semi-literate tribal elder saying women driving makes them infertile. That'll do"). I made a post in the "Women in Islam" thread about the cultural factors, and how, in my opinion, Middle Eastern countries are still essentially developing nations and with that, you have associated levels of education. From that, you have what we in the west would describe as more antiquated views on various societal issues.3. The likes of Malaysia/Morocco/Indonesia seem to me (with little knowledge admittedly) to be some of the less extreme Muslim majority countries. Even in these places though, what is the view of other religions and freedom to worship who/what you want? There is the old cliché of 'death to the infidel!' sometimes, but what are the attitudes of people in the above, or even most, Muslim countries to Christians/Hindus/whatever? Is freedom to worship (or not as the case may be) something that most Muslims would like as a principle in any country or is there a belief that there is only one true religion and people should all be Muslims?
Again, I can only speak from my perspective, but where I live in the Middle East, I will be going to a Catholic communion ceremony in a few weeks time. I didn't quite make it to mass on Christmas day (which both myself and my colleagues at work had off). So in some Muslim countries, there are restrictions on worship, some there are none.4. In some of the more moderate Islam countries are things like alcohol legal (outside of hotels for foreigners)?
Put it this way, tomorrow on the way home from work, I will be nipping in to grab a bottle (or two) of wine for dinner. At the weekend, I will no doubt be picking up my Rudds rashers and sausages for the fry-up. So yes, in the Middle East, there are places outside of hotels that you can pick up pork and booze. (as a side note- a while back I made a post about the only thing I couldn't get here was Clonakilty black pudding. Imagine my surprise to walk into my local supermarket and seeing Clonakilty on the shelf)
In summary, we always hear in western media of the loonies. We never hear about the Muslim man who gets up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, has the dinner with the kids, puts them to bed and gets up the next day to do it all over again. My wife was telling me that a Muslim colleague of hers was quite upset at the whole issue in France, that woman was utterly disgusted at the thought of westerners thinking that all Muslims thought like the perpetrators.0 -
so this is now a Fatwah in Saudi Arabia, would that apply to children in Europe?
This is the kind of mentality I remember. I was there when the first tv programs started and the anger. I feel that there must be a lot of alienation going on.0 -
I am not sure what evidence did he use to support his fatawa but he pretty much contradicted him self when he said:yellowlabrador wrote: »
so this is now a Fatwah in Saudi Arabia, would that apply to children in Europe?
This is the kind of mentality I remember. I was there when the first tv programs started and the anger. I feel that there must be a lot of alienation going on.
"as part of an ongoing effort to stop the influence of Western culture. Sheikh Munajjid argued that to create an image of a human being is considered sinful under the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and only lifeless things, such as ships, fruit and buildings can be imitated"
I think we can all agree that a snowman is a lifeless object,I guess I understand the sentiment of people who accuse parts of the Islamic world for being backward, when issues such as "Whether a Snow-women/man" are argued about.0 -
I am not sure whether these gangs decided to name themselves Islamic or it's a term coined by the newspapers and Media, but taking both assumptions the definition of the word "Gang" it self contradicts all the teachings of Islam & coining a Gang "Islamic" simply because of it's belief, appears to be very deceptive, but we are use to this now as every time a crime is committed by a Muslim reports are read "Muslim rapist"/"Muslim terrorist"/"Muslim rob banks"/"Muslim hit women"...Q1. CHOIRBOY TYPE ISSUES: Whilst we're all aware of the reports last year of Islamic gangs in the Leeds area with 'very widespread' crimes against young teenage white girls. Do your religious/community leaders have the same level of problems with the whole you know 'priest & choirboy' issues - as per the RC Church does/did. Think the pope chap recently stated about 5% of priests partaked in some level of unsavory or inappropriate behavior 'of sorts'. There was also some recent news reports of the transfer of herpes through certain 'more orthodox' Jewish baptismal practices which sound fairly unpleasant, seems it's an small but universal issue across all organised religions...
As for your question, no I have not heard or known about a Muslim Imam or who is well versed in his religion & knows the strict Sharia punishment that comes with such a crime committing such acts, however the problem we have is different, the problem we might face is that an Imam may appear knowledgeable and pious hence attracting a large following and uses his platform to promote his own "Version of Islam"
Many Imams & scholars are arrested in the Middle east, especially in Egypt due to their ideology that contradict that which the state wants, so our problem is based on the radicals leaders that prey on people ignorance to push his ideology rather then the issue you mentioned.
While this may relate to the second question you asked, "Spiritual healers" that claim to heal black magic and witchcraft are sometimes known to abuse their female clients with the promise of finding a cure & are a problem to people to know whether such a person is genuine or not. Such people will use the guise of religion to promote themselves appearing to the public as pious and humble while in reality they are far away from it.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »"as part of an ongoing effort to stop the influence of Western culture. Sheikh Munajjid argued that to create an image of a human being is considered sinful under the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and only lifeless things, such as ships, fruit and buildings can be imitated"
I think we can all agree that a snowman is a lifeless object,I guess I understand the sentiment of people who accuse parts of the Islamic world for being backward, when issues such as "Whether a Snow-women/man" are argued about.
It is a lifeless object but it's an imitation of a living object because its shape represents that of a real human(or camel).0 -
Only seeing this thread now.
My question is for ladies that wear a headscarf or a burqa, when is it ok not to wear it? Obviously women do not wear a burqa when they are around the house with their immediate families but what happens when a male friend of the family pops into the house? Or a distant family member?0 -
Think you've hit the nail on the head here, all religions, belief systems and even cults (e.g. Scientology) seem to follow a 'written book of useful, historical, moral teachings and parables' as such. And these books of concept, are all subject to high variance in both individual or even group/mass interpretation.
These 'books' can be difficult to 'scientifically classify' to others (of alternative or sub-systems) as 'pure entire, factual data' or as more correct over another work of written theology. All rely upon the concept of 'faith' as evidence of their truth. These systems also generally classify any other alternative ideology as false, incorrect and untrue. Most agree they are all (each) useful for 'development of a moral foundation in day-to-day life' all the same. However, they must all also carry responsibility for fruits of their internal conflicts, historic or any future acts of war they may support.
...Thus no religion, is no better (or worse) {in principle} than any other.
The best bet would be to consider (and discuss) the basic concepts of each and every system, to hold a full deck of cards to play with, rather than just the single one.
Perhaps mankind's only real hope from self-extermination - is further enlightenment from more established, intelligent, sentiment life forms (from the billions of available and habitable planets in the multi-verse) to provide further knowledge, at some future time.0 -
A similar question was asked earlier in the thread so allow me to quote & post the answers given:Defender of Faith, I've got a few questions for you that might be going a bit off topic.- What is your opinion on Sharia Law?
- a) Would you be strongly against it? Why? -OR-
- b) Would you advocate for it's implementation in Westernized countries like that in Europe and the US? Why?
- If implemented, would you adhere to it's strictness and want it enforced as such [i.e. Sharia Police]? Should non-Muslims adhere to it in certain areas? Why?
The Questioner asked:
The answer 1:Would you support Ireland adopting sharia law?
Answer 2[edited]:confusedquark wrote: »You can't enforce sharia law on a non-Muslim population. It just wouldn't work.
As to your question, Sharia law on its own wont make sense without implementing the complete Sharia & it's the implementation of the whole Sharia implemented by Muhammad(pbuh) and the Rashiden Caliphs that followed his suit, that I believe will bring a benefit to humanity, unfortunately the Muslims today however are very very far from this.Defender OF Faith wrote: »I think there are aspects of Sharia that would bring benefits to Ireland, such as Financial and economics laws of Sharia. It's under Sharia as well that when a thief steal due to his poverty and starvation he would not be punished but rather it's the ruler that takes responsibility for not providing his citizens with the bare minimum standard of life that would prevent him from such theft.
This is based on the actions of Umar -2nd Caliph-When the Islamic state was stricken by famine, Caliph Umar suspended the Hadd punishment being applied to theft.
Hatib ibn Abu Baltt’ah’s-A companion- servants stole a camel that belonged to a tribe. On learning that they were guilty of the charges, Caliph Umar ordered them to be punished.
However Umar stopped the enforcement of the punishment upon learning that their master kept them hungry. In fact, he punished their master, imposing a fine on him equivalent of the price of two camels.
Most people when they think of Sharia they think of the punishment aspect of Sharia but these represent less then 1% of what Sharia actually is. "Social welfare, freedom, human dignity and human relationships are among the higher objectives of Shariah"*.
"It also is wrong to associate and restrict Shariah only to the punitive laws of Islam. The fact is that Shariah is all-embracing and encompasses personal as well as collective spheres in daily living. Shariah includes the entire sweep of life: Prayers, charity, fasting, pilgrimage, morality, economic endeavors, political conduct and social behavior, including caring for one’s parents and neighbors, and maintaining kinship.Shariah’s goal is to protect and promote basic human rights, including faith, life, family, property and intellect. Islam has, in fact, adopted two courses for the preservation of these five indispensables: the first is through cultivating religious consciousness in the human soul and the awakening of human awareness through moral education; the second is by inflicting deterrent punishment, which is the basis of the Islamic criminal system. Other major bodies of religious law in the world, including the Canon Law used by the Catholic church, contain both legal outlines of responsibilities and codes for punishing misbehavior"*
*http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/dispelling-myths-about-islamic-law-shariah-explained/
Sources: http://www.internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/Islamic-Banking-Profit-Fairness.html
http://www.faithinallah.org/justice-and-fairness-for-all-in-islam/0 -
Advertisement
-
are you the guys with that "ask about islam" stand at the gpo in dublin btw?0
-
Wurzelbert wrote: »are you the guys with that "ask about islam" stand at the gpo in dublin btw?
I actually have no idea what that is, so that would be a no.
0 -
How come a lot of the followers of different religions are so competitive . Never to happy when their god is not numero uno.
Does Islam have anything to say about competitive deities ?0 -
-
Islam is said to be tolerant of other religions[...]
can someone point me to the surah(s) where the quran would clearly and unconditionally allow christians to live in peace and equality in muslim lands? all i can find is for "nonbelievers" to either convert, die or be subdued and pay...like in 9:29 for example...where exactly does the word of allah call for or even just allow truly peaceful coexistence of mulims and nonbelievers?0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »can someone point me to the surah(s) where the quran would clearly and unconditionally allow christians to live in peace and equality in muslim lands? all i can find is for "nonbelievers" to either convert, die or be subdued and pay...like in 9:29 for example...where exactly does the word of allah call for or even just allow truly peaceful coexistence of mulims and nonbelievers?
I think it’s better to address the twisted and false interpretation of the verse you presented first, as regardless of the number of verses I give you this verse will always be picked up over and over again.
I would like to give the historical context behind this verse and the situation during it was revealed in but since you appear to be only interested in what the verse says, I will cite an article that goes through the issue for those interested:
http://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/
Verse 9:29 of Surah at-tauba is probably the intentionally most misinterpreted verse of the Quran. This is what it says: –
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, 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.” 9:29 [Yusuf Ali interpretation for others http://quran.com/9/29]
I totally understand you when you say that this verse promotes violence on a cursory glance. But if you read it carefully you’ll find that it doesn't.
The verse says “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”.
My question to you my friend, does this verse stop here? No it doesn't. It continues and gives the actual reason as to the fighting. This is the continuation: – “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.
We can see therefore that paying Jizya is the condition for fighting. This statement is totally ignored or overlooked when levying the allegation of violence on Muslims.
This verse doesn’t ask the Muslims to do mindless slaughter as you might imagine. It gives the Muslims the permission to fight only those non-Muslims who do not pay jizya – the state tax. And we all know that jizya is applicable only in an Islamic state. Neither India, nor US or Britain are Islamic states.
It’s important to note that the verse does not ask the Muslims to do forced convert anyone.The verse permits the Muslims to fight the non –Muslims in an Islamic state ONLY and ONLY if they refuse to pay the jizya – Willingly . Re-read the verse from ANY translation if you are not sure. But once they pay the jizya tax they can continue to believe in their atheistic pagan beliefs, but it will be under an Islamic state. You can still forgive them by not forcing them into Islam, nor oppressing them or being bad to them because of their wrong beliefs.
This is because Jizyah is required for Dhimmah (promise of protection) it equated approximately 1 Dinar per year(Prophet time) from only those able to pay, the poor elderly or those unable to pay will not be charged but instead are entitled to receive welfare from the state. Sir Thomas Arnold wrote, ‘The jizya was so light that it did not constitute a burden on them, especially when we observe that it exempted them from compulsory military service that was an obligation for their fellow citizens, the Muslims.*
The treaty of protection made by Khalid ibn Al-Walid with the Christians of Al-Hira in Iraq states:
Any aged non-Muslim who is unable to earn his livelihood, or is struck by disaster, or who becomes destitute and is helped by the charity of his fellow men will be exempted from the capitation tax and will be supplied with sustenance by the bait al-mal (the government treasury). (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 144)
If the promise is broken by refusal to pay, this will be viewed as an act of defiance and rebellion against the Muslim state, as there's no reason to refuse payment of the Jiyah other then the individual willingness to rebel against the state.
The Qur’ann never says to kill the non-Muslims because they are non-Muslims. I openly challenge you to show me ONE verse from the Quran which says to kill the disbelievers just because they are disbelievers. There are verses which permit the Muslims to fight the non-Muslims. But every time sensible and reasonable conditions are laid.
Coming back to the verse, people might say isn't it unfair that they have to pay the jizya tax? Not really. Since when is punishment for refusal to pay lawful taxes considered violence? Also, the jizya tax is very cheap and affordable, and it grants the non-Muslim’s many benefits, benefits which even the Muslims don’t get! For instance, the non-Muslims who are paying jizya in an Islamic state are not obliged to take part in any battle or war, unless they themselves choose to, the Muslims do not have this choice. Muslims have to actually burn their asses out to protect both Muslims and non-Muslims living in their lands. Also if the Islamic state cannot grant protection to the non-Muslims then the non-Muslims are not obliged to pay the jizya tax, since Muslims themselves must meet expectations for the jizya tax to be implemented.
There you go my friend, verse 9:29 doesn’t encourage the Muslims to do any of killing or violence or forceful conversion as you say. It is a perfectly fair and just verse.
Finally, people might now say well isn't Islam violent because Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not believe in God and so on etc etc.
Not really, because fighting in this verse does not explicitly mean physical violence. Observe the words in the above verses like “willingly”, “willing submission”, “readily” etc. Here it is spoken about bringing a change from within the hearts of people which is brought about intellectually. There are many ways in which you fight against somebody that does not involve a physical aspect. You can fight someone with the tongue, using your wisdom and telling him about the truth, you are fighting against the lies that person is propagating and eventually with your tongue you will speak the truth and crush his lies leading him to the truth. So fighting does not have to only be physical.
Now lets take a look at the verses that invite and allow the Christians and Jews to live peacefully in Muslim land and condemn violence and forceful conversion:
“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)“
“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits;for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)“
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).(The Noble Quran, 8:61)“
“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)“
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.(The Noble Quran 2:193)“
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“
“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)“
“Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):……(The Noble Quran, 18:29)“
“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! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)“
“Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preachthe clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)“
“Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)“
I can spend my entire life showing you verses such as these that are littered throughout the Quran similarly the Hadith since the subject is the Qur'an I did not bring them; people say that “the alleged violence verses” of the Quran are everywhere. I ask you my friend to point out such verse from the Quran so that I can clear up the matter with you.
Google them if you wish but refer back to Islamic sites,rebuttals by Muslims and the commentaries of the Qur'an referenced below as the answer I will give you is mostly cited from there, for you to look at both sides of the coin before coming into a conclusion as to which makes more sense.
Sources:
The Qur’an translation & commentary of chapter 9 verse 29:
http://qurango.com/download/yusuf3.pdf
http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm
*Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/374/viewall/
For further details and more information regarding Jizyah; http://www.call-to monotheism.com/the_status_of_non_muslims_in_the_islamic_state
Such conclusion regarding the verse indicate that the bulk of your knowledge about Islam comes from Anti-Islamic sites, you referred to the Brothers in front of the GPO building and while I am not part of the group I do have the contact details of the organizer they belong to "Discover Islam Ireland" which I can pass to you if interested to question. I suggest you ask them questions about Islam, it doesn't make sense to go to anti-Islamic sites and people to learn about Islam just like it doesn't make sense to go to a Nazi to learn about Judaism.
You might also want to understand more about the concept of "Jihad"* in Islam as its whole purpose is self defence and to stop and protect those weak and oppressed & not to kill and forcefully convert non-Muslim.
*http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_concept_of_jihad_%28P1360%29.html >> Basic summary article regarding Jihad in Islam.
0 -
How come a lot of the followers of different religions are so competitive . Never to happy when their god is not numero uno.
Does Islam have anything to say about competitive deities ?
Hmm I couldnt really understand what you meant by "Numero uno" or competitive deities, would you like to rephrase if possible? to point out that we believe in One and only God.0 -
I think he wants examples of the islamic equivalent of the first commandment.0
-
That definitely goes down the competitive God route.Defender OF Faith wrote: »Hmm I couldnt really understand what you meant by "Numero uno" or competitive deities, would you like to rephrase if possible? to point out that we believe in One and only God.0 -
Advertisement
-
"Tom wrote:... written account of something that is alleged to have happened over 1400 years ago. And remember that back then it was an oral tradition - things were not written down for centuries, they were passed down orally. Consider the implications for the veracity of this information and draw your own conclusions rather than spouting blind stereotypes and gross generalisations.
That's the thing about taking stories by oral accounts... passing on from person to person it tends to get warped and exaggerated than what it really was, resembling nothing to the original story.
Like, say... Mosses - people say he split the red sea so extravagantly and people walked through... when in reality it was just low tide, and claiming this "phenomenon" of the ignorant masses then that it was a work of God.
Who's not to say that the Prophet Mohammad's visions weren't hallucinations, or simply a dream, from whatever source? There is no credible evidence of any such interactions, other than HIS WORD... how many other "Prophets" were there before Mohammad was lucky to get famous in those circumstances?
I'm sure there were plenty of other people claiming to have been visited by angels or heard voices [of God] (via hallucinations and dreams), and were called crazy... and Mohammad just so happened to have the right friends to spread the word after sharing his "vision", being a trader and entrepreneur he most certainly had connections and influence.
Sure, these people may have been incredibly extraordinary in real life amassing followers... but I doubt they really spoke to any God or angels, and were at their own devices... be it conning people, hallucinating, dreaming or whatever. These were times of people being incredibly ignorant and using Gods and Spirits to explain the unexplainable, then with lack of knowledge with science... and ignorance and illiteracy was everywhere.0
Advertisement