Serious Question

Thank you both so much for responding to my questions.

First of all, I just want to say that if I am coming off in any way/shape/form as disrespectful please let me know. That is not my intention. I find many extraordinarily admirable qualities about your prophet(PBUH), and to be perfectly honest I want to know if Islam truly is from God. The Quran claims to be the word of God, and your prophet is supposed to be the greatest example of how to live as God intended... so I feel it appropriate for me to be extremely critical of this claim and a moral imperative for me to determine if it is true. Many false prophets have made such claims and they continue to make them. The only way to get clarification is to state my objections and have them refuted.

Now back to the claims:
1. I still find this inadequate. Killing people who disagree with you is unethical. Stalin did that, as well as Hitler.... if your argument is sound IMO you do not need to resort to violence.   A sheikh I talked to told me that poets at that time were capable to rallying violence against communities, and thus the gravity of what she was doing was far greater than a simple poem. It incited violence against muslims on a grand scale. However, another man, an imam, told me that this event never actually happened. Imagine if I claimed I was a prophet, and then killed someone because they talked ill of me, wouldn't it reduce your belief in me just a little? Please, look at this from a non muslims perspective. Why could he not reason with her? Why not talk to her and debate with her? Why not just have her beaten or something like that.... since Mecca was now in control of muslims it seems to me that more options would have been available.

Also, as stated earlier, I have personally heard Muslims saying horrible things about the Pope, and on CNN i have seen interviews with others inciting violence against non muslims... why is it not justified to kill them? Seems to be the same thing.

I agree that the inability to deny the holocaust is a violation of free speech. The jewish lobby in the US is powerful, and crap like this tends to happen. However, I dont feel that it should be because the notion of holocaust denial is so silly that only the uneducated and/or fanatics would believe it anyhow. I also feel that the situation with the palestinians is deplorable, but that is the topic for another discussion.

Complete free speech very rarely does exist, but it does exist in some places more than others. Free speech is much more prevalent in the US then say Saudi Arabia, and just because it isn't always achieved does not mean that it should not be the ideal.

Please do not let this discussion degenerate into a tirade against the west.    I know we have our problems, as all countries do, but my questions are about islam. Proving someone else as wrong does not make your right. A belief should stand on its on reasons, ie: because X is wrong does not make Y right.

2. I still dont understand why sex with female slaves is allowed.
Thanks again,
Doug

Dr. Doug
The point I want to make is completely different. I am not criticizing on what west is doing. I have problem with western standards itself. My objection on west is on the very ideology of western civilization. "Freedom of speech" is a principle developed in west in last few centuries and has never been universal. Freedom of speech in absolute sense cannot exist in any social entity. People have principles on which their society depends upon and it is not possible for any society to allow offending their fundamental principles on which society is founded.
For example read this..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4681189.stm

I reiterate, I am not criticism on what west is doing, I am not asking you to support this guy in the above news. What has happened in the news is absolutely as per western standard of nationalism? Problem lies in ideology itself. When west demand freedom of speech from Muslim world, its demand is absolute sense and when they apply the same principle for themselves, they keep some exceptions.

"Nation" is something west takes great exception to it. When it comes to "Nation" they can only give you limited freedom. While human life is considered sacred, taking and giving life for the sake of nation is a national pride. This is just because 'nation" is considered center of their collective existence.

Now, problem here is that in Islam, we do not believe in nation as believed in the west. For us, Islam is center of our collective existence.  Additionally, we are emotionally attached to Islam and all its icons. After God, Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammed PBUH are most central to our beliefs. Yet, we do not expect non-Muslims to accept or respect these fundamental icons. But, again if someone wants to insult and abuse them, then it is their responsibility to protect themselves.

Freedom of speech is a western principle, which bred in a specific condition in west when they defied against dogmas of Christianity. It may be very meaningful in that historical and geographical context. But it is absolutely meaningless to apply same principles on Islam. These principles are evolved in west as a result of oppression of Christianity.

Thus, to test legitimacy of Islam, �freedom of speech� is absolutely a wrong standard. I again say that, it is does not exist in absolute sense.

One can still come up with the doubt that what Prophet Mohammed PBUH did is a personal revenge and he should have avoided it to get rid of doubt that may arise in the mind future generation. But again, who is going to set the priority? He has other priority to show his followers how a Prophet has to be honored and you cannot come up with the hard and fast rule that he should have avoided it so that people won�t abuse him.

Existing western culture despite its great technological advancement is merely a small span of time in the known history and we do not know for how long this world is going to last till doomsday. So, sometime in future a person may come up with completely different ideology and may raisethe question�.If Mohammed PBUH was really a prophet, why did he allowed others to abuse him?? Why did he have such a low self esteem?? It may look too weird to you know, but who knows how standards change in future. After all, most of the questions raised against prophet Mohammed PBUH today were not considered hot issues before 2 centuries. This is just because people have changed their standards. Islam do not come to qualify standards set by others, rather it gives its own divine standards.

 

It�s difficult for me to devote too much time for this forum, I hope other members shall contribute to other doubts raised by you. However, I still suggest you to reconsider your stand on justifying Islam based on western standards which are set in last 2 centuries.

My intention here is not to talk against west, my point simply here is that while trying to understand Islam, you need to consider the fact that western principles has some historical context and these principles are meaningful only in their context. Nothing that has come from west is universal and absolute in nature.


Edited by abuzaid - 09 May 2010 at 6:01am

That was an extraordinarily well thought out and reasonable argument. Thank You.

Please pray for me. I am trying very very hard to find the religion of God. I wish he would just show me.