advice on relationship

do you think she should declare her faith become a muslim and with the knowledge of quran, sunnah practicing islam. take her chances if  does haram does haram its counted as a sin isnt it better to make these mistakes as a musllim than a non muslim.

also yre opinion we have debated abt clothing women dressing with diggnity,alcahol and pork is there any simple way to explain rather than sayin cause the quran say so is there away to explain in a more modern way.

if men are recomended to follow sunnah of the prophet mohamed peace be upon him what abt women what do they follow?

 

73v3n wrote: women dressing with diggnity

I think this is mentioned one time in the Quran.

73v3n wrote: alcahol

I don't remember this to be mentioned in the Quran. I am not sure, but I think it was mentioned in a testimony (hadiths, the sunnah).

73v3n wrote: and pork is

I don't remember this to be mentioned in the Quran. I think this comes straight from the Torah (The [Jewish] books of Moses)

73v3n wrote: there any simple way to explain rather than sayin cause the quran say so is there away to explain in a more modern way.

The Quran is very simple. It consists of 114 sermons (suras), of which a few are poems. Each sermon makes the same central point:

There is only one God. There are no other gods. And the one God has no family members.

The Quran is not a rule book.

A few suras may raise issues like women's dress code, or forbid men and women to sleep around, but this is certainly not the central point in the Quran. The Quran is not an attempt to list all the rules.

Islamic law (sharia) and its rules are directly derived from the (Jewish) Torah. I do not remember that the Quran actually adds any new rules beyond what you can find in the Torah.

The Quran was originally delivered orally. People would listen a particular sura. The people listening were definitely not required to be highly educated scholars. You can safely assume that most listeners were bound to be illiterate, and the suras were addressed to these listeners, mostly simple people.

Therefore, the Quran is indeed simple to read.

abuzaid wrote: 1. Prohibition of Alcohol is mentioned clearly in Quran see. ch5: verse number 90-91. 2. Prohibition of Pork is mentioned in Quran in no less that 4 places, see Ch2:173, Ch5:3, Ch6:145, Ch16:115

Sorry, I forgot it. I thought these rules came from the Sunnah. I sometimes confuse both, especially in this area.

abuzaid wrote: You are saying as if muslims follows Torah instead of Quran. This is a kind of accusation which muslims would find very difficult to digest.

It is not an accusation. It is simply true that the Torah lists all (or the vast majority) of the rules already. In my impression, the idea of the Quran was not necessarily to remind the audience of the rules, who probably knew them already, but to firmly vest the concept of the One God.

abuzaid wrote: 3. You says some of the Surah in Quran are poem, and from where did you learn that? Quran itself clearly denies it be poetry. (Ch36:69)

By reading the Quran. A few suras look poetic (at the end of the Quran). Most are actually not poetic. Their style is the sermon.

abuzaid wrote: only enemy of Islam accused Quran to be poetry.

The Quran is not meant to be poetry, since most suras are sermons and not poetic in style.

abuzaid wrote: Your point abouy Quran being not book of rule is partially correct. But its possible that people may get an impression that there are no rules mentioned in Quran at all.

That's not what I wrote. There are rules mentioned in the Quran, but the central idea in the Quran, is definitely not to list all the rules. I don't think that listing the rules or reminding the audience about the rules, was actually the problem. Even the polytheists might have known them already.

The problem was to vest the idea of the One God with people, who might otherwise have worshipped multiple gods. The Quran strikes me as one long warning not to worship any other gods.

abuzaid wrote: Quran mentions some of the rules very clearly, examples, Prohintion of Murder, fornication, liquor, dead animal, blood, animals on which name other that Allah is taken, pork, usury etc. Quran mentioned law of inhheritance in great detail in the beginning of Ch3. Quran explains law of financila dealings at the end of Ch2. Explain social laws, in Ch 49,33 and 24.

Ok. There are actually and effectively rules being mentioned in the Quran. I concede.

abuzaid wrote: 4. You said. Islamic law (sharia) and its rules are directly derived from the (Jewish) Torah. This is absolutelu st**id.. I am very sorry to say, I can't express my disgust. Islamic laws are directly derived only from Quran and Sunnah, You can't point out a single law which is derived from Torah.

Most of the work, however, concerning the rules, had already been done before the Prophet (pbuh) already. Most islamic rules were listed in the Torah already. The Torah pre-exists the Quran. Even the fact that there is only One God, is put forward clearly and originally in the Torah. This cannot be a coincidence: Islam is the religion of Abraham, extended to the non-Jews. There are a few minor differences in the details, but the core is the same. It is essentially the message starting with Abraham and ending with Moses.

abuzaid wrote: Yes there are similarities, but its not because of Torah being source of Islamic Law. Its because Both laws are revealed by single God, God of Ibrahim.

Since there is only one God, it must obviously be the same law.

abuzaid wrote: Muslim scholars never consult Torah for any ruling. Give me a single Islamic Law which is derived from Torah and not from Quran and Sunnah.

I can imagine that Muslim scholars not to like or to want to consult the Torah and to prefer to consult the Quran and the Sunnah. Regardless, it does not detract from the fact, that Islam is the religion of Abraham, which you can also find in the Torah.

The reason of being for the Quran is that:
(1) Judaism is reserved to the Jews
(2) Christianity is not option, because it adds family members to God

The message of the Quran is:
(1) To open the religion of Abraham to non-Jews, who might otherwise be polytheists
(2) To cancel all attempts to add family members to God

Of course, this is just a summary. But still, if you try to look at the essence of Islam, you can't start digging in on details. I believe it is a valid summary to say that Islam is actually the religion of Abraham, which is the Torah. The minor differences matter less than the essence.

Any attempt to repudiate the Torah or Abraham, will artificially try to create distinctions, where there are no such differences.

Many Christians think Islam is completely different from Christianity. In their eyes, it is a completely different religion. Untrue. The Torah are  also the first five books of the bible. Therefore, most of the rules in Islam and Christianity are the same.

It is not the relatively minor differences, such as the prohibition of alcohol in Islam, that sets the two religions apart. The core difference between both is: Islam insists that God has no family members.

This is what must be emphasized. Adding family members to God, amounts to polytheism, and has the same effect as polytheism: it will invariably be abused, and lead to hell on earth. This is the issue I am raising with Christians. The Christian religion is wide open to abuse, and leads to classes and castes within society. This religion can easily be abused to promote religiously sactioned inequality in society. Proof: Christian society has always been divided in Lords and serfs. My endeavour is not necessarily to promote Islam, but to underline why God has no family members, and that worshipping such family members is dangerous. It is true, however, that the Quran warns against this too. That is why I like the Quran.

The other group of people in the West, who are somehow mistaken, are the atheists. It is true that Christianity led to hell on earth. This society of Lords and serfs was and is a nightmare. I am trying to demonstrate that this is not the result of religion in general, but of one particular religion: Christianity. What's more, throwing away all religious rules, is dangerous. These rules are simply needed for survival. Atheism is self-defeating, because abandoning these rules, leads to a situation in which people cannot form families and raise children. Atheism simply dies out.

abuzaid wrote: If its history you can be careless, but matter of Deen is serious and without knowledge you shouldn't say single word. Don't take it as offence, and do more research before writing.

I am actually not really doing Deen. Even though, the effect of writing about this, may be the similar to doing Deen. I do make mistakes about Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, and when I do, I concede the error. I think, however, that I am not mistaken on the essence.

Really, feel free to tell me where I make mistakes concerning Islam.  I did not grow up in a Muslim society, I don't live in a Muslim society, and I still don't know any Muslims. What I write about Islam, is solely based on the scriptures, and my point is actually not necessarily religious, but political. Writing more correctly about Islam can only help the point I am really trying to make: religion can be enslaving (to turn you into a slave of other men), but therefore, it can also be liberating (to turn you into a slave of God, and therefore prevent you from being a slave of other men).

"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God�s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4�5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.

Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!

 

God Said To Make Them

People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where God commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18�20).

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18�19). David�s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17�18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

 

The Religious Uses of Images

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8�9).

One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one�s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.

If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there�s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn�t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.

It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).