Serious Question
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Description: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16729
Printed Date: 21 November 2024 at 12:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Serious Question
Posted By: drdoug
Subject: Serious Question
Date Posted: 04 May 2010 at 3:31pm
|
Hello Islamicity,
I have been off and on interested with islam for many years now. The thing that is intellectually refreshing about Islam is that its absolutely monotheistic... in every possible way. The trinity is hard to swallow, it could be true.. I mean God is God and can do what he wants... but I do admit that it is something I don't know if I believe. I almost admire religious devotion amongst muslims. They and the LDS are the only ones who take their religion seriously. I have some serious questions about islam. I don't intend these questions with any disrespect, but to be honest I have heard some bad things and would appreciate them answered. It is not the theology of islam that I have a problem with, its the morality (or so it appears). In the same way, its not the morality of christianity I oppose, its its theology. Perhaps you can help me with one/any of these 1. Why did Muhammad get to have so many wives, when his followers only got 4? I have heard that God told Muhammad to get at least one of his wives and she was originally married to another man... any truth to it? 2. I heard that there was some female poet who was insulting Muhammad and Muhammad had one of his followers kill he... is this true? 3. What is the deal with all of the violence amongst muslims.. i dont mean against the US or Israel, but I mean the violence against each other. It is common place for muslims to bomb each other. 4. What about monotheistic non muslim religions, such as judaism and sikhism. They also only believe in one God, so why not them? I know for a fact that they are both expressly monotheistic... Gurus are not considered Gods and jews are absolutely monotheistic. 5. How can Islam preach "no compulsion in religion" when non muslims are taxed? When converting out of islam is a capital offence? And when in many muslim countries evangelism of non muslim religions is a crime. Again, I know all of these questions are harsh... but they are legitimate questions. If I appear ignorant or ask something st**id.. I apologize. Thanks, Doug |
Replies:
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 12:08am
|
Welcome to Islamicity, Dr. Dough. Wishing you a very happy stay.
We appreciate your questions very much. Infact feel free to discuss untill you get them cleared. It shall be our pleasure to answer them
1. Why did Muhammad get to have so many wives, when his followers only got 4?
Kindly read this :
Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
"Before the advent of Islam, it had been the habit of men to marry an unlimited number of women. The Old Testament states that David had 100 wives and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. However, Islam nullified marriage to more than four women.
If a man became a Muslim and he had more than four wives, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would say to him: �Choose only four and divorce the rest.�
Polygamy is permissible in Islam on the condition that the man treats all his wives equally, otherwise he should marry one only. Allah Almighty says, �And if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only).� (An-Nisa': 3)
However, Allah Almighty granted Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) something that is not allowed to any other Muslim. He Almighty allowed him to keep the wives that he had married and did not order him to divorce, replace any of them, or to marry anymore women. Allah Almighty says: �It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth nor that thou should change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesses.� (Al-Ahzab: 52)
This is because the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have a special status: they are mentioned in the Qur`an as Mothers of the Believers. Allah Almighty says, �The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers.� (Al-Ahzab: 6)
Due to this honorable position, they were forbidden to remarry after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Allah Almighty says, �And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the Messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him.� (Al-Ahzab: 53)
This means that if they were divorced, they would have been deprived of marriage for the rest of their lives, and they would also be deprived of the honor of being part the Prophet�s family, which is considered an unjust penalty when they had not done anything wrong.
Suppose that Allah had enjoined the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to choose only four of his wives and divorce the rest. This would mean that four of them would have been chosen to be the Mothers of Believers and the other five would have been deprived of the honor. This would have been a very awkward situation since none of those exemplary women deserved to be dismissed from the Prophet�s family and be denied the honor that she had gained.
Therefore, it was Allah�s will for them to remain as the Prophet�s wives as an exception to him only. This is based on Allah�s saying: �Lo! the bounty is in Allah's hand. He bestoweth it on whom He will. Allah is All Embracing, All Knowing.� (Al `Imran: 73)
I also wish you read the following though is not part of your question.
He did not marry any of them for the reasons that the Orientalists falsely claim. It was not carnal desires, which made the Prophet marry any of his wives. If he were as they claim, he wouldn�t have been the young man married to a woman 15 years his senior. He was 25 when he married Khadijah who had been married twice before and had many children.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) lived all his youth with her in happiness. When she died, he called that year "The year of grief". He loved, respected and kept praising her so much even after her death to the extent that `A�ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) used to be jealous of Khadijah despite her having been dead.
At the age of 53, after the death of Khadijah and after Hijrah (emigration to Madinah), the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) began to marry his other wives. He married Sawdah bint Zam`ah, who was an elderly lady, in order to be his housewife. He married the daughter of Abu Bakr, who was his friend and Companion, in order to strengthen their relationship although she was still too young to be married. Then he married Hafsah, `Umar�s daughter, so that both of his Companions, Abu Bakr and `Umar, would be granted the same honor, even though Hafsah was a widow and was not pretty.
He also married Umu Salamah who was a widow. When her husband, Abu Salamah, died, she thought she would never find a better husband. They had both emigrated and suffered a lot for the cause of Islam. She said in her grief as a widow: �Lo! We are Allah�s and Lo! unto Him we are returning.� (Al-Baqarah: 156) She prayed to Allah to help her and recompense her with a better husband, but she wondered whether she could ever marry someone better than her late husband. So Allah recompensed her for her grief and bestowed on her a far better husband who was Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). He married her and rewarded her for the loss of her husband and her abandoning her family in order to emigrate to Madinah.
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) married Juwayriyah bint Al-Harith in order to encourage her family to be Muslims. In the expedition of Bani al-Mustaliq, the Muslims captured a lot of Juwayriyah's kinsfolk, and when the Companions of the Prophet knew that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had married her, they set the captives free because they had become kin of the Prophet Muhammad. And so kin must not be captured.
The other woman was Um Habibah, the daughter of Abu Sufyan and who was the bitterest enemy of Islam. She had left her father and preferred to emigrate with her husband to Abyssinia (Al-Habashah) for the sake of Islam. But then her husband died and she became alone in a foreign land. What was the Prophet supposed to do in such case? Would he leave her without help? Of course not! So he sent his proposal to Negus (An-Najashi), the king of Abyssinia, and authorized him to pay her the dowry and to make the marriage contract while he was in Madinah. Another good reason for this marriage is that marrying the daughter of Abu Sufyan would make him less hostile to Islam due to the new kinship.
Therefore, he did not marry any of his wives for lust or worldly desires, but for the good of Islam in order to strengthen the ties between the people and the new religion, especially because kinship and blood relations were well respected among the Arabs.
In conclusion, by marrying those women, the Prophet aimed at unifying the Arabs and solving many problems. His wives became the Mothers of the Believers, teachers of the Muslim Ummah in family and women�s affairs, and related a lot about his family life even in the most private situations.
Everybody has private matters except the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who asked people to relate everything concerning his life in order to teach the Muslim Ummah and guide them to what is right.
The most important point is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) set a good example for Muslims in all aspects of life including family life. A Muslim man can draw very good lessons from the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and in the way he treated his wives."
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 12:24am
|
I have heard that God told Muhammad to get at least one of his wives and she was originally married to another man... any truth to it?
Following is the truth :
Zaynab bint Jahsh, may God be pleased with her, was also a lady of noble birth, descended and a close relative of the Prophet. She was, moreover, a woman of great piety, who fasted much, kept long vigils, and gave generously to the poor. When the Prophet asked for the hand of Zaynab for Zayd, Zaynab�s family and Zaynab herself were at first unwilling. The family had hoped to marry their daughter to the Prophet. Naturally, when they realized that it was the Prophet�s wish that Zaynab should marry Zayd, they all consented out of deference to their love for the Prophet and his authority. In this way, the marriage took place. Zayd had been taken captive as a child in the course of tribal wars and sold as a slave. The noble Khadija whose slave he was, presented him to Muhammad, upon him be peace, on the occasion of her marriage to the future Prophet. The Prophet immediately gave Zayd his freedom and shortly afterwards adopted him as his son. The reason for his insistence on Zayd�s marriage to Zaynab was to establish and fortify equality between the Muslims, to make this ideal a reality. His desire was to break down the ancient Arab prejudice against a slave or even freedman marrying a �free-born� woman. The Prophet was therefore starting this hard task with his own relatives. The marriage did not bring happiness to either Zaynab or Zayd. Zaynab, the lady of noble birth, was a good Muslim of a most pious and exceptional quality. Zayd, the freedman, was among the first to embrace Islam, and he too was a good Muslim. Both loved and obeyed the Prophet, but their marriage was unsustainable because of their mutual incompatibility. Zayd found it no longer tolerable and on several occasions expressed the wish to divorce. The Prophet, however, insisted that he should persevere with patience and that he should not separate from Zaynab. Then, on an occasion while the Prophet was in conversation, the Angel Gabriel came and a Divine Revelation was given to him (Bukhari,). The Prophet�s marriage to Zaynab was announced in the revealed verses as a bond already contracted: We have married her to you (Qura'n. 33.37). This command was one of the severest trials the Prophet had yet had to face. For he was commanded to do a thing contrary to the traditions of his people, indeed it was a taboo. Yet it had to be done for the sake of God, just as God commanded. �A�isha later said: Had the Messenger of God been inclined to suppress anything of what was revealed to him, he would surely have suppressed this verse (Bukhari and Muslim. These are books considred holy after Qur'an by we muslims). Zaynab proved herself most worthy to be the Prophet�s wife; she was always aware of the responsibilities as well as the courtesies proper to her role, and fulfilled those responsibilities to universal admiration. In the jahiliyyah, an adopted son was regarded as a natural son, and an adopted son�s wife was therefore regarded as a natural son�s wife would be. According to the Qur�anic verse, those who have been �wives of your sons proceeding from your loins� fall within the prohibited degrees of marriage. But this prohibition does not relate to adopted sons with whom there is no real consanguinity. What now seems obvious was not so then. The pagan taboo against marrying the former wives of adopted sons was deeply rooted. It was to uproot this custom that the Prophet�s marriage to Zaynab was commanded by the Revelation. ------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 3:26am
|
2. I heard that there was some female poet who was insulting Muhammad and Muhammad had one of his followers kill he... is this true?
After the conquest of Makkah {It was totally a bloodless revolution}, Prophet Muhammad when entered Makkah with humbleness, his head was bowed so low that people saw that his beard was touching the camel's saddle. Such was the humility of the Prophet, even in his hour of triumph. Standing at the door of the Kabah, the Prophet delivered an address, in the course of which he said, There is none worthy of being served save the One God. He has fulfilled His promise and offered succour to His slave. He alone has brought the hosts of enemies low. He did not, in other words, claim any credit for the victory: he attributed it entirely to God. Later on in the same speech, he had this to say to the Quraysh: "What do you think I am going to do with you now?" "We think you will treat us well."
they replied, "for you are our noble brother, and the son of our noble brother." Then the Prophet said: "I say to you as Joseph said to his brothers: Let no reproach be upon you this day. Go, you are free
This poetess you are talking about falls in the list of those names who were to be killed. Pls mind that all others were forgiven. She also used to recite poems abusing the Prophet. Her dances were a regular feature of the Quraysh's wine-drinking orgies. She was also killed along with her master.
You must not have told about this poetess who was forgiven. Quraybah who was also "�Abdullah ibn Khatal's slave, and pursued the same profession as Fartana. Orders were given for her execution, but when she came to the Prophet and sought asylum, her request was granted. She then became Muslim.
Sarah, a slave-girl of "�Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl, who revelled in pouring scorn upon the Prophet. Permission was given for her to be put to death, but she came to the Prophet and sought asylum, which was granted her, and she accepted Islam. She remained alive until the caliphate of "�Umar.
Hope drdough, this would answer your question.
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 11:31am
|
Thank you for your response.
I assume that the revelations were given after muhammad was already married, so that after the 4 wife rule no more wives were allowed. If so, I think your explanation is reasonable. Thank You. What about the "whom your right hand possesses" clause of this verse. I was told this means slave girls. I find this deplorable, but you had a good explanation for the multiple marriage so if you can explain this I would appreciate it. Thanks again, Doug |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 11:49am
Thank you for taking the time to answer. Why did Muhammad get them married if it was the wrong thing to do? I thought his actions were supposed to be perfect. His desire to remove the prejudice against former slaves is admirable... but honestly if the marriage did not work I can't see how it was that productive. Why could she not just divorce her husband and marry someone else? That would remove the doubt about the authenticity of this revelation because why would a prophet have God someone divorce their husband to marry someone else. Many so called " prophets" have had divine commands to marry another mans wife... so you can understand my doubt I am sure. To be blunt, it appears to me that the purpose of this verse could have been because of his desire for another mans wife. Thanks for the response. Perhaps you can clarify. If I am direct, I apologize. I honestly want to know the truth. -Doug |
seekshidayath wrote:Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 05 May 2010 at 11:56am
|
With all do respect this answer is inadequate. In my mind what you just said was 99% of what he did was really good, so that makes up for this bad thing.
Also, just because she was vocally critical of Muhammad does not give him the right to have her killed. Freedom of speech is universal... and being unwilling to allow vocal dissent against you is not a very admirable quality in a man of God. I have personally seen Muslims out on the streets calling for the Popes death and calling him all sorts of horrid things... but I do not believe that he would be justified in having them killed. |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:06am
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 4:43am
Slavery already existed long before Islam. It was a system whereby a human captured in wars or kidnapped could be sold as a �possession.� That term applied to both sexes, not to women only. In some cultures slaves were considered subhuman and treated brutally. In Europe, for example, Romans threw Christian slaves to the lions while the public cheered; female slaves were thought to have no souls and were tortured mercilessly; slaves lived in degrading conditions; both sexes were forced to offer sexual favors to their masters; and as �possessions� they had no choice, no will, and no rights.
�Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), instead of taking concubines, entered into lawful marriages based on reason and wisdom. Maria the Copt was given to him as a present, but rather than taking her as a concubine, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, thus elevating her status by marriage.�
------------- Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent." |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 8:45am
|
Thanks for the response.
I realize it was common practice, but why didn't God forbid it. Why did he expressly allow sex with slaves? Thanks, Doug |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 5:43pm
|
DrDoug,
Your questions are very informative, so thank you for the same.
Wont interrupt Seeks in answers to your various questions. MashAllah the explainations you have received so far are very beneficial to myself as a muslim.
as to your last Q, I dont know if physical intimacy was 'expressly' allowed with slave girls.
Islam is a religion which came down in 23 long years. Many commands did not take effect suddenly, while others did.
For example the order to divorce any wife after 4 was a sudden command.
However, the command to abstain from alcohol came down in stages. In the same way, abolishing slavery was not a one time command. Muslims were encouraged to free their slaves, and much reward was placed on doing so. To my understanding this encouragement was a means of dissolving the system of slavery from the society. Then having any relations with opposite gender, out of wedlock is forbidden, so what you are looking for, came as an indirect command.
Hope someone with better grasp on the subject will explain further.
nausheen ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 May 2010 at 11:15pm
Hello Doug, Thought I'd interject. It is interesting that although it was tolerated previously... Slavery is no longer practiced by Muslims. Infact if you analyse Islamic texts, you notice a pattern in which Prophet Muhammad and Allah are setting the groundwork for abolishment of slavery. At a time when slaves were basically considered property - with virtually no human rights, Islam set the guidelines and controls and introduced HRights. The early revelations started off by giving slaves rights - and then moved on to manumitting slaves. You will notice in later revelations that the penance of almost any sin in Islam was manumitting a slave (setting him/her free). As to your question, why God didn't expressly forbid Slavery in one go . . . well, Islam is fortunately for us (unfortunately for some) a practical religion. It was Socially, Economically, Realistically not possible nor wise to eradicate slavery in one go ! Imagine 1000s of slaves, who currently have a roof, food and shelter to be immediately set free in the streets. How do they survive? Where do they go? Will they have that social acceptance ? Slaves & Masters were interdependent on each other - so it would be wiser to gradually introduce the concept of freedom, cultivate & encourage it. The way I look at it is, that (to me) Allah eventually wanted freedom and abolishment of slavery, and gave us the laws/means to achieve that. (status quo) In Islam, it is forbidden to capture a free man and make him/her a slave. So basically, once the previously owned slaves died or were manumitted, there was and is no way to re-initiate slavery. I personally think that the way Islam went about eradicating slavery was very strategic and well-thought ! As for why sexual relations with slaves was allowed: The slaves obviously had sexual needs. No master was going to allow their slaves to go off and get married. So this was an outlet for them as well. It was also a better alternative than slaves indulging in prostitution. This was one way the slaves could have a healthy sexual relationship. (Look at it from the slave's point of view) Also, I think it reflects on the non-elitist/racist culture that Islam was cultivating. i.e. Slaves were not considered untouchable or dirty by Muslims. They were normal human beings, and that regardless of the slave's status, she was considered good enough to have her master's children ! Muslims had no qualms in establishing intimate relations with slaves. Also, if we analyze it deeper - this was another way to change mindsets and help the process of eradicating slavery. When slaves would have children, the father would more often than not manumit the slave and marry her, so that the children would be free citizens. Having intimate relations would probably also lead to love, compassion, human-bond . . . which again would give the owner reasons to manumit the slave - and see her as a human being, not just property. Human Psyche... ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 6:56am
|
Thanks for the response.
I thought slaves were allowed to be taken in war? Wasn't one of muhammad's wives a former slave who had been taken in war? I have even heard fundamentalist say things like "We are going to take your wives as war booty" Please clarify Thanks, Doug |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 6:57am
|
Also,
what about men. Sex with male slaves was not allowed, and I am assuming that they had needs as well. Thanks, Doug |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 07 May 2010 at 2:44pm
|
I just got through researching this.
She was Muhammad's fifth wife. When he got the 4 wife revelation he only had 4 wives... Please clarify |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:10am
|
Regarding killing of poetess.
We understand that non-Muslims do not consider Mohammed PBUH as messenger of God. Have they have considered him messenger of God they would not be non-Muslim in first place. Claim of prophethood made by Mohammed PBUH is so clear and glaring reality that nobody can deny his claim of being Prophet of God. This simply means that if someone deny prophethood of Mohammed PBUH, they actually consider him a clear liar. Now, Islam gives people choice to accept or reject prophethood of Mohammed PBUH. It simply means Islam gives people right to consider him a liar or a truthful man. Islam and Muslims are open for any honest dialogue on any Islamic topic including prophethood of prophet Mohammed PBUH. It is very well understood that while conducting dialogue; other party would not accept Mohammed as prophet of God as if had they have accepted Mohammed as messenger; any such dialogue was not at all required.
Now, these cases of blasphemy was not at all the case of being critical. They were simply abusive in nature as today too is the case. Plenty of books on Islamic history has been written by Christians and none of the Christian author accepted prophethood of Mohammed. we have not banned those book because they were written in academic style and we can give objective answers to those book. But, if someone comes up abusive words; it is not possible to answer such attack. We Muslims are and supposed to be emotionally attached to Prophet Mohammed PBUH. In eastern world, if someone uses abusive words for their parent, it is not acceptable just because people are emotionally attached to their parents ( I guess west is different nowadays). Now for majority of 1.5 billion Muslims, Mohammed PBUH is more beloved than their parents and how on earth one can expect that they should feel safe after abusing Prophet Mohammed PBUH.
Now, question is why Mohammed PBUH himself punished her.. Duty of Prophethood Mohammed PBUH is to convey the message of God completely in word and action. Part of the same duty is also to make his follower understand the status and honour of last Prophet. Mind you, before claiming Prophethood, he was highly praised and was known as honest and truthful (Ameen and Sadiq). But, this is only after he claimed Prophethood he was abused. As per rational and objective discussion; Quran was open to it. If you read Quran it directly appeals to human rationale. Thus, the abuse was not against Mohammed son of Abdullah, it was against Mohammed the Prophet of God and it is one of his responsibilities to convey people how they have to honour the Prophet irrespective of how other think about it. Thus, it was not a personal revenge, it was his responsibility. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:15am
|
Freedome of speech as explained and mentioned by west never existd in history and even today this is just an impression created by media.
'Freedom of speech is universal" is one of the most ridiculous and deceptive statement one can ever read or hear. "Freedom of speech" is a myth. No civilization can ever allow some individual to to abuse their fundamental values. it will be called treason. I guess belief in Holocaust is most fundamental value of western civilization and for the same reason denying or objecting to holocaust as explained is illegal in many of the western nations. It is true that not all nation put such restriction on speech, but nobody raise the issue of freedom of speech and humans rights in such matters. I can give you plenty of such example in which west put restriction on freedom of expression. I repeat, freedom of expression as claimed by west never existed in past and do not exists even now. It is just an impression created by propaganda.
For us Mohammed is center if our civilization and we won't accept anybody abusing him. We will definitely welcome objective, rational and meaningful dialogue. In reality this series of abuse and it persistence only proves that west completely fails to find flaw in the character of Mohammed PBUH and now relying on only abuses. This is Abuzaid.. Seeks is busy nowaday and I am requested to give response to you.
|
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 08 May 2010 at 5:24pm
|
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 |
Posted By: haris30432
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 4:30am
|
Peace, 2. I still dont understand why sex with female slaves is allowed.
Dr Doug...My understanding on this topic is that GOD does not allow casual sex at all and he never did whether it be with a free woman or with a captive slave woman.And most importantly the verses are dealing with marriage not sexual relations.In 4:24 God prohibits marriage to a woman who is already married except with those women who have fled from their disbelieving husbands who are at war with the believers.This is what "those who your right hand possess" means.And this is further explained in Surah 60:10.
In Case of War [60:10] O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.
------------- ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW! |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 09 May 2010 at 5:24am
|
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. |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 4:57am
Taking POWs as Slaves was the norm of the day (in 1400 AD). A pre-Islamic practice. Islam added controls & ethics to an existing norm - with the aim of eradicating/reducing slavery. Why? Again Political, Economic, Social factors of the time. This is no longer the norm of the day. As you can see, slavery is no longer practiced. (might be exceptions in the world, am not aware). POWs are not kept as slaves anymore, even by Muslims - since the common practice of dealing with POWs has now changed. (Although Abu Ghuraib suggested otherwise). Yes, one of the Prophet's Wives' was a captured POW. Lady Javairia (r.a). However, she was set free - and Prophet Muhammad married her as a free-woman. She belonged to a rich Jewish clan, who had the finances to pay her ransom (i.e. she had a way out) - yet she chose to marry Prophet Muhammad and convert to Islam.
"Extremists" would be a more appropriate term. People say all kinds of things, especially when they are angry. Does not mean its true.
There could be many plausible reasons:
Didn't mean to interrupt the others, popped in to respond to this quickly. Please carry on. ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 8:10am
| That was an extraordinarily well thought out and reasonable argument. Thank You. |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 8:14am
|
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 6:45pm
| Please pray for me. I am trying very very hard to find the religion of God. I wish he would just show me. |
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 10 May 2010 at 7:32pm
|
Chrysalis, Yes there are slaves in the world, it comes in different forms. Check this out: http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=375 I have read alot on the subject and it is truly, truly sad. Is it "officially" sanctioned by any govt? No. But over 27 million people are enslaved. ------------- When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi |
Posted By: haris30432
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 12:50am
|
Dear Doug, I am sorry, I still don't get it. So sex with women is allowed even if you aren't married if their husbands are fighting against muslims? Every source, including islamic website, I have looked at interprets "right hand" as slaves... is this not correct?
Im not sure i fully understood your question.And may be i wasnt very clear to you either :D.
Like i ve already said in my previous post,the verses have nothing to do with casual sex.As i understand,believers were hesitating to marry woman who fled from their disbelieving husbands and joined the believers.God made it clear to them that they are allowed to" marry " them as they had become believers and did not belong to the disbelievers .This may also apply to the slave women.Since theyve fled from the disbelieving masters and joined the believers,Muslims were allowed to "marry" them giving them their due dowries without permission from the masters(permission from the masters was required other wise).
Surah 60,verse 10 clearly speaks about those who sought "Asylum" with Muslims.So by "right hand possess" its clear that it is talking about those who had fled from the disbelievers and sought asylum with muslims and this can be anyone slave or free.GOD does not advocate evil and vice.So any interpretation of the verses should only be done taking that into consideration.God only permits marriage not "casual sex" with slaves or asylum seekers.No where in the Quran can u see GOD permitting such an evil act.Be he Glorified.Subhanallah!
Peace!
------------- ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW! |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 8:17pm
|
Another thing...
why are critics of islam so violently oppressed. Why cant muslims discuss things. I watched this clip on a lady called Wafa Sultan... and the cleric debating with her acted like such a moron... you could tell he had never had an actual debate before... and then I found at that she has to live in hiding because of this st**id thing. How can islam ever grow with the world if anyone who holds different than the majority of people end up being threatened with violence. This clip lead to a bunch of other research.. and to be honest it makes me feel that islam cannot be true. I agree with the tenet of worshiping one God, but if something in the religion makes large masses of people uneducated and violent against opposing view points... thats just not a plus. Look at the jews.. they don't kill people every time they disagree with them... in fact no one is a bigger critic of jews than jews... I just don't get this. I really was feeling islam could be true but if converting to islam makes you like that then I don't see why God would want that from me. |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 11 May 2010 at 10:42pm
|
Thanks for reply. If that is the case then that is very reasonable... I dont get it though. So you are allowed 4 wifes and sex with women who are leaving their husbands because they are fighting against muslims...
so can you ever have a relationship with more than 4 women in any way shape or form? I dont understand why the wording is like that Thanks, Doug |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 12 May 2010 at 1:44am
I was asked to help edify few misunderstandings posed in your quandaries about Islam and it's Prophet (saw). ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 12 May 2010 at 1:55am
I am afraid it was waste of time of the forum members valuable time and you were just trolling...No one knows for sure! So Wafa is your ideal, some choice! http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm - Wafa Sultan�s Lies Refuted  http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/open.htm - http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/open.htm ------------- Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction. |
Posted By: drdoug
Date Posted: 12 May 2010 at 8:55am
|
Thanks for answering. I am not a troll. I watched her video. I dont agree with all she said, it sounded like one sided, people do the same rants against other stuff (vegetarians, fundy christians, etc) but what bothers me and what bothers me more the more I researched it is that people who actively disagree with islam get a bounty on their heads. Like this recent south park episode that caused fatwas and death threats. That van gogh guy was killed because of art. I find your opinions of the jews extraordinarily revealing. I didn't realize they all worshiped money, especially my old roommate who takes one month out of the year doing drs without borders. Jews are like anyone else, some are good and some are bad. I am trying to find a religion. I wasn't really raised with one, and I want my kids to have one. I find it obvious that my questions are not appreciated. I apologize for wasting your time. I wont post on this forum again. I don't know if islam is true or not. Thats for God to decide. However, I do know that conversion to islam appears to cause me to have to act against my conscience in some ways. I dont think God wants me to act against my conscience, so if I choose not to become muslim for those reasons I can stand before him and he will understand. I do think that Islamic civilization has the potential to be great, but I find muslims I talk to to be very reactionary about certain things. Do you really think that all muslim countries have problems because of the west? Thats just mindless rhetoric that gets you nowhere fast. Its easy to make excuses, its harder to rebuild your society after defeat. I hope islamic society does rebuild. I hope it flourishes the way it used to, but I think it will have to become open minded again. Thanks to everyone who took the time to answer me. Sincerely, Dr. Doug |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 12 May 2010 at 6:46pm
|
Hello Dr. Doug
I hope you read this, as am not sure - your above note appears resignatory.
Anyway, it seems you have received quite a few open-minded and welcoming responses on this string. However not all were as open as you may have expected.
Just like your own statement about the Jews (which I agree with), muslims are of all types. Some are adherent, others are peripherally practicing etc. In same way, some are open minded to discussion while others are sensetive.
After a long time I saw a non-muslim asking genuine questions, and I wished the responses had been 100% non-critical about the questioner. Unfortunately and regretably this was not the case. There is nothing to apologize here, as you certainly did not waste others time. If your time however was wasted, I apologize, and pray that you find true faith for yourself and your generation to come.
If at all you care to continue discussion on this forum, I would request you to please ignore the inappropriateness of some users, if responses from others are helpful.
thank you.
nausheen
------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 13 May 2010 at 12:02am
Your comments do not seem disrepectful, and if at all anyone is offended by any of your questions, or you think they are offended, then for the sake of productive discussion, you may ignore those remarks.
Reading all comments by now, I don't think anyone was attacking you, or taking out on you by their statements. Hope you are able to see the sentiment on the other side as well.
There is a community in which if the guest does not make a loud noise while drinking their soup, the host takes offense. And there is another community where, if the guest makes a noise while drinking soup, the host takes offense - so values and social norms varry, this must not discourage people to interact and develop good relations between them
 Your above comment brings many thoughts to mind, hope they are arranged properly for you to make sense.
In the Quran there is a mention of a group of people who will be nearest to God in paradise. It is said they are a group seperate from those who earn merely paradise as a reward. The Quran says people comprising of this group will be more from former times and less from later times.
Now, if you look at the history of piety of mankind, we can see that people were less in evil formerly. When life was simple, man's needs were simple, the reason they crossed others were simpler reasons than now.
If we look back at the history of Muslim civilization, the muslims of old were more pious, more God fearing, more emulating of their phrophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) than today.
When muslims fought wars, and won them their captives became muslims - not due to threat of being killed, rather due to the treatment they received as prisoners of war.
Today there are wars upon muslims which they lose, and world is against them and their religion.
Today you question the credibility and character of our prophet (sallallahu alaihe wasallam) because we muslims who claim to adhere to his teachings are not attractive in character. It is sad but true. This should not happen, but it is happening. Most of us do not represent islamic ideologies, and in return non-muslims question the authenticity of Islam.
It is very sad the case is like this, but am not sure how a non-muslim must seperate between ordinary-peripheral muslims and true islam - then find true muslims who follow it.
Perhaps who revert to islam don't do because of the muslims they meet. They do it because of the truth in islam, and this truth is like a needle in haystack - so your challenge is very big.
Habib Ali is a contemporary muslim scholar from Yemen. The Dutch ambassadors discussed with him the cartoon episode and muslim uproar against it ... I dont know the detailed and exact proceedings of that meeting, however they said, if your prophet (saw) was in manners and thinking as you are, we can understand the love and awe of the community for him and the anger of your community towards the cartoons.
The problem is Habib Alis of today are very few ... If there were more of his like in every part of the world today, Islam would have been spreading much faster than it is today.
Once there was a jew who came to the messenger of God (saw) and grabbed him by the collar. He asked about several things, and was very disrespectful in behaviour. The messenger (saw) on the other hand remained very calm, replying to his questions, and trying to satisfy him.
When he finished, Umar Ibn alKattab (radiAllahu anhu), got up with his sword and asked the messenger of God(saw) to give him permission to chop this mans head. Upon this the messenger of God (saw) did not allow Umar.
This man was a jewish rabbi. He said that he found in Muhammad (saw) all qualities that were described in their scriptures about the final prophet, but he could not see one - for this he had to put up this 'act'.
This one quality was forbearance. This man had come to the messenger of God (saw) to test if he had forbearance or not. And at the occasion of this episode, he did find him forbearing, confirmed [thru his jewish scriptures] that he was the true messenger of God (saw), and accepted Islam.
This incident is narrated in authentic hadith.
The messenger did not allow this man to be killed, who had openly insulted the prophet(saw), while he allowed the killing of the poetess. Why?
Why was this man allowed freedom of expression while the other woman was not?
One reason that I can think of is the things he was asking about were inherently not insulting though his manner was rash. On the other hand the woman's composition was inherently insulting the authority whom The Creator appointed as His messenger (saw) - an ambassador of Almighty Creator, she had challenged the Creator's Vicegerent. The message to be given to the two and to the spectators in the two incidents had to be different. He was not vindictive for his person, but he had a mission, a responsibility, he had to tell people about the rank of an Ambassador of the Creator.
His (saw) truthfulness was never questioned by people in his times. He had the title of being 'The Truthful' from even before prophethood. The propblem many had was of why 'he' was given prophethood. Or how come God chose him - from the line of Ismael, when all other prophets were chosen from the line if Isaac. This was the issue for most.
So if one wants to find out if he was true or not he must see how his enemies rated him. Enemies like Abusufyan, Umar Ibn al Khattab, Khalid bin Walid, Hind and so on.
If one wants to look at revenge, look how muslim army entered Mecca upon conquest - where was revenge? where was blood shed? Did they not forgive and overlook?
All was done for the sake of the Maker - the killing as well as the forgiving. Try to grasp this concept.
Dr, faith cannot be argued with logic - it cab be done to some extent, but not all of it.
The first organ that develops in the foetus is the heart, but brain cells come later - logic resides in brain while faith comes from heart.
Quran tells us - On the day of meeting of the Lord, success will be of the ones who meet Him with a sound heart!
Hadith tells : There is a peice of flesh in the body, which if it is sound the entire body is healthy, and that is the heart.
So it is good to ask questions, and you must, but if logic fails, let the insight of your heart prevail.
Allah turns hearts, so if He wills you will surely find the truth and incline to it.
Im sorry if any of the answers are disappointing to you. Hope you find what you have been searching.
nausheen ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 14 May 2010 at 12:58am
|
drgoug.. I consider you to be an honest person searching for truth and this is indeed a great quality any human can possess. After going through the whole thread I have gathered following points. Please bear with me, I will try to address all the issues one by one. 1. Morality and Theology conflict about Islam and Christianity. 2. Number of wives for Prophet Mohammed PBUH is more than 4 3. Female poet getting killed. 4. Violence among Muslim sects 5. Position of other monotheistic religion 6. No compulsion in religion, while non-Muslims are taxed. 7. Sex allowed with slave girl ( women are not allowed to have sex with mail slaves) 8. Story of zainab bint Jahash 9. Muslims abusing pope and inciting violence against non-Muslims. 10. Intolerance of Muslims with opponents and Issue of Wafa Sultan. file:///C:%5CUsers%5CITistic%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml - |
Posted By: Oran
Date Posted: 19 May 2010 at 11:08am
|
Hello DrDoug,
If you by chance come across this, please check your private message inbox. Thank you, and may you find Truth in what you are looking for. Edit: It appears I cannot send private messages on this forum. However, I would like to chat with you directly, because I feel we could share some valuable exchanges. my AIM is my user name + joose, this is also my e-mail address @ gmail [dot] com. |
Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 21 May 2010 at 12:20am
|
Bismillah,
Thought this talk was relevant in some way to the ongoing discussion on this string, inshAllah will be helpful.
How to talk to Muslims and Non-muslims by Hamza Yusuf
"People are on an evolutionary journey (regarding their knowledge). He sallallahu alaihe wasallam treated people differently according to their level of knowledge."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7JyCsLsFU&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7JyCsLsFU&feature=related - 6 Parts
barak Allahu feekum,
nausheen ------------- <font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR] |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 5:32am
|
Drdoug, After going through the whole thread I gathered following points. Let me address each of them one by one. Honestly, you require a complete book to understand the whole issue. I will try to be brief as it is again difficult for me to devote more time. 1. Morality and Theology conflict about Islam and Christianity.
2. Number of wives for Prophet Mohammed PBUH is more than 4 3. Female poet getting killed. 4. Violence among Muslim sects 5. Position of other monotheistic religion 6. No compulsion in religion, while non-Muslims are taxed. 7. Issues of slavery and permissibility of having sex with slave woman 8. Story of zainab bint Jahash 9. Muslims abusing pope and inciting violence against non-Muslims. 10. Intolerance of Muslims with opponents and Issue of Wafa Sultan. But, let me take up few issues before addressing them. Your thought process is in completely different framework and it is not easy for a common Muslim to answer your questions objectively. It can also be said that it is not easy for you to understand Islam objectively in its framework. It is but obviously that when a Christian studies Islam, he will unconsciously set Christianity as point of reference. In the same manner when a westerner studies Islam, he will set proclaimed western principles as reference point. Nowadays, some of the western principles and values are presented as ultimately reality and basis for morality. A common western person may not even imagine that an alternate moral basis can exist out of these western principles. Another unfortunate reality is that even common religious Muslims do not understand that western morality is completely different from Islamic morality and because of this confusion they try to clarify your doubts by taking western morality as a reference point. Another difficulty we face is that while having dialogue with a western person, we are actually discussing with two contradicting point of view. Westernism in essence is revolt against Christianity, and while discussing with a westerner we get confused about with whom we are having the dialogue, a Christian or a westerner. I know you are not a Christian, but being in west I think it is not easy for you to set free from Christian standards specifically while discussing religion.
In the west you have concept of secularism, in which collective affairs of society (Politics, economic and society etc) are separated from theology. Christianity may appear to have superior set of moral and spiritual standards. But these standards are on personal level. Christians never felt compelled to follow these standards while dealing with enemies (remember crusade). Later, Christianity is thrown out of collective affairs of society and today western principles set the standards of morality of collective affairs. On the other hand Islam has its standard or Morality in individual life and it also gives us guidelines in case of war, as to how to deal with enemies. Now, it is great injustice to Islam to compare Christian�s morality (which works only on individual basis) with �foreign policy� adopted by Islam. I presume that there could be some Christian who loves his enemies. But, history is completely free from any incident in which Christianity loved their political enemies. Right thing that we can do is to compare Islam�s morality for individuals and Christian�s morality for individual. As per issues of �foreign policy� or �dealing with enemies� we have to either compare Islam with today�s western standard or deeds of Christian warriors of past. You are upset with the way some of the Muslim responded to your questions. You need to understand that, Muslims in general have not been into media in past for quite long time. Think of the following points a. You will hardly find Islamic channels as compare to number Christian channels. Thus experiences of Muslims to have objective dialogue with opponents are much limited compare to others who had such opportunity. b. For past two centuries Muslims were politically oppressed and most of the Muslim land was colonized. During these colonial period powerful arguments against Islam has been launched along with political oppression. Traditional Muslims were not at all prepared to answer these arguments as they we not educated enough to understand ideological development took place in the west in past few centuries.
c. Along with being critical, various charges against Prophet have been created to ridicule Islam. Our historians were honest enough to record what they heard from any source. However, as a matter of honestly they also recorded the chain of narration and source of knowledge. We also have a separate science called �Asma ul Rijal� for analyzing authenticity of the recorded history. So, in our own recorded history it is clear that many of the mentioned events are either fabricated or mentioned incorrectly. Now, these criticizers used our own history against us with all their dishonestly. Whenever, they had to ridicule Islam, they presented incidents mentioned in our history, but deliberately ignored its mentioned level of authenticity. d. During the colonization, a separate science by name �orientalism� is launched to study eastern culture and science. A large part of this science is being �critical� about Islam. While other religious only have been �studied and researched� no opportunity was lost to abuse Islam in well mannered language. Orinetalists in general have not used abusive language; but they were too prejudiced against Islam. This is obviously done because of two reasons. A. The hate they carried as a result of crusade and B. They saw only Islam as a real challenge for western civilization. e. During this period, Muslims were deprived of tools and resources to counter these arguments because 1. They were politically oppresses, 2. They were not prepared for such a strong ideological attack 3. They were not able to use the available resources because of ups and downs they faced in course of history, 4. Ideological decline and decay due to blind following and inability due to lack in thought process. f. Those from west who are honestly critical about Islam in general cannot think about Islam in its own framework. Some standards set in specific western context have been declared universal standards without making an objective study of these standards. Just to name few, Democracy, freedom, secularism, equality, Human rights nationalism etc. What is generally done is that they tried to measure Islam with these tools that is got developed in the west in last 2 centuries. g. Those Muslims who try to answer these arguments themselves cannot make themselves free from these standards set by west. Common educated Muslims are either studied in western education institute or those Muslim institute which follows western standards. h. Clergy class of Islam who studied in Islamic institutes are not able to study west in their framework and thus cannot make objective dialogue with west. We have a big problem here. Muslims are critical about west without properly understanding west itself and westerners are critical about Islam without freeing themselves with their own subjective standards. Let me be clear here, I am not trying to prepare a change sheet against west. Just wanted to make you understand the course of history through which we are going. Because of all these issues we are going through a kind of collective paranoia. Thus, sometime it is difficult for common Muslims to distinguish between a person who is honestly critical about Islam and one who is abusive about Islam.
Continued.... |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 5:53am
|
Now, let me take up points I mentioned in the beginning. Since the answers are not written in single sitting, there might be some repetition in the answers. 1. Morality and Theology conflict between Islam and Christianity. a. Islam is not merely an ideology. It is a Ummah. It means it is a group of people or an axis of collective existent. It is an ideology based on which a civilization had to emerge. In Islam morality and spirituality is inseparable from its ideology of collective existence. To make you understand, just take the example of supposed Jesus� teaching in Bible to offer another cheek for a slap. Now, this teaching seems to be of extremely higher moral standard. But, can a nation or civilization exists by following this teaching? You may follow this teaching only on personal issues. Just recall how Christianity had to struggle in crusade wars to maintain its glory. b. Islam is a religion that had to be followed and practiced. It does not give us moral standards just to demand or enforced on other without practicing ourselves. We need to see practicality of moral standards before judging its superiority. What credibility does a higher moral standard carries while we knew that nobody followed it. Today, there is declaration of charter of human rights from UN. Most of the violation of this charter of human rights is either done by 5 permanent members or by other nations with the support of these five nations. Again, I am not trying to make a point against UN here. My point here is that UN has created a standard which nobody can follow and it is unjust to demand such standard from Islam. c. You can have higher moral standards on personal level. These higher moral standards cannot be applied on collective or social levels. Islam in essence is not merely a religion in western sense. Islam is whole civilization. It is completely incorrect to compare moral standards set by Christianity at personal level with moral standards of Islam which are set for collective and civilization level. Teaching of Jesus in existing bible generally revolves around personal morality and spirituality. In my knowledge Jesus never got opportunity to rule over a land and or he never did a battle with enemies. d. Love your enemy can be applied only on personal matters. When it comes to issue of good and evil or right or wrong, you cannot and should not love enemy. I would appreciate if you go through the portion of Gospel in which Jesus bashed Jewish scribes. Can it be called �Love�. Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees "fools, hypocrites, blind guides, whited sepulchers, murderers, a generation of snakes," and many such epithets. Jesus called them "hypocrites" seven times in one chapter. Jesus referred to the recalcitrant Jewish leaders as, "an EVIL and ADULTEROUS generation," "SERPENTS and SNAKES," and "children of the DEVIL." Why He even told the Scribes and Pharisees regarding the royal and mighty King Herod: "Go ye, and tell that FOX. Now, when Islam deals with the enemies, they were not personal enemies of Mohammed PBUH. They were dealing with enemies of truth. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 22 May 2010 at 6:06pm
|
2. Number of wives for Prophet Mohammed PBUH is more than 4 a. Let me be simple, clear and honest here. We do not believe in equality as west believes. As I discussed the term freedom of expression in my previous post. Equality does not and cannot exist. There is variation in nature. You will hardly find anything exactly equal in nature. Islam being last religion of God does not promote vague, ambiguous and meaningless terms that do not carry any specific understanding. Islam is religion of Justice, not equality. When a common Muslim support equality, he is actually talking about Justice and not equality as understood by the west.This is going to be long discussion and I do not think this is the right place to discuss this topic. b. Now, as per Prophet Mohammed PBUH, God gave some rules of marriage which are not same as others. These rules are mentioned in 33:50-52. If you go through these verses you can see that there are some additional restriction on Prophet and some exceptions for him. Your objection may come from equality. But, why one should take western doctrine of equality as universal? c. If some opponents want to doubt that, Prophet made up these verses for his desires, we cannot really help them. They have to come up with the proofs. I would want you to consider the position of Mohammed PBUH in that situation. For more information, read this link http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/document.aspx?lang=en&doc=3831 - If you are influenced by those anti-Islamic websites which insist that Prophet Mohammed PBUH was sexually obsessed man (God forbid) and he made up these verses to fulfill his desires, I would like to consider this fact. He got married to his first wife at the age of 25 and at that time his first wife (Khadija) was 40 year old and she was widowed twice. Prophet Mohammed PBUH remained with his first wife for 25 years until she died. So, till 50 years he remained monogamous with a wife who was 15 years older him. Can a sexually obsessed person do that? So, to know the exact reason of his plural marriages, read the link that I gave above. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 8:40am
|
3. Female poet getting killed.
I think this is cleared from my previous posts. If you still have doubt you can pose your questions. 4. Violence among Muslim sects Like any other organized religion, there is issue of sectarianism in Islam. Now, as per violence I would want you to go through the history of Islam. Initially these sects emerged because of political differences and later they came up with difference in theology itself. There never was violence over this issue of sectarianism. It can be said however that the sects initially formed because of violence (actually battle over political differences). This has happened in very early age of Islam. Later we can hardly find any incidents where Muslim got involved in violence because of sectarian issues. However, in last 3 decades we have seen violence in two places because of shia and sunni differences. That is in Pakistan and Iraq. I shall admit that in Pakistan, it was purely sectarian issue. Iran after establishing a pure shia govt, tried to export their shia revolution to Pakistan which is a sunni majority region and sunnis reacted to such attempt. While it is correct that this was a sectarian violence, it will be great injustice to pose as though Muslims have been fighting with each other for centuries. Why people ignore the gap of 1200 years despite major differences? Now, as per Iraq, it is completely different situation. First and foremost issue here is situation of law and order. The whole administration and control has been eliminated because of US attack. Second point you need to remember is that, major shia groups are in alliance with US resulting in Sunni�s outrage. Al Qaeda, Taliban, hamas and Saudi are Sunni organization and particularly Al Qaeda and Saudi govt. despite their major disagreement would never want a shia regine in Iraq. So, this is more like political issues. All this violence between shia sunni broke out because of political alliance of shia with US. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 23 May 2010 at 8:41am
|
5. Other monotheistic religion
In Islam, deeds and actions are part of faith. Not acknowledging His choice or rejecting his order is tantamount to rejecting God. Other faith rejects some or all Prophets of God. Rejecting any prophet of God nullify Islam, even if he is a born Muslim. In the same way, not believing in the Day of Judgment also throws a person out of fold of Islam. If a person does not believe in 5-times daily pray, then also the person is not Muslim. So, Islam is complete submission. So, if a person believes in single God and reject His prophet, his position is same as any other disbeliever. 6. No compulsion in religion, while non-Muslims are taxed. It simply means that Islam does not force anybody to follow Islam. However, an Islamic state means a state made for Muslims to live as per Islamic Law. If there are non-Muslims in Islamic state, they are like foreigners. We do not believe in national boundaries. (Mind you, concept of nation as a separate entity also is western concept, if you are interested, God willing I can discuss this also). As no nation can treat their nationals and other nationals in the same way, Islam too distinguishes between them. I am not sure if I have answered you correctly. I would like to see detailed question on the issue. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 24 May 2010 at 6:24pm
|
7.Issue of slavery and having sex with slave woman This is long topic. I am not again sure what exactly your objection is. For the sake of simplicity, I divide this discussion in three parts. a.Permissibility of taking slaves in war b.Permissibility of having sex with slave woman c.Impermissibility for woman to have sex with her male slave Let me take up these issues one by one. a.Permissibility of taking slaves in battle. While dealing with laws related to other religion or culture; people automatically tend to take their prevalent culture as reference point. One of the common problems with people today is when it comes it law dealing with wars; they tend to take UN charter of human rights and Geneva Convention as absolute source of morality. In reality, UN and all its laws are specifically designed to protect the source and energy of some powerful nations so that it can only of be used against the weak nations. None of these laws applies in benefit of weak nations and nothing can be used against strong nations. Today almost all violation of so called �humans rights� are either done by these strong nation or by the support of these strong nations. Again, west bashing is not my intention here. I am presenting this only to prove that you do not have any tool called �absolute morality� to measure Islam�s justice. For me difficulty here is that, you presume that all types of slavery is wrong in absolute sense without giving your proof. I am sure you find it extremely difficult to digest that someone in this era is asking you �Why slavery is wrong?� Still you owe the answer to this question. Let me explain why slavery was best solution in some cases. Say a fight took place between Muslims and Non-Muslims for whatever reason it might be. In case if Muslim won the war and has taken plenty of war captives in the war. What Muslims can do? We will have following options; I am giving these options along with possible consequences I.Free all of them. What will be result? They will go back and fight against us. Freeing them can directly cost lives of Muslims!! Right? What should we do then? II.Kill all of them. In my knowledge Islam does allow killing captive by consultation of people in special case. But, it does not allow killing common captives. Do you think we should do that? III.Put all of them in prison and feed them free until they die or some change in condition takes place. This would be a burden on Muslims. IV.When they surrender during the battle, kill them instead of taking them as captive. This strategy is believed to be applied by US during 1991 Iraq war. There are issues with all of these options. Islam keeps the door open for a 5th option and that is to enslave them. There are lots of reasons to do that. By enslaving captives Muslim population can absorb a section of population of enemies in such a way that our social values does not get affected by them and eventually they become part of Islamic society either by embracing Islam or still remain on their own religion. Islam gives lots of rules to behave nicely with slaves and by many other means encourages to free slaves. Infact freeing slave is considered one of the greatest act of charity. For many of act of sins, freeing slave is considered atonement. A point is to be noted is that making them slave will be based on decision of ruler and consultation of the supposed body. Now, if you disagree with me, you have to give me another alternative for POW. Now, you can ask me a simple question, since there was no UN at the time of Prophet does the rule still applies. I say yes... In my understanding of today world scenario, UN is one of the biggest enemy of Islamic ideology. On every front UN acted as enemy of Islam. So, for us Muslims UN means nothing. b.Permissibility of having sex with slave women is another issue. I guess you are taking up issue on moral ground. Well, what exactly is the difference between two people having sex with marriage and without marriage? If they are married, it simply means that their act of sex is with the consent of existing social system. It also means that they have taken mutual responsibility of the act and this act of sex is with the associated emotional and social responsibility. This responsibility also included owning the child as a result of the act of sex. Now, in case of having sex with a slave woman, all the points that are related to marriage get fulfilled. The only point you may differ here is about consent!. OK, in Islam concept of consent is different from west even in the case of married couple. Here it is not necessary for husband to seek wife�s consent every time he wants to have sex. Rather, it is told that whenever, husband wants to have sex, wife should submit to him if she does not have a valid excuse. (You may disagree here with Islam; I am open to discuss it further). So, the marriage contract itself is consent as long as she is married to her husband. Now, if a woman got captured in a war!!! Is not she giving her consent that in case she gets captured by Muslim she is willing to have sex with her master? If not, why should she get in a situation where she gets captured by Muslim army? c.Another issue you raised is about Muslim woman having sex with slave man. This question comes from another doctrine of west called �equality or rather identicality of gender�. Sorry, we do not buy that belief. In Islam, we have different social roles for men and women. In reality western belief of equality of gender is one of greatest deception of this era. There are such a great psychological and biological difference between men and women that only a psychotic person can deny it. So, we do not believe the premises of the question itself. I think you understand what I am saying and I do not need to explain what is the difference between men having sex with a slave woman and woman having sex with a slave man. |
Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 25 May 2010 at 7:56am
|
9. Muslims abusing pope and inciting violence against non-Muslims. 10. Intolerance of Muslims with opponents and Issue of Wafa Sultan. I am not sure about which video you have seen. There are many videos of her on the Internet. I have seen videos in which she has abused Prophet Mohammed PBUH. Her case is no different than that of poetess which we have discussed earlier. You might be under impression that western media is open to any objective discussion on Islam and it is not right to give death threats to those who are �critical� about Islam. I think western media is extremely biased; it selects only those �moderate Muslim� who already have accepted western ideology without analyzing it critically. Also, you need to give some discount to Muslims because of their lack of experience in dealing with media issues as I discussed in the beginning of this discussion. Also, none of the respected and organized entity has given her death thread. I personally, think that she should be left on her way. I am saying this because I think this is best strategy at this stage. OK, I finished my answers. Now, give your feedback if you are reading this thread.
warm regards.
|
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 June 2010 at 4:37am
I came across a hadith the other day Dr.Doug and thought of your post. (Hadith = Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, they are 2nd most important source of Islamic Law)Narrated Abu Burda's father (Radi-Allahu 'anhu): ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: fatima
Date Posted: 07 June 2010 at 10:14am
|
Bismillah irrahman irrahim
Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahe wabarakatuhu
It was a very good discussion, one thing that i knew and wanted to share it with every one is from very first pages about Sayyidina Muhammad sallallhu alaihi wasslam's marriage with Zaynab (ra). Islam forbids marrying your own daughter in laws after their divorces or any case. Zayd (ra) being the adopted son, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala wanted to differentiat between the two. It was an arab custom to take adopted kids as their real kids and even have share in heritance and everything same. So a person would never marry wife of his adopted son it was not even thinkable. That was a custom that needed to be broked and was one of the hardest things thats why Allah subhanahu wata'ala chose Sayyidina Muhammad sallallhu alaihi wassalm to break this norm. Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wassalm used to tell it to Zayd (ra) to make his marriage work thats when the verses were revealed. You could go and check the tafsir of these verses in ibne kathir. It clears it completely that how Sayyidina Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wassalam had to perform things which were hard for a normal humna beings Subhan Allah
wassalam ------------- Say: (O Muhammad) If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 11 June 2010 at 11:36am
Came across another Hadith on "Slavery" today:Narrated Abu Musa (Radi-Allahu 'anhu): ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |