Ask a Muslim

OK. Another question: is it permissible to burn a library or collection of books if such a burning would help spread Islam in a land, or if the knowledge or ideas in these books were hindering the spread of Islam in a land?

aneeshm said:

I understand that if may be impossible, or near impossible for a person with a "One Book! One God! One Truth! One Religion" background to understand Hinduism, but I've made a small effort.

Click to expand...

You forgot One Ummah (people), One Cause, One Destiny.

And although I disagree with you on the issue, I do not wish the thread to get side-tracked. As you yourself said, the appropriate place for such discussion would be your thread "Ask a Hindu/Indian".

aneeshm said:

OK. Another question: is it permissible to burn a library or collection of books if such a burning would help spread Islam in a land, or if the knowledge or ideas in these books were hindering the spread of Islam in a land?

Click to expand...

No, it is not, if these books are the property of someone else. The same ruling would apply as burning down churches, temples, etc, since the issue is the same. Please refer to my response to that earlier, which was that it is not permissible to do that.

Take care.

Salah-Al-Din said:

No, it is not, if these books are the property of someone else. The same ruling would apply as burning down churches, temples, etc, since the issue is the same. Please refer to my response to that earlier, which was that it is not permissible to do that.

Take care.

Click to expand...

Then the people who burnt the Great Library of Nalanda (it burnt for a week) were not following the percepts of Islam?

Also - here is a more controversial historic question. Mohammed, when the took the Kaaba, smashed the idols. Would it not have been better to simply transport them somewhere else, or to give it to the idolaters and tell them to take them away?

However, one idol was not found - that of Manat. The temple of Somnath was destroyed or pillaged six times by Muslim invaders. Right now, the temple standing there is the seventh temple. The early invaders thought that the idol of Manat, which escaped destruction at the hands of Mohammed, was there in Somnath, due to to coincidence of the names (Manat-Somnath).

The fragments of the idol were used as something to be put on the Mosque of Ghazni, where Muslims could tread on them.

Minhaj-us-Siraj, a 13th century historian writes [1] about the destruction of Somanath:

When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all mankind within the pale of Islam when he converted so many thousands of idol-temples into masjids and captured many of the cities of Hindustan… He led an army to Naharwala of Gujarat, and brought away Manat, the idol from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one of which was cast before the centre of the great masjid at Ghaznin, the second before the gateway of the Sultan’s palace, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.” Mahmud’s coins struck at Lahore in the seventh year of his reign describe him as the “right hand of the Caliph” and “the breaker of idols.”

Click to expand...

If we assume that they were only trying to complete the job which their Prophet ordered, was what they did wrong? Wrong not in an absolute sense, but in the sense of whether it is wrong to demolish a specific temple which you think houses something which the Prophet ordered destroyed?

aneeshm said:

Then the people who burnt the Great Library of Nalanda (it burnt for a week) were not following the percepts of Islam?

Click to expand...

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Once again, you continually insist on going back to the same topic. I understand that you are a bitter Indian Hindu with many gripes about the Muslim invasion of India. Fine. Understood. OK. But we have repeatedly said that this thread is not about that, but rather about the faith itself. ALL of your questions are in relation to that, and I have answered them whenever they are in regards to the faith, but you cannot possibly expect me to answer for all twelve billion Muslims that ever lived on this earth.

The Great Library of Nalanda was burned down by Turks who were recent converts to Islam. They were war-like people, both before and after their conversion to Islam. They struck terror in the hearts of not only the Indians but as well as the Arabs. After Saladin's death--and after the fall of the Abuyyid Dynasty--the Turks took over, and they did things that left the Arabs stunned.

It would take a long time for the warlike nature of the Turks to be calmed and tamed by the spirit of Islam, but slowly this process took place. Before this happened, there were many instances like the one you mentioned, that cannot be justified. However, they are not representative of Islam at all.

I could quite easily turn this around on you, and ask you if your religion of Hinduism allows for your people to burn down the homes of people of other faiths. You are complaining about the burning down of a library hundreds of years ago, but what about the burning down of THOUSANDS of houses in Gujarat? In which hundreds of Muslims were herded into houses by Hindus and then those houses were set alight and the people burned to death. In which upwards of 3,000 Muslims were killed in just a few days. In which thousands of Muslim women were mercilessly raped by Hindus simply because they were Muslim. In which your Indian government facilitated for this killing and the police were complicit in it. Amnesty International has a whole section on "Police connivance in the violence" and further stated:

"Worse still [than the failure to prevent violence] is the evidence of their [the police force's] active connivance and brutality, their indulgence in vulgar and obscene conduct against women and children in full public view. It is as if, instead of impartial keepers of the rule of law, they were part of the Hindutva brigade targeting helpless Muslims." (Amnesty Report)

Amnesty continues:

"...police [were] providing diesel from their official vehicles to burn down Muslim homes...the [Indian] Rapid Action Force had supplied petrol from their official vehicles to the mob to set ablaze houses belonging to the minority [Muslim] community..."

Amnesty International also has a whole section on the rape against women, entitled "Violence Against Women" in which it documents the widespread use of rape as a weapon against Muslim women.

Is this a part of YOUR faith?

I would hope not. And I know it is not.

STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD. You've expressed your view that you are a sympathizer of the BJP, a virulently anti-Muslim organization that many would call to be an extremist Hindu group.

Fine, ok. We get your point. Please move on.

I cannot answer for every Muslim in history, nor can you answer for every Hindu in history. These threads should be designed not to kindle hatred but rather understanding about the faiths, both of which--in my opinion--teach softness, kindness, compassion, justice, etc.

Take care, Brother.

Xanikk999 said:

Is there a historical reason or some other reason why muslims do not drink?

Or is it just tradition?

Click to expand...

Saladin can you answer my question?

Salah-Al-Din said:

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Once again, you continually insist on going back to the same topic. I understand that you are a bitter Indian Hindu with many gripes about the Muslim invasion of India. Fine. Understood. OK. But we have repeatedly said that this thread is not about that, but rather about the faith itself. ALL of your questions are in relation to that, and I have answered them whenever they are in regards to the faith, but you cannot possibly expect me to answer for all twelve billion Muslims that ever lived on this earth.

The Great Library of Nalanda was burned down by Turks who were recent converts to Islam. They were war-like people, both before and after their conversion to Islam. They struck terror in the hearts of not only the Indians but as well as the Arabs. After Saladin's death--and after the fall of the Abuyyid Dynasty--the Turks took over, and they did things that left the Arabs stunned.

It would take a long time for the warlike nature of the Turks to be calmed and tamed by the spirit of Islam, but slowly this process took place. Before this happened, there were many instances like the one you mentioned, that cannot be justified. However, they are not representative of Islam at all.

I could quite easily turn this around on you, and ask you if your religion of Hinduism allows for your people to burn down the homes of people of other faiths. You are complaining about the burning down of a library hundreds of years ago, but what about the burning down of THOUSANDS of houses in Gujarat? In which hundreds of Muslims were herded into houses by Hindus and then those houses were set alight and the people burned to death. In which upwards of 3,000 Muslims were killed in just a few days. In which thousands of Muslim women were mercilessly raped by Hindus simply because they were Muslim. In which your Indian government facilitated for this killing and the police were complicit in it. Amnesty International has a whole section on "Police connivance in the violence" and further stated:

"Worse still [than the failure to prevent violence] is the evidence of their [the police force's] active connivance and brutality, their indulgence in vulgar and obscene conduct against women and children in full public view. It is as if, instead of impartial keepers of the rule of law, they were part of the Hindutva brigade targeting helpless Muslims." (Amnesty Report)

Amnesty continues:

"...police [were] providing diesel from their official vehicles to burn down Muslim homes...the [Indian] Rapid Action Force had supplied petrol from their official vehicles to the mob to set ablaze houses belonging to the minority [Muslim] community..."

Amnesty International also has a whole section on the rape against women, entitled "Violence Against Women" in which it documents the widespread use of rape as a weapon against Muslim women.

Is this a part of YOUR faith?

I would hope not. And I know it is not.

STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD. You've expressed your view that you are a sympathizer of the BJP, a virulently anti-Muslim organization that many would call to be an extremist Hindu group.

Fine, ok. We get your point. Please move on.

I cannot answer for every Muslim in history, nor can you answer for every Hindu in history. These threads should be designed not to kindle hatred but rather understanding about the faiths, both of which--in my opinion--teach softness, kindness, compassion, justice, etc.

Take care, Brother.

Click to expand...

I provided that as a BACKGROUND as to why I asked that specific question, not as an attack. Don't be so defensive, dammit! Not everything is meant as an attack, OK?

In the second part, I asked a VERY SPECIFIC question regarding the demolition of ONE temple under VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, and asked whether or not it was justified by the percepts of the faith! I would appreciate an answer to that! I am NOT TRYING to attack you, I'm trying to separate the grey areas into black and white. As I said, it WILL look controversial, because grey areas always are. Could you please answer that question?

Basically, if the Prophet ordered X object to be destroyed, and it could not be destroyed in his lifetime due to circumstances beyond his control, is it justified to do so after his death, maybe hundreds of years later?

aneeshm said:

Basically, if the Prophet ordered X object to be destroyed, and it could not be destroyed in his lifetime due to circumstances beyond his control, is it justified to do so after his death, maybe hundreds of years later?

Click to expand...

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

What is X object? I do not understand the need to talk about hypotheticals. What is X object that the Prophet (s) ordered to be destroyed but was not in his lifetime and therefore must be destroyed hundreds of years later?

I do not think such an object exists.

Xanikk999 said:

Saladin can you answer my question?

Click to expand...

Hello, good sir.

I have already answered your question earlier in the thread. You can scroll up for that. The prohibition of alcohol is because it impairs the senses, is dangerous to health, is an intoxicant, is addictive, damages one's life, leads to sin, etc etc. The list goes on and on, all the obvious and usual suspects. Alcohol was scorned by Islam for the same reason that Alcoholics Anonymous would scorn it. I cannot think of any other special reason for this prohibition.

Take care.

El_Machinae said:

Knigh+: Sorry, I was away, and this thread exploded. Did people touch on these comments of yours? (in other words, are there posts in the thread I should read before replying?).

A simple 'ten char' yes/no will save me a bunch of time if I don't need to read through the whole thing. I'll happily stroll through the thread to catch up, if I have to.

edit: click the arrow in your quoted name, to go straight to the post I'm quoting.

Click to expand...

No, that post was the last of that topic.

Brother Sidhe mentioned that there is a 1,000 post limit to threads? Is that true? If so, we should open up a new one, and make sure that the last post in this thread links to the new one.

Salah-Al-Din said:

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

What is X object? I do not understand the need to talk about hypotheticals. What is X object that the Prophet (s) ordered to be destroyed but was not in his lifetime and therefore must be destroyed hundreds of years later?

I do not think such an object exists.

Click to expand...

I referred to it in my post above that one - the idol of Manat, which was not found at the Kaaba.

Another question, totally unrelated to the last few ones.

What is the maximum penalty for adultery? Is it different for a man and a woman? If so, in what way?

I've come across many differing interpretations with relation to this question, but I want a non-denominational answer, so I'm asking you.

I referred to it in my post above that one - the idol of Manat, which was not found at the Kaaba.

Click to expand...

I am in the process of formulating an answer. Give me a day, Allah Willing.

aneeshm said:

What is the maximum penalty for adultery? Is it different for a man and a woman? If so, in what way?

Click to expand...

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

The punishment for adultery is the same for men and for women. In fact, the punishment for all crimes is the same for men and women, and there is no situation in which it differs. This applies to both legal rulings in this world, as well as the promised punishment (or reward) in the Hereafter for sins (or good deeds).

The legal punishment for adultery is death by stoning. Some people are so galvanized by this that they fail to read on: the truth of the matter is, the punishment for adultery is very rarely meted out by a Shariah government. It is only to be administered in the following situations:

1) A person confesses to adultery and seeks the punishment for himself.
2) A person commits sexual acts in public or boasts openly about his sin (i.e. adultery) in public.

If the adulterer fulfills the following conditions, then he CANNOT be punished by law:

1) He/she does not confess to the sin.
2) He/she did not perform the sexual act in public but rather he/she did it in private, and he/she did not boast about it publically. (A sexual act is considered done in public if it is done in front of four witnesses. If it is less than that, then it is considered a private act, and not to be punished.)

This would include the vast majority of adulterers. Such people would not be punished by the law, and instead they are simply advised to ask Allah for repentance. There is a special Prayer of Repentance that they should pray.

Therefore, there are only two situations in which the death penalty is enacted, and this is (1) self-confession, and (2) public sex or boasting publically about it.

The vast majority of cases in which the death penalty is enacted is the first case (i.e. self-confession). In the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (s), there is not a single case of adultery being punished except in which the adulterers themselves begged the Prophet (s) for the punishment to be meted out against themselves.

These adulterers who begged the Prophet (s) for punishment were strong believers who felt remorse for what they had done, and wanted expiation for their sins. The Prophet (s) said: “Give allegiance to me that you will...not steal, not commit fornication, not kill your children (etc)...Whoever among you fulfils this, his reward will be with Allah. Whoever commits any of these sins will be punished in this world and that will be an expiation for him. Whoever commits any of these sins but Allah conceals it, then it will be for Allah to decide: if He wills, He will forgive him, and if He wills, He will punish him.”

Therefore, these adulterers sought the punishment as expiation for their sins so that they would not be punished on the Day of Judgement for that. However, it should be noted that the adulterer has the option of concealing his sin, and in fact, the Qadi (judge) should constantly advise him to do that.

The general principle in Islam is to avert punishment as much as possible. This of course negates the idea of Westerners that Muslims are blood-thirsty people who seek to chop hands and stone people at whim. Indeed, Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “Keep the Muslims away from punishments as much as possible. If there is any way out for an offender to escape punishment, acquit him. It is better for a judge to make an error in acquittal than in conviction.”

If we look at the Prophetic Sayings on this matter, we see that the Prophet (s) tried to avert punishment as much as he could, even ignoring the request of those who sought to confess their sin of fornication/adultery.

A man once came upto the Prophet (s) to confess his sin of Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse). We read:

A man from amongst the people came to the Messenger of Allah while he was sitting in the mosque, and addressed him, saying “O Messenger of Allah! I have committed Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse).” The Messenger of Allah turned his face away from him [and ignored him]. The man came to that side to which the Messenger of Allah had turned his face, and said [again]: “O Messenger of Allah! I have committed Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse).” The Messenger of Allah turned his face to the other side, and the man came to that side. When he confessed four times, the Messenger of Allah called him and said “Are you insane?” He said: “No, O Messenger of Allah!” The Messenger of Allah said: “Are you married?” He said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah!” The Messenger of Allah said (to the people): “Take him away and stone him to death.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 6439)

In another instance, also narrated in the Prophetic Sayings, another man confesses to Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse), but the Prophet (s) dismisses him by saying: “Probably you have only kissed (the woman), or touched, or looked at her.” This was the Prophet's attempt to avert the punishment on adultery (which is only to be meted out for the actual sex act itself). The Prophet (s) was trying to give this adulterer an "out", a way to take back his confession. But the man would not relent, and insisted that he be punished, and so the punishment was meted out on him.

Hence, even though Islam allows a person to confess his sin in order to be punished, the Qadi (judge) is advised to counsel the man to rescind his confession and think twice before he does that. The adulterer must confess four times before it is finally accepted of him, and each time the person confesses, the Qadi (judge) should ask questions such as "are you sure?" or "perhaps you are mistaken", etc.

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

"The punishment of adultery is proven if the perpetrator him/herself confesses to be guilty of the crime. He/she must be sane, adult/mature (baligh) and must confess four separate times in four separate sessions that the crime was committed. The judge will try to wave away the punishment as much as possible by saying to the confessor that 'you may have only touched or kissed' and other such statements...[but if the adulterer confesses] without leaving any doubt or ambiguity, the punishment will be enforced...

"If the confessor takes back his words before the punishment is enforced or during the punishment, he/she will be released and set free. (See: al-Ikhtiyar li ta’lil al-Mukhtar, 2/311-316)"

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

"One should remember that it is not necessary in order for one’s sin to be forgiven that he/she receives the legal punishment (hadd) for the sin committed. The reason being is that one is not obliged to confess that he/she committed adultery; hence one may keep the sin hidden and not inform the Islamic judge about it."

It should be noted that Islam differs with Christianity in one major way: in Islam we are not encouraged to confess our sins or reveal them publically. In Islam, we are to confess our sins only to Allah and Allah alone. This goes for *all* sins. (In the case of adultery, the *only* reason you confess it to a judge is so that he can enforce the punishment upon you.) A Muslim should hide his sins and not boast them, because the worst person is the one who publically boasts about his sins, as is common in today's society. Openly admitting to sins only leads to corruption in society. For example, some Muslims in this thread have openly admitted to drink alcohol. But this is two wrongs they did: the first is drinking alcohol, but the second is admitting it publically. Other Muslims will read these posts and think to themselves "hey, that person is doing it too, so it can't be that bad." (The said Muslims need not have lied but instead they should have remained silent.)

In a society in which sins are openly discussed (and even boasted about), these sins become common place and accepted as the norm. For example, in today's society, so many people admit to illegal sexual intercourse that it isn't even taboo any more, but rather a person who does that doesn't feel bad at all since everyone is doing it.

Furthermore, Islam came to criticize the priests of Christianity who the Quran says took the place of God. Indeed, the priests become very influential and rich based on people confessing their sins to them, even accepting money to expiate sins. Islam discouraged this and called this religious exploitation. And what Islam especially decries are intermediaries to God: the Prayer of Repentance is accepted directly by Allah, and there is no need for an intermediary on earth to accept it or reject it. That is for Allah and Allah alone to accept.

The confession of an adulterer is only necessary so that the punishment can be meted out, not because it is a good thing to confess sins to people. (In fact, we should hide our sins, and reveal them only to Allah.) But in this case, the adulterer confesses to a judge only because no entity except the State can enforce punishments on citizens. A person may not even enforce the penalty on himself, let alone on others. (Therefore, the practise of "honor killings" and other such things are not permitted, considered outlawed vigilante justice, and indeed they are remnants of Jahili [barbarous Pre-Islamic] society.)

This leads to the second condition in which adultery is punished by law, which is when the sex act is done in public (defined by at least four or more witnesses) or the person publically boasts about his sin (to at least four witnesses).

As for the first case--in which the sex act is done in public--this is of course punishable by death. Adultery is considered sinful, but doing that in public is considered an abomination. Such people must be put to death so that such evil does not become widespread in society. For example, in today's society, we have the open evils of pornography, in which men and women commit illegal sexual intercourse in public. This destroys society and is an abomination. In the modern context, it is *these* people who would be punished with death by the Shariah (i.e. public fornicators), not those who commit adultery in their own homes under cover of darkness. Those who commit adultery may only be doing so out of weakness of the flesh--and are thus simply advised to repent--but those who flaunt it are the very tools of Satan and they have the desire to spread filth and corruption everywhere.

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “All of my Ummah (people) will be forgiven except those who sin openly. It is a part of sinning openly when a man does something at night, then the following morning when Allah has concealed his sin, he says, ‘O So and so, I did such and such last night,’ when all night his Lord has concealed him and the next morning he uncovers what Allah had concealed.”

The last condition is that of the person who publically flaunts his indiscretion and boasts about his adultery. The legal requirement for punishing this is when he boasts about it to four people or more. He will, however, be asked to repent from that and cease from doing that. If he agrees, then such a person will be forgiven and let go.

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen says:

"There is a third kind of immoral, rebellious, promiscuous person, who speaks in a boastful manner about Zinnah (fornication/adultery) and tells people that he travelled to such and such a place and committed immoral acts of Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse) with a number of women, and so on, and he shows off about that. Such people should be asked to repent, and if they do not they should be executed." (Sharh Riyaad al-Saaliheen, 1/116)

Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says:

"Speaking about your sin and flaunting it openly in front of your friends is Haram (forbidden), and is a major sin. It is one of the ways of spreading immorality among the Muslims, encouraging evil and tempting others to do similar things. It also means that one does not take sin seriously and regards it as insignificant, and that the sinner is damaging his own reputation and exposing his honour to the slander of others."

This is classified along with the former condition (i.e. public sex act) since they fulfill the same thing. However, people who commit the public sex act are punished swiftly, whereas those who simply boast about their sin are advised to repent and take back their four confessions (i.e. boasting is likened to a confession). If they are obstinate in boasting about it, then they are to be punished.

There *is* one other scenario in which adultery would be punishable by death, and this is if a man/woman accuses his/her spouse of adultery. In this case, he/she must take four sacred oaths against his/her spouse accusing him/her of adultery. If, however, the accused spouse says that this is a lie (and if he/she takes five sacred oaths that it is a lie), then the case is thrown out and no punishment is meted out (unless it was a public sex act in which case the above ruling for public sex acts would be enacted).

If a man/woman rightfully accuses his/her spouse of adultery but his/her spouse lies in court about it, then the accuser can file for divorce and his/her only recourse is to seek his/her spouse's punishment in the Next Life on the Day of Judgement. Allah is Most Just!

As for the spouse that is accused, he/she must take five sacred oaths to testify to their innocence. If he/she is lying, then the Curse of Allah is upon him/her and he/she will be severely punished in the Next Life. Therefore, while there is no heavenly punishment for hiding your sin, there *is* a punishment for lying about it if your spouse accuses you of adultery. The reason for this is that a spouse has a right to "vengeance" just as do victims of other crimes (i.e. the relatives of a murdered man have the right to seek the death sentence for the murderer).

-----------------

You have asked about the "maximum penalty for adultery." However, it should be noted that there are no levels of punishment in this matter: either an adulterer is punished with the death penalty or not. (It should be noted that only adultery is punished by death, not fornication, which is punished by whipping of one hundred lashes.) But in the majority of cases, the legal requirements for punishment are not fulfilled (i.e. self-confession or public sex/boasting), and therefore he is not punished and instead left to ask for forgiveness on his own.

From this, we see that Islam does not seek to punish people but rather it seeks simply to keep the moral fabric of society together by preventing public obscenity. Such societies in which sexual lewdness is publically advocated earn the Wrath of Allah, and it was for this reason that the People of Sodom were uprooted and destroyed. We seek refuge from Allah from that.

The truth is that the punishment for adultery is only a symbolic punishment that would rarely be administered. It is a law of deterrence. If that law was in effect in society, then no person in his right mind would commit sexual acts in public nor would he boast about it (and even if he did that, he would repent and be let go). This is one of the things that Western people do not understand about Islamic Law. They see these laws as simply barbaric and blood-thirsty measures to be administered at whim, as if people are punished for the slightest infraction. But rather, the truth of the matter is that they are laws of deterrence only, and these punishments are almost NEVER administered in a properly functioning Islamic state. Not only this, but these laws are VERY effective in preventing crime.

I close with the words of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari who says:

"There are detailed and stringent conditions for the legal punishment of fornication and adultery to be enforced upon an individual. If these conditions are not met, the punishment will not be enforced.

"One should always keep in mind the objective and spirit of Shariah (Islamic Law) concerning the various legal punishments. The idea is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished.

"An example of this which comes to mind is that we see speed cameras being placed on many roads and streets (especially here in the UK!) in order to deter people from speeding in their vehicles. The idea behind these speed cameras is not to catch people speeding, rather to prevent people from speeding and causing accidents. If the aim was to catch people speeding, there would be no warning signs indicating that a camera is present. However, we see that whenever a speed camera is placed, many warnings are given that “beware this road has a speed camera”. Many of the times, the camera is not even in operation, hence, the idea is to stop people speeding rather than catch and punish them.

"The same is with the various legal punishments prescribed by Shariah (Islamic Law), in that they are prescribed to prevent people from committing unlawful actions and corrupting the society, yet the rules and conditions for a legal punishment to be enforced are so stringent that very rarely would an individual be punished. The legal punishment is considered a deterrent, but if an individual did involve him/herself in some unlawful activity, the objective now is not to get the individual punished rather to save him/her from the punishment."

Take care, Brother.

What do you think of this? Do you think religious law should be meted out to foreigners in this way, even in a majority-Muslim country? What do you think about "religious police", and their powers in Saudi Arabia? Is there Quranic support for this form of Sharia law?

aneeshm said:

Also - here is a more controversial historic question. Mohammed, when the took the Kaaba, smashed the idols. Would it not have been better to simply transport them somewhere else, or to give it to the idolaters and tell them to take them away?

Click to expand...

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Sorry for the delay. I just wanted to double-check on a few things before I gave a hasty or inaccurate reply, especially because I was not familiar with the status of the idol of Manat in specific. However, I have looked into the situation now.

On the issue of idols, it should be noted that they can be classified into two categories:

1) Idols worshipped by Muslims.
2) Idols worshipped by Non-Muslims.

As for the first situation, it is the government's duty to destroy and smash those idols.

As for the second situation, it is the government's duty to respect their right to freedom of religion and to even protect their temples with their idols inside of them. These temples must be protected in the Lands of Islam, even with the blood of the Muslims.

Now let us look into the situation during the time of Prophet Muhammad (s). Each city-state in Pre-Islamic Arabia had its own gods. The city leaders decided which gods would be worshipped in that city by the masses of people. There would be a sort of Shurah or Jirga (consultation) amongst the village elders, who would sit down and decide decisions for the entire city, and everyone in the city would follow that. If, for example, that particular city-state made an alliance with another city-state, they could decide to worship the same gods as that other city-state. In fact, the city-state of Mecca had become very powerful because its gods were worshipped in many other cities, reflecting on the power of Mecca.

Likewise, the entire city-state of Medinah converted to Islam when its leaders made an agreement with Prophet Muhammad (s). The leaders of Medinah converted, and so the whole of Medinah converted as well. The people of Medinah agreed to worship only the "Muslim" God (i.e. the One God of the Abrahamic faiths). This occurred before the Hijrah, or the Prophet's migration to Medinah.

When Prophet Muhammad (s) and ten thousand Muslims encircled Mecca to conquer it, the pagan leader of Mecca, Abu Sufyan, met with Prophet Muhammad (s) before the planned seige. He converted to Islam and surrendered the city. With his conversion, all of Mecca converted en masse to Islam. Again, Arabs of that time followed whatever their leaders did.

When Prophet Muhammad (s) had conquered Mecca, many other city-states or tribes saw that the power had shifted away from the pagan Quraish and now the Muslims were the emerging power. Tribe after tribe pledged allegiance to Islam and realigned themselves with Medinah. This process had already begun after the Treaty of Hudaiyba: during the years of peace, Medinah became more and more powerful. When Muslim forces were ready to lay seige on Mecca, many tribes had already allied themselves with the Muslims and pledged their loyalty to Islam. And *after* the conquest of Mecca, the power of the Muslims became absolute and all of Arabia viewed the Muslims as the leaders.

Therefore, tribe after tribe converted to Islam en masse. This was due to the leaders of those tribes who decided on that course of action, and the masses followed suit. But many of the new converts to Islam clung onto their pagan ways and beliefs, mixing Islam with pagan ways. Many of them clung onto idolatery, which is an abomination in Islam.

The Prophet (s) and the veteran Muslims went about smashing the various idols in those places in which the new Muslims were still worshipping them. Had they not accepted Islam? Had they not abandoned the ways of Jahiliyyah?

I will just give one example: the People of Taif converted to Islam, and they later asked for one year to keep the idol of Lat even though they had already converted to Islam. This is unacceptable in Islam, and once you convert to Islam, your "freedom of religion" goes down the drain and you submit to Allah. (Islam, after all, means "submission" in reference to submission to Allah.) The Prophet (s) rejected the pleas of these early Muslims and he ordered Khalid bin Waleed (ra) to destroy it forthwith.

The same is the case with the People of Mecca, who converted en masse to Islam as a precursor to the invasion by the encamped Muslim troops on the outskirts of the city. And this is why all idols were demolished, because these people had now become Muslims and therefore idolatery would not be accepted.

In fact, the early converts to Islam had a hard time letting go of their pagan ways, and many of them still feared the "power" of the idols. By smashing them, Prophet Muhammad (s) showed that they had no power at all to do any harm or good. This was in the same manner that Prophet Abraham (as) had smashed all the idols in a temple, leaving only one standing, so that when the people asked him accusingly as to who did this, Prophet Abraham (as) told them to ask that one idol that was left standing. The people realized that this idol could not stop Prophet Abraham (as) nor even tell the people who did it. The powerlessness of the idols is what strenghtened the faith of the people and made them turn away from idol worship. Similarly, the new converts to Islam were still enamored by their old pagan idols, but Prophet Muhammad (s) smashed them all to show how utterly powerless they were. So it was a gesture done to help the new converts come to terms with the Tawheed (monotheism, Oneness in God) that Islam holds as its central tenet.

Today, if certain Muslims started worshipping idols in a mosque, then the Shariah state would be obliged to smash those idols and prevent the Muslims from doing that.

However, this does not apply to Non-Muslims in the Lands of Islam, since they have a right to freedom of religion other than Islam. They are Protected Peoples (Dhimmis) and they have the right to their faith and nobody can coerce them in any way. Their temples and the idols inside of them are not to be touched by the government. The same is the case with other matters, such as Hijab which is to be enforced on Muslim women but cannot be enforced on Non-Muslim women. (And, in fact, the early Non-Muslim women in the Lands of Islam did not wear it nor were compelled to wear it.)

Today, this issue has relevance because sometimes ignorant and backwards Muslims from the Indo-Pak subcontinent will come visit Mecca and Medinah only to worship and even grave-worship at tombs, no doubt a remnant from their Hindu backgrounds. But these people are no longer Hindus, and they should stop that if they wish to be Muslim. And this is why the Islamic scholars have smashed the things which these Indo-Pak people mistakenly take as idols. For example, the Islamic scholars have removed objects that people have venerated and begun to worship mistakenly, and they have destroyed so-called "shrines" which have no place in Islam.

aneeshm said:

I referred to it in my post above that one - the idol of Manat, which was not found at the Kaaba.

Click to expand...

The idol of Manat was located with the People of Al-Mashallai. After they pledged allegiance to Islam, Prophet Muhammad (s) sent Saad bin Zaid Al-Ashali to destroy the idol of Manat which was done successfully.

Therefore, it is a mistaken opinion of anyone to claim that this idol was not smashed successfully.

Furthermore, it is Haram (forbidden) to smash idols if they are being worshipped by Hindus in their temples. The idol of Manat was smashed because it was being worshipped by new converts to Islam, and they have no right to do that as they had pledged allegiance to Islam. The Baya'ah (pledge of allegiance) is to worship no god except Allah. This is the oath that the people swear at the hands of the Prophet (s) to enter the ranks of the Islamic state. All the tribes would pledge their allegiance at the hand of Prophet Muhammad (s) who would say to them: "Give allegiance to me that you will not associate partners with God..." And they all pledged a sacred oath not to do that. If they did that, they are in violation of that oath and this is not acceptable.

EDIT: Looking over my post I realize that I may have indirectly insulted your faith, and this was not my intention. I should have been clear that it is only my personal view that idolatery is not right or that it is "backwards" or any such thing, and that I must respect your opinion to differ on this. I was only giving the Islamic view on it, and of course, the negative view of idolatery will not be shared by Hindus. Apologies if I was offensive. Indeed, I have no strong feelings towards Hindus and what they do in their own religion. On the other hand, I do not approve of Muslims who do things that are not allowed in our faith, such as idolatery.

Take care, Brother.

Elrohir said:

What do you think of this? Do you think religious law should be meted out to foreigners in this way, even in a majority-Muslim country? What do you think about "religious police", and their powers in Saudi Arabia? Is there Quranic support for this form of Sharia law?

Click to expand...

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

As usual, the media sensationalizes news about such matters, and they have the flashy title of "20 Face Lashes for Dancing in Saudi Arabia." This is a half-truth designed in such a way that the reader reaches a hasty (and inaccurate) picture.

The lashes were not given for dancing but for drinking alcohol. Muslims who drink alcohol are to be punished by the Shariah with forty lashes. I do believe that the article is mis-reporting and inaccurate because I cannot see how the Saudis would give twenty lashes when the minimum punishment for alcohol is forty lashes. Not only this, but the title of the article says "for dancing" when it should be "for drinking"; and the title also says "face lashes" even though it is Haram (forbidden) in the Shariah to whip the face, head, or the private parts. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

"These whips and lashes will be spread out over the body, avoiding the head, face and the private parts."

The common procedure is to whip the person on his back, avoiding the sensitive parts of the body.

As for the law being enforced on foreigners, this law is *never* enforced on Non-Muslims in Shariah, who are allowed to drink alcohol, eat pork, etc. It is, however, applied to all Muslims, regardless of nationality. As for Saudi, they warn all foreigners who disembark at their airports that this is the law of the land.

You are Christian, so you are the last person who should be repulsed by such a law. Why should our Christian brothers be against forty lashes given by the Islamic Law when we read that forty lashes are ordained in the Bible itself:

"If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him" (Deuteronomy, 25:2-3)

In another verse of the Bible, II Corinthians 11:24, we read how forty lashes were administered to such a person. And we read in Proverbs 26:3 that whipping is also the Biblical punishment for naughty children. I would say that a bunch of young adults drinking alcohol, doing dirty dancing such as grinding, making out, etc, would be pretty naughty children, wouldn't you?

In regards to Saudi, I have already stated that it is not an Islamic country, nor does it rule by Shariah. The only part of Shariah that they enforce is the Hadd (punishments), and even this they do haphazardly and incorrectly. The Hadd (punishments) are a very minor part of the Shariah, and the Saudis are ignoring the most important part of the Shariah which is re-distribution of wealth, state welfare, social justice, etc. Furthermore, their entire form of governance (i.e. kingship) is against the Shariah. And there are many other reasons why Saudi is not representative of Islam or Islamism, and this is why Islamists all over the world decry Saudi, referring to its leaders as Munafiqeen (hypocrites). I have stated my views on Saudi in other posts, so please refer to those.

However, in this instance, I do not see anything wrong with the way Saudi punished the offenders. These people were not only drinking but they were clubbing. I do not know of anything more sinful than clubbing, which involves dirty dancing, lewd inter-mingling of the sexes, drinking, making out, drugs, etc. Would not the American police break up a party in which illicit drugs were being used? Would not these people be jailed for using marijuana? So what then is the issue? From a purely medical standpoint, alcohol is an even more dangerous substance than marijuana (proven by evidence based studies). In America, you get thrown into jail and raped by your cell-mate Bubba...I'd rather take 40 lashes, thank you.

In regards to the religious police, I do not find any issue with an enlightened, appropriate, and moderate force that would enforce Islamic Laws upon Muslims within the bounds of Shariah. Although the system set up by Saudi has its problems (that I believe would be fixed in a real Islamic state), the portrayal of them in the article is ridicolously biased. I cannot digest how people actually take this seriously when so-called "objective" reporters make their bias so glaringly obvious. In the article, we read:

"The religious police, a force resented by many Saudis for interfering in personal lives, enjoys wide powers. Its officers roam malls, markets, universities and other public places looking for such infractions as...women with strands of hair showing from under their veil."

First of all, it is ridicolous to say that they look for strands of hair showing. I have been to Saudi twice, and this was *not* the case. Yes, the Hijab is a requirement, but "strands of hair" do show through often, and nobody said anything about this at all. In fact, many women had their Hijabs pulled back, exposing the front of their hair entirely! And nothing was said to them. This is merely the agenda of the writer to inject his own bias into the article. The proper rendering of his sentence would read "the religious police prohibit women from wearing inappropriately revealing clothes."

And then there is the idea that many Saudis hate the religious police. This is once again injecting bias into the article. "Many" could be two or three people. It is a misleading and subjective statement, and it should REALLY read that the Saudi religious police are hated by the author of the article. This is the truth. Islam is very popular amongst the youth, and if it were put to a vote, I gaurantee you that most Muslims would want a form of religious police in order to prevent vice in society.

I believe that the West can really benefit from Islam. Yes, the Muslims have a lot to learn from and benefit from the West (such as technology), but I think the West can also benefit from the Muslims. Many believe that Western society has become morally defunct, engulfed in sin, sex, and vice. Ninety percent of youth have engaged in pre-marital sex, and most have had multiple partners before marriage. If one visits a random high school in America, one would find youth obsessed with sin, even to the point that they boast about it. I remember being in high school in which the coolest kids were the bad kids, the ones doing drugs, partying, fornicating, and doing evil. Even in the English slang, "bad" means "good"; it is a complete reversal of morality.

Suddenly, a society in which women dress exposing their cleavage and legs is a positive and good thing, whereas a society in which women dress modestly and appropriately is seen as a bad thing, something that we Muslims are supposed to feel bad about or embarassed about. Why should Muslims feel bad for wearing a headscarf? Has this not been a sign of modesty, chastity, and goodness since the beginning of time? Do not Christian nuns wear the headscarf? And yet, the Muslims are continually attacked intellectually, put on trial for their goodness. Quite literally, Muslims are being accused of being too good, because now goodness has become a bad thing. Suddenly, a society that accepts little teenagers dating, making out, and fornicating is a good thing, and the one that prevents that is considered the bad one.

I turned to Islam at the end of high school, as a rejection of a lifestyle that I could not morally accept and that my soul rejected. The West should soften its criticism of Islam, and instead learn from it, so that society can become wholesome again. Pro-active steps must be taken to return society to its natural state of goodness, away from the Satanic influences of vice and vulgarity. And if the West is unwilling to benefit from Islam, then at least they should end their unjustified crusade against Islamic values.

The Shariah and religious police have been maligned so much by Westerners, but this is what the Muslims want for themselves. The Shariah and religious police are especially lenient to Non-Muslims, and the punishments and penalties for such things as drinking alcohol are only applicable to Muslims. Society should be pure, vices and vulgarity eliminated, and goodness should prevail.

Alcohol is a dirty and filthy thing which has ruined many lives and it does not benefit anyone in the least. The removal of alcohol from society only makes society better, not worse. It is just another drug, just like cocaine and heroin. It has ruined more lives than both of these drugs, in fact. The penalty for such Satanic substances should be very high, and this is a deterrent and it is a measure which protects society and it is for the good of the people. I support strong law enforcement in this area. Punishing people for partaking in such evil is a good thing and it is not at all evil. Has society strayed so far that good has become evil and evil has become good? Alcohol is evil, and it is good to remove it from society. We should all be part of this group that calls to goodness, and forbids evil. Allah says in the Quran:

"Let there arise from amongst you a community that invites to goodness, and enjoins right conduct and forbids indecency and the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful." (Quran, 3:104)

Take care, Brother.

Salah-Al-Din said:

It should be noted that Islam differs with Christianity in one major way: in Islam we are not encouraged to confess our sins or reveal them publically. In Islam, we are to confess our sins only to Allah and Allah alone. This goes for *all* sins.

Click to expand...

Interesting. How about sins that hurt another person (for example, theft, back-biting, etc.)? I'm not Christian, but they're big into the idea that we should forgive those who have asked for forgiveness for transgressions. Aren't you supposed to approach people and admit to them the harms you've caused them?

El_Machinae said:

Interesting. How about sins that hurt another person (for example, theft, back-biting, etc.)?

Click to expand...

Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says:

"You should understand that rights are of two types: the rights of Allah and the rights of other people. The rights of Allah are waived when one repents...there are three conditions of repentance: (1) giving up the sin, (2) regretting what is past, and (3) resolving not to go back to it...With regard to the rights of other people, (there is) a fourth condition to repentance, which is that people’s rights should be restored to them, and that repentance is not sufficient to waive any of the rights owed to others, rather the rights of the one who has been wronged must be restored."

Therefore, if you stole money from someone, then you must pay him back; otherwise, this is not considered proper repentance or expiation for that sin. However, you need not reveal yourself or your sin to that person; if there is a way to restore his money without revealing your identity, then this is permissible. You can write him an anonymous note and give him the money back like that.

Whenever the right of a person is taken by you, you must seek to restore that right to the person. If, in order to do that, you will reveal your identity, then you will have to do this, but not in order that the thief be known or identified, but rather only so that the right can be properly restored.

As for back-biting and gossiping about a person, Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says:

"A man should not tell another man that he has gossiped about him if he (the latter) does not know; it is sufficient just to ask Allah for forgiveness for the sin and to ask for forgiveness for his brother and to counteract the harm caused by his gossiping about him."

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "The kafaarah (expiation) of the one who gossips about another is that he should ask for forgiveness for him."

The man should not tell the other person if he does not know about it already, because this will only hurt him. Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says by "telling the person what was said, this may make him hate him." (I apologize for all the ambigious pronouns, which is actually the bane of Arabic-to-English translations.)

Ibn al-Mubaarak said: "Do not hurt him twice." What is meant by this is that back-biting was hurting him once, and then insulting him to his face is hurting him again. For example, if you back-bited about a girl by saying that she was fat and ugly, do you think it would really help things if you came upto her and said "I'm sorry for calling you fat and ugly." Indeed, this will only hurt her!

Instead, what one should do is pray for forgiveness for that girl, and there is no better gift a person can give than a beautiful prayer for that person's forgiveness. And then one should seek to counter-act the harm that was done by the gossip. If, for example, a girl had back-bited another girl by calling her fat, then she should now compliment that girl in front of the same people that she had initially gossipped with. This would be counter-acting the evil she had initially done. She could say things like "that girl has lost so much weight now" or "she really isn't fat at all" or "she's actually very pretty" or even "I was silly to have said that about her."

I'm not Christian, but they're big into the idea that we should forgive those who have asked for forgiveness for transgressions.

Click to expand...

Although Islam does not condone revealing one's sins to others except to Allah, there is a strong belief in Islam that the person who is wronged should always forgive those who wronged him. This is a very important belief in Islam. A man who does not forgive his fellow man will not be forgiven by Allah. If a person forgives another person, then Allah will forgive him for his sins. We wrong Allah every day in very big ways and yet He forgives us, so shouldn't we also forgive those who wrong our ownselves in lesser ways?

Allah says in the Quran:

"Let them forgive and overlook; do you not wish Allah to forgive you (as well)?" (Quran, 24:22)

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "He who shows mercy (upon others), Allah will shower His mercy upon him. Be merciful to the people of this world so that the One above will show mercy on you."

And Allah says in another verse of the Quran:

"It was by the Mercy of Allah that you deal with them gently and had you been stern or hard-hearted, they would have certainly broken away from you: so pardon them their faults, and ask for Allah's forgiveness for them...Allah loves those who put their trust in Him." (Quran, 3:159)

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "Your heart should be filled with forgiveness for anger destroys faith like poisonous medicine turns honey into waste."

And in Islam, when someone wrongs you, you have a right to seek out justice against him and recompense for the wrong. However, it is a higher state of faith to simply forgive him. Allah says in the Quran:

"And whoever defends himself after he has been wronged, for such there is no cause of blame...But indeed whoever of you shows patience and forgiveness (instead of seeking vengeance), that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs." (Quran, 42:41-43)

The idea of forgiving others has nothing to do with the wrong-doer apologizing to you, but rather you should forgive others regardless of wether or not such a person asks for forgiveness or not. The city of Taif threw out the Prophet (s) by pelting him with rocks to the point that the Prophet (s) was severely wounded. The Arch-Angel Gabriel (as) was incensed and came to the aid of the Prophet (s) saying that he (as) had the power to crush the People of Taif and destroy them off the face of this earth, if the Prophet (s) would just give him the permission to do that. But Prophet Muhammad (s) refused the offer and instead prayed for the People of Taif.

The Prophet (s) said: "O Allah, you are very forgiving and love those who forgive others."

Allah commands in the Quran:

"Forgive and overlook..." (Quran, 2:109)

Three different Arabic words are used in the Quran for forgiveness. "Safahah" is used in the Quran, and it means "to ignore", because one should ignore the wrongs done by others. "Gaffar" is also used, which means "to forgive", and we should forgive those who have wronged us. And lastly "afa" is used which means "to forget", so we should forget wrongs altogether.

Sahafah, Gaffar, and Afa. Ignore, forgive, and forget.

Allah says in the Quran:

"Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant." (Quran, 7:199)

I would say that there are hundreds of verses in the Quran about mercy and forgiveness. So yes, this is a very important part of Islam, to forgive others for the faults of theirs and the injuries they cause you.

Aren't you supposed to approach people and admit to them the harms you've caused them?

Click to expand...

Only if doing so will aid in restoring the rights you took from them. However, we believe that this is most often possible without revealing one's past sins.

Take care, brother.

Thanks. Ah, there's a potential cultural divide there, then. Because it seems sneaky to try to obfuscate your ill-actions towards others, even if you will seek to recompense them later.

As well, since the obfuscation is suggested as a matter of course, it can become the first instinct ("first obfuscate, and then rectify"). I think it might be a distasteful policy, because it means that I cannot expect someone to tell me the truth when I confront them regarding a harm they've done to me. While the muslim is not beholden to lie, it seems he's not beholden to be honest. Non-lying obfuscation would be the balanced path.

As an aside: culturally, the Christians don't seem to require repentance first, before they try to forgive others, which is a good thing, because it's a superior moral stance to forgive even the unrepentant. It's easier to forgive the repentant, though.

On a tangent:

Instead, what one should do is pray for forgiveness for that girl, and there is no better gift a person can give than a beautiful prayer for that person's forgiveness.

Click to expand...

I might be misreading, but this looks like intercession (though not necessarily effective, like a Catholics version is). I thought that wasn't part of your doctrine? I thought Allah's mercy was something held between the sinner and the god?