I'll post a quick reply my dear friend.
I was trying to make a point, that being moderate, and not following every single rule, makes you an apostate.
Not true. You can still be a muslim even if you don't follow a single rule.
But if you say the Qur'an doesn't forbid murder, then you apostate. That is if you KNOW the Qur'an forbids murder, but you still reject it and say it's doesn't say that.
That is if you reject something you know is a part og the Qur'an and say "it doesn't exist". Then you apostate from Islam. But you don't apostate if you don't pray, give money to charity, fast etc..
Could you cite a reference? Which part?
I'll give you one example: "Do not hurt the innocent".
Are not all regions except the eyes, the hands, and the feet (and sometimes not even those) all aurat for women?
There are different opninions on what is the womans awrah, but in orthodox islam in the most followed school of jurisprudence, the face, feet and hands are not a part of the woman awrah. Other parts she must conceal from strange men.
But that doesn't mean a muslim woman cannot search for knowledge. Unless you are forbidden to conceal these parts in the schools.
The mountains are supposed to nail the ground down, so that it doesn't move.
How far is that true?
Anything can sound strange if you take it out of context.
I believe science has confirmed, that mountains do have an effect on earthquakes, but the effect is not huge, although we would have a lot more earthquakes if there were no mountains.
And could you provide a reference for this "orbits the sun" thing? I can quote to you the fatwas from Deoband which have declared it heresy to say so. In fact, their position is that the sun goes around the Earth.
I do not care about fatwas. There are so many selfproclaimed scholars, and lets stick to orthodox Islam - sunni Islam.
But yes, I can quote directly from the Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an.
021.033 It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
Scholars from the two major branches, sunni and shia, have concluded through this verse, the moon and sund (and all celestial bodies) swim along in orbits. Many years later, this was proven true by science.
The position of the sunnis and the shias is the earth orbits the sun, but the sun also swims along in its own course, which is true.
Ridiculous enough for you?
If it was true, yes. Let's lift the debate to a level which can't be found in kindergarten. No need to call anything ridiculous.
I believe I did explain it to you.
Go ahead. I can point out how the Quran's view of the world is complete nonsense, when compared to modern science, all day long.
Well okay, go ahead then. If you are so sure. I have dealt with these issues several times before. Go ahead my friend.
great. Now would you please show us the proof of your studies, instead of just saying that they exist?
I apoligize. You see I have a lot of work to do these days, so I don't have much time to spend on gaming forums. Too bad I can't copy/paste stuff, but have to spend hours looking stuff up.
I'm referring to the school of Islam which is most relevant to me, which is the Deobandi school, who are arch-traditionalists.
As far as I know, the deobandis aren't a part of traditional Islam, but in many ways a part of wahhabism.
Let's stick to traditional sunni Islam. I don't care how relevant the deobandis are to you, and I don't care what they believe. Fact is they have little influence in the islamic world and it would be very sad if you took a position on Islam because of what a minority believes.
And they absolutely oppose modern cosmology. Their cosmological view is total junk.
If this is true, I can assure you. They are not a part of sunni islam, which is traditional Islam and orthodox islam.
I get the feeling you have made a stance on Islam, because of what this minority believes.
I believe I see the whole picture, at least I try to.
Actually, I can judge your post. Not you, not the children's book, but the post.
It's still remarkable.
Philosophy is explicitly forbidden, because it could lead people to unbelief. So that's out.
Maybe according to the deobandis, but according to sunni Islam philosophy is encouraged.
And it is better to die an uneducated, illiterate martyr at the age of ten than live to be an old man of a hundred who made gigantic contributions to literature. You can't deny this fact.
Acutally I can deny it.
I believe Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa salam said: "The ink of a scholar is more precious to God than the blood of a martyr".
Maybe the deobandis belive in something else, but the majority of muslims believe the ink is more valuable.
Then who the hell does? Mohammed himself had said that "My ulema can never be wrong." They pretty much define religion.
Not true, since Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa salam and Allah clearly has stated men can make mistakes, and they will make mistakes.
No reason is provided for this, I suppose.
According to islam, the final message has been delievered to humanity.
It's perfectly legal to have slaves in Islam, and to deny them an education.
How do you define a slave?
In Islam a slave isn't the same slave as the black people were in America.
In Islam a slave has rights, almost like a normal worker. You know, the black slave Bilal was freed and he was given the honourable task of calling to prayer. Makes you wonder, huh? Why was Islam popular with the poor people and the slaves? Because it gave them rights and preached equality.
So Indian Muslims aren't Muslims in general? If anything, they're the second most numerous in any country in the world.
Well good for you guys!
I myself currently reside in a country with five million citizens, not many compared to you guys.
But seriously, all muslims aren't based in India, no matter how many indians there are. Note that the muslims in India aren't clones of each other.
Way...
However, I am not sure whether there are ways, or roads in hell.
What do you say of the word "kafir" and "kufr"? then. I've seen it used absolutely freely by all Muslim scholars.
I thought you meant these words.
In arabic, a kafir is a person who conceals the truth.
Kufr is when a muslim conceals the truth of Islam, and he then becomes a kafir.
Many muslims, and non-muslims believe this word means infidel, but this is not correct. Although the media presents the word with this meaning, even though it is not the true meaning.
This is a classic case of fluffy-bunnyisation.
You asked for it.
Might be, but it's also the truth.
Don't blame me because Islam is a fluffy religion.
All the above is from the Sahih Muslim.
Note the word Sahih.
No, they are not sahih. They have not been translated correctly.
About the concept of Jihad:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.JIHAD.html
The position of 90 % of the muslims that is, the sunnis.
Those are the ones who are most true to the religion.
Perhaps in your opinion, but to be honest, your opinion doesn't matter at all. No disrespect, my opninion doesn't really matter either. We are both wasting our lives arguing. We could be learning about Islam with an open heart, free of hatred and prejudice.
When you want to know something about Islam, do you go muslims or do you go to the internet and find an anti islamic site?
When I want to expand my horizon, I make sure I read with an open heart, free of prejudice and hatred. Otherwise I will not read. I also make sure I get my knowledge from acceptable sources.
Not really. I'm just saying that constantly boasting that "Looky me! I've studied Islam!" is no way to go about a debate. You committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, in this case, the authority being you yourself.
I believe I apoligized for my arrogance. If not I apoligize now. I am sorry dear friend.
Although, I wouldn't say i constantly boast, especially not since I humbly apoligized for my attitude.
I feel your attack here wasn't useful and it doesn't contribute to the topic. Go after the ball, not the player.
The ones I've quoted above are all, every single one of them, sahih. So this excuse doesn't stick.
Perhaps in their original language, but in english, no.
A hadith can be sahih, but they can wtill be daif and have a weak isnad.
Nontheless, taken out of context.
That's like looking up the text without looking at the context. Without the hadith, you can make a totally hodgepodge interpretation of the Quran. The Hadith provide an instantiation of the principles of the Quran.
The Qur'an is independent. It has nothing to do with ahadith. Go ahead.
You wanted references. I gave them to you. And the passage I've quoted above is from a collection of sahih hadith.
I believe I gave an explanation.
That's taking this "context" obsession too far.
One would only say this if they were unsure of the context.
The Hadith are the context to the Quran.
No, this is not true at all. In context to which part of the Qur'an? There are thousands of ahadith, which part are they in context with?
Your statement here makes no sense.
I concede to your knowledge here. However, Islam allows the man to beat his wife (though there are certain conditions to the beating).
I appreciate.
I like the way you sneaked the last part in.
I have two articles explaining the issue, both are written by sunni scholars
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=612&CATE=10 (by a male scholar)
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=11&ID=4863&CATE=121 (by a female scholar)
This is illogical. What's the harm in letting women enhance their beauty if the want? And anyway, the hair aren't supposed to be seen either, so this justification is even more illogical.
This of couse is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
There are several negative sideeffects of plastic surgery, not to mention the risks. And the woman a beautiful as they are. It is not necessary to take unnecessary risks.
The hair isn't shown because of modesty and love to God.
The point remains that Mohammed is the eternal role model for all Muslims for all times for all places for all situations, by means of derivation by comparison, and that is why Islam permits fifty year old Muslim men to marry nine year old girls.
Not entirely true. The Qur'an is eternal, but the times of Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa salam were different than the ones today. This means other norms apply. Today it is unnatural to get married with a person who is nine years old.
I have come across new information:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1
Apparently Aishas age is a true mystery. I'll leave the subject to the scholars.
But I will say this, it is unfair to force the values of modern day society on a people who lived hundreds of years ago.
You very conveniently forgot to mention that she has to marry another man, have sex with him, and then divorce him, if she wants to go back to her previous husband.
And a husband can unilaterally divorce his wife, but the wife cannot divorce her husband.
By having sexual relations the marriage has been consummate. One cannot divorce if ones marriage hasn't been consummated.
A wife can indeed divorce her husband if there are valid reasons. The reason could be "he doesn't have a job", "he doesn't want sex" etc..
In Islam, divorce i lawful, but it is more benefical to try and save the marriage.
You're essentially asking me to stay away from the bits about Mohammed's personal life, which are the most damning.
Indeed. Hadith science is very wide.
But I'm considering the negative aspects more, because they affect me.
I am sorry to hear that, but evidently the "negative aspects" you point out here don't really exist in the islamic religion. The deeds and sayings of muslims don't always reflect the religion.
May you have the nicest possible day of all.
Thank you, and may you have a blessed day full of rejoice, guidance and happiness
PS. I am sorry to see you didn't comment on my other post
PPS. I hereby invite you to private conversations as two people seeking knowledge. I wish to learn more about hinduism, and I would like to clear up misconceptions about Islam. Do you have messenger? Contact me through private message if you are interested brother.
PPPS. I guess the reply wasn't as short as I hoped
PPPPS: I do not consider "the voice of Dharma" to be a valid reference when it comes to Islam
