Ask a Muslim, Part II

[Swedishguy]

Why do you think I get the reply "it's hell for you!" every time I ask a muslim/christian what they think about atheism?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What is your opinion of Sikhism?

Hi, Brother.

I do not know much about this faith. However, my position about Sikhism would be similar to my position on other faiths in general:

As a practising Muslim, I must believe in my heart that no religion is the Absolute Truth (Haqq) other than Islam. Allah says in the Quran:

"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (Quran, 3:85)

However, Islam also demands that its followers respect the right of another people to follow their faith, to be tolerant towards them, to be courteous to them, and to let them practise in their way. In fact, there is an entire chapter in the Quran which exhorts the Muslims to tell the disbelievers "to agree to disagree" or so to speak. Allah says in the Quran:

"Say: 'O you who disbelieve. I do not worship that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship. And I will not (ever) worship that which you worship, nor will you (ever) worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.'" (Quran, Chapter 109)

And there are many verses and Prophetic Sayings that tell us to be respectful towards Non-Muslims. So although we wholeheartedly believe in our hearts that only Islam is the absolute truth to the exclusion of all other faiths, we leave the judgement upto Allah and our duty is to be kind and courteous. The fact that we believe Islam to be the one true path should not and must not lead us to do injustice towards others.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What do you think the law should be in regards to the following -

a)Alcohol
b)Womans public appearance
c)Freedom of speach (including freedom to insult and mock religion)
d)Marriage/Adultery/Divorce
e)Homosexuality

I am intrested to see whether you think the laws you advocate should applyto just Muslims or whether non-muslims should follow them as well, even if forced upon them. Should non-muslims be made to follow muslim laws? Or live and let live?

I hear varying Muslim views on what their laws should be and whether non-muslims should be subjected to them or not.

Hello, Brother.

There are four aspects of Shariah (Islamic Law):

1. The Shariah applied to Non-Muslims in Non-Muslim lands.
2. The Shariah applied to Muslims in Muslim lands.
3. The Shariah applied to Non-Muslims in Muslim lands.
4. The Shariah applied to Muslims in Non-Muslim lands.

1. As for the first one of these, such a concept does not exist. Non-Muslims have this popular misconception that Muslims are calling for Shariah to be enacted upon Non-Muslims in Non-Muslim lands. This is ridicolous and absurd. Not only does it not find any basis in Islam, but rather it would just be the most wishful and bizarre thing and could never happen. Those who would call to such a thing--and those who would fear such a thing--are being silly, because there is no way that such a thing would ever happen. Indeed, when the Muslims call for "Shariah in the West", they are referring to the fourth situation above (Shariah in regards to Muslims living in Non-Muslim lands), which we will discuss shortly.

2. As for the Shariah towards Muslims in Muslim lands, it would apply as follows:

(a) Alcohol: Punishable by flogging of forty stripes.

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.

Oftentimes, the greatest proponents against such "harsh punishments" are Christians, and yet we find these same punishments or worse in the Bible. In fact, in the Bible, the drunkard is not only whipped but he is in fact stoned to death. The Bible reads:

Deuteronomy » Chapter 21
21:20 The parents must declare to the elders of his city, 'Our son here is wayward and rebellious. He does not listen to us, and is a glutton and drunkard.'
21:21 All the men of his city shall then pelt him to death with stones, so that you will rid yourself of the evil in your midst.

We find that forty lashes have been proscribed in the Bible itself:

Deuteronomy, 25:2-3
25:2-3: "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"

It should be noted, however, that the punishment for alcohol is applicable only to Muslims, and NOT Non-Muslims. We shall discuss this below, Allah Willing.


(b) Woman's Appearance

The following is the minimum covering for Muslim women:

The Hijab (headscarf) is obligatory.

What is MANDATORY is for a woman to cover everything except her face, hands, and feet.

Allah commands in the Quran:

"And say to the believing women to lower their gazes, and to guard their modesty, and not to display their (bodily) adornment except what is apparent of it, and to throw their headcoverings (over) to cover their bosoms, and not to display their adornment except to their husbands..." (Quran, Al-Nur:31)

The Prophet's wife said: “The Messenger of Allah...said: '...no part of her body should be seen except this' - and he pointed to his face and hands.”

There are a few requirements in the Islamic dress code for women:

The First Requirement: The Extent of Covering

This is the entire body aside from the face and hands, as mentioned above.

The Second Requirement: Thickness

The garment should be thick and opaque so as not to display the skin color and form of the body beneath it. Delicate or transparent clothing does not constitute a proper covering.

The Prophet (s) said: “There will be in the last of my Ummah (Islamic nation), women who will be dressed but naked, who go astray and make others go astray; they will not enter Paradise nor (even) smell its fragrance, although it can be smelled from afar.”

The Third Requirement: Looseness

The clothing must hang loosely enough and not be so tight-fitting as to show the shape and size of the woman’s body.

Prophet Muhammad (s) advised a husband to inform his wife not to wear a certain cloth because it was too tight fitting. The Prophet (s) said: "Tell her to wear a thick gown under it for I fear that it may describe the size (i.e. shape) of her limbs."

General Requirement

The Muslim woman should have a loose and flowing outer-garment around herself. Allah says in the Quran:

"O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outer-garments around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle." (Quran, 33:59)

Notice that the Quran makes this commandment so that women will be RECOGNIZED (i.e. as upright women of repute) and not be annoyed (i.e. sexually harassed).

However, the following rules are *not* applicable to Non-Muslim women, as we shall discuss soon, Allah Willing.


(c) Freedom of speech (including freedom to mock and insult a religion)

Islam does have a level of freedom of speech, but it is not absolute, because that would entail the permissibility of hate speech, racism, slander, etc. For example, racism has been explicitly forbidden in the Islamic texts, and it would be forbidden for someone to propagate racist texts under some premise of freedom of speech.

As for mocking and insulting religions, Islam forbids the mocking of Islam as well as of all other religions. Muslims are forbidden to mock another person's faith. Allah says in the Quran:

"If it had been Allah's plan, they would not have taken false gods: but We have not made you one to keep watch over their doings, nor are you placed in charge of their (own) affairs. And do not revile those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance. Thus unto every nation have We made their deed seem fair. Then to their Lord shall be their return, so He will inform them of what they did." (Quran, 6:107-108)

And Allah says:

"O you who believe! Let not some men among you mock at others: It may be that the latter are better than the former: Nor let some women mock at others: It may be that the latter are better than the former: Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by offensive names" (Quran, 49:11)

Therefore, in an Islamic state, what is forbidden are mean-spirited attacks, mockery, belittling, insulting, and abusing of other peoples' faiths. This would come under the same classification as mocking a race of people. It should be noted that this does not refer to one who engages in courteous debate and healthy dialogue but to the one who insults, mocks, uses abusive language, curses, lies about, and slanders the faith.

Basically, under a Shariah state, all hate speech would be forbidden, including hate speech aimed towards various races, ethnicities, religions, people, etc. This includes not only Muslims but against any group of people.

In a Shariah state, all citizens must pledge Baya'ah (oath of allegiance) which must be taken at the hand of the Caliph or designated official. This oath must be taken at the time of maturity (i.e. when one becomes an adult). This oath contains the condition that blasphemous attacks against Islam are not permitted. In exchange, the state promises to protect the citizen's life and prosperity.

Therefore, a person who then launches into blasphemous attacks against Islam is in violation of this oath, and he is asked to repent. What is meant by blashphemous attacks is not genuine questions or concerns about the faith, but rather what is meant by this is slander, lies, mocking, belittling, and viscious attacks. However, genuine dialogue is not forbidden, so long as the person is courteous and appropriate. There is a lot of evidence for this view, because historically there were many healthy debates with Non-Muslims that not only were allowed but also which shaped Muslim theology.

It should be noted that in an Islamic government, the actual punishment for such blasphemy would likely never be carried through, as it is symbolic in nature and only as a deterrent. If a person would write slanderous things about Islam, and then he was arrested for that, and threatened with the death penalty if he did not repent, it is highly likely that he would refrain from that with the threat of death. Indeed, nothing could prevent him from fleeing the country and continuing his campaign of disinformation there. Therefore, the Islamic Law against blasphemy is only as a deterrent to prevent people from engaging in abusive attacks against Islam in the lands of the Muslims whilst feeding off the land of the Muslims. It is even allowed for him to engage in healthy dialogue and appropriate debate so why must he resort to attacks and abusive language?

From a practical viewpoint, the penalty would likely never be administered, since the person is given a chance to stop attacking Islam. And who would wish to mock the faith so much that he must continue to do so even under the threat of death? Hence, this penalty is simply one of deterrence. Any offender is first given repeated warnings to cease and desist, and it is only if he is obstinate in his mockery that the punishment would ever be carried out.

One further note: many Jews and Christians criticize the Muslims for such a harsh penalty for blasphemy, but little do they know that the death penalty is advocated for this in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

2 Chronicles 15:13 "All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."

In the Bible, we read how anyone who curses his mother or father should be killed, so what about cursing one's religion? Surely, that is a greater sin than cursing one's parents.

Matthew 15:4 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'"

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."


In conclusion, a citizen may not attack Islam while in the lands of Islam. This refers to attacks (i.e. abusive language, mocking, insults, slander, lies, etc) but it does not refer to healthy dialogue and civil debate.

(d) Adultery

The punishment for adultery is administered ONLY to Muslims, not to Non-Muslims.

I explained the punishment for Muslims in the previous thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5068868&postcount=994

(e) As for homosexual acts, they are considered the same as Zinnah (fornication/adultery). Hence, the same rules apply.

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

Non-Muslims in Muslim Lands

(a) Alcohol: It is permissible for Non-Muslims to drink alcohol. Hence, obviously there is no punishment for that.

(b) Woman's Public Appearance: The Islamic dress code is *not* applicable to Non-Muslim women. They would *not* be required to wear the Hijab (headscarf) or veil. In fact, in the early times of the Islamic empires, Hijab was considered an honor usually only for Muslim women, a sort of status symbol that placed them above Non-Muslim women who bared their cleavage and thereby lowered their status in the eyes of the people. Of course, if a Non-Muslim woman *wanted* to wear the Hijab, then by all means.

(c) Freedom of Speech: See what I wrote above.

(d) Adultery: The punishment for adultery is not applicable to Non-Muslims.

The Islamic Punishments On Non-Muslim Peoples?

In general, none of the Hadood (Islamic Punishments) are applicable to Non-Muslims. In fact, the Non-Muslim populations are allowed to make their own laws in these matters, and punish their people based on their own laws.

When Prophet Muhammad (s) ruled Medinah, there were some Non-Muslim tribes in that city. The Constitution of Medinah, drafted by Prophet Muhammad (s), was called the ‘Saheefah’. In that Constitution, a clause states that it was allowed for individual tribes--who were not Muslims--to refer to their own religious scriptures and their learned men in regards to their own personal affairs. They could though, if they opted, ask the Prophet (s) to judge between them in their matters, as Allah says in the Quran:

“If they do come to you, either judge between them or decline to interfere.” (Quran 5:42)

So this is in the Quran itself. Non-Muslims have nothing to fear with Shariah, as they would be allowed to rule by their own wishes. If they *wanted* to use Islamic Law, then that is upto them. Otherwise, the Quran states clearly that we are not to interfere.

For example, the Jews of Medinah were allowed to punish adulterers based on the Law of the Torah. And there are many other examples.

In the context of today, it would mean that every people would be allowed to rule themselves according to the way they wished themselves to be ruled. In today's climate, I'm sure that would be a secular law, and that's fine: Non-Muslims can rule themselves as they see fit. The Islamic Punishments are for Muslims only. Contrary to the xenophobia present in the air today, nobody is calling for Islamic punishments to be implemented on Non-Muslims.

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

As for Muslims living in Non-Muslim lands, they should request their government to allow them to rule themselves under their own Islamic Law. This is just like Muslims would allow Non-Muslims to rule under their own law in the Land of the Muslims. So the Muslims could ask for reciprocity in this manner, so that the Muslims in Non-Muslim lands could be ruled by the way they saw best, instead of having to follow an alien law.

However, if such a government refuses, then all Islamic Punishments and stipulations that are to be enacted by the government and state are temporarily suspended because vigilante justice is not permitted. In such a condition--such as Muslims living in America or other European countries--the Muslims should apply the Shariah (Islamic Laws) in their personal matters, such as abstaining from alcohol, fornication, etc, and know in their hearts that although no punishment will be given to them in *this* life, Allah will give it to them in the next.

Wow, I think I typed an entire book. Just trying to give a complete answer, because it is usually short answers that lead to miscommunication and assumption.

EDIT: It should be noted that sometimes I used the term "Shariah" (Islamic Law) and "Hadood" (Islamic Punishments) interchangeably even though technically this is incorrect, because the Hadood is only ONE minor aspect of the Shariah.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Katheryn]

My question from the other thread is this:

Do you consider that some Christians are monotheists and some are polytheists?

Because in some writings, it seems that Christians are called 'monotheists' and 'people of the book' and sometimes (in Islamic writings) Christians are called 'polytheists'.

So, my question is this: in Islam, are there two types of Christians?

One, polytheist (those who are 'trinitarians') and one monotheist (people of the Book)??

 

[Katheryn]

Here, Saladin, you are making a common error:

Oftentimes, the greatest proponents against such "harsh punishments" are Christians, and yet we find these same punishments or worse in the Bible. In fact, in the Bible, the drunkard is not only whipped but he is in fact stoned to death. The Bible reads:

Deuteronomy » Chapter 21
21:20 The parents must declare to the elders of his city, 'Our son here is wayward and rebellious. He does not listen to us, and is a glutton and drunkard.'
21:21 All the men of his city shall then pelt him to death with stones, so that you will rid yourself of the evil in your midst.

We find that forty lashes have been proscribed in the Bible itself:

Deuteronomy, 25:2-3
25:2-3: "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"

These laws you are quoting are from the old legal code given to the Israelites in the 3rd century B.C. They have nothing to do with Christianity.

Christians do not have a legal code to follow. At all. They are Jewish. That is a different religion.

Comparing the Old Testament Law to a Christian is like comparing old Persian pagan law to the Iranians today. Now, they are Islamic and they do not follow the old ways.

Same with Christianity. We have absolutely nothing to do with the Old Testament Law.

If by some magic wand, we Christians could create a Christian government, we wouldn't in a million years try to put the old Israeli country back together again using the Torah. That would be absolutely unthinkable. It would actually be an insult to Jesus Christ. He died to destroy (actually to fulfill and make obsolete) that old rule based system.

Actually, the concept of 'self government' came from the Christian Puritans who came to America, so the American model is as close to Christian as you will ever find.

Whenever I hear a Bible study about those old chapters in Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, there is always a collective sigh, "Wow, aren't you glad we didn't have to live through that!"

It is gone, forever more, never to be revisited again. "It is finished" as Jesus said.

 

[Warman17]

It may have been answered, but:

What are your feelings towards non-Muslims? Especially Hindus and other religions who are not considered "people of the book."

Are they wrong for believing what they do?
Should they be chastized for believing what they do?
Are they damned for not believing in Allah?
Should Islam be forced upon the non-believers?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Where do you live?

Hello, Brother.

Currently I live in the USA.

Take care.

1. Do Muslims usually refer to other guys as brothers? Do you refer to women as sisters?

Yes. It is very common and encouraged as a sign of respect and modesty. In Arabic, the commonly used term is "Akhi" (brother) and "Ukthi" (sister).

2. How far is your view from mainstream Muslim?

I am very much a mainstream Muslim, so I would say not far at all but rather right on the money.

3. What is a pan-Islamist?

Pan-Islamist refers to one who wishes that all the 50+ Muslim majority countries in Asia and Africa (and one or two in Europe) unite under the banner of Islam, under one Caliph, under one rule. We disbelieve in nationalism, and we believe that nationalistic pride has destroyed our Islamic peoples. We discourage people from boasting about their ethnicity or nationality (such as taking pride in being Pakistani, Iraqi, Egyptian, etc). We wish to get rid of all these barriers to unification, and to unite under the banner of Islam as one nation under God. We strongly believe that what led to our downfall in the world was our disunity which was also the methodology of the imperialists to "divide and conquer." They split up our nations just so that we could never be too powerful and that we would continually fight each other. For example, they split Iraq and Kuwait up, simply because Kuwait was full of resources and they feared Iraq would be too powerful then. And they plotted and planned carefully, taking great care to split up the Muslim countries in such a way that they would never become a powerful force.

When Prophet Muhammad (s) came to power in Medinah, there were a bunch of warring tribes in that city, and the Prophet (s) told them to end that, referring to this tribal infighting as Jahiliyyah (Ignorance). He (s) united all the tribes under a tribeless body politic of Islam. And with this unification, Medinah would become one of the most powerful nations in the world. We believe in a similar model of unification today. If we could unite all our 50+ countries, then we could become a state of considerable influence, power, and prestige.

This is what the Pan-Islamic state would look like:

As you can see, it would be the largest country in the world.

Actually, the map above is a bit inaccurate in some places, but largely that's what it would look like.

4. If Moses, Jesus and Mohammud are all messengers of the same God, why not just be a Jew. Same message right?

Like I said before, we do not believe that Prophet Moses (as) was a Jew or that Prophet Jesus (as) was a Christian. We believe that the early followers of each of these Prophets were Muslims. The word "Muslim" is simply the Arabic word for "submittor." We believe that all of the Prophets were "submittors" (i.e. they submitted to the Will of God).

We believe that the early followers would eventually go astray and corrupt the religious texts, and that this corruption led to Judaism and Christianity respectively. Both of those terms--Judaism and Christianity--did not exist in the time of Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Jesus (as) respectively, but rather those terms were added retrospectively many years after their deaths. The key point to remember is that we believe that these terms "Jew" and "Christian" refer to the deviated groups that came afterwards, and *not* the pure and early followers of Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Jesus (as).

We believe, for example, that Prophet Jesus (as) only asked his followers to "worship God alone" and never claimed divinity himself. It was only later misguided followers who strayed by worshipping Christ, and thereby became Christians.

Islam is the only religion that is not named after a person or place.

Judaism is named after Judah.
Christianity is named after Christ.
Hinduism is named after a place.
Bhuddhism is named after Bhudha.
Bahaiism is named after Bahaiullah.
And so on and so forth.

We believe that these were deviations, as none of the Prophets ever called to worship themselves but rather they all claimed to worship Allah alone.

5. Do Sunnis and Shia speak different languages?

No. The religious language of both is Arabic, although the Shia have some religious texts in Farsi as well.

But generally speaking, the holy language of both is Arabic.

As for the language they speak on a day-to-day basis, that obviously varies depending on what country they come from. Arabs are mostly Sunni and they speak Arabic. Persians are mostly Shia and they speak Farsi. Pakistanis are mostly Sunni and they speak Urdu/Hindi. And so on and so forth. Of course, there are exceptions. There are Persians who are Sunni and they also speak Farsi like the Shia Persians do. And there are Shia Pakistanis who still speak Urdu/Hindi.

6. Do you like Algebra?

Since I am in medical school, I haven't done Algebra in years. However, I loved it in junior high school.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Katheryn]

This is also incorrect:


20 face lash, prison for dancing in Saudi Arabia
Judge sentences foreigners for partying, alcohol, unmarrieds mingling

Updated: 4:48 p.m. PT Feb 4, 2007

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The defendants were among 433 foreigners, including some 240 women, arrested by the kingdom's religious police for attending the party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz said. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/

These were 433 FOREIGNERS, although the refused to release who they were or where they came from.

 

[Katheryn]

Like I said before, we do not believe that Prophet Moses (as) was a Jew or that Prophet Jesus (as) was a Christian. We believe that the early followers of each of these Prophets were Muslims. The word "Muslim" is simply the Arabic word for "submittor." We believe that all of the Prophets were "submittors" (i.e. they submitted to the Will of God).

We believe that the early followers would eventually go astray and corrupt the religious texts, and that this corruption led to Judaism and Christianity respectively. Both of those terms--Judaism and Christianity--did not exist in the time of Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Jesus (as) respectively, but rather those terms were added retrospectively many years after their deaths. The key point to remember is that we believe that these terms "Jew" and "Christian" refer to the deviated groups that came afterwards, and *not* the pure and early followers of Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Jesus (as).


___________________


I understand that Islam "believes" this, but has been contradicted by archeology many, many times.

For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948. There is nothing in there that indicates that there were "corruption" of the original Jewish or Christian texts.

The opposite is true. There is NOTHING whatsoever to prove that any of the claims, ie where Moses received the Ten Commandments, or any of the other "corruptions" of the Christian beliefs.

Far from it.

There is NO archeology whatsoever to confirm their claims.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Sister Katheryn.

May peace be unto you.

Here, Saladin, you are making a common error:

No, I am not making a common error at all. I am very familiar with the fact that Christians nowadays do not follow the "Law."

These laws you are quoting are from the old legal code given to the Israelites in the 3rd century B.C. They have nothing to do with Christianity.

This is not correct to say that they have nothing to do with Christianity. You believe that the Christian God passed the Laws of the Old Testament, do you not? You simply believe that those laws were abrogated later by that same God.

But the point remains: your God advocated these things at one point in time. It is the *same* God you worship today. The *point* is that you believe your God to be just, and He passed the Old Testament laws according to you. Therefore, I am showing you that you cannot possibly claim that the God of Islam is not just based on the harsh punishments in the Quran, because the God of Christianity has called for even harsher punishments before. For thousands of years, your Christian God allowed for those laws to continue, and they were only lifted--according to you--with Prophet Jesus (as).

Christians do not have a legal code to follow. At all. They are Jewish. That is a different religion.

It is not as simple as that. Christians believe that their religion is a continuation of Judaism. They believe in all the same prophets, even the same religious book.

Comparing the Old Testament Law to a Christian is like comparing old Persian pagan law to the Iranians today. Now, they are Islamic and they do not follow the old ways.

This is a horrible analogy. Muslims do not believe that the old Persian pagan laws were ever proscribed by Allah Himself. Nor do we have any religious text to suggest that. Those laws of the pagans are found nowhere in the religious texts of the Muslims.

On the other hand, you Christians believe that the Israelites were given Divine Laws by God Almighty Himself. (Compare this with the Muslims who believe that the pagan law of the Persians was almost satanic in nature.)

If you cannot appreciate this difference, then we cannot possibly have a proper dialogue. How many times must I state that I *know* that you Christians no longer follow the Old Testament? The point is not that you still follow it, but rather that you believe that God at one point in time advocated such laws and that His Prophets (the Biblical Prophets) did such and such thing.

If by some magic wand, we Christians could create a Christian government, we wouldn't in a million years try to put the old Israeli country back together again using the Torah. That would be absolutely unthinkable. It would actually be an insult to Jesus Christ. He died to destroy (actually to fulfill and make obsolete) that old rule based system.

Actually, this runs completely contrary to what we have here, in which Jesus (as) says in the Bible (according to the Christians):

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus (as), according to your own texts, followed this same Israelite Law. Therefore, if you accuse the Prophet Muhammad (s) of being "barbaric" for following the laws of Shariah, then one could easily say that Jesus (as) was "barbaric" for following the Judaic Law. But I fear Allah from saying such blasphemy!

Whenever I hear a Bible study about those old chapters in Leviticus, Exodus, Deuteronomy, there is always a collective sigh, "Wow, aren't you glad we didn't have to live through that!"

That's fine, Sister. But it is a part of your religious text, and this is your Christian God who did those things in the Old Testament. Therefore, it is very much "fair game" to quote the Old Testament in a discussion with you, because at one point in time, you believe that your God did such and such thing or advocated such and such thing.

I wonder, however, why you would shudder at something that God Himself called for albeit at an earlier time?

Take care.

 

[Elrohir]

Salah-Al-Din, why in the world do you keep bringing up Deuteronomy in your "Ask a Muslim" threads? Seriously, we aren't asking for a Muslim opinion on the Old Testament here, and I'm pretty sure both Katheryn and I are more knowledgeable about our own scriptures and how to interpret them than you are. At this point I think it's beginning to be a little petty, a sort of "Well, look what the Jews/Christians said!" Not only is it irrelevant, but it's also usually taken horrendously out of context and is misunderstood.

It's your thread, so I can't make you knock it off, but I would encourage you to do so as it is just dragging down what is otherwise an interesting thread.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

This is also incorrect:


20 face lash, prison for dancing in Saudi Arabia
Judge sentences foreigners for partying, alcohol, unmarrieds mingling

Updated: 4:48 p.m. PT Feb 4, 2007

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi Arabian judge sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison after convicting them of attending a party where alcohol was served and men and women danced, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The defendants were among 433 foreigners, including some 240 women, arrested by the kingdom's religious police for attending the party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz said. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16978938/

These were 433 FOREIGNERS, although the refused to release who they were or where they came from.

Hello, Sister Katheryn.

You are once again resorting to silly bickering. I ask you kindly to refrain from that.

We have already discussed this article in depth in the previous thread. I already completely negated your claims. The FOREIGNERS were all Muslim. It is legal in Saudi Arabia for Non-Muslims to drink alcohol, and I proved this from an article from BBC itself:

BBC News says about Saudi:

"Saudi Arabia has a large number of expatriates, some of whom live in special quarters. Alcoholic beverages are available to them, but the unwritten rule is that the drinking takes place behind closed doors.

"... embassies of non-Islamic countries are able to bring in alcoholic beverages. It means their staff may have access to alcohol, especially at special occasions like Christmas.

Western military personnel serving in Saudi Arabia may also be able to get access to alcohol."

Source: BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1160846.stm

NOTICE that only embassies of NON-ISLAMIC countries are allowed to bring in alcohol. Therefore, this fortifies my statement that the foreigners were MUSLIM. People from Non-Islamic countries can drink alcohol, but Muslim foreigners are not allowed to, and this prohibition includes Muslim foreign embassies.

Please refer to that earlier thread in which we discussed this in depth. I cannot possibly understand why you would bring this up again, with the same lie that it is Non-Muslims who were punished. I will quote part of my earlier post here:

All of the foreigners were Muslim. They were foreigners in the sense of nationality (i.e. non-Saudis). I just talked to my friend from Saudi and he says that it was mostly Arabs from neighboring countries. In the Shariah, the punishment for alcohol is administered only against Muslims. Non-Muslims are allowed to consume alcohol, pork, etc. In fact, in Saudi Arabia, alcohol is served in foreign embassies (such as the US one), and even in really hi-fi five star hotels that are frequented by foreigners. In Pakistan, another country that claims to follow Shariah (but really doesn't) and which prohibits alcohol to Muslims, alcohol is also available freely to Non-Muslims.

They were foreign nationals but they were Muslim, and they were specifically told when they landed in Saudi that the punishment for alcohol is whipping. I myself have travelled to Saudi twice for pilgramage, and as soon as you land, you are told on the overhead that this is the punishment for alcohol in Saudi. Therefore, no Muslim can claim that he didn't know. If you are a Muslim and you want to drink alcohol, you can't do that in a Shariah country. (Not that Saudi is one.)

Your irrational fear of Shariah is unjustified, because such laws affect only Muslims. Your xenophobia is not justified, and your fear is a phobia. Shariaphobia, based on misunderstanding and hasty assumptions. (I am going through my psychiatry rotation right now, and just learned about phobias, so I had to insert the use of phobias somewhere.)

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.

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)

Anyways, I must go to bed right now, but I will answer all the remaining posts later tomorrow, Allah Willing.

Take care, everyone.

 

[Ansar]

You said that the men's "area" is the neck area and that they must usually cover it with a beard.

Would a man get in trouble if he does not cover his neck area because he is tempting women?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Salah-Al-Din, why in the world do you keep bringing up Deuteronomy in your "Ask a Muslim" threads? Seriously, we aren't asking for a Muslim opinion on the Old Testament here, and I'm pretty sure both Katheryn and I are more knowledgeable about our own scriptures and how to interpret them than you are. At this point I think it's beginning to be a little petty, a sort of "Well, look what the Jews/Christians said!" Not only is it irrelevant, but it's also usually taken horrendously out of context and is misunderstood.

It's your thread, so I can't make you knock it off, but I would encourage you to do so as it is just dragging down what is otherwise an interesting thread.

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

I find it completely hypocritical of you Christian propagandists to say that "Islam is barbaric" because of such-and-such reason, when that same thing exists in your own books.

I believe it is *very* important to remind you of this, because you tend to forget and instead start mouthing off about Islam. It is very much fair game, sir. There is no way on earth that a Christian could criticize stoning, for example, since his own God has advocated that in the Bible. Please refer to my earlier post to Sister Katheryn.

And I do not take your verses out of context. In fact, it is you who use obfuscation to hide the fact that your God also advocated such and such thing before. You obfuscated the fact that it was Biblical Law that was enacted upon Saint Paul.

I encourage dialogue, and I believe that this is a part of the dialogue. I do not think I demean your religion at all, but rather I am simply pointing out that the very things you criticize about my faith can be found in yours.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Sidhe]

مرحبا

كيف حالك؟

This is not correct to say that they have nothing to do with Christianity. You believe that the Christian God passed the Laws of the Old Testament, do you not? You simply believe that those laws were abrogated later by that same God.

But the point remains: your God advocated these things at one point in time. It is the *same* God you worship today. The *point* is that you believe your God to be just, and He passed the Old Testament laws according to you. Therefore, I am showing you that you cannot possibly claim that the God of Islam is not just based on the harsh punishments in the Quran, because the God of Christianity has called for even harsher punishments before. For thousands of years, your Christian God allowed for those laws to continue, and they were only lifted--according to you--with Prophet Jesus (as).



It is not as simple as that. Christians believe that their religion is a continuation of Judaism. They believe in all the same prophets, even the same religious book.

That's fine, Sister. But it is a part of your religious text, and this is your Christian God who did those things in the Old Testament. Therefore, it is very much "fair game" to quote the Old Testament in a discussion with you, because at one point in time, you believe that your God did such and such thing or advocated such and such thing.

Just to be clear your not saying that Allah and God are different, only the people who follow a Christian God are not following Allah's will as they should, yes?

يودّع

 

[Elrohir]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

I find it completely hypocritical of you Christian propagandists to say that "Islam is barbaric" because of such-and-such reason, when that same thing exists in your own books.

I believe it is *very* important to remind you of this, because you tend to forget and instead start mouthing off about Islam. It is very much fair game, sir. There is no way on earth that a Christian could criticize stoning, for example, since his own God has advocated that in the Bible. Please refer to my earlier post to Sister Katheryn.

And I do not take your verses out of context. In fact, it is you who use obfuscation to hide the fact that your God also advocated such and such thing before. You obfuscated the fact that it was Biblical Law that was enacted upon Saint Paul.

I encourage dialogue, and I believe that this is a part of the dialogue. I do not think I demean your religion at all, but rather I am simply pointing out that the very things you criticize about my faith can be found in yours.

Take care, Brother.

All right, fine, have it your way; I can't stop you from acting so inanely.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

You said that the men's "area" is the neck area and that they must usually cover it with a beard.

Not the neck. The jaw-line.

Would a man get in trouble if he does not cover his neck area because he is tempting women?

There are two views on the beard. Some say it is mandatory, whereas others say that it is highly recommended. Whatever the case, being clean-shaven is strongly discouraged.

A woman who does not wear the Hijab (headscarf) is not punished as there is no Shariah Law for that. Likewise, there is no Shariah punishment for not having a beard.

OK, now seriously, I am off to bed!

Take care.

 

[Sidhe]

All right, fine, have it your way; I can't stop you from acting so inanely.

Elrohir why is it inane to do that which you do towards the Islamic faith? This is a forum and we should be free criticise faith, just as you and Katheryn and others have done? What gives you the right to criticise, and not to receive criticism in return? Is that not hypocritical.

 

[Elrohir]

Elrohir why is it inane to do that which you do towards the Islamic faith? This is a forum and we should be free criticise faith, just as you and Katheryn and others have done? What gives you the right to criticise, and not to receive criticism in return? Is that not hypocritical.

It's inane because this isn't a "Compare and Contrast Christianity and Islam" thread, it's an "Ask a Muslim" thread. Call me ignorant if you will, but I would think that this thread might be about, oh, say, asking a Muslim things about his faith, not debating about Deuteronomy back and forth.

But whatever Sidhe, we all know you get your rocks off bashing Christianity, which I'm used to by now, so I'm not surprised that you're taking Salah-Al-Din's side in this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not the neck. The jaw-line.

At what age are you expected to grow a beard? Is this ever a problem for men who cannot grow a proper beard? My brother is in his twenties and still cannot grow one