Ask a Muslim, Part II

[Shadylookin]

do christians go to hell? do atheists? agnostics? shia?

can you explain the difference between sunni and shia muslims?

in the muslim heaven to you really get to have sex with 72 virgins? can you opt out of that package and instead just take one kinky girl?

 

[Bill3000]

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.

It may indeed be hypocritical. But that's irrelevant; it does nothing to strengthen your argument. What you have committed is a tu quoque, and it is a logical fallacy. A tu quoque is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position. It offers no substance to the argument at hand - that is, whether or not a certain Islamic law should be followed.

As well, there is a serious flaw in your argument of reciting bible passages:

1) Unlike Islam, it is not a fundamental premise that the Bible (Quran in Islam, obviously) is infallible in Christianity. It is certainly interpreted that way, but it's not a necessary condition

2) Even if the premise of an infallible bible is accepted, it does not follow that the bible must be inerrant - that is, interpreted completely literally.

3) Finally, the bible is not a book of law - it is a guideline - and this is a huge and fundamental difference. Judaism is different, but the Judaic laws don't come from the Torah by itself, IIRC. (One of the fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity, other than the whole Jesus deal, is that Christians don't interpret the Torah/Old Testament in the same way that Jews do.) So, ultimately, you cannot have the argument that God actually did do such a command, or more importantly, whether such a command should be the norm in a society, because that's not the purpose of the bible.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, I would be interested in Knowing what a Muslim wedding ceremony is like, or if there is any transcending Islamic ceremony.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

do christians go to hell? do atheists? agnostics? shia?

This is one question I've always hated hearing people answer. As I recall (and don't ask me to find this in the Bible, because I don't remember where it is), when we die, there comes a time when we are confronted with the reality of God, and at that point are required to either fully acknowledge Him, and venture forth into Heaven, or deny Him, and fall into the abyss that is Hell. I personally don't agree with the idea that our all-forgiving and all-loving God would forsake his children in such a way, but rather that the idea of Hell is merely a tool, a creation of man, or of the church, to instill that fear into people to get them to fall in line.(to Saladin) What do you think of this idea, brother?

Okay, more questions:

You say that the Christian and Jewish faiths have been corrupted by man, but that Islam has not been, that it is pure. What is it that makes Islam pure and the other abrahamic religions not? After all, Mohammed was a man, just as John, or Mark, or Moses were, could he not have made the same humanly mistakes in interpreting what God told him? I know you don't mean this to be a discussion thread, and I apologize if that's what this appears to be attempting; I'm just curious to get other people's points of view on this, including a man of your faith.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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.

Thankyou for answering my questions. It seems to me that the Islam youd escribe is very restrictive on it' followers...i.e. it puts the religion above the individuals rights. Is a Muslim allowed to indulge in alcohol and pre-marital sex etc if they leave Islam? How would/should the religion re-act towards a Muslim renouncing these religious laws and leaving Islam? Especially those who raised Islam - do they get a choice or not as to whether they follow these laws when they reach adulthood (say 18 years of age) or does the fact that their parents raised as Muslim mean they are stuck with Islam for the rest of their life?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

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)??

Hello, Sister Katheryn.

Depending on the context, Christians are sometimes referred to as monotheists and other times as polytheists. In the truest sense, however, they are believed to be polytheists. Or another definition is that they are monotheists who display polytheist traits. They are sometimes referred to as monotheists because they themselves say that they are monotheists, even though we think that they are more closer to polytheists.

The reason that the Christians are sometimes called monotheists is that they originate from monotheism, but only later developed the idea of Trinity. I believe that the Trinity was an innovation a couple centuries after the death of Prophet Jesus (as). Therefore, the Christians are given a status of prestige based on their direct heritage in monotheism (and therefore sometimes alluded to as monotheists) but in reality they have become polytheists, at least from a Muslim perspective.

This may seem like a confusion, but we believe that the confusion is on the Christian side, because it seems to us that they themselves don't know what they are. On the one hand, Christianity claims to be one of three major monotheistic faiths and yet on the other hand they further this idea of Trinity--that God is three. Muslims find this baffling and a bit ironic, because we believe that the very thing which separated the Message of Prophet Abraham (as) and all of the other prophets from the pagans was the fact that they preached monotheism. They shunned polytheistic idolatery and any who did that were considered pagans. So this is the origin of the faith Christians follow, and this is what made the Abrahamic faiths great, yet now the Christians have given up the Abrahamic "claim to fame" or so to speak. Islam calls them back to the fold, exhorting the Christians towards absolute monotheism.

In essense, the Muslim message is that the Christians say that they are monotheists and that is good, but they should also conform to this declaration with their actions, and worship one god instead of three. The truth of the matter is that the Trinity is a very baffling concept and no matter how many elaborate explanations that are given (including the whole water, ice, and gas concept) it will forever elude me.

Take care, Sister.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Requesting an answer to post #19, which seems to have gone unnoticed. Or was it I who did not notice the answer?

Questions:
What are the proper names for the categories summed up as as "ordered, encouraged, neutral, discouraged, forbidden" in our religion textbook?
Are there more than five categories?
Where would "men with long hair" (me) fall?

 

[El_Machinae]

Especially those who raised Islam - do they get a choice or not as to whether they follow these laws when they reach adulthood (say 18 years of age) or does the fact that their parents raised as Muslim mean they are stuck with Islam for the rest of their life?

That's a really good question.

 

[Katheryn]

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.

I think the gap here in our thinking stems from a particular and very basic concept.

We certainly do criticize stoning. We have no problem doing that at all. We don't see that as contradictory or hypocritical. I'll explain why.

You seem to think that it is glaringly logical that because God put a civic law into place at one point, and since God never changes, that this codifies stoning forever. We don't see this as a necessary deduction.

The basic concept we do not share, and this is why there is a huge difference between Christianity and Islam is this: ORIGINAL SIN.

Christians have a basic idea of DISPENSATIONALISM.

Dispensationalism says this: God deals with people in different times in different ways. It isn't GOD who changes, it is MAN. God allows for those changes, anticipates those changes. He judges mankind upon a sliding scale: you are accountable for the revelation you have been given. For the knowledge that you have been given. This is from the parable of the talents, there are others as well. The more you know, the more you are responsible to leave the past behind, forgive and forget, move on towards to the goal (ie the perfect plan for your life) that God has given to you personally.

Jesus put it this way: "God allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts".

We would extrapolate from that this: "God allowed stoning because of the hardness of your hearts".

So, we deduce this: we do not have the full revelation of God. Evidently, God allowed loopholes in the law of Moses. It is not a reflection of God's nature. It was not perfect, because man is not perfect. It was customized for a particular culture in a particular time period. That time period was a 'barbaric' time. It was the Bronze Age, I believe. By the way, after Jesus' teaching on this, divorce and polygamy was both abolished. He said God intended one man, one woman. That is first century social progress.

If we have another God given 'law' or civic code put into place, it would be quite different from Moses' law because we have socially progressed. It would be very close to the Christian concepts in the American constitution. God intransegiently grants one thing to mankind: FREE WILL. You cannot force anyone to honor God, that is impossible. It is more 'godlike' to give men room to freely choose to do so. That is God's way.

These two concepts of original sin and the resulting deduction of dispensationalism also then give rise to the idea that since there is a thing as man progressing both morally and socially.

This, then is the gap in our thinking because Islam doesn't believe this. You believe man is born perfect and if he is surrounded with the perfection of Islam, he will always choose God and the right path. We are appalled at this. There is no way man will freely choose good over evil. To think so is inconceivable.

I can say that Moses' law is 'barbaric' without blinking. It was custom written given to a certain group of people for a purpose. That purpose has been fulfilled. As the quote you gave, Jesus said that the law would pass away when the time came, when it was fulfilled. Jesus did that by becoming 'sin', by being 'lifted up' on a tree, by becoming the curse for mankind, by bearing their sin.

Would we write old IBM code for mainframe computers created in the 1980s for running our laptop PCs today? Of course not. Those machines are 'barbaric'. We don't even cannibalize them anyone. They are obsolete, no good.

Stoning, and other punishments in the Old Testament are exactly that. Not even good for picking and choosing parts we can use. They are all gone with the wind, a part of history, but only applicable as a history lesson.

This is why you cannot compare Christianity with the Old Testament. The old Law of Moses was for a country of priests. That place no longer exists. Now, we are to aspire to be more like Jesus Christ. That would be to maintain FREE WILL as much as possible, the free exchange of ideas, competition of lifestyles, and allowing man, each man, woman as adults, to choose freely whom they will serve.

That is what God has always given us. We will do the same.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Howdy there welcome back

What is you stance on gun control? And does your religion influence it in any way?

Hello, Brother Trajan.

Generally, Muslims support gun control. Of course, guns did not exist in the time of Prophet Muhammad (s). However, the process of Qiyas (reasoning by way of analogy) is utilized to reach a ruling on this matter. Because weapons did of course exist back then, we can ascertain that a similar ruling would apply to modern day weaponry such as guns, albeit with a few caveats since weapons of today are much different (and way more dangerous).

Prophet Muhammad (s) forbade people from unleashing their swords out in public during the times of civil strife. This is mentioned in the Prophetic Sayings in the chapter of Sahih Bukhari entitled "The Book of Discord". Furthermore, arms sales are also forbidden for personal use in times of civil strife. We read in "Al-nāhī ‘an al-munkar"

"There is no impropriety in selling the juice of dates or grapes to a person [so long as it is not fermented into alcohol]...The case is different with respect to selling arms at a time of tumult, since in that instance the evil is established and exists in the original thing, arms being the instruments of sedition and rebellion."

The Prophet (s) also forbade the use of cruel weapons especially those that "kills with fire", referring to those weapons that would result in collatoral damage. (For example, burning a city to the ground when seiging it would not be permissible.) Anyways, based on the fact that the Prophet (s) forbade cruel weapons in times of combat, it would only make sense that during times of peace this prohibition would only be more stringent. Allowing deadly weapons like guns amongst the people does not make sense.

And there are other evidences people use to arrive at the conclusion that Islam is for gun control. As a general rule:

Liberals (such as Democrats) usually want more government in economics, social justice, financial assistance, fighting racism, pro gun control, etc. But they want less government in terms of morality and ethical issues of personal conduct.

Conservatives (such as Republicans) usually want less government in social justice and financial assistance. But they want more government in terms of morality and ethical issues of personal conduct.

Libertarians usually want less government in both aspects: both economic and morality.

Authoratarians advocate more government in both aspects: they want the government to be more influential in financial assistance programs, social justice, wellfare, fighting racism, pro gun control, etc. But they also want more government in terms of morality and ethical issues such as being anti-abortion, family friendly television, drug control, etc.

Islam would fall under the category of authoratarianism. This word usually has a very negative connotation but I am using it simply with the definition as above, in the sense that Islam is more-government in the things that liberals are as well as those that conservatives are. To a Muslim, it is *just* as important to enact social welfare programs as it is to fight abortion. Muslims would support conservatives in condemning abortion as murder. Muslims would also support liberals in asking for free health care. (The Muslims of early times had a vast social welfare program encompassed by the Zakat and Baitul Mal.)

Take care, Brother.

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

I am in the process of replying to all the posts, and rest assured, I will not skip anyone, Allah Willing.

 

[thetrooper]

In the end, I hope to build bridges, not blow them up.

And I think you're doing an excellent job in these threads!

I'm not very fond of long posts but yours get my attention.

And I'm proud of the CFC OT community for keeping the right focus here.

What, in your opinion, is the main obstacle in building that bridge between the West and Islam?

Thanks for the replies in the other thread.

 

[Shaihulud]

In your opinion, is there any modern day country that practises Syariah law to your satisfaction? Or that may need improvement? I have heard of a Pan-Arabic concept from an Arab, it also encompasses very much the geographical areas that you have stated for the pan_Islamic territory, are the ideas in any way related? Btw some of the countries in green are not strongly Islamic, such as Sri Lanka or the Philipines.

 

[Katheryn]

A little wisdom from John Leland:

The Baptist preacher insisted that religion is hurt more by government favor than it is by government oppression. Experience has informed us, he wrote, that “the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than persecutions ever did.”

Observed Leland, “Persecution, like a lion, tears the saints to death, but leaves Christianity pure; state establishment of religion, like a bear, hugs the saints but corrupts Chris*tianity.”

Leland took these deeply held views into the political arena and helped win civil liberties we still enjoy today.

“The Baptists played a large part in securing religious freedom and the abolition of the State-Church in Virginia,” writes historian Anson Phelps Stokes in his Church and State in the United States, “and Leland was their most effective advocate.”

Thanks to the leadership of En*lightenment thinkers such as Madison and Jefferson and the grassroots organ*izing of devout believers such as Leland, Virginia in 1786 adopted Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom. That monumental measure served as the guidestar for other states as they too adopted religious liberty, and it paved the way for the religious liberty guarantees in the U.S. Constitution.

Leland played an important role in securing the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution was first submitted to the states in 1787, many in Virginia and other states criticized the absence of a Bill of Rights. Leland and other Baptists were particularly angry that this draft of the Constitution included no guarantee of religious freedom, and they joined the rising chorus of opposition.

In an Aug. 8, 1789, letter to President George Washington written by Leland, the Baptists’ General Committee said its members feared that “liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured.”

Recognizing that the states might not ratify the proposed national charter unless these concerns were met, Madison assured Leland and his co-religionists that he would work to add a Bill of Rights if they would support ratification. The deal was accepted. Virginia ratified the Constitution, and Madison kept his promise. The First Amendment he helped craft forbids the government to make any law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In 1791, Leland moved back to Massachusetts, where he continued his religious and political work. In a pamphlet called The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, he railed against government interference in religion.

“Government,” he said, “has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse, or loss of property, for his religious opinions…. f his doctrine is false, it will be confuted, and if it is true, (though ever so novel,) let others credit it.”

A firm Democratic-Republican in Federalist Massachusetts, Leland supported Jefferson’s candidacy for president in 1800. After his old ally was elected, the Baptist minister came up with a unique way to celebrate the occasion. On New Year’s Day, 1802, Leland showed up at the White House with a 1,325-pound wheel of cheese, the product of 900 cows. A placard that accompanied the tribute on its way down from Cheshire proclaimed it, “The Greatest Cheese in America for the Greatest Man in America!”

Jefferson was delighted with the Baptists’ gift, and fragments of the cheese were reportedly still being served at his table in 1804 (although one guest declared them “very far from good.”)

The U.S. Constitution and the presidential policies of Jefferson and Madison protected religious freedom at the national level, but at that time, states remained free to impose restrictions. Leland continued to lobby for full religious freedom everywhere, attacking religious establishments in his own state as well as neighboring Connecticut.

In 1820 in his Short Essays on Government, Leland demanded church-state separation and equal rights for all.

“Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another,” he wrote. “The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.”

Leland’s views finally prevailed. In 1831, the Massachusetts legislature approved the separation of church and state, and two years later it was overwhelmingly ratified by popular vote.

Leland died on Jan. 14, 1841. The epitaph on his tombstone, which he composed, reflects the passions of his life: “Here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety, and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men.”

In Revolution Within The Revolution, church historian William R. Estep says, “The order of these phrases is significant, indicating that Leland considered himself first and foremost a minister of the gospel and only secondarily a political activist.”

Whatever his priorities, Leland was a relentless friend of liberty and a church-state separation purist. He opposed Sunday laws, all special privileges for the clergy and any government aid to religion. He said Baptists did not want the “mischievous dagger” of government help. In 1788, he introduced a resolution at the Baptists’ General Committee meeting in Virginia denouncing slavery as “a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government” and urging the use of “every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land.”

Thus it is a shame that Leland’s inspirational life and noble work are nearly unknown to the general public today. The Virginia Baptist Historical Society (which provided assistance with this article) still celebrates Leland, but few people outside progressive Baptist circles know about him. At a time when television preachers and misguided politicians rail against church-state separation and individual freedom, a bracing sermon from Leland is very much in order.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Yo / lo'

Not to step on any toes.. but do you feel the idea of there being one man ( a caliph) ruling over a country through religious right to be awfully pre-enlightened? (i.e; like how the Pope was before 15th century?)

Also, did you ever feel that some of the laws and rules in Sharia law were the product of 7th century cultural reasoning and not so much "the word of God"?

 

[Bill3000]

Also, did you ever feel that some of the laws and rules in Sharia law were the product of 7th century cultural reasoning and not so much "the word of God"?

Do you feel that Christianity is the product of first century cultural reasoning and not so much "the word of god"? A good secular answer, for sure, but a revelation religion like Christianity or Islam, the answer is a positive "no" by those who believe it to be a relevation.

In the end, I hope to build bridges, not blow them up.

You know, as much as how noble you intend this, I don't think it's working out that way.

You have, for sure, disproved a ton of western myths of Islam, and helped the CFCers understand Islam. And obviously your ultimate goal is to promote tolerance of Islam, and that's noble. But there's been disadvantages.

The simple fact of the matter is that you are painting a picture of Islam that is of a particular interpretation. Instead of tolerance for other interpretations, you often decry them as basically false, in particular that of less fundamentalist interpretations. It's entirely your right, of course, but it offers nothing toward tolerance, especially since you are talking about how a different interpretation is a "cult". That's a loaded term, one which implies that because something is a cult, freedom of religion should be discouraged for that particular interpretation. You gave the example that Mormons are not considered Christians by Christians - but no person who would claim to be promoting tolerance would argue like that.

The fact of the matter is that tolerance of other religions requires one to assume secularly that one religion is not any more true than another - one may of course, believe that is not the case, (One's own religion is the One True Faith after all) but it doesn't change the fact that it is a fundamental part of freedom of religion. Cult has a definition in sociology, (that of a religion with a high degree of tension with the surrounding society combined with novel religious beliefs) when such a term is used in politics, it is only used as fearmongering. Decrying something as a cult invokes the images of Jonestown, something that is brainwashing and only leads to danger. Calling something a "cult" only leads to infringment of freedom of religion unless it actually has a danger.

As well, the fact that you have offed more liberal interpretations has only damaged the PR of islam on the forums. One of the most common defenses of Islam is that "they are not all like that" - yet certain people on this forum has used your posts to say that such a liberal interpretation is a false one, and thus such a defense is irrelevant.

There's a difference between tolerance for other cultures, and having a dislike of it because of how the culture is. Tolerance implies that such a culture has the right to exist - disliking it is something completely different. While ideally, the tolerance of a culture should always overweigh the dislike of the culture, in practice this is not how it works. Nor should it completely work, either. As an example I gave in a previous thread, there is a tribe in Papua New Guinea which actually has ritualized pedophilic sex - by using our morality, the fact that such an act is so reprehensible often overweighs with whether or not such a culture should be tolerated. Needless to say, this is just an extreme example of why tolerance and disgust can be different in practice.

And while many people on these forums have shown respect towards your beliefs, and especially toward your noble goal to educate us on these matters, in practice not everyone will respect this. At the very least, you are offering a view of a culture which is about as extreme as some of the more infamous fundamentalist Christian denomintations, in particular on views of personal freedom, such as views on sexual immorality and alcohol.

What is the defense of mainstream Christianity on said Christain fundies, which only worsen the image of the religion because of the inevitable disgust caused by the culture of the nation? They're nutjobs. They arn't following the spirit of the religion by focusing on a few points. They don't represent mainstream Christianity.

In your case, such a defense wouldn't hold, because you are promoting the image that such an interpretation of your religion is the true one. But the disgust will still be there. I am not saying anything about whether or not it actually is reprehensible - just that a good number of people would percieve it as such because ofthe views of Western Society. Religious PR is about removing said disgust, not just mere tolerance, as asking for tolerance without removing disgust isn't going to work. Your interpretation may indeed be the true one - but that's irrelevant when it comes to religious tolerance. Probably the most defense that would work given the incommensurable differences in the differing ethical theories of the two cultures, would be promoting tolerance for the sake of tolerance, a sort of cultural relativism. But you havn't done the same for the Shi'a - you've called them barbaric in a thread regarding a particular practice of them, so such a promotion of tolerance would be hypocritical.

As well, despite your posts being informative, and a lot of people have respect for the fact that you are increidbly polite, the content of your posts are sometimes extremely controversal. As well, you often resort to the logical fallacy of tu quoque when you try to justify some of the more controversal aspects of Islam, Islamic culture, and issues relating to politics. The bible quotes are a good example, and is percieved by quite a few of the Christians of the forum as mischaracterizing Christianity in the same way that atheists mischaracterize Christians by quoting passages in the bible out of context - or more importantly, in the same way the Islamophobies quote the Quran out of context. I've literally seen someone call you the Islamic Kathryn - and that isn't going to work as a PR measure, as Kathryn is basically the John Bolton of Christianity; trying to being a diplomat and more often than not, giving the average poster a negative view of her beliefs.

As well, before you reply to my statement, you should note that I do not mean this with any hostility intended toward Islam or your views - just the fact that it's not helping Islam's image as much as you intend. As I said before, I've seen some of the more infamous islamaphobic posters use your posts as proof of how reprehensible fundamentalist islam is. as well, I've seen some other posters commenting that your views only shows that religious fundamentalism is all the same; that is, reprehensible, and the only justification for not being disgusted by it being that you arn't a representative of Islam. I've seen some other Islamic posters say the same as well. In such a case, where people are literally resorting to the excuse that you arn't a representative of Islam in order to continue to be tolerant, as well as some of the people who have an axe to grind against Islam and use your words to your advantage, is it really building bridges, rather than blowing it up? It's more like two bridges built, one bridge blown up.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To add on to what was just said, we appreciate all that you have done in these threads, but I think by and large it would be helpful to have a broader range of Muslims here. For example, you are far removed from incantrix theologically - yet she is also Muslim in a very real sense.

But yeah, we do appreciate it.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Do you believe that Muhammad is the Messiah prophecized in the old testament, as Christians believe Jesus to be?

Hello, Brother Samson.

We believe that the Messiah is Prophet Jesus (as). However, we believe that Prophet Muhammad (s) was also prophecized in both the Old Testament (Torah) and New Testament (Gospel). Allah says in the Quran:

"Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad), the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures--in the Torah and the Gospel--for he (the Messenger) commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and prohibits them from what is bad; he removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so as for those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the Light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful." (Quran, 7:157)

We believe that Prophet Muhammad (s) is prophecized in the Bible as a Paracletos.

In the New Testament, we read:

"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have a Paracletos who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One." (1 John 2:1)

Paracletos here is translated as "Advocate".

So we know that the word "Paracletos" refers to Jesus (as) and that Jesus (as) was a prophet, based on the following verses:

"...This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." (Matthew 21:11)

and

"..Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19)

And many other verses as well. The Paracletos was a Prophet who was Jesus (as).

We read elsewhere:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Paracletos" (John 14:16)

It is translated here as "Comforter."

Muslims believe that this Paracletos refers to Prophet Muhammad (s). The Christians, on the other hand, believe that this Paracletos refers to the Holy Ghost. Christians refer to the following verse:

John 15:26 "But when the Paracletos is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"

They believe that "Spirit of Truth" refers to the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. However, the word "spirit" is used in the Bible as another word for Prophets. It is used in this context, for example, in the following verse in which "spirit" refers to a human prophet:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1-3)

In fact, 1 John 4:1-6 talks about true spirits (prophets) and false spirits (prophets). These refer to human prophets and have nothing at all do with the Holy Ghost. It is an accepted fact by Christian scholars that the word "spirit" is used in many places in the Bible to refer to a human prophet.

The word "Paracletos" is used again in this verse:

John 16:7-14 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Paracletos will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit (i.e. Prophet) of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you."

This passage describes Prophet Muhammad (s) perfectly. Prophet Jesus (as) reassured the people that after his death, another Paracletos would come to them and he will enjoin the good and forbid the bad. Let us now go back to the verse in the Quran in which Allah says:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures--in the Torah and the Gospel--for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good and prohibits them from what is bad; he removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so as for those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the Light which has been sent down with him, these it is that
are the successful." (Quran, 7:157)

In that same verse in the Bible, Jesus (as) says: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit (i.e. Prophet) of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth"

This is exactly what Muslims believe: namely that Allah's Religion was not expounded fully all at once because the people were not ready for it. And this is why Allah sent it in gradual steps through various prophets, and finalized only with Prophet Muhammad (s). Allah says in the Quran:

"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion." (Qur'an 5:3)

This Spirit (Prophet) of Truth would bring all the truth, just as Allah says in the Quran:

"The word of your Lord is complete in truth" (Quran, 6:115)

And that same verse in the Bible says about the Paracletos: "he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak."

Is this not similar to what Allah says of prophet Muhammad (s) in the Quran:

"Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is naught save a revelation that is revealed unto him (by Gabriel)." (Quran, 53:3)


The verse that Christians bring as proof to say that Paracletos is the Holy Ghost is the following verse:

"But the Counselor (Paracletos), the holy spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

It should be noted that in the original texts, the word "holy" wasn't even found in this verse at all, such as in the famous Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century AD, and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), in which the text of John 14:26 reads; "Paracletos, the Spirit"; and not "Paracletos, the Holy Spirit."

In any case, we do refer to Prophet Muhammad as a holy prophet. It makes much more sense that these verses in the Bible refer to a human prophet as opposed to the Holy Ghost. For one thing, it is inconceivable that Prophet Jesus (as) would preach polytheism or the idea that god is three. It is highly more likely that Prophet Jesus (as) preached the coming of a new prophet who would preach monotheism.

Notice that in all of the Biblical verses I stated above, the theme is the same: namely that Prophet Jesus (as) was unable to teach them everything but another Paracletos like himself would come afterwards and teach them from where they left off, completing the faith of God. And this is exactly what Islam is: the culmination and perfection of the same Message preached by all of the Prophets, including Prophet Jesus (as). It was the time that humanity was finally ready for the compelted word of God, the Final Testament in the form of the Quran.

In the famous "Anchor Bible" (read this Wiki article about the "Anchor Bible") we find the following quote: "The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father ... Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." (The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970, Volume 29A, p. 1135)

Another strong evidence that this refers to a human prophet as opposed to the Holy Ghost is the fact that the verse about Paracletos says that the Paracletos "hears" and "speaks" and "testifies":

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit (i.e. Prophet) of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak" (John 16:7-14)

The Greek word translated as "hear" in the Biblical verses ("whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak") is the Greek word "akouo" {ak-oo'-o} meaning to perceive sounds. It has, for instance, given us the word "acoustics," the science of sounds. Similarly the verb "to speak" is the Greek verb "laleo" {lal-eh'-o} which has the general meaning "to emit sounds" and the specific meaning "to speak." This verb occurs very frequently in the Greek text of the Gospels. It designates a solemn declaration by Jesus (as) during his preachings (for example Matthew 9:18). Obviously these verbs require hearing and speech organs in order to facilitate them. There is a distinct difference between someone "inspiring" something and him "speaking" something. So the Paraclete will "hear" and "speak," not "inspire."

And why would the Holy Ghost not speak on his own accord but instead have to rely on what he hears and then simply recite that? That doesn't make sense. That would only make sense if it was a human being who was not divine, but rather simply repeated what the divinity told him.

Prophet Muhammad (s), on the other hand, did indeed fulfill this prophecy. Whatsoever he "HEARD" from Arch-Angel Gabriel, the same did he physically "SPEAK" to his followers. In the Quran we read about Prophet Muhamamd (s):

"Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is naught save a revelation that is revealed unto him (by Gabriel)." (Quran, 53:3-4)

We know that Prophet Jesus (as) is referred to as a Paracletos in the Bible, so shouldn't the next Paracletos similarly refer to a Prophet?

Jesus (as) says: "if I go not away, the Comforter (Paracletos) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

The comforter cannot be the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost (according to the Bible) was "with" them already (and even quite active) long before the coming of Jesus (as) himself and then throughout his ministry. Read for example the following verses:

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

1 Samuel 10:10 "And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them."

1 Samuel 11:6 "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly."

"Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" (Isaiah 63:11)

"For he (John the Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." (Luke 1:35)

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" (Luke 1:41)

"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying," (Luke 1:67)

"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him." (Luke 2:25)

"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost (Simeon), that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." (Luke 2:26)

"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:21-22)

Did they or did they not already receive the Holy Ghost? Was Jesus (as) not still with them when they received the Holy Ghost? Was the Holy Ghost not with Simeon, Mary, Elisabeth and Zacharias before the birth of Jesus (as)? Was the Holy Ghost not with Moses (as) when he parted the seas? There are many more similar verses to be found in the Bible. In the above verses, we are told that if Jesus (as) does not depart then the "paracletos" will not come. Thus, the "Holy Ghost" cannot be the one originally intended since it was already with them. The contradiction is quite obvious.

It is clear that the Paracletos being referred to is a human being who speaks and hears, who is referred to in the Bible as "he" and not as "it", which would have been the case had it been about the Holy Ghost. There are at least seven times that the Paracletos is referred to with the masculine pronoun "he" and not "it." It was Prophet Muhammad (s) who was sent as a Comforter and Bearer of Good Tidings:

"O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." (Quran, Ahzab:46)

"We have sent you (O Muhammad) with the Truth, as a Bearer of glad tidings and a Warner." (Quran, 2:119)

Allah says in the Quran that the wise ones from amongst the Christians should recognize the Paracletos as Prophet Muhammad (s) saying in the Quran:

"And if you are in doubt...then ask those who read the Scripture that was before you: Verily the Truth has come unto you from your Lord." (Quran, 10:94)

Allah talks directly to the Christians, urging them to come to Islam, saying in the Quran:

"From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent to them...O People of the Scripture! Now has Our Messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and passing over much that is now unecessary. Indeed, there has come to you a Light from Allah and a clear Scripture wherewith Allah guides him who seeks His Good Pleasure unto paths of peace. He brings them out of the darknesses by His will into the Light, and guides them to a Straight Path." (Quran, 5:14-16)

And there are many other verses that Muslims cite to indicate that Prophet Muhammad (s) is prophecized in the Bible, and many Christians have converted to Islam based upon this fact alone. The Quran is a Reminder (of the True Message preached by Prophet Jesus):

"Verily, it is We who have sent down The Reminder (i.e. the Quran)" (Quran, 15:9)


Obviously a Christian would dispute this interpretation and say that the Paracletos is not Prophet Muhammad (s) but rather it is the Holy Ghost. I am simply providing the Islamic stance on the issue, as it is part of the Quran that Prophet Muhammad (s) was prophecized in the Holy Books of the Jews and the Christians.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I hope you dont mind me asking a boat load of questions later on as I get into the Islamic section in my Comparative World Religions class. We just finished Judaism and moving into Christianity.

Hello, Brother.

No, I don't mind a boatload of questions. I encourage you to ask them. However, please keep in mind that it might take me awhile to respond to all posts. I usually reply to all posts, but it takes time.

I have a question: why did Muslims, during their conquest of the Middle East and eventually the fall of Constantinople, convert Christian Churches into Mosques (An example of this is Hagia Sophia, which used to be an Eastern Orthodox Church)?

It is considered strictly Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to demolish a temple of another faith. The First Caliph, on the behest of the Prophet (s), gave the following orders to the soldiers of Allah when they attacked the enemy forces in Non-Muslim lands:

"...[Do not harm] trees; do not kill an animal or a fruit tree; do not destroy markets; do not kill children, old men, or women. You will find some people who have retired in places of worship, so leave them there to practice in peace."

The following is a Fatwa from Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, the leading Islamic scholar of our times.

Question:

We hear every now and then that some people have attacked churches or temples in different places, so we'd like to ask whether these acts are deemed right according to Shariah (Islamic Law).

Answer by Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi:

Islam does not only prohibit assaulting non-Muslims who do not wrong us, but also urges us to treat them well and be just when dealing with them. Thus, it is prohibited to attack their places of worship. This is based on the fact that assaulting such places is considered to be an act of injustice, which neither Allah nor His Messenger accept. Freedom of religion and belief is a right which Islam guarantees, Allah Almighty says: "There is no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)

The K. Encyclopedia of (Islamic) Jurisprudence says:

"All opinions adopted...assure that no temple, church, or other place of worship can be destroyed."

"All [schools of thought] state that dhimmis (non-Muslims living under the protection of a Muslim state) must not be forbidden from repairing their churches, temples, and other places of worship, because forbidding them from doing so would lead to the destruction of these places. Thus, the ruin of these places takes the same ruling as destroying them."

In addition, Shehab Ad-Deen Al-Qarafi stated the following:

"The covenant of protecting dhimmis (Protected Non-Muslim minorities) imposes upon Muslims certain obligations towards them. They are our neighbors, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the religion of Islam. Whoever transgresses against them, even with a mere word of injustice or insult against any non-Muslim , has breached the Covenant of Allah, His Messenger, and his or her conduct would be considered counter to the teachings of Islam."

Ibn Hazm also said the following:

"If a dhimmi (Protected Non-Muslim minorities) is threatened by an enemy, it is our obligation to fight the enemy with soldiers and weapons, and even to die defending him. By doing so, we will be honoring the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger. To hand him or her over to the enemy would mean that we were negligent of the Covenant of Allah and His Messenger."

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi continues:

A clear separating line should be drawn here between the teachings of Islam, which prohibit attacking non-Muslim places of worship, and the acts of some Muslims who possess a narrow-minded view of Islam.

Those people harm Islam and Muslims with their wrong behavior; as the threat they pose to Islam is much more than that of the enemies of Islam.

Along the same line, a traditional Arabic proverb reads, "A wise enemy is better than a foolish friend."

The fanaticism we see in some certain people is often due to reasons that have nothing to do with religion, even if it takes the form of religion. In fact, its reasons may turn out to be social, economic, or political after thorough study. That is why we see it appearing in certain areas and not others; as some social circumstances and inherited traditions sow the seed of fanaticism and help it grow. Therefore, it is unfair to accuse religion of being responsible for such fanatic acts.

In Islam, dhimmis have the nationality of Dar al-Islam (Muslim lands), which means that they are citizens of a Muslim nation. Thus, the word "dhimmi" is not a dispraising one, but rather a word that implies the obligation of protection and allegiance, and that is the way of piety and being obedient to Allah's law.

It is incumbent upon Muslims to preserve dhimmis' blood, honor, property, and places of worship; to respect their beliefs and rites; to defend them from any outside aggression; and to avoid anything that may kindle their rancor, or offend them, their families, and their relatives.

These rights acknowledged by Islam are not mere words, but rather are sacred rights regulated by Allah's law. Therefore, no human being is allowed to nullify them. These rights are also surrounded and protected by several guarantees as follows: The guarantee of belief in the conscience of every Muslim individual who worships Allah through obeying Allah's commands and avoiding Allah's prohibitions, and the general Islamic conscience represented in the entire society.

End quote.

On the same note, Dr. Abdus-Sattar F. Saeed of Al-Azhar University says the following:

"Islam respects other religions and prohibits attacking their places of worship."

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

The standing Muslim army must also lay down their lives to protect the churches and temples of other faiths. See fatwa below:

Question:

Could you please furnish us with a fatwa about Islam's stance on protecting non-Muslims' places of worship such as Churches and Synagogues?

Answer by Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi:

"(The Muslims must) give due respect to non-Muslims' places of worship, which are part and parcel of their property (and they enjoy) full protection in Islam."

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi continues:

The Islamic government is bound to protect the properties of non-Muslims. In his book Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf sheds light on the Prophet’s contract with the people of Najran (a group of Non-Muslims): “Najran and its neighboring area are in the security of Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger. The property, religions and churches of the inhabitants, as well as properties, whether much or little, are under the protection of the Prophet.”

`Umar ibn Al-Khattab, in his letter to Abu `Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah (may Allah be pleased with them both) wrote: “Prevent Muslims from wronging or causing harm to them (non-Muslims) or taking their property illegally.”

About the Second Caliph, he passed an edict protecting the temples of other religions:

“This is the protection which the slave-servant of Allah, Umar, the Commander of the Believers, extends to the people of Ilya: The safeguarding of their lives, properties, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches cannot be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will never be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be oppressed.” (At-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol III, p. 609, ed. Dar Al-Ma`arif, Egypt.)

End quote.

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

Therefore, it is Haram (forbidden) in the Islamic faith to convert churches into mosques. And throughout the Islamic history, Muslims were generally very tolerant in this matter, including the shining example of the Second Caliph who strenly forbade the conversion of churches in Jerusalem, or the shining example of Saladin (r) and others. From an objective standpoint, Islam was fairly tolerant in this respect, for the most part, aside from the invasion of India in which the Muslims did engage in unjustifiable aggressions against Hindu temples. Yes, there are isolated cases of such aggression against churches as well, but this is not the general pattern at all, which was normally one of tolerance towards churches.

Whatever the case, the actions of a few errant Muslims cannot possibly be indicative of the faith as a whole. There are Muslims who drink alcohol, but this does not mean that Islam allows that. As for the example that you mention, which was the Hagia Sophia, this was converted into a mosque in 1453 by the Turks, but it was later restored to the Christians in 1935 and is now a Christian museum. The conversion of it into a mosque took place very late in Islamic history, nor was it done by any of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, who are the actual example to the Muslims.

The conversion of that church by the Turks was unjustifiable but it should be noted that the Turks and the Byzantines had been fighting for a very long time, and the Christians had committed many excesses against the Muslims as well. During the Crusades, it was the Christians who burned down mosques and converted them into churches, even forcing the Muslims to place a huge cross in their holiest place in Jerusalem. On the other hand, when Saladin (r) liberated Jerusalem, he perserved all the churches, and did not even take back the loot that the Christians had stolen from the mosques and the Muslims.

The Turks came to power after the fall of the Abuyyid Empire, the dynasty started by Saladin (r) and his family. The Christians had committed many excesses and had burned down many mosques with people inside of them, and the failure of the Abuyyids finally led to the rise of the Turks who did not respond with the kindness that the Abuyyids did. Instead, they responded to the Christians in a similar manner, and they got vengeance on the Christians.

I am not saying it is justified. I am simply saying that for any grievances against Muslims for this matter, the Muslims would have ten times that many grievances against the Christians who were known for going to excess in such things. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and so many other incidences in history would attes to that.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

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?

Hello, Brother.

I do not think anyone would be justified to say to you that you are going to Hell. As Muslims, we are strictly forbidden to point to any specific individual and say that they are going to Hell, or even to point to ourselves and say we are going to Paradise. Even Prophet Muhammad (s) was instructed in the Quran to say that he doesn't even know his own future in the next life. We cannot possibly judge other people, because we cannot look into the hearts. Only Allah can do that, and therefore, only Allah is the Judge. We leave all judgement in such affairs upto Him.

Yes, we believe that Islam is the Path to Paradise, and that disbelief is a path to Hell-Fire, but we cannot say who walked which Path, since that Path is tread in our hearts and only Allah can see inside the hearts.

Take care.

 

[Yeeek]

Has the thought that perhaps, no gods exists. That the Bible, Qu'ran.. other religious texts are fairy tales. That it was purely created by men trying to find a sense to their life?

How in your opinion religions were formed? Why are the Christians, Muslims and Jewish God the right one. Why aren't the Norse gods, Roman gods and Greek gods the true ones?