Ask a Muslim, Part II

[Bill3000]

Many people identify Pope Benedict XVI with Catholic Christianity. Do any branches of Islam have a similar figure of international identity?

Not since 1924.

 

[Princeps]

Not since 1924.

Care to explain?

 

[madviking]

Have you been to Mecca?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm going to switch gears to a little more political issue and ask

"Why do you think the plight of the Palestinian people has recieved such attention from the Muslim community as compared to the Uyghurs"

You're pan-islamic map indicates that Xinjiang should be part of the muslim world, and in relative size it dwarf's the region of Israel and Palestine (1,660,000 Square Kilometers compare to a mere 22,000 Square kilometers) is more populous even including Israel's Jewish and Christian population (19,630,000 people versus 7,100,000). But most importantly is the striking disparities in the difference of Human rights. Say what you want about Israel, but China is a nation which ruthlessly uses violent means to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs, is an oppressive autocracy, and which is attempting to culturally annihilate the Uyghur people.

What I'm getting at is I have a hard time stomaching the apparent double standard amongst Islamic governments to the plight of Palestinian Muslims as compared to Uyghur Muslims, why governments like Iran refuses to recognize Israel but willingly form extremely close ties to China. Perhaps you can help shed some light on this?

 

[Sidhe]

If you ask me a lot of Muslims couldn't give a toss about the Palestinians either, I don't see them offering them aid, just more guns and ammo to fight as a political proxy for their own ends.

 

[El_Machinae]

As for hiding sins, this is so that a person doesn't lose his honor. For example, a person who engages in drugs will forever lose his honor if this becomes known, and even if he leaves that, some ignorant people will forever associate him with dishonor. Maintaining your reputation is very important. You have added the phrase "when you don't deserve it", but doesn't every person deserve the chance to reform? If, for example, a girl freely tells the world that she sleeps around with men, she will be known as a promiscious girl of no respect. But one day she decides to change and become "born again". But no matter how hard she tries, people will always think of her as dishonorable.

This is why I originally referred to this concept as a source of cultural divide. I respect people who are upfront about their faults, and appreciate when people ask for help in confronting their faults. Society, in general, subconsciously encourages people to hide their faults (when's the last time you've seen "recovering alcoholic" on a resume?), but it's considered a virtue to be upfront.

I know people are going to try to obfuscate their negative histories, it's human nature. However, I cannot really respect that aspect of human nature. And I have trouble seeing how I can appreciate a cultural meme where it's not only suspected to occur, but encouraged.

As for "hiding the faults, as well as the virtues" concept: it sounds nice, but on the whole I suspect people have more faults than virtue to hide.

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just giving an FYI; it's a source of conflict. As well, I know that the reasoning is not entirely solid, I personally know your last sentence to be false.

If my child would grow upto become athiest (may Allah save me from such a fate), I would still love him and I would still consider him my son. It is Haram (forbidden) to cut family ties in Islam, regardless of what religion someone is. The Prophet's wife, Saffiyah (ra), was a former Jew who converted to Islam. But she did not cut her family ties with the rest of her family that was not Muslim.

This leads me to a reasking of ComradeDave's question. I'm thinking that such a child would convert to atheism, since he'd likely believe the faith of his parents when he was growing up.

You'd prefer to live in a society where such apostasy is stoned to death? I understand that stoning is not permitted if the government is not Islamic; but if the government is Islamic, then such would be the punishment, no?

How can a good man: want to move society to a state where Muslim apostates are stoned AND knowingly bring children into the world, knowing that there's a decent chance that they'll be stoned?

Prophet Noah's son was a disbeliever and yet Prophet Noah (as) did not abandon him, but rather Prophet Noah (as) kept exhorting him to return to the Path of God up until the very end of his son's life.

Do you think that the Flood literally happened? That there was a global deluge that covered the entire world with kilometers of water? Does the Quran refer to it?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Hello, Brother.

I'm answering your question out of order since it is such an interesting question.

Muslims are generally more accepting and supportive of bio-technology than their Christian brothers. In fact, we believe that the debate about "becoming God" is a bit blasphemous, because we do not think that any human being could *ever* become God. You could try all you want, but you can never be like Allah or create life like He can. Because this is an impossibility, you can try all you want and you will never accomplish it. Therefore, we Muslims do not have any fear that God's Power is being usurped by bio-technology. Instead, we believe that lowly human beings are simply utilizing tools that Allah Himself gave to us and that it is only by His Grace that we get *some* more insight into the complex nature of health and man. If we splice DNA, then who created the DNA other than Allah? Who gave us the power to splice DNA, other than Allah, Who gave us eyes to see and hands to work with, and minds to think? If we split atoms and create new elements, Who is the One Who created those particles in the first place and Who is the One Who allowed us to split them in that way?

Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says:

"Islam does not place any restrictions on the freedom of scientific research, or place any obstacles in its way, because it is a mean of understanding the laws of Allah in His creation"

Historically, Islam and science have walked hand-in-hand. Unlike our Christian brothers, we found our faith to be very compatible with science, and we believe that the study of the sciences only increases our awareness of Allah's amazing creation, and this allows insight into the Greatness of God.

Generally, when people think about cloning, they automatically think about the Hollywood version in which human beings are cloned in totality so that you have a double walking around. But this is actually not the reality. Genetic engineering involves engineering organs and other such things, and we think that this is a very noble thing to do as it preserves and saves life. And bio-technology can make crops stronger so that more food can be available and this too ends hunger and saves life. In the end, all of these such measures benefits man, and so long as this is the case, then it should be done.

So almost all forms of genetic engineering are allowed. The only thing that would not be allowed would be to mix the haploid cells of a man with a random woman, because this would be--in a very weird way--a form of Zinnah (fornication/adultery). Children should only be the result of legitimate married couples.

But other than this stipulation, Islam and Muslims are generally very lenient towards bio-technology, genetic engineering, organ transplanation, etc. And in fact, we believe that it is a very important field to study.

Take care, Brother.

I somehow guessed Muslims would be more tolerant. I always knew Muslims championed scientific achievement, having made advances in medicine, astronomy and mathematics during the time Westerners call the Dark Ages.

I especially agree with the first paragraph. If we could do it, and if it helps others, how is it a sin?

Hmm, so sperm banks are not allowed. But you do say it is allowed between married couples, so I guess you would have nothing against fertilization technolgies like IVF that help couples to have children. But what about stem cells? Does Islam say that it violates a child (from my point of view they are still cells, but...)?

And I probably think you will eat GM food, as long as it is halal.

Thank you for all your help. I really do regret not having Islam studied in detail in our World Religion class, since we ran out of time. It is interesting to study a religion related to Christianity, and dispel many flase noions attributed to it.

 

[Catharsis]

Question: Salah-al-Din, you are a medical student, right? Now, I would imagine that that occupation would involve some physical contact with patients, some of which may be women. Is this acceptable contact, or would you be sinning?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, everybody.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was busy with school for the last few days.

can you explain the difference between sunni and shia muslims?

Difference between Sunni and Shia

To tell you the truth, most of the laity amongst the Sunnis and Shia do not know much about the opposing group. Most of these Sunni and Shia lay-persons have therefore adopted the erroneous idea--for one reason or the other--that the other party must be very similar. I suspect the reason for this is that outwardly they both seem "Muslim-ish", wearing similar clothes, having beards, wearing headscarves, etc.

Whatever the case, chances are that when you ask a Sunni or Shia lay-person what the difference is between Sunni and Shia, they will likely respond "there is no real difference" and that "it's just politics." You might even hear the popular misconception that the Sunni and Shia have the same fundamentals of faith. You'll hear such silly ideas from Muslims, and even more silly ideas from Non-Muslim "authorities" on what a Sunni is and what a Shia is.

Luckily, I just happen to be very well-versed on this topic and therefore I can clear up the misconceptions that are floating around. I think a *lot* of people want to know what the heck the difference is between Sunni and Shia, especially due to the situation in Iraq in which a genocide is taking place of one sect by the other.

The *reality* is that the difference between Sunni and Shia is *not* just political, but rather the *fundamental* doctrines of the faiths differ upon core issues, such that they would both constitute separate faiths altogether.

The best way to understand the Sunni and Shia are to liken them to Catholics/Protestants on the one hand and the Church of Latter Day Saints (i.e. Mormons) on the other hand. Sunnis would be the Catholics/Protestants in this situation, and Shia would be the Mormons. Just like the Mormons make up a very small percentage of Christians, likewise the Shia make up a very small percentage of those who call themselves Muslims. People mistakenly think that the Sunni and Shia are 50/50, but the reality is that the Sunnis are a 85-90% majority, and the Shia a 10% minority. The Sunnis are therefore the orthodoxy and the Shia are the heterodoxy.

The Church of Latter Day Saints believes in Prophets that were sent after Prophet Jesus (as). I'm not too well-versed on the Mormon faith but I do know that they believe in Prophets that lived in America during the 1800s. Because of this belief, the Christian orthodoxy--such as the Catholics or Protestants--have rejected them as heretical.

The Sunnis are like the Catholics/Protestants, in the sense that they are considered orthodoxy and mainstream Muslims. The Sunnis do not believe in any Prophetic figure after Prophet Muhammad (s) and believe him to be the final seal of the Prophets. The Shia, on the other hand, believe in holy figures that came *after* Prophet Muhammad (s) and they derive their religion from them. They don't *call* them Prophets, but they call them "Imams". The Shia believe that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (s), the Wilayah (rulership) passed down to these holy figures, called Imams.

So the Sunnis derive their religion solely from the Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (s). On the other hand, the Shia derive their faith from the Quran, Prophet Muhammad (s), and their Infallible Imams who came after the death of the Prophet (s). According to the Shia, the Divine Wilayah (Rulership) passed down from one Imam to the next. These Imams are divine just like Prophets and they have the same 'power' as Prophets.

The Sunnis have rejected the Shia based on this position, and they call it heretical to believe in divine figures after Prophet Muhammad (s). They say that Prophet Muhammad (s) was the final such figure. They do not understand this concept of Imams, and point out that no such institution of Imams (i.e. Imamate) has ever existed in the Judeo-Christian tradition from which Islam finds its roots in. Indeed, the Sunnis believe in the Biblical Prophets and simply state that Prophet Muhammad (s) is another Prophet on that model. On the other hand, the Shia say that there are Imams in addition to these Prophets, and that these Imams are actually more important. They say that 12 such Imams existed after Prophet Muhammad (s).

This difference is FUNDAMENTAL. The very source from which the two get their religion differs. You will always hear rhetoric from some uninformed lay-person Muslims that the two sides are very accepting of each other, but infact the Sunni scholars have condemned the Shia as Ahlul Bidah (People of Deviation), ruling most of them to be Non-Muslims; and the Shia scholars routinely refer to Sunnis with the term "Nawaasib" which for all intents and purpose means "haters of the Imams of the Prophetic Household". The Sunnis condemn the Shia for their belief in "false Prophets" whereas the Shia condemn the Sunnis for "rejecting the divine Imams."

So on the Sunni side, they find the Shia to be heretical and blasphemous for claiming to follow divine figures after Prophet Muhammad (s), the Seal of the Prophets, as Allah says in the Quran:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the last in line of the Prophets. And Allah is Aware of everything." (Quran, Al-Ahzab:40)

The Shia agree that he is the last in line of the Prophets but they say that this verse does not say that he is the last of the Imams. The Sunnis argue back that this is playing word games by inventing a new term for the same thing. And this argument between Sunni and Shia is the CENTRAL ISSUE of the divide.

"OK, fine," you say. "So I've understood that much, but why is the issue so emotinal?"

Well, right after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s), a man named Abu Bakr (ra) was elected to be Caliph by the people. The Shia believe that the people had no right to elect a ruler because that decision lies with God and God Alone, and that the only one to rule had to be the Divinely appointed Imam. The Shia also believed that the Wilayah (rulership) must be passed down in the family of Prophet Muhammad (s), called the Ahlul Bait. The Shia have rejected the First Three Caliphs based on the fact that they were not related to Prophet Muhammad (s) and they claim that these Three Caliphs usurped the rightful rule of the Prophet's bloodline.

The Sunnis reject the idea that the rulership must be contained within the Prophet's family, but rather that anyone elected by the people through Shura (mutual consultation) could be made Caliph, regardless of which family he comes from. Shortly after the death of the Prophet (s), the Shia would come in direct conflict with the ruling Sunnis, whom they called usurpers of the Prophet's family bloodline. Throughout Islamic history, the Sunnis have accused the Shia of fermenting rebellions, treachoury, sedition, and supporting the enemies against the Sunni Caliphs. And on the other hand, the Shia decry the Caliphs as usurpers and persecutors of the Prophet's descendants, in specific the Imams. BOTH SIDES reject these accusations as baseless. Whatever the case, the fighting between both factions has been taking place for the entire span of Islamic history.

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

A quick note: Secular sources often are not capable of understanding this conflict and wrongly assume certain things. I will discuss a few of these popular misconceptions here. However, the following segment assumes that you have some prior knowledge on the issues. If you do not, then ignore the section below as it won't make any sense to you:

It is a commonly held (yet erroneous) belief that the Shia support the Prophet's cousin Ali (ra) and that the Sunnis reject him. In reality, both sides support Ali (ra). The *difference* is that the Shia believe that Ali (ra) was AGAINST the First Three Caliphs, whereas the Sunnis believe that Ali (ra) SUPPORTED the First Three Caliphs. The same is the case with the Prophet's grandson Hussain (ra) in the Battle of Kerbala: secular sources often wrongfully claim that only the Shia revere Hussain (ra), but the reality is that Sunnis revere him just as much. However, the Sunnis don't believe that Hussain (ra) was an Infallible Imam, and they say that Hussain (ra) never claimed to be one. This conflicts with what Shia believe, namely they say that Hussain (ra) claimed to be the divinely appointed Imam.

Another very common misconception is the idea that the Prophet's wife Aisha (ra) rebelled against the Prophet's cousin Ali (ra) in the Battle of Camel, and that *this* was the start of the conflict between Sunni and Shia. In fact, the Sunnis reject that Aisha (ra) rebelled against Ali (ra), and instead believe that she was going to see Ali (ra) to ask him to apprehend the killers of the Third Caliph (who were Shia) and then those Shia who were guilty of that attacked Aisha's contingent (ra) which started the Battle of the Camel. The Shia reject this version of history and they claim that Aisha (ra) purposefully provoked a rebellion against Ali (ra).

Likewise, the Sunnis reject the idea that the Prophet's descendants would ever become Shia or claim to be Imams. So while the Shia claim that the Prophetic Family (Ahlul Bait) were Shia, the Sunnis reject this idea and say that they were Sunnis and that they all supported the Three Caliphs and the Prophet's Disciples (the Sahabah).

Anyways, this might SEEM like a political difference, but in the end, it ammounts to a RELIGIOUS difference, since the Sunnis use the Three Caliphs, the Prophet's wives, and all their supporters (known as the Prophet's Disciples or Companions) as a source that transmitted the Prophet's words. On the other hand, the Shia reject these people and call them unreliable, and they instead rely only upon the Prophet's blood-relatives in this matter.

So two MAJOR differences between Sunni and Shia revolve around the CANON. The Sunnis derive the Islamic canon from the Quran and Prophetic Sayings (as recorded by the Prophet's Disciples as well as the Prophetic family), whereas the Shia derive their canon from Quran, the Prophetic Sayings (as recorded *exclusively* by the Prophet's family), and most importantly they believe in the Sayings of the Imams. This last part--believing that the Sayings of the Imams is canon--is considered blasphemous and heretical by the Sunnis.

Because the canon comes from different sources, the individual laws differ between Sunni and Shia. These differences in Islamic Law are more minor than the differences in Islamic Doctrine (which are more fundamental). These differences in Law are a consequence of the differences in Doctrine (namely that a different source is legislating the Law). Some examples of the differences in Laws revolve around Mutah, Matam, and Taqiyyah, which the Shia accept and the Sunnis reject. Of course, this would get even more technical, so I'll end here.

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

Most people just think that it is a POLITICAL difference in that the Shia support the Prophet's cousin Ali (ra) to be Caliph after the Prophet (s), and the Sunnis support Abu Bakr (ra). However, the actual difference is in regards to RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, because the basis for the Shia claiming that Ali (ra) should have been the First Caliph is that--according to the Shia--Ali (ra) was the First Infallible Imam, divinely appointed by God. On the other hand, Sunnis reject any such notion, and believe that Ali (ra) NEVER claimed such a position as "Imam" (nor did he oppose Abu Bakr) and--most importantly--that the entire doctrine of Infallible Imams is false. So the issue is MORE about the institution of the Infallible Imamate as opposed to simply who was the ruler.

I know that the second part of my explanation was confusing, but hopefully the first part made sense. I hope this shed *some* light on this very complicated issue. If you have ANY questions or would like something clarified, please ask.

Take care, everyone.

 

[Steph]

One technical question. During Ramadan, you are not supposed to eat from dawn to dusk.

How is the difference of the length of day is accomodated?

For instance, what happens to a muslim who would be north of the polar circle, with day 24/24 for several months if it is at the same time as ramadan?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

One technical question. During Ramadan, you are not supposed to eat from dawn to dusk.

How is the difference of the length of day is accomodated?

For instance, what happens to a muslim who would be north of the polar circle, with day 24/24 for several months if it is at the same time as ramadan?

Hello, Brother.

The fasting period commences at the dawn prayer and ends with the dusk prayer. However, like you stated, in certain extreme latitutes, there would be no sunrise or sunset.

It is believed in Islamic Prophecy that the Sun will rise from the West instead of the East near the End of Times. When that happened, the Prophet Muhammad (s) told us that a period would come in which daylight would last for more than a year, so that one day in that time would be equal to a year according to our days. And then he (s) went on to say that the days would get shorter and shorter, eventually coming to the normal length. To this prophecy, a man asked the Prophet (s): “O Messenger of Allah, the day which is like a year, will the prayers of one day be sufficient for us then?” He said, “No, estimate them.”

The same ruling would apply for extreme latitudes, namely that the prayers should be estimated to fit within a twenty-four time period. And this is what the Muslims in those regions do today. The method of estimation varies, but generally people either use Mecca time or they use the prayer times in the closest land with a moderate latitude. Whatever estimation is used, it should be agreed upon by the people of that land and followed unanimously by them so that they can pray together in unison, as is the pre-requisite.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Salah-Al-Din, if you don't accept some parts of the Bible (IE, when Christ says "I and the Father are one") then by what grounds to you accept other parts of the exact same books of the Bible?

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

First of all, when I quote the Bible, it does not believe that I think this is a part which I accept. For example, when I quote parts of Deutoronomy, it does not mean that I accept them. Far from it. I believe that God would *never* command his Prophets to commit genocide and massacres against entire cities of people.

The reason I quote these verses is that I want to show you that the parts you criticize about Islam can be found in the Bible but in a more extreme form, and therefore Christians should be the last to criticize such things about Islam. For example, in the Quran, Jihad is ordained against enemy combatants who fight in the battlefield and who have oppressed people in the land. If you as a Christian were to criticize the concept of Jihad, then I would point out to you that your holy book ordains holy war which involves massacring entire cities of civilians. However, by citing this example in the Bible, it does not mean that I really believe God said to do those things.

Indeed, Muslims believe that Islam came to correct the Stories of the Prophets. We believe that the Prophets have been slandered by the Christians, and that the Bible has been corrupted to include what we Muslims consider to be absurd stories about how they slaughtered civilians, committed Zinnah (fornication/adultery), and other such things. In fact, we believe that the Prophets were far above these things and never committed such Major Sins.

Indeed, one of the major reasons that many Christians convert to Islam is that they read about the things that the Prophets supposedly did in the Bible, and they cannot understand how someone sent by God could do those things. Then, they read the Stories of the Prophets in Islam, and they see that the Quran and Prophetic Sayings "exonerate" the past Prophets from those things, saying that they never did such things but rather this is a lie by those who changed their religion. If you read the Stories of the Prophets in Islam, you will find that they are very similar to the Christian ones, but they are "cleaned up" in the sense that God's Prophets are not portrayed as sinful men. In Islam, the Prophets are not considered perfect, but they *are* considered the best of people, and as such, many of the things that are written about them in the Bible are rejected as lies.

Likewise, I do not agree with the Biblical punishments. For example, the Bible says to stone to death those who preach another faith. When I bring up this example, it does not mean that I agree with this NOR do I believe that God EVER passed such a Law. (I believe that there is no compulsion in religion as stated in the Quran.) On the other hand, I feel that flogging a person for taking drugs (as ordained in Islam) is very reasonable, whereas stoning to death a person for preaching his faith is not. When I bring up the latter example, it is only so that you look at the former in a more appropriate context.

Having said all that, I would like to state that the Muslims believe that *some* of the Bible was corrupted, not all of it. There still remains some truth in it, because not everything that was sent by God was tampered. There are still some verses which are likely to be God-sent, but the bulk of the book has been tampered with such that it is impossible to tell the truth from a lie. I could share with you the verses that are postulated to be "truth" and those considered to be a "lie" if you wish.

I am not trying to be offensive by calling your book a lie. I am only explaining the Islamic position on the Bible. No doubt you also believe the entire Quran to be false based upon your religion.

Take care.

 

[Steph]

I'm not really satisfied by your answer, perhaps I did not understand it.

If the day is 24/24, then a muslim can use Mecca time. Mecca being closer to the equator, let's assume it's 12 hours day 12 hours night.

So they guy up in Groenland fast only 12 hours (he's using Mecca time). While the guy a bit to less to the south where the day last 20 hours and night 4 hours will fast 20 hours....
And the other side of earth, a muslim will fast only 4 hours...

Wher's the logic in that? Isn't it unfair?

Another question. When you quote the Bible and speak about Christians, how do you consider Christians follow the Bible? In your eyes, what is the percentage of Christians who follow it litteraly? And if they don't, would you still label them Christian?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Where's the logic in that? Isn't it unfair?

Well, maybe Muslims feel differently, but the way I see it, when one is making a sacrifice that one hopes will draw one closer to God, "fair" - ie, how much other people give - is irrelevant.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I'm not really satisfied by your answer, perhaps I did not understand it.

If the day is 24/24, then a muslim can use Mecca time. Mecca being closer to the equator, let's assume it's 12 hours day 12 hours night.

So they guy up in Groenland fast only 12 hours (he's using Mecca time). While the guy a bit to less to the south where the day last 20 hours and night 4 hours will fast 20 hours....
And the other side of earth, a muslim will fast only 4 hours...

Wher's the logic in that? Isn't it unfair?

Hello, Brother.

Brother Eran hit the nail on its head. The good Muslim does not view it as unfair, but rather he views it as an honor to fast more hours of the day. Allah and His Messenger instructed us to compete in good works, not simply to lethargically do the bare minimum. Instead of just fasting in the month of Ramadan, Muslims are highly recommended to fast every month of the year, although they should avoid excess (which is another issue altogether). Fasting should not be viewed as a burden to complete and be done with such as a homework assignment, but rather it should be viewed as an honor and an opportunity to draw closer to Allah.

Having said that, it should be noted that if you live near the North Pole and one year your fasts are much longer, then in another year your fasts will be much shorter than other people. So it all evens out. Let's take the example of three people: one who lives in London, one who lives in Mecca, and one who lives in Sydney.

In the first year, the earth's axis may be tilted such that the days are very short in London and very long in Sydney. Let's say that this year the fast would last 6 hours in London, 8 hours in Mecca, and 10 hours in Sydney. Well, the month of Ramadan always shifts seasons (remember: it is a lunar calendar not a solar one). So one year Ramadan will be in December, while another year it will be in July, etc. Therefore, in another year, it may be that the fast would be 10 hours in London, 8 hours in Mecca, and 6 hours in Sydney. So it all evens out, due to the fact that Ramadan shifts months every year. In fact, it turns out COMPLETELY even. I have some relatives in London and some years they have Ramadan fasts that last only four hours, but that is evened out by the fact that other years they have twelve hour long Ramadan fasts.

But even if it did not "even out", it would be largely irrelevant. The reward for our deeds is with Allah, and He is Most Just. No work will be lost. Allah says in the Quran that even one iota of good deeds will not go unaccounted for and it will be rewarded on the Day of Judgement and in the Hereafter.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Another question. When you quote the Bible and speak about Christians, how do you consider Christians follow the Bible? In your eyes, what is the percentage of Christians who follow it litteraly? And if they don't, would you still label them Christian?

Hello, again.

I know that some Christians follow the Bible literally and others don't. Even if they don't, I still consider them to be Christians.

Hope that answers your question.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I'm gonna hit you with political questions this time:

Hello, Brother.

OK, shoot!

What are your beliefs on jihad? (holy war sense)

Before anyone takes my words out of context, it should be understood *what* Jihad is. I have explained this in previous posts. (If you would like me to re-post what Jihad is, then please let me know.) I think that when ANYONE hears what Jihad REALLY is, then they always will agree that it is just and that they would support such an institution as Jihad. Terrorism is DEFINITELY *NOT* Jihad, and it is in fact antithetical to Jihad. Terrorism is Haram (forbidden), and it is only the enemies of Islam and the deviant heretics who seek to link terrorism with Jihad.

The Islamic Rules of Jihad actually conform to the Geneva Conventions and international law. The stipulation in Islam to wage a holy war is that another country attacks your people and aggresses against them, persecuting your people, driving them out of their homes, and killing them unjustly. In this case, it is every man's duty to defend these people and to fight the ARMED enemy combatants on the BATTLEFIELD. It is Haram (forbidden) to harm civilians. And if the enemy leans towards peace, then you should lean towards peace as well. But if the enemy persists in aggression, oppression, and persecution, then you are duty-bound to defend the poor, the weak, the women, the children, and the elderly. Any man who does not do so would be a weakling.

In a way, America itself believes in this type of Jihad. For example, if anyone attacked America, then the men would be drafted and expected to fight back. Any man who refused to do so would be considered a coward.

So yes, I do support such an institution. Jihad conforms to international law, as even international law allows a nation to self-defense so long as civilians are not targetted and purity of arms are maintained.

How do you view Jihadis?

The proper term is Mujahideen (holy warriors). A Mujahideen is one who adheres to the above guidelines, namely that he only fights ARMED enemy combatants on the battlefield and does NOT harm civilians.

In such a case, yes I would very much look upto such people. They are considered one of the highest groups of people in Islam. Anyone who risks his life in such a noble manner is considered very noble and praise-worthy.

Do you believe Americans are evil people?

No. Americans are like any other people: they have good people and bad people within their midst. I believe that many Americans are good people and that the country is simply controlled by the evil ones.

Do you believe the US is an evil nation?

The question "do you hate America" has been asked by many people before.

That is a loaded question, and it is difficult to intelligently answer that in one or two words. A person who would say "I love this" or "I hate that" would be a simpleton, no doubt.

There are many aspects to America...do you mean: do I love/hate American people? Do I love/hate American values? Do I love/hate American foreign issue policies? Do I love/hate Big Macs?

Having said that, I shall not be coy or evasive, and give you the answer you are looking for. I bear absolutely no hatred for American people or individuals...in fact, I know quite a few of them and they can be great people, just like people anywhere in the world. I also love Big Macs!

People--like George Bush--try saying that we Muslims hate American values like freedom and justice. What intelligent person would argue that someone would hate freedom and justice? Mostly we Muslims have the same values and ideals on such matters of freedom and justice, and this has *nothing* to do with the anger felt by Muslims against America.

It is the foreign policy of America which garners the anger and resentment of the Muslim Ummah (nation). The United States, along with the colonial western powers, have dominated, oppressed, and persecuted the Muslim lands for hundreds of years. Today, America funds Israel which we consider a colonial construct and nothing else. America bombed Afghanistan and Iraq to pieces, and tortured thousands of Muslims in secret prisons like Abu Ghraib (a religious pogrom--nothing else)...but these are the tip of the iceberg. The United States CIA has supported and installed dictators and oppressive leaders in all of the Muslim countries, and PREVENTED true democracy (or rather, popular sovereignity).

Having said all that, if America ceases its policy of global oppression, the Muslims would love to reach an agreement with America and live in mutual peace. Allah says in the Quran: "And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it." (-Quran, Surah al-Anfal:verse 61)

As well as:

"Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way (to war against them)." - (Quran, Surah an-Nisa verse 90)

Do you think the United States is at war with Islam?

Yes, I do. I believe that the US was at war with Islam much before September the 11th. The US was at war with Islam much before that. I believe that America fears a Pan-Islamic state from arising in the land, as this would threaten its hegemony, and America has been laboring hard to prevent the rise of such a Pan-Islamic state, installing puppet governments, squashing Islamic movements, supporting Israel, and destroying Muslim countries, all part of a long-term plan to circumvent a Pan-Islamic state.

Do you recognize the State of Israel?

No, I believe it is an illegitimate state on occupied and usurped territory.

Do you believe zionists are evil people?

I believe Zionism is evil. As for the people who adhere to that ideology, they might be evil but they could also very well be misguided. A lot of good-intentioned people can mistakenly adhere to such an ideology. If they are properly educated, they can oftentimes be shown the truth. I have had a few Jewish friends who used to be Zionists but then they later became anti-Zionist after they were "enlightened." So I think it would be hasty to label them all as evil people.

Do you believe Israel is an evil nation?

I believe it is a colonial construct and an illegitimate nation responsible for the suffering of many Muslims.

Do you think Israel is at war with Islam?

Yes.

Do you make a distinction between Jews and Zionists?

Definitely. In fact, I really like Jews who are not Zionists. In fact, I support many Jews, such as the Jews for Justice and orthodox Jews who shun the state of Israel, such as Jews Against Zionism. I am also a BIG fan of Noam Chomsky, who is a professor at MIT and one of the most outspoken critics of Israel.

People mistakenly confuse being anti-Zionist with being anti-Semitic. This is a deception by the Zionists in order to make rebuking them impossible by stamping everyone as anti-Semitic.

I have Jewish friends. Muslims do not believe in hating groups of people but only individuals who do wrong. Therefore, like any other group of people, if the Jews are good people, then we like them. If they are bad people, then we don't like them. Same is the case with every other group of people, including fellow Muslims.

I like Jews who are not Zionists. I do not like Zionists, regardless of if they are Jewish or Christian.

Allah Himself says that they are good Jews and bad Jews. Allah says in the Quran:

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil; and they hasten in good works; and (verily) they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those who are righteous." (Quran, 3:113-115)

And this is repeated in verse 3:199 in which Allah says that "there are certainly among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians)" who will recieve "reward from their Lord." (Quran, 3:199)

Do you believe the holocaust is a myth or a truth?

I do not deny the Holocaust. In fact, I sympathize deeply with the Jews who went through that.

Do you believe in any sort of "zionist conspiracy?

What kind of conspiracy? I suspect you are talking about the role of Zionists in the Holocaust? Well, that is not really a conspiracy at all, but rather established fact.

Here is an article entitled "Nazi-Zionist Collaboration" written by "Jews Against Zionism and Anti-Semitism" : http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres6/BAZO.pdf

And here is an excellent article entitled "The Role of Zionism in the Holocaust" written by Jews Against Zionism:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm

However, it should be noted that this thread is not about Palestine/Israel, as there are many other threads for that. So let's change the topic, shall we?

 

[Steph]

I know that some Christians follow the Bible literally and others don't. Even if they don't, I still consider them to be Christians.

Hope that answers your question.

Partly. When I read what your write, I have the feeling your are using what is written in the Bible "litteraly" to highlight difference between muslims and christians.
However, I think the proportion of christians following the Bible strictly is much lower than the number of muslims following the Qu ran.
It gives I think a biased perspective. Like if you write (I don't have an exact quote here) that the Bible is worse than the Quran about Jihad/war, but very few christians see this part of the Bible as important or relevent.

In my feeling, many christians would see the Old Testament as "novellized" version of the history of the jews, with a few parabols about God teaching, but will skeep it very quickly to focus on the new testament.

At Church, at least in France, the priest will speak almost exclusively on the parts of the Bible dealing with the life of Jesus, his teaching and message.

But it seems when you write about Christians you make much more reference to other parts of the Bible.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Many people identify Pope Benedict XVI with Catholic Christianity. Do any branches of Islam have a similar figure of international identity?

Hello, Brother.

The mainstream Muslims (i.e. Sunnis) do not nor have they ever had a pope-like person in their faith. On the other hand, the Shia minority (10% of the Muslims) follow a Grand Ayatollah who acts much like the Pope in Christianity. The mainstream Muslims (i.e. the Sunnis) believe that this Grand Ayatollah has committed blasphemy and Kufr (Disbelief) by claiming to have such religious authority.

Not since 1924.

The Caliph was simply a political leader, and did not have religious authority such as the Pope or Grand Ayatollah.

Take care.

 

[Elrohir]

Definitely. In fact, I really like Jews who are not Zionists. In fact, I support many Jews, such as the Jews for Justice and orthodox Jews who shun the state of Israel, such as Jews Against Zionism. I am also a BIG fan of Noam Chomsky, who is a professor at MIT and one of the most outspoken critics of Israel.

My opinion of you just dropped significantly. Noam Chomsky is a anti-semitic bigot with sympathies towards Holocaust deniers; he regularly compares the Israeli government with Hitler and the Nazi's and defends Holocaust deniers. Chomsky is scum.