Ask a Muslim

[Nick Garai]

Hello and Shalom incantrix. I am a Messianic believer. I strongly support Israel's existence in the world as a sovereign nation and also among the anti-Israeli nations surrounding her. Ultimately, what would the Islamic community like to to see happen to the Jewish community? Is the current state of affairs between the Islamic community and Israel something that is ordained by Allah or is it a state sanctioned situation or something else?

According to the Christian scriptures there will be a great final war in which Armageddon shall be fought and Israel shall not be destroyed but Christ is supposed to return and proclaim His Lordship over Israel and all the world. What is the defence that Islam has regarding this victorious proclamation in a battle that ultimately is prophecied to be doom to Israel's enemies including Islam?

 

[MattJek]

Do you think muslims living in the West have an inferiority complex?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello and Shalom incantrix.

Hi, Nick. Salam and Shalom to you.

I'm not Incantrix, but I actually hijacked her thread, so I'll answer for you.

I am a Messianic believer.

Muslims also believe in the return of the Messiah.

I strongly support Israel's existence in the world as a sovereign nation and also among the anti-Israeli nations surrounding her.

I am confused as to the structure of your sentence. The second part "and also among the anti-Israeli nations surrounding her" does not really fit in with the rest of your sentence. It would have been sufficient for you to have said "I support Israel."

It seems that the rest of your sentence is designed to strike sympathy for Israel, casting Israel as some sort of under-dog. It is the common myth that Zionists like to portray of a defenseless Israel (always referred to as a damsel in distress) surrounded by a sea of barbarians and hordes of powerful Arabs.

Unfortunately, this image is altogether inaccurate and is putting reality on its head. The *reality* is that Israel has the 4th most powerful military in the world, the most high tech weaponry, and an arsenal of nukes. It was boasted by an Israeli military official himself that Israel could conquer all of Arabia in 48 to 72 hours.

Furthermore, it is Israel which has militarily occupied Palestine, against the United Nations resolution 242, which Israel has flouted for around 35 years, making it the longest occupation of any country that is still going on today. It is Israel which is anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian. I love how Israelis love using such positive words for Israel, and negative ones for Palestinians. They will refer to it as an "anti-Israeli" protest instead of a "free palestine" rally. All word games, and Orwellian in nature.

It is *Israel* which threatens the very existence of its neighbors. It almost completely destroyed Lebanon. And how about Palestine? They still don't have a homeland. You said you are worried about a sovereign Israel homeland, but that's not even a question right now: even if the Arabs wanted to "eliminate" Israel or "throw them into the sea", they couldn't....and it is Israel that is *actually* doing that with Palestinians.

The anti-Palestinian attitude of Israel can be summed up by the Chief of Staff of Israel who said:

“When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” — Raphael Eitan, chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, New York Times, April 14, 1983

“[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” — Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, ‘Begin and the “Beasts”’, New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

I love how Zionists enjoy repeating the words of emotional people who say things like "driving the Jews out"...these people are nowhere near the power to do that, and they are just saying emotional things to make themselves feel better after having been oppressed by the mighty Israel. When a mouse threatens an elephant, the elephant doesn't get scared. On the other hand, it is Israel who has planned on driving Palestinians out, evidenced by what the Israeli leader said:

"What is to be done with the Palestinian population? Drive them out!" --Yitzhak Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979

Ultimately, what would the Islamic community like to to see happen to the Jewish community?

The Crusaders captured Jerusalem and held it for hundreds of years before Salah Al-Din (r) liberated it. For hundreds of years, there were Crusader states in the exact place where Israel stood. In fact, the extent of the Crusader states was pretty much equal to the borders of Israel today. (Coincidence?)

Then, Salah Al-Din (r) conquered and liberated Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine. He was very noble and kind-hearted. He did not engage in slaughter nor did he expel the population. History remembers the peaceful way in which the Crusader states were removed by Salah Al-Din (r) and placed back in the control of the Muslims.

We dream of a similar thing. The defeat of the Israeli army, the removal of their heads of state, etc....but the protection of the Jews and their lives. Historically, when Palestine was in the hands of the Muslims, the Jews of Europe actually sought refuge and safe haven in Palestine...due to the persecution of the Jews in Europe. This noble protection of the Jews of Jerusalem by the Muslims contrasts sharply with the way in which Israel has treated the Muslims during its reign.

In any case, the ideal situation would be the removal of the Israeli government, but the protection of the lives of the Jewish civilians and communties. This is most just, and Allah is Most Just.

If, however, Israel ever leans towards peace, then we shall lean towards peace...then maybe it wouldn't have to come to that. But I think Israel will never lean towards peace, and it has gone back on its word many times. Nonetheless, if they offer peace, the Muslims are obliged to accept because Allah says in the Quran that if the enemy leans towards peace then you lean towards peace too. Allah says:

"And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it. And trust in Allah, for He hears and knows all." - (Quran, Surah al-Anfal verse 61)

In such a case, then a two-state compromise could be reached, and there is nothing wrong with this from an Islamic perspective. But it is must be a fair deal, and not a deal like the Americans gave to the Native Americans. Israel must end its occupation, and must end its tyranny. Personally, I never see this happening, but if it does, then peace is better than war. And Allah knows best.

Is the current state of affairs between the Islamic community and Israel something that is ordained by Allah or is it a state sanctioned situation or something else?

We believe that everything in the world is ordained by Allah. The current crisis in the Muslim world can be viewed both as a punishment and a test from Allah Almighty. Allah says:

"Did you think that you would enter Paradise without Allah testing those of you who strive hard in His Cause and remained steadfast?" (Quran, 3:142)

According to the Christian scriptures there will be a great final war in which Armageddon shall be fought and Israel shall not be destroyed but Christ is supposed to return and proclaim His Lordship over Israel and all the world. What is the defence that Islam has regarding this victorious proclamation in a battle that ultimately is prophecied to be doom to Israel's enemies including Islam?

The Islamic prophecies match with the Christian prophecies except in a yin-yang fashion. In the Prophet's sayings, we read that there will be one last final war (Armageddon) and that Prophet Jesus (as) will return but that he will publically declare that there is no god but Allah (disavowing the Trinity attributed to him). Then, some Christians will convert to Islam and join Prophet Jesus (as) and the Muslims in the liberation of the Holy Land. But some Christians will join the Anti-Christ and the Zionists. Eventually, the two armies will meet at a prophecized site, which is actually the modern day location of an Israeli air-base. And obviously, in our prophecies, the Muslims will be victorious.

It's interesting to see how both the Christian and Muslim prophecies are quite literally coming true. I guess an athiest would argue it's the Matrix effect...like me saying that you would find the girl of your dreams today...and then you might actually get married to the next girl you meet and say the prophecy was fulfilled, but a skeptic could argue that you only initiated things with that girl because I told you that prophecy...there's a word for that sort of thing...forgetting it now.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Do you think muslims living in the West have an inferiority complex?

It's disconcerting how such questions can be asked about Muslims, but not about other groups of people. I can only imagine the reaction of people if you had posted something like:

Do you think Jews have an inferiority complex?

Or

Do you think blacks have an inferiority complex?

As the joke goes, a black guy and a Muslim are sitting in a jail cell. The black guy turns to the Muslim guy and says "I didn't get a fair trial!" The Muslim responds "You got a trial????"

Anyways, although I can't speak for all Muslims in the West, I can safely say that I do not have an inferiority complex. I am very proud to be a Muslim.

 

[JonnyB]

As far as I can tell "Assalam Allaykum" and "Allaykum Assalam" (apologies for the spelling) as a response is a standard greeting among muslims.
But I'm not sure if this is something that I as a non-religious person can or should use as a greeting, or if this is a greeting (is it a greeting?) that should only be used by muslims.

 

[HannibalBarka]

In Islam, the basic principle is that anything which is not expressely forbidden in the Islamic canon can by default be termed Halal (permissible) until proven otherwise. Therefore, because there is no explicit text banning slavery, people have mistakenly stated that Islam encourages or advocates slavery, when this is quite simply not the case. Therefore, Islam does not allow slavery, but rather it only did not explicitly forbid it.
.....

That is all nice Salah Addine (You're not supposed to pronounce the Al in Aldin, since it is a solar name ), but it does not respond to my question. I konw that Islam discouraged slavery, and I know about what Omar said about how it is wrong to enslave people when Allah created us All equal. However I still don't understand the reason why it was not simple made haram. How can we consider a religion to be good and respecting human rights if it allows slavery, what would you think about a country that allows slavery today?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

As far as I can tell "Assalam Allaykum" and "Allaykum Assalam" (apologies for the spelling) as a response is a standard greeting among muslims.
But I'm not sure if this is something that I as a non-religious person can or should use as a greeting, or if this is a greeting (is it a greeting?) that should only be used by muslims.

Hi Johnny.

This is actually based on a myth, and I don't blame you for thinking this since it is such an oft-repeated myth. I will, Allah Willing, clarify this issue without being too verbose.

We believe that when Prophet Adam (as) greeted Eve (as), he said to her: "Al-Salaam Alaykum" which translates to "Peace be upon you."

To which Eve (as) responded: "Wa Alaykum Al-Salaam" which translates to "And upon you be peace also."

And this is the reason this greeting (and response) is used by Muslims.

There is a myth being propagated that Muslims cannot greet Non-Muslims with this greeting. It is said that Muslims can only respond with "Wa Alaykum" (And to you also) instead of the entire thing which is "Wa Alaykum Al-Salaam" (And upon you be peace also).

This is incorrect and based on a confusion which I shall, Allah Willing, clear up.

The Quran itself is enough to debunk this claim, as Allah says:

“When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally.” (Quran, 4:86)

As Muslims, we believe that the greeting of Prophet Adam (as) is the best greeting, and therefore, based on this verse in the Quran, we must reply with it, or say it and even add an extra prayer with it (i.e. "what is better than it")

So where did this confusion come from that Muslims can only greet Muslims with this? Actually, this is the fault of some ignorant Muslims who were confused by some of the Prophetic Sayings.

When the disbelievers began their persecution of the Muslims, they would often mock the Islamic practises and insult the Prophet (s). So they would greet the Prophet (s) with the words: "Al-Saam Alaykum" which is a play on the words (means "fire be upon you" instead of "peace be upon you") Instead of saying "Salam" (peace) they would say "Saam" (fire). The chief architects of this play on words were the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews) and it was later copied by the Quraish pagans.

The Prophet (s) thereby responded to their insulting "greeting" with "Wa Alaykum" instead of "Wa Alaykum Al-Salaam". This shortened version translates to "And to you too."

The Prophet (s) said: "Do you not see that I say 'Wa Alaykum' (And to you) when they say 'Al-Saam Alaykum' (Fire be upon you), (so) if the People of the Book greet you with 'salutations', say 'Wa Alaykum.'"

The confusion of not greeting Non-Muslims with the standard greeting came from the above Prophetic Saying in which people would only quote the second part and not the first part, which reads simply: 'if the People of the Book greet you with salutations, say 'Wa Alaykum' (and to you)" [/COLOR] (narrated Aisha)

Obviously, this is a deceptive manner of taking a quote completely out of context.

This incident is also mentioned in the Quran, in which Allah says:

“… and when they (disbelievers) come to you, they greet you with a greeting wherewith Allah greets you not, and say within themselves, ‘Why would Allâh punish us not for what we say?’…” (Quran, 58:8)

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (r) said:

"If a non-Muslim greets us with the correct shar’i (Islamic) greeting (i.e., says ‘Al-salaamu ‘alaykum’ clearly), we do have to return the greeting, and this is the correct view. What is indicated by the evidence and principles of Shariah (Islamic Law) is that he should say 'wa alaykum Al-Salaam' (and upon you be peace also), because this is more just, and Allaah commands us to be just and to treat others well…"

And he continues: "This does not contradict any of the ahaadeeth (Prophetic Sayings) on this topic at all, because the Prophet (s) commanded us to shorten the greeting to ‘Wa Alaykum’ because of the reason mentioned above, which is that they deliberately used to say ‘al-saam alaykum’ (fire be upon you) instead of ‘al-salaam alaykum’ (peace be upon you), as indicated in the hadeeth (Prophetic Saying) narrated by (the Prophet's wife) Aisha (ra). If this reason is not there, and the Jew or Christian says, 'Peace be upon you', then it is only fair to respond in kind."

Ibn al-Qayyim (r) was asked about returning greeting to the Non-Muslims, to which he responded: "It is obligatory and this is the correct view. What is indicated by the evidence and the basic principles of Shariah (Islamic Law) is that one should respond, “Wa ‘alayka al-salaam (and upon you be peace)”, because this comes under the heading of fairness and justice, and Allaah enjoins justice and kindness."


Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (ra) said:

"If a non-Muslim greets a Muslim in a clear manner, and says, 'Al-Salaamu Alaykum (peace be upon you),' then one should say, 'Wa ‘alayka al-salaam' (and upon you be peace).”

 

[HannibalBarka]

I do not understand how a person can be a follower of *any* religion and not be a fundamentalist. Following the fundamentals of a religion, is, well, fundamental to that religion!
But yes, I am a fundamentalist Muslim. I am "Wahabi" as the Neo-Conservatives like to say. Or rather, I am a follower of the Salaf (the early generation of Muslims). I am very conservative.
I will respond to the two posts--one on the battles and one on slavery--after I finish eating my Pizza, Allah Willing.

I am not saying it is "bad" to be a fundamuntalist, everyone has the right to believe what he wants and the ways he wants, as long as they don't impose their belief on others by any mean but voting. I however don't think one need to be a fundamuntalist to be a muslim, a christian or a jew. Faith is an exclusive relation between a human and God, and true believers, fundamuntalist or not, think that they are following that religion the way thet think God asked them to do. Do they sin? sure who doesn't?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

That is all nice Salah Addine (You're not supposed to pronounce the Al in Aldin, since it is a solar name ),

Hi Hannibal.

Yep, you are 100% right about the name.

but it does not respond to my question. I konw that Islam discouraged slavery, and I know about what Omar said about how it is wrong to enslave people when Allah created us All equal. However I still don't understand the reason why it was not simple made haram. How can we consider a religion to be good and respecting human rights if it allows slavery, what would you think about a country that allows slavery today?

Islam left one condition in which slavery was permissible, and this was enemy combatants captured in the battlefield during Jihad (i.e. prisoners of war). This is only permissible if it is a legitimate Jihad, which means that it is in response to an unjust aggression on the part of the enemy which forced the Muslims to fight back against them.

For example, if there was an Islamic state and it was attacked such as the Crusaders attacked Iraq (i.e. an unjust, illegal war), then captured enemy combatants could be taken as slaves. This is their penalty for participating in an unjust war.

An example of this is after the Battle of Badr in which the Meccan pagans attacked the Muslims of Medinah, and it was an unjust war. The Muslims defeated the aggressors, and then the enemy combatants were taken as prisoners. These prisoners were then "put to work".

In the modern day context, this would be like criminals in jail who are "put to work". In the situation of war, their work would be used to help build the war machine. In order to gain their freedom, the prisoners of war (i.e. the slaves) would have to pay a ransom or work for a certain time period after which they would be freed when it would be felt that they have paid their debt. In the case of Battle of Badr, the prisoners were set free if they could pay the ransom or if not that then they were freed if they could teach 10 Muslims how to read.

It should be remembered that at the time (and hundreds of subsequent years) it was a common practise of *all* empires to take enemy combatants as slaves. During the Crusades, the Christians and Muslims would "swap" slaves, thereby freeing their captured men.

It was only in the 20th century that the idea of Prisoner of War emerged, and now the Geneva Laws dictates how to treat prisoners.

This is the only time when it is permissible to take slaves, and even in this case, a strict code of conduct must be followed, as outlined in the Prophetic Sayings below. In fact, after the Battle of Badr, many of the captured prisoners of war converted to Islam because they were so impressed with how they were being treated.

The Prophet (s) said: "Your slaves are your brothers upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if a person has his own brother's under his command, he should feed them with the like of what he (himself) eats and clothe them with the like of what he (himself) wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, then help them (in their hard job)."

"Your slaves are your brothers, so treat him well. Ask for their help in what is too much for you and help them in what is too much for them." (narrated in Bukhari)

The Prophet (s): "Give the slave food and clothing. Do not burden a slave with work which he is incapable of doing." (narrated in Bukhari)

He (s) also said: "Not one of you (Muslims) should [when introducing someone] say: 'This is my slave'...he should call them 'my daughter' or 'my son' or 'my brother.'" (narrated ibn Hanbal)

The Prophet (s) said: "And your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!" (narrated Ibn Sa'd)

And the Prophet (s) even then forbade people from punishing slaves as was the custom. He (s) said: "Feed them from what you eat and clothe them from what you wear. Do not punish what Allah has created." (narrated Bukhari)

And the Prophet (s) said: "Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them." (narrated Bukhari)

The Prophet (s) said: "When the slave of anyone amongst you prepares food for him and he serves him after having sat close to (and undergoing the hardship of) heat and smoke, he (the master) should make him (the slave) sit along with him and make him eat (along with him), and if the food seems to run short, then he should spare some portion for him (from his own share)" (Narrated Sahih Muslim)

Today, the government of an Islamic state (which doesn't exist currently) would be in a covenant with other countries (i.e. the Geneva Conventions) and this would dictate how to take care of prisoners of war. Because none of these laws violate the Shariah, there would be no issue with abiding by international law on this matter. And in fact, covenants are binding in Islam, and there is an entire chapter in the Quran about covenants and how binding they are. Having said that, if the enemy country would violate the covenant and place Muslim enemy combatants in secret prisons on some island or other such places--and if they would humiliate the Muslim prisoners by subjecting them to horrible things--then the Muslim country would no longer need to abide by the covenant (i.e. the Geneva Conventions) and could take the enemy combatants as slaves. However, the slaves would have to be treated well, and offered their freedom after they paid off their debt. This would be their punishment for engaging in an illegal war and supporting a country which tortured and humiliated Muslim prisoners.

The general principle is that the Muslims must always treat enemy combatants better than their enemies treat the Muslim prisoners. Indeed, the example of Salah Al-Din (r) shows his nobleness in this matter. When he captured enemies, he would oftentimes let them go, and once he even bought an enemy combatant a horse so that he could flee with it, as he said that it was not befitting for a king to flee without a nice horse. At minimum, however, Allah has stated that they can be taken as slaves, but must be treated kindly, and eventually freed after they work off their debt or pay a ransom.

 

[GenMarshall]

But what if the solder in question was forced to fight in an unjust war and this solder in question believes that the war is unjust?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

But what if the solder in question was forced to fight in an unjust war and this solder in question believes that the war is unjust?

Hi, Civ General.

Nobody is forced to fight in a war. Nobody can force you to kill people. A soldier always has the option of going to jail (better than murder), running away, or even seeking the help of the Muslims. Indeed, when Salah Al-Din (r) fought the Crusaders, there were many Christians (mostly Arab Christians of another sect than the Franj) who did not want to take part in the war against the Muslims. They fled to the Muslim camp, and even helped the Muslims against the Crusaders.

Every soul will be held to account for whatever he did, and in the end of the day, a soldier will pay if he fights in an unjust war and does not have the courage to leave that. This includes Muslims who fight unjust wars. They will be held to account for that.

 

[GenMarshall]

What qualifies as a "Just War"?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Hi Hannibal.
Yep, you are 100% right about the name.

You bet, that is my first name in the real world

A lot of proof about how Islam dislike slavery

I don't need those proof Salahaddine, I know about them. Disliking is not outlawaing. Divorce is disliked in Islam, but it is halal. Owning slaves is disliked in Islam, but it is still halal, and that is the problem. Why didin't Allah plainly and clearly made Slavery Haram?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

You bet, that is my first name in the real world

Haha, I hope not. I think it's probably something like "Hana" or something.

Disliking is not outlawaing. Divorce is disliked in Islam, but it is halal. Owning slaves is disliked in Islam, but it is still halal, and that is the problem.

This is not true. Islam outlawed slavery except in *one* situation, which I detailed in the previous post. I see nothing wrong with the one exception. If Iraq was an Islamic government, and it was being attacked like it is...I don't see what would be so morally wrong with taking prisoners of wars as slaves? These soldiers are engaged in an illegal war and are raping Iraqi girls, killing Muslims, and torturing Muslims in the worst of ways. The slaves could be used to help build the war machine of Iraq to help in the defense.

Of course, this wouldn't apply to today's situation since there is the Geneva Conventions, and when you go into a treaty or covenant in Islam, it becomes binding (so long as it is not against the Shariah, which in this case it is not). The example of this is the Treaty of Hudaiyfa.

Why didin't Allah plainly and clearly made Slavery Haram?

Because it is still Halal in that one situation, and there is nothing wrong with that. For hundreds of years, taking Prisoners of War as slaves was the normal practise of empires and it was never seen as something wrong.

What qualifies as a "Just War"?

When you can fight:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those who are being attacked, because they have been wronged." - (Quran, Surah al-Hajj verse 39)

It is to protect a people who are being attacked and oppressed by wrongdoers, and these people need help:

"And what is with you that you do not fight in the path of Allah and (in the path) of the oppressed of men and women and children, those who say 'Our Sustainer, take us out from this city, its people are wrongdoers, and decree for us a protector, and decree for us a helper.'" - (Quran, Surah an-Nisa verse 75)

Only fight those who drive you out of your homes, who fight you and aggress against you, as well as those who aid those who oppress you:

"Allah does not forbid that you do good and make justice for those who do not fight you in the religion or drive you out from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who do justice. Allah only forbids your friendship with those who fight you in the religion and drive you out from your homes and back those who drive you out. And who befriends them, such are wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Mumtahana verses 8-9)

Do Not Aggress:

"Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting...Then if they cease, so Allah is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for Allah. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Baqarat verses 190-193)

If they lean towards peace, you lean towards peace:

"And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it. And trust in Allah, for He hears and knows all." - (Quran, Surah al-Anfal verse 61)

"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)

 

[El_Machinae]

So, is it rude to not give a flowery greeting? Howdy!

Where is the Islamic creation story recorded? Where can I read that version of the Adam and Eve fall? As well, if it talks about 6 day Creation, how is the dialogue going about trying to get people to not read it literally?

As well, are there any examples of atrocities committed or ordered by Muhammed while under the auspice of being a 'prophet'? I'm looking for orders from him that would violate standards of decency in the modern times; i.e., ordering the death of infants or the rape of women or the like.

I recognise that this is a bit of an impolite question, but I am trusting you to be honest. I'm often amazed that people are willing to white-wash the bad things done in the name of their God and I'm hoping you won't.

(and to respond to a previous post; it's perfectly fair (and often done) to ask a black, jew, atheist, homosexual, woman, or midget if they suffer from an inferiority complex - I'm sure you could find examples of such discussions quite easily. There is no targetting of muslims with that question).

Finally; do you know the fate of the imams who spread false documents, and who helped inflame the Cartoon Riots? I would think that after such an event, these demagogues would be punished for all the damage they helped cause.

Edit: what scripture condemns consensual homosexual sex?

 

[Mark Young]

Quite an interesting read, all 3 hours off it.

I'm an Aussie. I live in Sydney, but on the opposite side to where all the Muslims live, hence the majority of what I have learn't about Muslims doesn't come from talking with Muslims directly. So this has been an enjoyably enlightening read.

I do however have a few questions.

Question 1
You seem very knowledgable about what you believe. To be a Christian you dont need formal training, instead the bible encourages us to to study it (This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night.... Josh1:8).
Most of us read the bible (though at that time they only had the Torah)regularly as God instructed Joshua to do, and the more zealous go to bible college to learn more.
Is there any formal training/teaching that a Muslim needs to undergo? And what training/teaching have you undertaken if any?

Question 2
After reading what was written on the Aids/HIV issue, I was wondering if you find that your religious beliefs conflict with your medical training? And if so which one do you follow and why?

Question 3
I may have missed this but, What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew?

Jews are considered Ahle Kitab which means People of the Book , or People of the Scripture. This is a title of respect given to them by the Quran. Muslims are OK with Jews and consider them just like any other people. However, we do not like Zionists.

Question 4

One last question from me... I think.

I've heard in the Islamic faith, in the end, Christians and Jews will ascend as well to heaven from hell, or something of that nature. Is this true?

The basic principle is that anyone with even a grain or iota of Iman (faith) in his heart will get Paradise. And we have also been told that no human being can judge any other human being because we cannot see what is inside the hearts.

Therefore, it just might be that YOU have more Iman (faith) in your heart than I do. You see, on the Day of Judgment, your tongue will be connected to your heart, not your mind. The Angels will ask what your faith is, and you will respond what your heart says. Hence, Muslims who claim to be Muslim verbally but who are hypocrites and don't really have faith...well, they won't respond that they are Muslim.

On the other hand, a person who verbally said he was Jewish or Christian (or even Hindu/Bhuddist/etc) might on that day say that he is a Muslim.

Actually, Muslim is just the Arabic word for "submittor", referring to "one who submits to God."

The point is that Paradise is only for Muslims, but that being a Muslim simply means submitting to the Will of Allah.

Furthermore--and this is a point I cannot stress enough--we are not allowed to judge others and say he/she is going to hell or not. Only Allah knows, and only Allah is the Judge. We should be more worried about our ownselves than the fate of others.

In Islam, we believe that "kaffirs" will go to hell. It is usually translated as "infidel" but actually it translates to "rejector." It is someone who hears the Message and then rejects it. Therefore, there may be people who simply never heard of Islam (or never seriously studied it), and therefore they will not be classified as rejectors (i.e. kaffirs).

Reading the above quote it seems that if your a Muslim, Jew or Christian you will find Paradise , and the "Kaffirs" (rejectors) go to hell.
If all 3 religions, which have a fundamental and doctrinally different belief system based on 3 different Gods, are according to the Quoran going to the same paradise, does the Quoran;

• Specify that living as a Muslim life as set in the Quoran, is the only way to live, or that living any of the 3 aboved mentioned religions deemed "good enough" (for want of a better phrase) to get you to paradise?

• If the Kaffirs are sent to hell for rejecting the message, which message are they sent to hell for rejecting? The Jewish, Muslim or Christian message since a belief in either 3 will gain entry to Paradise?

I can provide you with a copy of the Ethics of War in Islam if you so wish.

That would be great.

Once again, an enjoyable thread.

 

[thetrooper]

Welcome to CFC incantrix and Salah-Al-Din!

I haven't read through this thread so forgive me if this one is duplicate:

What is your opinion on last years cartoons?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Haha, I hope not. I think it's probably something like "Hana" or something.

I am a man and my name is Salahaddine

This is not true. Islam outlawed slavery except in *one* situation, which I detailed in the previous post. I see nothing wrong with the one exception. If Iraq was an Islamic government, and it was being attacked like it is...I don't see what would be so morally wrong with taking prisoners of wars as slaves? These soldiers are engaged in an illegal war and are raping Iraqi girls, killing Muslims, and torturing Muslims in the worst of ways. The slaves could be used to help build the war machine of Iraq to help in the defense.
Of course, this wouldn't apply to today's situation since there is the Geneva Conventions, and when you go into a treaty or covenant in Islam, it becomes binding (so long as it is not against the Shariah, which in this case it is not). The example of this is the Treaty of Hudaiyfa.

First of all, there is another situation and that is to be born to slave parents. Second a Islamic Califate won't be bound by the Geneva Convention if it does not sign it, so in that Califate, slavery would be legal. And that is precisely the problem again. The fact that the only legal slaves would be those taken on the battlefield and their kids is in itself outrageous, at least in this period. How can you support such a thing? If Mohammad came back today, don't you think he would outlaw slavery no matter how some one become a slave?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

How many Christians do you think explain the differences between Protestants and Catholics? All I know was in my first post.

Perhaps I may be able to answer that: Catholics had their way of doings things, and it was basically their way or the Inquisitioners way. Martin Luther didn't like how the Church was taking advantage of/making such a big fuss (i.e. ceremonializing, if that makes sense) everything and he thought that the people attending church should decide on things. He wanted to "flip the rulership" of the Church, so the parishioners had more of a say in what was done.

At least, this is how I remember it. I could be wrong though. From what I've heard from a friend, in a Catholic Church, the priest decides what is done on everything basically. Whereas in a Lutheran (Protestant religion) the parishioners get to decide on some things. According to one of my teachers that was Catholic, but baptized her kids Lutheran for some reason. Honestly, I don't know why she did it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Welcome to CFC incantrix and Salah-Al-Din!

I haven't read through this thread so forgive me if this one is duplicate:

What is your opinion on last years cartoons?

This is answered after page 10 (I believe) Salah-Al-Din bolded his position and so a quick scrolling (or ctrl+f for "cartoon") should find it rather easily.