Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

Another foolish thing which Christian propagandists have furthered is the idea that Muslims persecuted minorities (called Dhimmis) by making them paying Jizya (religious tax), differentiating from them, not allowing them to have a building taller than the mosque, and other such things. And yet do these ignorant people not know that the Pope of the Catholic Church himself passed such legislation against Muslims and Jews, binding on all Christians of the land? Let us now read from Karen Armstrong's best-selling book "Holy War":

"...European Christians had been commanded by the Church to have nothing whatever to do with Muslims or Jews...legislation was made which linked the two together as a common foe...The Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1216 issued directives which cut people off from Muslims and Jews and forbade normal contact or coexistence. Any Christian who took service in the house of a Muslim or a Jew was to be excommunicated, as was anybody who looked after their children; anybody who traded with Muslims, who took merchandise to Islamic countries and sailed in their 'piratical' ships was to be excommunicated and his property confiscated. Only missionaries, whose activities we have seen to be regarded suspisciously, were allowed to eat with Muslims and Jews. Pope Gregory IX, the cousin of Innocent III, who succeeded to the papacy in 1227, issued decretals which added some new prohibitions and reissued the old Lateran decrees. Muslims and Jews living in Christian countries were to wear distinctive clothing to distinguish them clearly from the Christian population. It was a way of isolating and stigmatizing...On Christian holidays Muslims and Jews were not to appear in the street lest they contaminate the holy day and offend the faithful; they must not hold public office in a Christian country and Muslims were not allowed to assail the ears of the faithful by the call of the muezzin [call to prayer]." (Karen Armstrong, "Holy War", p. 416-417)

If the Christians want to condemn the Muslims for this, then they should first condemn themselves. There was abuse on both sides, and this should not be seen as indicative of either faith, despite the fact that these were commandments by the Pope, the highest authority in Christianity.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Both sentences are correct. Islam is heavier on homosexuality. Some countries have very heavy punishments for it. This highly depends on interpretation.

Quran talks a lot about how prophet Lot's tribe was punished for homosexuality/bisexuality.
For muslim societies, there is a verse advising to make gays suffer until they atone and become straight. But the nature of suffering is not defined at all. So some societies interpreted it in worst ways, some societies just scorn such behavior (social/psychological suffering).
There is also a verse about lesbians, advising to keep them at home and not let them into society until they atone and become straight.

edit: sorry, I don't have my searchable indexable Quran CD with me today, so I can only quote as far as I remember. Hopefully Salah-al-Din might discern any major mistake I might make.

I have no complaints with your post [snipped]

Your post is right on the mark. You are 100% right.

Homosexuals are to be advised and warned, then given time to repent. Prophet Lot (as) himself did this, and he gave them a lot of time to change their ways. Remember: in Islam, the punishment is given to those who commit homosexual acts, not those who have homosexual feelings. Anyone who feels attraction to the same sex should fast and fight the urge. In this case, they can even vow a life of celibacy. Then maybe even they will get reward for resisting temptation. It is only the homosexual act which is considered a punishable offense. Remember: in Islam, sex outside of marriage (both pre-marital and extra-marital) are punishable offenses, wether or not it is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Do you support the death penalty for apostasy?

This is based on a misunderstanding when people say that the penalty for apostasy is death in Islam.

There are two forms of apostasy: Minor and Major Apostasy.

Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, the leading scholar of our times, says:

"(Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, (1) an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and (2) an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land."

The harmless apostasy is Minor Apostasy and the harmful apostasy is Major Apostasy. It is only the latter in which the penalty is death.

In the time of the Prophet (s), there were a group of Muslims who would continually threaten to become apostates and fight Islam with the enemies of Allah. And yet these Muslims had taken a Baya'ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of the Prophet (s) to take him as their leader and to protect in the defense of Medinah (the Islamic capitol). This was a legal and binding oath to the Republic of Medinah, taken by Muslims and Jews. And yet, when the Non-Muslim pagans came to attack Medinah, these people rescinded on their pledge of loyalty, and became apostates by aiding the enemies in fighting the Prophet (s). It should be noted that fighting the Prophet (s) is considered automatic disbelief and apostasy in Islam. It is *these* apostates that are to be punished by death. Aiding non-Muslims in killing Muslims is considered Major Apostasy and high treason, punishable by death. For example, if Iraq were an Islamic country and it were attacked by Non-Muslims, then any Iraqi Muslim who aided the Non-Muslims in fighting the Muslims would be considered an apostate and guilty of high treason punishable by death.

However, the type of apostasy which most people think about nowadays with secular societies has nothing to do with treason against the state or fighting. Instead, this is the Minor Apostasy, in which a person loses faith in Islam and simply abandons it, but does not harm Muslims; he does not call to fight Islam and he does not wage war against the Prophet (s) and his followers. This type is *not* to be punished by death.

Evidence for this differentiation (between Major and Minor Apostasy) comes from the fact that Prophet Muhammad (s) did not put to death one group of apostates who did not fight the Muslims, but he did have another group of apostates executed because that group had fought the Muslims.

Shaikh Al-Qaradawi says, citing Shaikh Ibn Tamiyyah (considered the Shaikh of Islam):

"(Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the repentance of a group of apostates, and he ordered that another group of apostates, who had committed other harmful acts to Islam and the Muslims, be killed."

For example, after one battle, Maqis ibn Subabah was executed for commiting Major Apostasy; he had rescinded his oath and aided in killing a Muslim.

One of the Prophet's Companions (Anas) said to the Second Caliph: "O Commander of the Believers, they are people who turned apostate and joined the polytheists (in battle), and thus they were killed in the battle."

Notice how apostasy and waging war are grouped together; this may seem strange nowadays but back then religion was considered part of state loyalty. People who believed in Islam defended the Prophet (s) and Medinah, whereas those who disbelieved in it would oftentimes fight Islam and the fledgling State of Medinah. When a group of Muslims would become apostates, usually they did so after enticements from the enemy camps and bribes to defect. Therefore, their denunciations of Islam would always come with a declaration of war.

The Prophet (s) said: "The blood of a Muslim--who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah--is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer (i.e. adultery), someone killed in retaliation for killing another (i.e. murder), or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community (i.e. treason)."

The Prophet (s) said with clarification:

"The blood of a Muslim--who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle--cannot be shed except in three cases: a married person who commits adultery (he is to be stoned), and a man who went out (i.e. apostated) fighting against God and his Messenger (he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land), and a man who murders another person (he is to be killed on account of it)."

So we see that the emphasis is that they not only apostate but they fight against the Muslims (i.e. high treason). This is based on the following verse in the Quran:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might to make mischief in the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter." (Quran, 5:33)

This is the punishment in the Quran for high treason and fighting the Muslims, which is considered Major Apostasy.

But if a person simply abandons Islam and does not wage war, then he is to be left alone. In this next Prophetic Saying, a man who took Baya'ah (oath of allegiance) at the hand of the Prophet (s) and declared himself a Muslim, tells the Prophet (s) that he wants to break that oath.

Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina).

The Prophet (s) did not order that this man be executed, because he simply abandoned Islam but did not fight it. This is Minor Apostasy. In this case, the Muslims are not to kill him but to advise him to repent and return to the folds of Islam.

Allah says that there are some who "believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back." (Quran, 3:72)

And Allah says:

"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth — Allah will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way." (Quran, 4:137)

Jamal Badawi comments on this verse:

"It is important to note in the above verse that if the Qur'an prescribes capital punishment for apostasy, then the apostate should be killed after the first instance of apostasy. As such there would be no opportunity to 'again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth.' In spite of these acts of repeated apostasy, no capital punishment is prescribed for them."

The Shaikh of Al-Azhar University, Abdul-Majeed Subh, says:

"No Punishment, If No Harm...There is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation."

There is no compulsion or coercion in religion, as Allah says:

"And say: 'The truth is from your Lord,' so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (Quran, 18:29)

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)

"And so (O Prophet): admonish them; your task is only to admonish. You cannot compel them (to believe.)" (quran, 88:21-22)

"If they surrender (to God), then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then behold, your duty is no more than to deliver the message." (Quran, 3:20)

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

And Salah, it seems you missed one question of mine - is singing or classical vocal music , which uses no instruments, forbidden? Is it forbidden to listen to chanting or singing if the chanter's or singer's voice is as perfectly trained as a musical instrument?

Hi, Brother Aneeshm.

I was trying to avoid your question due to the complexity of the answer.

I'll try to give a simple answer, and not go into all the exceptions and fine print.

The basic principle is that singing without music is permissible. However, women may not sing in front of stranger men, and can only sing to their husbands and other blood relatives. This is based on the following verse in the Quran:

"O wives of the Prophet! You are not like other women if you are God-fearing. So do not be too soft in speech. Lest in whose heart is disease should be moved with desire." (Quran, 33:32).

This verse prohibits women from talking in an enticing and seductive manner, and singing would be encompassed in that. Furthermore, if there is any fear of Fitnah, then the precautionary measure is to avoid men singing in front of women. There is nothing wrong in women singing in front of other women.

It should also be noted that the content of the song should not violate the Islamic ethos. It should not be about pre-marital and extra-marital love affairs as is commonly the case today.

Chanting without music should not be done to excess as this is the way of the pagans and Times of Ignorance. However, it is permissible to do within reason, and it can even be laudable in such circumstances as motivating the troops in Jihad.

In conclusion, in Islam it is musical instruments which are considered Satan's tools, and not the human voice.

Take care, Brother.

 

[knigh+]

I have no complaints with your post, other than what you said about a verse in the Quran saying for gays to suffer until they atone and become straight. No such verse exists in the Quran, to the best of my knowledge. You should, in my opinion, edit out that comment from your post, Allah Willing.

I found this. Maybe a translation I read before used "make them suffer" instead of "punish". When it says "repent and amend" how do you interpret it other than become straight? Nevertheless, I reworded the post.

4:15 - If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. 4:16 - If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

 

[aneeshm]

It should also be noted that the content of the song should not violate the Islamic ethos. It should not be about pre-marital and extra-marital love affairs as is commonly the case today.

This leads to another interesting question - is a song (without music) allowed which is worded in such a way which can be interpreted in two ways - it can be either thought of as a song to a lover, or as a song of love or devotion to God? There is a tradition of such singing in India. What would be the position of such singing in Islam? I'll give an example (the lyrics may sound a bit strained and unnatural, but that is because I am translating from Hindi):

Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

If I do not find a place at your feet,
Then my life is meaningless,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

You are my respected,
Your are my self-respect,
You are my worship,
You are the focus of my meditation,
You are the object and I the worshipper,
To you I am given,
I sing only your praises,
I sing only the praises of your qualities,
Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

You are in my heartbeats,
You are (in)/(the possessor of) my mind and body,
You are in my breaths,
You are in my eyes,
If you are, then the garland (of flowers) shines,
If you are, then the garland smells sweet,
Without you I find no life,
Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

If I do not find a place at your feet,
Then my life is meaningless,
Such is my love,
Such is my love​

This song can be interpreted as both - either as a person showing the extent of their love to another, or as a worshipper showing the extent of his love for God.

Is this allowed or forbidden (if there is no music)?

NOTE: I am restricting this to a discussion of the song without music. In reality, it was part of a movie, where it had very good music and a catchy beat, but I'm asking you about the lyrics because that's what is most relevant to our discussion.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I found this. Maybe a translation I read before used "make them suffer" instead of "punish". When it says "repent and amend" how do you interpret it other than become straight? Nevertheless, I reworded the post.

No no, I stand corrected. Didn't remember that verse. Thanks. I'll edit *my* post. Jazakhullah Khairun, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

This leads to another interesting question - is a song (without music) allowed which is worded in such a way which can be interpreted in two ways - it can be either thought of as a song to a lover, or as a song of love or devotion to God? There is a tradition of such singing in India. What would be the position of such singing in Islam? I'll give an example (the lyrics may sound a bit strained and unnatural, but that is because I am translating from Hindi):

Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

If I do not find a place at your feet,
Then my life is meaningless,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

You are my respected,
Your are my self-respect,
You are my worship,
You are the focus of my meditation,
You are the object and I the worshipper,
To you I am given,
I sing only your praises,
I sing only the praises of your qualities,
Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

You are in my heartbeats,
You are (in)/(the possessor of) my mind and body,
You are in my breaths,
You are in my eyes,
If you are, then the garland (of flowers) shines,
If you are, then the garland smells sweet,
Without you I find no life,
Only you are my world,
Such is my love,
Such is my love

If I do not find a place at your feet,
Then my life is meaningless,
Such is my love,
Such is my love​

This song can be interpreted as both - either as a person showing the extent of their love to another, or as a worshipper showing the extent of his love for God.

Is this allowed or forbidden (if there is no music)?

NOTE: I am restricting this to a discussion of the song without music. In reality, it was part of a movie, where it had very good music and a catchy beat, but I'm asking you about the lyrics because that's what is most relevant to our discussion.

It is very interesting that you should mention this because there is a very famous Muslim poet who also had poems that can be interpreted to mean love for God or love for a woman. His name was Rumi; many Muslims read his poems thinking that it refers to God, but non-Muslims often read his poetry as if it is referring to a woman. Rumi was criticized harshly for this blasphemy, although there is some element of doubt if he ever meant for his poetry to be aimed at anyone other than God. There are some Islamic scholars who defend Rumi by saying that he never meant for anyone to misinterpret his poems in such a manner as to indicate love for a woman.

However, *if* it could be established that a poem was addressing a woman and God (thereby equating a human to God), then this would be blasphemy and disrespect towards Allah. If, however, the poem is clearly aimed towards Allah--and there is no doubt that it refers to Him--then there is nothing wrong in it.

 

[Sidhe]

It is very interesting that you should mention this because there is a very famous Muslim poet who also had poems that can be interpreted to mean love for God or love for a woman. His name was Rumi. He was criticized harshly for this blasphemy, although there is some element of doubt if he ever meant for his poetry to be aimed at anyone other than God. However, *if* it could be established that a poem was addressing a woman and God, then this would be blasphemy and disrespect towards Allah. If, however, the poem is clearly aimed towards Allah--and there is no doubt that it refers to Him--then there is nothing wrong in it.

That would be the difference in inflection of your language maybe a bit cryptic huh, sounds like a clever play on words, maybe he was torn between his love for a woman and his love for God, one was lustful the other pure

 

[aneeshm]

However, *if* it could be established that a poem was addressing a woman and God (thereby equating a human to God), then this would be blasphemy and disrespect towards Allah. If, however, the poem is clearly aimed towards Allah--and there is no doubt that it refers to Him--then there is nothing wrong in it.

What if it could not be proven either way - the language was ambiguous enough to allow both interpretations?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What if it could not be proven either way - the language was ambiguous enough to allow both interpretations?

I do not know the answer to that. I'll have to ask an Islamic scholar, Allah Willing.

 

[Sidhe]

I do not know the answer to that. I'll have to ask an Islamic scholar, Allah Willing.

x post with me oops.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

x post with me oops.

I have no idea what that means.

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

I'd also like to make a clarification. A man is allowed to write love poetry for his wife, and vice/versa. In fact, such acts are encouraged and to an extent even commanded. However, these sort of things should remain between married people.

 

[Sidhe]

I have no idea what that means.

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

I'd also like to make a clarification. A man is allowed to write love poetry for his wife, and vice/versa. In fact, such acts are encouraged and to an extent even commanded. However, these sort of things should remain between married people.

We both said the same thing at the same time. Because we posted at the same time cross post.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

We both said the same thing at the same time. Because we posted at the same time cross post.

Crosses are Haram and now I'll have to kill you.

 

[knigh+]

What if it could not be proven either way - the language was ambiguous enough to allow both interpretations?

All languages are so. When the poet says "I love you" in the air, you can end up interpreting that the "you" is God, a woman, his son, his dog, etc. I remember mistaking the subject another sufi poet's poems for a woman in when I was in 6th grade.

But Mevlana Jalal-ad-din Rumi is unmistakably speaking of God, as he is one of the most famous islamic philosopher (sufi) of all time. He is the founder of the whirling dervishes in Turkey, among other things. His poems were in Persian.

UNESCO declared 2007 as Internantional Rumi year.

 

[knigh+]

Crosses are Haram and now I'll have to kill you.

I have one at the end of my username

 

[Sidhe]

Crosses are Haram and now I'll have to kill you.

I'll use my prophet shield infidel

Since I have no faith though it may be a bit hollow

 

[shahreevar]

All languages are so. When the poet says "I love you" in the air, you can end up interpreting that the "you" is God, a woman, his son, his dog, etc. I remember mistaking the subject another sufi poet's poems for a woman in when I was in 6th grade.

But Mevlana Jalal-ad-din Rumi is unmistakably speaking of God, as he is one of the most famous islamic philosopher (sufi) of all time. He is the founder of the whirling dervishes in Turkey, among other things. His poems were in Persian, because although he is of Turkic parents he said he found Persian language more beautiful.

UNESCO declared 2007 as Internantional Rumi year.

i love rumi, or as we call him Molana. i am sure he is not loved by orthodox muslims, since he does sound blasphemus. i wish muslims were more like him, or like hafez, another great poet. btw, molana Rumi was a persian from Balkh. his family migrated to anatolia (city of Konya) possibly because of the Mongol invasion.

 

[knigh+]

i love rumi, or as we call him Molana. i am sure he is not loved by orthodox muslims, since he does sound blasphemus. i wish muslims were more like him, or like hafez, another great poet. btw, molana Rumi was a persian from Balkh. his family migrated to anatolia (city of Konya) possibly because of the Mongol invasion.

I know he was born in eastern Persia, that's how he was bilingual. But I remember reading somewhere that someone asked him about this and he replied that although he considered himself more Turkic, he finds the Persian language more suitable for his poems. Although he might have said that as a result of living among Turks for most of his life.

I didn't mean to start a dispute over his heritage, that era is the period when Turkish and Persian societies and cultures were most intermingled, and Turks surely developed their civilization with a lot of Persian and Arabic positive influence, so it doesn't even matter.

PS: we call him Mevlana as well. Calling him Rumi is actually funny, as it means "the Roman" (Anatolia was called the Roman land in Seljuk times)