Ask a Muslim

[Eran of Arcadia]

Wikipedia is actually reasonably reliable, sometimes it is helpful to hear what nonmembers have to say about a religion. Of course, I know what you mean.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Maybe he does, but has a drinking problem?

Well, yes, that's understandable if he started drinking when he was a Non-Muslim or when he was a Jahili (i.e. non-practising 'Muslim') but then later he became religious.

There was even one of the Prophet's Disciples (Sahabah) who converted to Islam but he had to fight his alcohol addiction which he had adopted before his conversion.

I even knew a guy who converted to Islam who was a crack addict before coming to Islam, and he had to fight that...he eventually won, Al-Hamdulilah!

 

[Xanikk999]

Is there a historical reason or some other reason why muslims do not drink?

Or is it just tradition?

 

[Princeps]

Wikipedia is actually reasonably reliable,

It is relaible in non-heated issues, like scientific facts and so on, but not on history or politics...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It isn't perfect, but neither is it useless.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

And one more question - are you allowed to look at and enjoy the Babe Thread?

LOL That's funny you asked this because just recently I caught my roommate looking at this thread, and I threw my hands in the air thinking that of *all* the threads, he had to pick THAT one. In his defense, he said that the babe thread was more interesting than the "Ask a Muslim" thread. I beg to differ.

But yes, it is Haram (forbidden) to "check out" women by looking at their pictures in such a thread.

Allah says in the Quran:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that is purer for them. And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..." (Quran, 24:30-31)

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

It is relaible in non-heated issues, like scientific facts and so on, but not on history or politics...

Agreed. I used Wikipedia to study for my Anesthesia exam. But it is garbage for controversial issues.

It isn't perfect, but neither is it useless.

You're right. It isn't useless. But on controversial issues, it is heavily biased depending upon who last edited. I know this, because I've seen the flip-flop when it comes to Sunni-Shia debates or Muslim-Islamaphobe debates.

 

[CaptainF]

What are the stipulations on women wearing hijabs, burqas, etc.?

Are they required or just open to interpretation?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Another question, but this requires some background.

The president of India is a Muslim. He is a first-rate technical genius, and he was a large contributor to our missile and rocket program. His contributions to the country were great, and for this, the party which you consider "Hindu", the BJP, appointed him as the president. He is very well-loved in India. I myself admire his ability, competence, and humanity. Today, the BJP is no longer in power, but his tenure continues.

He made a speech recently, in which he said:

In this, he basically praises the Vedas, the Hindu holy books, and says that they are a repository of information, and that scientific information can be gleaned from them. Sanskrit is basically the classical language of India, and the language of all great Hindu literature. When someone says Sanskrit, it is synonymous with something to do with the Indic religions. Is it, then wrong on his part to praise a language, when such praise may have the effect of leading to Hinduism growing more powerful?

Is he being untrue to Islam by praising the religious books of some other religion, and saying that they are true? Is he being untrue to his faith by tacitly accepting that the Indian religious language as true or valuable?

Ved Vyasa is the poet par excellence of Hindu poetry - all the Puranic literature is supposed to have been his composition, along with the Mahabharat. He praises this poet, and says that he accepts him. The writings attributed to Vyasa are completely in contradiction with Islam. Is it wrong on his part to praise or accept such a poet?

Would it be wrong on his part, as a Muslim, to call Raghavendraswami a divine soul?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

I will not pass any judgements on the specific individual you mentioned, beacuse I cannot see into the hearts, nor do I have all the information about him.

However, I will simply answer your question from a purely ideological standpoint.

Firstly: Is it permissible to militarily aid a country at war with Muslims such as by serving in their armies, designing their weaponry, etc?

Answer: It is completely Haram (forbidden) to do any of that, and could be grounds for Kufr (disbelief), because aiding the Non-Muslims in killing Muslims is considered Kufr. However, if such a person does not know that his efforts will be used against Muslims, then what he is doing is misguidance only and we do not say that he has entered a state of Kufr. The general principle is that whenever there is doubt about this matter that we give the benefit of the doubt to him and believe him to be misguided as opposed to Tawgoot (open enemy of Islam).

Secondly: Is it Haram (forbidden) to say that a Hindu or Christian holy book contains truth and/or goodness in it?

Answer: No. I have routinely stated that the Bible contains some truth in it and a lot of goodness as well. I am unfamiliar with the Hindu texts, and therefore, I cannot comment on them. However, I have heard that they have some good in them as well.

Thirdly: Is it Haram (forbidden) to say that a Hindu or Christian holy book is absolute truth and contains no errors or falsehood in it?

Answer: Yes, it is Haram (forbidden) to say that.

Fourthly: Is it Haram (forbidden) to say that a Hindu or Christian holy book is THE truth?

Answer: Yes, this would be Haram (forbidden) as it would be implying that it contains the absolute truth in it and no errors. The Muslim view is that such books may contain some goodness and wisdom in them, especially the Bible and Torah, because these were books sent down by Allah but we believe that they were tampered with and adulterated. We believe it is dangerous to believe such holy books due to this tampering, and we believe that the Quran is the only pure and pristine book of God.

Fifthly: Would it be wrong to call such a person as you mention to be a "divine soul"?

Answer: I do not know what you mean by "divine soul." In general, Muslims do not believe in calling anyone to be a "divine soul" as divinity is a quality that is *not* given to man who is mere creation. In fact, we believe that the Christians erred by calling Prophet Jesus (as) to be divine.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Trajan12]

So that means a Muslim couldn't serve in the IDF or British or American armed forces?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What are the stipulations on women wearing hijabs, burqas, etc.?

Are they required or just open to interpretation?

Hello, Brother.

The Hijab (headscarf) is obligatory.

The Burqah (full body covering including face) is not obligatory nor is it forbidden.

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

Allah commands in the Quran:

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

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

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

The First Requirement: The Extent of Covering

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

The Second Requirement: Thickness

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

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

The Third Requirement: Looseness

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

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

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

General Requirement

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

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

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

Take care, Brother.

 

[Elrohir]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

May this reach you in peace.

Thanks, it did, I just got back.

Ibn Ishaq was an early historian. His book, "Sirah Rasul Allah", is not religious canon, but rather it is a history book.
...
The book, Ibn Ishaq's "Sirah Rasul Allah", is considered a secondary source which simply compiled all the primary sources; Ibn Ishaq was a compiler, not an authenticator. Compilers would compile masses of reports without caring to check their authenticity. This was not negligence on their part, but rather this was the common procedure of the Arabs at the time, to first compile all of the reports and then later to identify which are authentic and which are not by looking at the sources and how reliable they are. There are tertiary sources that look at the secondary sources and streamline them in order to figure out what is true and what is not. For example, Imam Bukhari (ra) compiled many thousands of reports and then only later streamlined them by checking their sources and authenticity. There are therefore, three stages in which narrations are reported:.....

So basically what you're saying is, Ibn Ishaq is a secondary source, isn't especially trustworthy, and is not part of the religious canon at all? My mistake then, I was under the impression that it was considered part of the canon.

Although I enjoy your courteous nature, unfortunately I do not appreciate you continually second-guessing me. I will not shy away from saying to you what *is* part of our faith, and what is not. For example, I did not deny Banu Qurayza. I simply tell you how it is. So if I say that something is not part of our religion, it would not behoove you to insist that it is. You are trying to say that this story of Asma bint Marwan is part of our religious canon, when it is not. I am not trying to be rude, brother, but I simply wish to avoid constant back-and-forth.

I'm not trying to second-guess you, I'm trying to understand why you say one thing catagorically, (Like the Sirah Rasul Allah not being part of the Islamic canon) when I've read that many Muslims do consider it to be. Here's a slightly different question: Do many Muslims that you have met consider it to be part of the Islamic canon? Not what you believe, what most Muslims you have talked to about it believe. If you don't want to answer, or if you do answer, I'll leave this issue alone as apparently you no longer wish to talk about it.

Brother Elrohir, I have ignored the parts of your post in relation to current events, in trying to keep with the spirit of this thread which is not about historical polemics but rather about the religion of Islam. You may continually believe the lies told to you that the US wants only good when it bombs other nations, kills their people, devestates their economies, reduces their infrastructure to rubble, and wipes out their dreams and ambitions. To this, I reply to you with:

"And when it is said to them 'Do not make mischief in the land', they say: 'We are but peace-makers.' Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief..." (Quran, 2:11-12)

I find it interesting that you ignore my post on the subject by talking about it. As to your quote from the Quran, that can go against anyone who preaches peace but desires violence.

Brother, I do not think that you are curious. Rather you are here to debate and engage in polemics. Of course, there is no problem in doing that, and I enjoy how you keep it civil.

I do not deny that I am here, to a certain extent, to debate with you - I was gone over the weekend, after all, at a debate tournament I wouldn't say I'm trying to engage in polemics, as that has negative connotations, though - I engage in debate with my friends over Christian theology and philosophy on a fairly regular basis, but I would not call myself a polemicist, although I would certainly call myself a debater. I disagree in regards to my curiosity, I am indeed curious about Islam - the desire for more knowledge and the desire to debate are not mutually exclusive desires; I consider back and forth debate, a sort of Socratic dialogue, to be one of the best forms of learning.

Herein lies the problem. You get your information about Islam from such sources as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a big joke. Anyone can edit it. Next to each article, they have a button that says "Edit" and believe it or not, but ANYBODY can edit it and make it say whatever he wants it to.

For example, if you look at some of the pages made about the Sunni-Shia split, you will go there on one day and it will be all pro-Sunni and heavily anti-Shia. The next day you visit it and suddenly it's completely the opposite, and now it's pro-Shia and heavily anti-Sunni.

The same is true for the articles about Islam. One day they are pro-Muslim, but often they are dominated by the Anti-Islam elements, including Christian proponents like yourself. That site, Wikipedia, is a far cry from a reliable source.

You'd be surprised by how reliable, on the whole, Wikipedia is. But if I've made a mistake from reading Wikipedia, you are, of course, free to correct me.

Do you even know why Prophet Muhammad (s) was in Medinah? Prophet Muhammad (s) himself was Meccan! And so were all the original Muslims. They all fled for their lives from Mecca due to the persecution at the hands of the Meccan/Quraish pagans. You think--based upon your education from the laughable source of Wikipedia--that the conflict between the Muslims and the Quraish pagans started with a caravan being raided?

No, I don't think that the conflict originally started as a raid among caravans, I'm well aware that Mohammad fled Mecca because of fighting with the leaders of Mecca.

There was no issue of stealing. The caravans were military contingents, armed to the teeth with soldiers. The Muslims engaged these soldiers in war, and then took all the rightful booty from the caravan. And this was to make good on their losses at the hands of the Quraish pagans, who had stolen the property of the Muslims earlier. The leaders of the caravan were none other than Abu Sufyan and Abu Jahl, both of whom were the leaders of Mecca and the greatest enemies of the Muslims (until the former converted to Islam).

Caravans were like modern day merchant ships, they were civilians. If they were armed, it was to protect them from bandits - not because they were going around conquering people. Calling them military contingents seems terribly innacurate to me - if the United States attacked a boat from Palestine because it was am "arms carrier" which had two AK-47's on it for protection, wouldn't you condemn it as an unjust attack on a civilian party? While the motivations for attacking in Mohammad's case and in my hypothetical case would of course be different, I don't see how the classification as a military target is at all different.

 

[aneeshm]

That comment about TV suggested another question.

IIRC, Allah has said that you should not make images/representations of anything on heaven or Earth. Does that mean that:

a) Sculpture
b) Painting
c) Television (which shows scenes of reality) and
d) Computers which show scenes of reality

are forbidden? Which of these are forbidden and which permissible? Is a TV soap opera which follows all the Islamic rules and in which the protagonist is a true believer, but which still shows people, permitted? Is it permitted for you to have Salah-al-Din as an avatar photo (I guess it must be, given that you're doing it, but I'm just confirming)?

 

[Perfection]

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

While there certianly could be situations where that is true, it does not work in many. If something doesn't work for the reasons stated why do it?

 

[aneeshm]

And just a small clarification.

You quoted two verses from Manu. I went and checked, and one of them is a total fabrication.

Secondly, the Manusmirit is not a text which is binding on Hindus. Today, I have the freedom to write a book of laws and declare it the XYZ smriti. If it is accepted, well and good. But you cannot criticise Hinduism by pointing to my text - because it is only my text. You may criticise me, if you like.

Also, the Manusmriti is a compilation written over nine hundred years, by different people all trying to bend society their way, so it contradicts itself again and again, and is not a reliable source at all.

Another thing is that Hinduism is not really a book-based religion. The only books we are obliged to follow (the Vedas) don't have any prescriptions for the organisation of society or the legal code, they only have spiritual principles which are to be re-interpreted by every generation in every age, to suit the needs of that age.

You referenced a richa from the 90th hymn of the tenth mandala of the RigVeda, called the PurushaSukta (I know the whole thing by heard, in Sanskrit), saying (I quote):

12 The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

Now if you take this literally, you'll end up in a ridiculous position, because it is part of an allegorical hymn, remembering the sacrifice the primordial consciousness made of itself to create the universe. The hymn continues:

13 The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth;
Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vayu from his breath.
14 Forth from his navel came mid-air the sky was fashioned from his head
Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions. Thus they formed the worlds.

The whole thing is allegorical.


And even if you decide to take it literally, what exactly can you get from it? You get the principle of equality - because what man would be foolish enough to discriminate against a part of his own body? It simply describes that there will always be four types of people in a society, with purposes similar to those of the corresponding body part.

As for that Devadasi comment - Devadasis were originally celibate all their lives. During the middle ages, however, normal royal life was disrupted due to the Muslim invasion. Also, the Muslims obviously could not patronise temples. Now the temples depended in large part on royal patronage for their maintenance. When this supply of funds was cut off, they could no longer afford to support the many Devadasis they supported.

Devadasis were basically women of culture - they knew how to paint, dance, compose poetry, sing, and were refined of behaviour.

Now what happens when any significantly large group of women, who have no other occupation, are left without income - a large number of them turn to prostitution. This is exactly what happened. But even then, they were not common prostitutes, they had a strict code, and they had long-term contracts with only one person.

It would be unthinkable for a temple priest to become a patron to a Devadasi - it just wasn't an option.

So I'd request you do a bit more research before making off-hand comments.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

And just a small clarification.

You quoted two verses from Manu. I went and checked, and one of them is a total fabrication.

Secondly, the Manusmirit is not a text which is binding on Hindus. Today, I have the freedom to write a book of laws and declare it the XYZ smriti. If it is accepted, well and good. But you cannot criticise Hinduism by pointing to my text - because it is only my text. You may criticise me, if you like.

Also, the Manusmriti is a compilation written over nine hundred years, by different people all trying to bend society their way, so it contradicts itself again and again, and is not a reliable source at all.

Another thing is that Hinduism is not really a book-based religion. The only books we are obliged to follow (the Vedas) don't have any prescriptions for the organisation of society or the legal code, they only have spiritual principles which are to be re-interpreted by every generation in every age, to suit the needs of that age.

You referenced a richa from the 90th hymn of the tenth mandala of the RigVeda, called the PurushaSukta (I know the whole thing by heard, in Sanskrit), saying (I quote):



Now if you take this literally, you'll end up in a ridiculous position, because it is part of an allegorical hymn, remembering the sacrifice the primordial consciousness made of itself to create the universe. The hymn continues:



The whole thing is allegorical.


And even if you decide to take it literally, what exactly can you get from it? You get the principle of equality - because what man would be foolish enough to discriminate against a part of his own body? It simply describes that there will always be four types of people in a society, with purposes similar to those of the corresponding body part.

As for that Devadasi comment - Devadasis were originally celibate all their lives. During the middle ages, however, normal royal life was disrupted due to the Muslim invasion. Also, the Muslims obviously could not patronise temples. Now the temples depended in large part on royal patronage for their maintenance. When this supply of funds was cut off, they could no longer afford to support the many Devadasis they supported.

Devadasis were basically women of culture - they knew how to paint, dance, compose poetry, sing, and were refined of behaviour.

Now what happens when any significantly large group of women, who have no other occupation, are left without income - a large number of them turn to prostitution. This is exactly what happened. But even then, they were not common prostitutes, they had a strict code, and they had long-term contracts with only one person.

It would be unthinkable for a temple priest to become a patron to a Devadasi - it just wasn't an option.

So I'd request you do a bit more research before making off-hand comments.

Take care.

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Didn't we agree to let this go?

But I understand that you need to get the last word in, and that's understandable since it's your faith and it is only natural to feel like you must defend it to every last word. That's fine, and I won't respond to your post, because we agreed earlier in the thread to give it a rest and keep the thread more focused. It is, after all, not a thread on Hinduism but rather on Islam. I know that if I respond to your post, you will feel honor-bound to reply and this will continue until the sun rises from the west and the Day of Judgement is here, lol.

However, I totally understand why you felt the need to respond, as I know that I probably would if the roles were reversed. But now that you have the last word, can we now end that discussion? Thanks!

I'll respond to your other posts shortly, Allah Willing.

Take care, Brother.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I never understood why muslims were concerned with the french (franks) comming back and declaring that he would fight saladin. But now it seems the french had a long LONG history of crusading. whole generations of them crusaded at that time the capture of Jersulam and the creation of "ultamere" (otherkingdom) was so important to them.

after there defeat under Ge and Reymond (both unsavory charactors). The French sence of honor and a need to "redem" themselves in the eyes of history.

I found out that crusading had become very intergrated into the development of france itself. Once a crusade was launched and an important noble of house would swear itself to the cross. All rivals would do so to, wives would encourage there husbands. (Like denying maritual bliss until honor was redemmed poor guy he died on hes second crusade). The notion of chivary and glory were very strong

----


I found it rather ironic that after saladins death hes brothers and son fought each other. not really suprising given that the crusaders fought amoungest themselves. The sacking of the great city of constintine during the fourth crusade triggered a long bloody civil war. Thou I guess the mongols decimating baghad kinda balances that out.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

So basically what you're saying is, Ibn Ishaq is a secondary source, isn't especially trustworthy, and is not part of the religious canon at all? My mistake then, I was under the impression that it was considered part of the canon.

It is a historical book. Overall, it is trustworthy. However, it is not perfect, nor is it part of our religious canon. The book was lauded for its wide breadth of reporting, but like other historical works in that era, it was criticized in some matters, of which I have mentioned in my previous post.

I'm not trying to second-guess you, I'm trying to understand why you say one thing catagorically, (Like the Sirah Rasul Allah not being part of the Islamic canon) when I've read that many Muslims do consider it to be.

Where did you read this? It could only be an anti-Islam site. I've never in my life seen this idea anywhere else.

Here's a slightly different question: Do many Muslims that you have met consider it to be part of the Islamic canon? Not what you believe, what most Muslims you have talked to about it believe.

I've never met a Muslim in my life who would claim that. It is not a book that we derive Aqeedah (Doctrine) or Fiqh (Laws) from, so how could one claim it is religious canon? The Islamic canon has always been the Quran and the Hadith.

I am not telling you *my* opinion about the issue, but rather the opinion of scholars from the classical time up until now. Never have I heard otherwise. The only person who could claim such a thing would either be ignorant of Islam or ignorant of what 'canon' means.

You are the first person I have ever met in my life who claimed that "Sirah Rasul Allah" is part of the Islamic canon.

I disagree in regards to my curiosity, I am indeed curious about Islam - the desire for more knowledge and the desire to debate are not mutually exclusive desires; I consider back and forth debate, a sort of Socratic dialogue, to be one of the best forms of learning.

I agree with you on this.

Caravans were like modern day merchant ships, they were civilians. If they were armed, it was to protect them from bandits - not because they were going around conquering people. Calling them military contingents seems terribly innacurate to me .... I don't see how the classification as a military target is at all different.

You are right in the sense that the proper analogy is that caravans were merchant ships surrounded by battleships, and that the Muslim forces can be likened to another set of battleships coming to sink the merchant ship.

However, it should be noted that in this case, no civilians were killed since no ship was sunk. Therefore, it was a legitimate tactic of war. Not even the Meccans criticized it as immoral, because they themselves did it. It was the norm in Arabia, and it was called 'ghazu', a popular form of accepted warfare at the time, done by all the Arabian tribes.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

That comment about TV suggested another question.

IIRC, Allah has said that you should not make images/representations of anything on heaven or Earth. Does that mean that:

a) Sculpture
b) Painting
c) Television (which shows scenes of reality) and
d) Computers which show scenes of reality

are forbidden? Which of these are forbidden and which permissible? Is a TV soap opera which follows all the Islamic rules and in which the protagonist is a true believer, but which still shows people, permitted? Is it permitted for you to have Salah-al-Din as an avatar photo (I guess it must be, given that you're doing it, but I'm just confirming)?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

I know someone else asked this question too. I think it was Brother Elrohir. The question is: are pictures allowed in Islam?

The prohibition of Tasweer (pictures) comes from the fact that at the time of the Prophet (s), the pre-Islamic Arabs were seeped into idolatery and they used to use pictures solely for the purpose of worshipping them. The same can be said of sculptures. This was so much the case that pictures and idolatery became synonymous. Therefore, the Prophet (s) prohibited pictures, sculptures, etc. as a precautionary method to bring an end to the idolatery that Islam so condemned.

However, today that is no longer the case, and picture-making is no longer associated with idolatery. Hence, most of the scholars are agreed that the prohibition on Tasweer no longer exists. There are some scholars who have held onto the view that it is still Haram (forbidden) but they are a dying breed, and most have reversed their opinion on this issue.

The evidence that the prohibition on Tasweer is only in relation to idolatery comes from the Prophetic Saying in which the Prophet (s) is pleased when he sees some girls playing with dolls. Therefore, the Prophet (s) saw nothing wrong with the statue-like doll, because it was not associated with idolatery at all nor was it respected or exalted in any way.

Therefore, the more reliable and strong opinion is that there is nothing wrong with pictures, photography, television, etc. if it does not involve idolatery. It would, however, be Haram (forbidden) to have pictures or statues up in honor of people as a sign of their greatness, because this is a form of lesser idolatery. This is especially odious in such places as Saudi Arabia in which the tyrant kings force the people to put their pictures up everywhere.

However, in general, there is no problem with pictures, and this ruling would apply to television, computers, photography, etc.

Take care.

 

[aneeshm]

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Didn't we agree to let this go?

But I understand that you need to get the last word in, and that's understandable since it's your faith and it is only natural to feel like you must defend it to every last word. That's fine, and I won't respond to your post, because we agreed earlier in the thread to give it a rest and keep the thread more focused. It is, after all, not a thread on Hinduism but rather on Islam. I know that if I respond to your post, you will feel honor-bound to reply and this will continue until the sun rises from the west and the Day of Judgement is here, lol.

However, I totally understand why you felt the need to respond, as I know that I probably would if the roles were reversed. But now that you have the last word, can we now end that discussion? Thanks!

I'll respond to your other posts shortly, Allah Willing.

Take care, Brother.

Actually, I realised that my remaining silent would mean that I tacitly agreed with your assessment, or had no answer to it. If you quickly search on Google for evils in Hinduism, this is the sort of picture you will come away with. But if you do a deeper study, you will realise that it is basically a misrepresentation. So it wasn't a defence as much as a clarification.

I understand that if may be impossible, or near impossible for a person with a "One Book! One God! One Truth! One Religion" background to understand Hinduism, but I've made a small effort. I think I posted a link to my "Ask a Hindu/Ask an Indian" thread. If you have any further doubts about Hinduism, feel free to ask there.