Ask a Muslim

[GenMarshall]

How does a person convert to Islam? Is there a process much like in Christianity where the inquirer learns about the faith and then be initiatied into it?

 

[aneeshm]

A simple question, which I asked Incnatrix, too.

I'm a Hindu, an idolater, a pantheist, a monist (or non-dualist), and an agnostic on many religious things. I believe that my consciousness IS god, only unmanifest.

Am I going to hell?

 

[zenspiderz]

Thank you! I'm not a Muslim fanatic, but rather a Civ fanatic!



There are many differences. The Shia are to the Sunni Muslims what the Mormons are to the Christians. Like the Mormons are a small fraction of the Christians, they are a very small fraction of the Muslims. People mistakenly claim they are 15% of the Muslims, when in reality they are only around 8%. Like the Mormons, the Shia believe in "latter day" Saints, which the Sunni Muslims do not.

They are not considered true Muslims by the majority of the Sunni scholars just like most Christians do not accept Mormons as true Christians. They are considered heretics, and the relationship between the Sunnis and Shia has always been tense.

.............................


Definitely! This is my dream. I consider myself a fervent Pan-Islamist!

First off, Welcome to OT and thank you for starting this thread and your articulate and informative answers.

You have said you would like to see a return of the caliphate. Should this happen how in your view would shia fit with this given they are considered a bit heretical? The reason why I ask is that Iran as I am sure you know is the main shia country which is a country I have considerable interest in. I am married to an Iranian, and a frequent visitor to Iran and admirer of their culture and people also we plan to move to Iran when we retire. So I am quite interested to know what might be the consequences of a presumably Sunni dominated pan-islamic political unity reappearing in the world.

 

[bob bobato]

What makes this land Muslim?

What makes it Jewish? Oh right, they used to live there 2000 years ago, until they were kicked out be the romans for staging 2 revolts. I dont see Italy annexing France because they owned Gaul(aka France) 2000 years ago. Maybe they should have put Israel where no-one else lived,like a desert, then un-desertify it(Its possible,it would cost about 50 billion to un-desertify the sahara).

 

[Bast]

All oppressive nations and empires come to a fall, and then they are remembered in history for what they really were.

What are the oppressive nations and empires right now? And how will they fall?

 

[ironduck]

If you could find an example online, I would very much appreciate it.

I linked to islamic art depicting Muhammad earlier, here is the link: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

You can find more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

That is a very very good point. I think I agree that it's an 'old remnant,' but that doesn't make it less taboo.

I must admit I am now reconsidering how I feel about this but my gut reaction is still unease. I don't think I could ever tolerate Muhammad being depicted like Jesus is in Christianity.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'depicted like Jesus'.. do you mean because Jesus is often shown prominently, or because he's crucified? I assume it must be the former (since Muhammad wasn't crucified) - but in these artworks Muhammad is displayed very prominently. I don't understand why it's taboo because muslims often speak about Muhammad when they speak about the religion, right? Some people are more visually oriented than others.. I explain many of my thoughts and emotions better through pictures than through words.

The veil covers a woman's face. I wear a headscarf to mosque.

Right, I just lumped all 'covers' together since I see them as serving the same purpose. Everytime I've heard a muslim scholar explain the purpose of veils or headscarves it has been related to gender roles and 'modesty' and 'protecting the woman'.

I only know of gay Muslims from anecdotal stories.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12817

If a Muslim were to be openly gay, I don't think many mosques would allow him to enter. Worse yet, I'm not sure if his family would tollerate such 'shame.'

I support gay rights and gay marriage but I'm undecided if it's immoral. I am decided that it's none of my business, regardless of their faith

Thanks for the link - there was an interesting quote:

"I'm training to be an imam so I can provide a better service of how to live in this society," Abdala said. Abdala does not believe that the Quoran condemns homosexuality. He explains that in the religious text, men are punished 'for raping and abusing other men' not for engaging in consensual sex.

Is it correct that there's no condemnation of consensual homosexual sex in the Koran? If so, why would you consider it immoral? It reminds me of the christian take, in which the condemnation of homosexual sex is practically non-existent, especially in the New Testament. So those who wish to find support for it being 'sinful' often look to the Old Testament, in which they pick and choose (happily ignoring other barbaric laws they're breaking on a daily basis).

I don't understand why there are no liberal mosques in the west considering that a fair amount of muslims are secular like yourself. Why not create your own mosque with modern thinking, equality between the sexes and so on?

 

[ironduck]

Someone who drinks alcohol cannot possibly be representative of Muslims.

I don't think she said she was representative of all muslims, just of herself, as a muslim. Are you saying that muslims who drink alcohol are not muslims?

 

[Azkonus]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'depicted like Jesus'.. do you mean because Jesus is often shown prominently, or because he's crucified? I assume it must be the former (since Muhammad wasn't crucified) - but in these artworks Muhammad is displayed very prominently. I don't understand why it's taboo because muslims often speak about Muhammad when they speak about the religion, right? Some people are more visually oriented than others.. I explain many of my thoughts and emotions better through pictures than through words.

Ok, I make it so simple for you so you can understand.
For example ironduck is a masculin, short, hispanic, brown eyed person. And all your life people laughed at you because you are short, masculin etc etc...
And for a relief you turned into God. Now for a Christian Jesus is God. You look at his portraits or pictures. It is depicted as (I don't say if it is correct) tall, skin and bones, very feminen, asexual, very white, blue eyes..etc.

Hey he has all the features you hate, how can he be "your" God? All you think about is girls and sex, and all you do is working out in order not to look like that. I think you should change your God because it does not fit you.


See this is why portraits are forbidden, this is why Islam is spreading fastly among Blacks and Africa. Because it does not differentiate. It does not give ranks. If you convert into Islam today you will be at the same level as Muhammed. And nobody can preach to you. This is not the case in Christianity, even priests are higher than you, you need them to communicate with your God, moreover they can kick you out of religion.

To sum up, portraying differentiates, in a religion where everyone is equal you should not do that. If you do it will be your sin, and no one can do anything about it (contrary to your belief mufti's or imam's speeches do not carry any weight they just talk about what they think, and speeches do not have any value. You have to figure out everything with your brain and logic.)

 

[ironduck]

Ok, I make it so simple for you so you can understand.
For example ironduck is a masculin, short, hispanic, brown eyed person. And all your life people laughed at you because you are short, masculin etc etc...
And for a relief you turned into God. Now for a Christian Jesus is God. You look at his portraits or pictures. It is depicted as (I don't say if it is correct) tall, skin and bones, very feminen, asexual, very white, blue eyes..etc.

Hey he has all the features you hate, how can he be "your" God? All you think about is girls and sex, and all you do is working out in order not to look like that. I think you should change your God because it does not fit you.

That was a rather peculiar view.. I've never heard of anyone who were angry because depictions of Jesus didn't look like them (or looked like them or whatever). Further, you are free to depict Jesus any way you like to in most christian denominations, if you want to show him as short, green, and with blue hair, then go ahead.

See this is why portraits are forbidden, this is why Islam is spreading fastly among Blacks and Africa. Because it does not differentiate. It does not give ranks. If you convert into Islam today you will be at the same level as Muhammed.

You will be at the same level as Muhammad? I've never heard that before. Muslims usually speak of Muhammad with great reverence and say that he is 'perfect', very unlike what muslims usually say that ordinary people (muslims or not) are.

And nobody can preach to you. This is not the case in Christianity, even priests are higher than you, you need them to communicate with your God, moreover they can kick you out of religion.

There are quite a few christian denominations one can join. Not all of them are hierarchical. Further, one can just as well be a christian without being a member of any particular church or denomination.

To sum up, portraying differentiates, in a religion where everyone is equal you should not do that. If you do it will be your sin, and no one can do anything about it (contrary to your belief mufti's or imam's speeches do not carry any weight they just talk about what they think, and speeches do not have any value. You have to figure out everything with your brain and logic.)

If the speeches of the imams and ayatollahs do not carry any value how come they are able to incite people in such powerful ways as they are? During the whole cartoon brouawhaw there was intense focus on what the imams were going to say, whether they were going to incite the masses further or call out for dialogue and understanding. The words of imams carry tremendous weight among a lot of muslims, even if that is not officially the case. I'm glad you call for the use of logic, however, I can only applaud that.

Now, logically, why are you hurt if I try to portray Muhammad with no ill intentions? You just explained how you view it, and that in itself sparks images in my mind that I may wish to share (for instance, showing Muhammad in a variety of appearances so as to symbolize that islam is for everyone).

 

[Azkonus]

You will be at the same level as Muhammad? I've never heard that before. Muslims usually speak of Muhammad with great reverence and say that he is 'perfect', very unlike what muslims usually say that ordinary people (muslims or not) are.

The one who says Muhammad is perfect is not a Muslim by definition. Yes it is not up to me but been muslim is "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger." He is just a messenger and not better than you or me. Nobody is perfect in Islam.

There are quite a few christian denominations one can join. Not all of them are hierarchical. Further, one can just as well be a christian without being a member of any particular church or denomination.).

No, if I become a christian now, I am not equal with saints and Jesus. A priest can preach to me. There are some people between me and God. I need to babtized and stuff, because christian born with sin, etc etc...

If the speeches of the imams and ayatollahs do not carry any value how come they are able to incite people in such powerful ways as they are? During the whole cartoon brouawhaw there was intense focus on what the imams were going to say, whether they were going to incite the masses further or call out for dialogue and understanding. The words of imams carry tremendous weight among a lot of muslims, even if that is not officially the case. I'm glad you call for the use of logic, however, I can only applaud that.).

No, because you are western you look to world as a western looks to the world. Because you have pope, high rank priest and stuff you try to think others have the same and has same effect so you have to show something in TV. Therefore they don't look for an average guy on the street but they try to interview with someone as he has the same rank with priests of Christianity. No people get excited not because of the speech but because they got hurt. And they listen to imams not because they have to or it does have any effect on them but because they feel that way too.

Now, logically, why are you hurt if I try to portray Muhammad with no ill intentions? You just explained how you view it, and that in itself sparks images in my mind that I may wish to share (for instance, showing Muhammad in a variety of appearances so as to symbolize that islam is for everyone).

Well, because people are stupid. If you present images of Muhammed some people may carry it within their pockets for example and when they pray they may want to hold it. Or they may imagine his face while they are praying. See this is what you should not do. If you do that you kind of start to worship a dead human being. So although in a perfect world, it is ok, in real world it is not because you may hurt the feelings of other muslims.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Could you please explain the reason behind using Arabic(?) words when refering to Muslim beliefs.
It seems common, and to me somehow unnecessary, so there must be a reason for it.

Yes, and thank you for asking this question, since I am sure many people must wonder about it. In Islam, there are certain words that are "Islamic" words and used in the Islamic discourse only. They do not refer simply to the Arabic meaning of the word. For example, the word "Ummah" translates to "nation" from a strict Arabic sense, but it actually refers specifically to the "Islamic brotherhood/sisterhood".

So basically, there is an Arabic translation to words and also an "Islamic" translation to words. The Islamic translation of words is almost as alien to Arabic as it is to other languages, and just as familiar to Muslims who speak other languages as it is to those who speak Arabic. Therefore, the words are shared by all converts to Islam.

These "Islamic terms" have a very big significance in my religion, and this is why we use it when we discuss Islam in English, even to English-speaking audiences. For example, if I were to say to you that it was forbidden to fornicate, this would not be as imperative a declaration as saying it is Haram. It may be forbidden to wear baseball caps at your school, but it is definitely not Haram.

In other words, and I know I'm not being that clear (and apologies for that), these Islamic terms have a legal and jurisprudential significance in the Islamic religion and related discourse.

Hope that made sense.

What do Muslims think of the sahih (sound) hadith regarding Ethiopia, where Muhammad said: "Utruk al-Habasha ma tarkukum" (leave the Habeshas [Abyssinians=Ethiopia] alone so long as they do not attack you)?

This is the general rule in Islam: you cannot aggress against another country and warfare with them is only permissible if they first aggress against you. If they incline towards peace, then you incline towards peace.

What about instances where there have been wars between Ethiopians and Muslims (e.g. attack on Adulis in 640 by `Umar) when Ethiopians were not the agressor - how are they justified or are they just not even considered?

The relations between Ethiopia (i.e. Abyssynia) and the Muslim Arabia--for the most part--were very positive. When Prophet Muhammad (s) first spread the message of Islam, the early Muslims were persecuted by the Meccan idolaters who were in power. These persecuted Muslims immigrated to Ethiopia for save haven there, and the Abyssinian King at the time was very kind-hearted, protecting the lives of the Muslims at the cost of "negative diplo points" with the Meccan idolaters. These migrants in Ethiopia were the ones who spread the faith of Islam in Ethiopia.

However, Ethiopia was made up of a wide array of peoples, and in fact rivaling principalities. Indeed, the term "Abyssynian" or "Habesha" refers truly to only one specific sub-group of Ethiopians. So whereas that particular group of Ethiopians were very kind-hearted towards the Arab Muslims, there were unfortunately other elements that were not so kind-hearted.

You say that Ethiopians were not the aggressors against the Arabs, and you mention the battle in 640 AD. However, the King of Aksum--King Kaleb--invaded Southern Arabia in 520 AD. Therefore, we see that the first aggressors were not the Arabs in 640, but the Ethiopians in 520. The scholar Yuri Kobishchanov detailed a number of raids Abyssinians made on the Arabian coast starting in 520 (the latest being in 702, when the port of Jeddah was occupied).

This intermittent warfare between Southern Arabia and Ethiopia predates the rise of Islam, and "Islam" was merely caught in the middle of it. The actual warfare between Southern Arabia and Ethiopia before Islam is a very detailed affair, with wrongs being committed by both sides. In fact, it could be that some Ethiopians may feel that the Southern Arabs were the first aggressors, just like the Southern Arabs accused the Ethiopians of this. However, it should be remembered that this predates Islam, and the Islamic empire merely "inherited" this problem. For the Ethiopians, they could care less if the leadership had suddenly switched in Arabia, and that's understandable as well. But for the Muslim Arabs, they could not tolerate Ethiopian raids.

I hope I answered your question.

The fact that your brothers in faith robbed my family of 5 years of their lives and all of their posessions is no laughing matter. THe fact that you could eve DREAM of me making something so horrid up disgusts me. You quite clearly do not know what this constant persecution and humiliation throughout history feels like, for if you did, you would not have the nerve, you would not DARE, to mock it.

My friend, the persecution of the Jews throughout history is not something to laugh about. However, I do not understand the Zionist reasoning, displayed by yourself, in which the crimes against Jews by one set of people are to be paid for by another set of people. You mention oppression of Jews elsewhere in the globe to somehow justify Zionist oppression of Palestinians. I do not understand the connection whatsoever. If you feel you were wronged by Germans or Persians or by Uzbekis, then this has nothing at all to do with the Palestinians. Why should the Palestinians pay the price for the Germans, Persians, or Uzbekis? Especially when historically the Muslims of Palestine have given refuge and safe haven to Jews being persecuted in other parts of the world????

Let me just say that the little respect I had for you is gone.

Once again, I apologize if I offended you. It was not my intention. In fact, I think we should leave this topic alone. Let us discuss other things. This thread is to establish the Muslim opinion on certain matters, not to debate them necessarily. I think I have established the Muslim position on Israel, and I'm sure it's different than the Zionist position on Israel. You can open up another thread on that matter if you so desire.

A simple question, which I asked Incnatrix, too.

I'm a Hindu, an idolater, a pantheist, a monist (or non-dualist), and an agnostic on many religious things. I believe that my consciousness IS god, only unmanifest.

Am I going to hell?

The views stated by you are obviously against the Islamic ethos. And I think you know that.

Oftentimes people will ask similar questions to Muslims in order only to galvanize the audience, as they wish for a Muslim to say "yes you will burn in Hell" so that they can portray Muslims as a mean folk who like condemning others to Hell-Fire. (I am not saying that this is *your* intention necessarily.)

Almost *all* religions on earth say that people who have XYZ beliefs will not get Paradise. Judaism and Christianity also warn against idolatery and say that those who are idolaters will be thrown into Hell. A similar stance is that of Islam.

Having said that, in Islam we are forbidden to judge other people specifically, and nobody can say "I will go to Paradise" or "you will go to Hell-Fire." We do not know what is in the hearts of people, and it could be that--despite your professed claims--you have a grain of Iman (faith) in your heart, and it is only a grain (or iota) of Iman that is required to get Paradise.

The principle in Islam is that you can say that generally speaking polythiests and idolaters will not see Paradise, but you *cannot* call any *individual* person to be a person of Hell-Fire, because that person may have a grain of Iman (faith, i.e. faith in Hanifiyyah or absolute monotheism) hidden in his heart somewhere.

First off, Welcome to OT and thank you for starting this thread and your articulate and informative answers.

No problem! Thank you for your welcome! By the way, what in the world is "OT"....I'm going to guess and say it's Off Topic, lol. Kinda lame abbreviation!

You have said you would like to see a return of the caliphate. Should this happen how in your view would shia fit with this given they are considered a bit heretical? The reason why I ask is that Iran as I am sure you know is the main shia country which is a country I have considerable interest in. I am married to an Iranian, and a frequent visitor to Iran and admirer of their culture and people also we plan to move to Iran when we retire. So I am quite interested to know what might be the consequences of a presumably Sunni dominated pan-islamic political unity reappearing in the world.

Actually, Persia has always been a Sunni majority area (with very few Shia), and it was only very recently in the 1500s in which the Shia became a majority. This was thanks to Shah Ismail I, the founder of the Safavid Empire, who converted to Shi'ism; he began a religious pogrom against the Sunni majority in Persia, forcibly converting everyone to Shi'ism with the power of the sword. The Sunni leaders were all killed or jailed, and those who resisted conversion to Shi'ism were put to the sword.

My point is that the fact that you have an interest in Persia and its history is not at all at odds with the Islamic orthodoxy (Sunnis). Persia has a rich and glorious history in which it used to be the seat of Sunni power and scholarship.

In regards to the rise of a Caliphate and Pan-Islamist state, the Shia of Iran have expressed no interest in participating in this. They have vastly different views on Caliphate than do Sunnis; in fact, while the Sunnis attribute a great deal of importance to Caliphate, the Shia do not believe in it at all, but rather they believe in an alternate system referred to as "Imamah".

The Caliphate system of the Sunnis revolves around the idea that anyone who is capable can lead the people, and the Caliph is elected by a system of Shurah (consultation with the people). On the other hand, the Shia say that the leader of the people (whom they call "Imam") can only be a descendant of the Prophet (s) and he is chosen by God, not by people.

This has been the crux of the conflict between Sunni and Shia. When the Prophet (s) died, Abu Bakr (ra) became the Caliph, and after him, Umar bin Khattab (ra) and Uthman (ra). The Shia accused these men of being unfit to lead because they were not of the proper bloodline (i.e. descendant of the Prophet), whereas the Sunnis said that leadership should be chosen on merit and not on bloodline. They believed in their Imams (supposedly) chosen by God, as opposed to Caliphs chosen by the people.

The modern day Caliph would have to be chosen by the people, and therefore this would go against the Shia concept that leaders are chosen by God and that only those of the proper bloodline can be chosen. Therefore, with this difference in mind, I do not see how Sunnis and Shia could work together to establish a Caliphate in the modern day.

One of the Islamist groups seeking the return of the Caliphate and the unification of the Muslim lands is Hizb ut-Tahrir. They contacted Iran for support, but Iran rebuffed them and said that they wanted no part in the system of Caliphate. Another historical example is that of Salah Al-Din (Saladin) who sought to unify the Muslim world, but the Shia were not invited as part of this unification and they did not want to be invited to this call either.

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

I will answer the remaining questions when I get back from breakfast, Allah Willing. Thank you everyone for asking the questions in such a kind manner which allows for productive dialogue instead of flame wars.

 

[Trajan12]

Allah Willing

Ishna Allah or something like that right?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Ishna Allah or something like that right?

Haha, close. Insha-Allah.

The one who says Muhammad is perfect is not a Muslim by definition. Yes it is not up to me but been muslim is "there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger." He is just a messenger and not better than you or me. Nobody is perfect in Islam.

Brother, this is not true at all. Firstly, I agree that the Prophet Muhammad (s) was not perfect, and he was human. Like all other human beings, he was not above making minor mistakes.

However, not all human beings are ranked equally. Allah tells us in the Quran that everyone is created equal except that they differentiate themselves based on their Taqwa (piety). Whoever is more pious, is superior than he who is less pious.

Allah says in the Quran:

“Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you.” (Quran, 49:13)

And the Prophet (s) himself said in his final sermon that all human being were created equally “except by piety and good action (Taqwa). Indeed the best among you is the one with the best character (Taqwa). Listen to me. Did I convey this to you properly?…Each one of you who is here must convey this to everyone not present.” (Excerpt from the Prophet’s Last Sermon as in Baihiqi)

There is Ijma (consensus) amongst the Ulema (Islamic scholarship) that the most pious and the most righteous human being that ever lived was Prophet Muhammad (s). Therefore, he is the most honored of human beings, way above us. Therefore, to say that he is not better than you or me would be considered a heresy and blasphemy.

In fact, Allah Himself declares that Prophet Muhammad (s) is an excellent role model to us:

"You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much." (Quran, Surat al-Ahzab: 21)

Allah declares the Prophet (s) to be exalted above all others, and declared him to be the most exalted:

“And most certainly, you (O Muhammad) are of the most sublime and exalted character." (Quran, 68:4)


I think that what you meant to say was that the Prophet Muhammad (s) was a human being like everyone else.

You will be at the same level as Muhammad? I've never heard that before. Muslims usually speak of Muhammad with great reverence and say that he is 'perfect', very unlike what muslims usually say that ordinary people (muslims or not) are.

Although we do not say that he is perfect, he is definitely the best of human beings and superior to all of us. See above.

However, even the best of human beings is not perfect, because perfection is a quality only of the Creator, and it cannot be possessed by the Creation.

Now, logically, why are you hurt if I try to portray Muhammad with no ill intentions?

In our religious faith, it is considered blasphemous to portray Prophet Muhammad (s), and as a fellow human being, you should respect the beliefs of another people. Your portrayal of the Prophet (s) can serve no interest to yourself and it cannot benefit you in any way. Therefore, I do not see why you would insist on doing so if at the cost of offending followers of that man?

I don't think she said she was representative of all muslims, just of herself, as a muslim. Are you saying that muslims who drink alcohol are not muslims?

A person who drinks alcohol can still be a Muslim albeit a very sinful one. In Islam, it is not appropriate for those without knowledge to speak on matters of religion, because then they unknowingly spread mis-information. This is the case with the original poster, who has said many things which go against Islam.

No matter what she says, she will be seen as a representative of Muslims; otherwise, why are people asking her questions about Islam? I understand that she had a good intention; however, I think what she is doing is very dangerous and she should be careful about what she says.

-----------

I'll answer the remaining posts shortly, Allah Willing.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

How does a person convert to Islam? Is there a process much like in Christianity where the inquirer learns about the faith and then be initiatied into it?

Most definitely. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing religion, and--this might surprise you--three-quarters of the converts to Islam are women. African Americans make up a huge chunk of converts to Islam, and slowly but surely a lot of whites have converted as well.

Muslims are encouraged to call others to Islam. It is advisable for a potential convert to have a basic understanding of Islam, and then hasten to declare the Shahadah. The Shahadah means "Declaration of Faith", in which a person publically declares himself a Muslim.

The Shahadah is simply: "I testify that there is no god except The God."

The first part of the Shahadah is therefore non-specific, declaring absolute monotheism. The second part of the Shahadah is more specific and revolves around obeying the Messenger of Allah (i.e. to follow Islam).

After a person converts to Islam, he is said to be "re-born" and all his past sins are wiped clean.

What makes it Jewish? Oh right, they used to live there 2000 years ago, until they were kicked out be the romans for staging 2 revolts. I dont see Italy annexing France because they owned Gaul(aka France) 2000 years ago.

Yes, I agree 100%. It is an absurd claim. Another example is for Turkish people to claim a right to Central Asia, since they used to live there thousands of years ago. Not only this, but Jews were definitely not the first to live in Palestine, even *if* we were going to entertain such absurd logic.

Maybe they should have put Israel where no-one else lived,like a desert, then un-desertify it(Its possible,it would cost about 50 billion to un-desertify the sahara).

Actually, this may came as a surprise to many, and a fact that embarasses Zionists a lot. In the 1800s when the Zionist movement really started, they were actually considering three different places to make the Jewish homeland. One of the places chosen was actually a place in Madagascar off the coast of Africa which was uninhabitated! But the Zionists eventually rejected this idea and set their eyes on Palestine, totally ignoring the fact that Palestine was already inhabited!

What are the oppressive nations and empires right now? And how will they fall?

That is a very non-specific question and answering it would entail that I have knowledge of the future, which I obviously don't. I am basing my statement that all empires fall by looking at history in which all large empires eventually fell, and I do not think that the American Empire or any other empire can be any different. The question is: how do these empires (including the American Empire) want to be remembered in history? Do they really want to go down in history as one of the oppressive states?

Is it correct that there's no condemnation of consensual homosexual sex in the Koran? If so, why would you consider it immoral? It reminds me of the christian take, in which the condemnation of homosexual sex is practically non-existent, especially in the New Testament. So those who wish to find support for it being 'sinful' often look to the Old Testament, in which they pick and choose (happily ignoring other barbaric laws they're breaking on a daily basis).

This is one of the things that the Original Poster said which is completely off the mark, and totally against what Islam says. In Islam, we believe that homosexuality is not only a sin but an abomination. This includes consensual homosexual sex, which has been condemned both in the Quran as well as the Prophetic sayings, which form the Islamic canon.

It is impossible to declare that homosexuality is allowed in Islam, when the primary canon of the religion rejects this. The only people who say otherwise are the defeatists and apologetics who seek to placate non-Muslims at whatever cost, even the cost of their own faith.

I understand that people on this forum will disagree with me, and I think that most people nowadays have accepted homosexuality. I do *not* wish for this thread to become a debate on this topic; I will simply establish the Islamic opinion on this matter.

In Islam, we believe that homosexuality is a perversion, a psychological disorder. It can be classified with other sexual perversions, such as sadism, masochism, bestiality, fetishes, etc. You might argue "it's two consenting adults, then why do you care?" The same question could be asked about incest: if both mother and son are adults, then why can't they have sexual relations? Obviously, this is an abomination and no society would allow this. And yet, we must remember that these are two consenting adults! What about brother and sister, as long as they are both consenting?

*Obviously* there is a normal sexual behavior and there is an abnormal one. Incest (and homosexuality) are abnormal. You might argue that homosexual people can't help feeling attraction towards people of the same gender. I am a medical student, and I will tell you that there are patients who come in who have a sexual attraction towards animals and even some who have attraction to feces!! Does this make it right or normal? Why on earth would a society accept men having sexual relations with other men, but shun sexual relations with animals or with poo?

In any case, the idea that two consenting adults can do whatever they want so long as they don't harm anyone else...this has no basis in Islam. In Islam, we believe that fornication (i.e. pre-marital sexual relations) is completely Haram (forbidden) and it is irrelevant that the two people are consenting and not harming anyone.

This is the Islamic position on the matter, and I understand that you may differ with it. Let us agree to disagree. Allah commands us to say in the Quran with those who disagree:

"To you be your Way, and to me mine." (Quran, 109:6)

I don't understand why there are no liberal mosques in the west considering that a fair amount of muslims are secular like yourself.

I don't understand how a person can claim to be Muslim and secular at the same time, since Islam negates the idea of secularism completely. The truth is that the people who try to be Muslim and secular at the same time can only be defeatists and apologetics.

------

More to come soon, Allah Willing.

 

[Trajan12]

Originally Posted by Salah-Al-Din
African Americans make up a huge chunk of converts to Islam

I don't see why, it's not like Islam holds a very favorable view. What say you?

 

[Perfection]

In Islam, we believe that homosexuality is a perversion, a psychological disorder.

I didn't know Islam was both a religion and a professional mental health organisaton.

That's amazing!

 

[Gogf]

In Islam, we believe that homosexuality is a perversion, a psychological disorder.

That's funny, because that's what a lot of people seem to think about Islam. I guess ridiculous intolerance runs both ways.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I don't see why, it's not like Islam holds a very favorable view. What say you?

I don't know what you mean by Islam not holding a favorable view...a favorable view of what?

If you are implying that Islam has a negative view of blacks, then this is not true at all. In fact, the first Muezzin in Islam was a black person by the name of Bilal (ra). Muezzin refers to the one who gives the call to prayer, and it is a position on par with the Christian priest or Jewish rabbi. Not only this, but there were many powerful African empires that were Islamic--don't forget Mansa Musa in Civ!

One of the reasons blacks are fascinated by Islam is because Islam is one of the religions that is harshest against racism, or "Assabiyyah" in Arabic. Racism is strictly Haram (forbidden) in Islam.

The Prophet (s) said in his last sermon: "No Arab is superior to a non-Arab; nor is a non-Arab superior to an Arab; nor is a black man superior to a white man; nor is a white man superior to a black man."

In one incident, there was a disagreement between two Muslims, one was Abu Dharr (ra) and the other was Bilal (ra)--who, like I said earlier, was also the first Muezzin of Islam. Abu Dharr (ra) insulted Bilal (ra) by saying: "You son of a black woman." The Prophet (s) was extremely upset by Abu Dharr's comment, so he rebuked Abu Dharr by saying: "That is too much, Abu Dharr. He who has a white mother has no advantage which makes him better than the son of a black mother."

This rebuke had a profound effect on Abu Dharr (ra), who then put his head on the ground swearing that he would not raise it until Bilal (ra) had put his foot over it. These incidents demonstrate that racism has no place in Islam. And this is stunning coming from someone 1400 years ago.

The Prophet (s) also said: "One who calls towards Assabiyyah (tribalism/racism) is not from us; one who fights for Assabiyyah is not form us and the one who dies on Assabiyyah (i.e. dies a bigot) is not from us."

On another occassion, the Prophet (s) was asked about Assabiyyah (tribalism/racism), to which he responded: "Leave it. It is rotten."

In reference to those who engaged in Assabiyyah (tribalism/racism), the Prophet (s) responded: "If they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through feces... Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust."

In Islam, the only connection people have to one another is by faith, not by race, ethnic origin, or nationality. This form of Assabiyyah was so prevalent in the time of the pre-Islamic Arabs that the Prophet (s) continually condemned this.

The Prophet (s) said: "Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are (only) of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in (various) nations because that is a coal from the coals of Hell-fire."

The Prophet (s) said that all people were born inherently equal “except by piety and good action (Taqwa). Indeed the best among you is the one with the best character (Taqwa). Listen to me. Did I convey this to you properly?…Each one of you who is here must convey this to everyone not present.”

And Allah said:

“Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you.” (Quran, 49:13)

Once, two tribes refused to get along because they had too much pride in their own tribe and ethnic origin. When the news of this reached the Prophet (s), he said to them: "O Muslims, remember Allah! Remember Allah! Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honored you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; and made you friends thereby?"

Once, a person of one ethnicity insulted the ethnicity of another Muslim, and the Prophet (s) condemned him by saying: "Why are you stirring up something which belongs to Jahiliyyah?" Jahiliyyah translates to "Ignorance" and refers to the Age of Ignorance (i.e. Pre-Islamic era).

In another incident, some people spoke very lowly about a Muslim named Salman al-Farsi (ra) because he was Persian and not Arab. They spoke of the inferiority of the Persian in relation to the Arabs, and upon hearing this the Prophet (s) declared, "Salman is from us, the ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's family)." This statement of the Prophet (s) disassociates all links based on lineage, ethnicity, and tribal considerations. People are family based on faith and piety, nothing else.

Allah says in the Quran, in a very beautiful verse:

"O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into (various) peoples and tribes that you may know each other not that you may despise each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you" (Quran, 49:13)

The Quran celebrates these differences in languages and races as a beauty of the creation and their diversity. In one chapter, the Quran talks about the signs of God being the beauty of the earth, and in this portion, the Quran talks about how peoples' different languages and colors is one such sign:

"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." (Quran, 30:22)

I think that Islam is thus one of the first movements towards racial equality, and this is what prompts many blacks to convert to Islam. Additionally, Islam advocates a very thorough and comprehensive social welfare and social justice program; this too can be appealing to black people.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I didn't know Islam was both a religion and a professional mental health organisaton.

That's amazing!

That's funny, because that's what a lot of people seem to think about Islam. I guess ridiculous intolerance runs both ways.

My friends, I do not mean to offend you, just stating the Islamic position. Let us agree to disagree. And it is not just Islam which says this, but also Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, if anyone sees Islam in a negative light because of this, then they should also view Judaism and Christianity in a similar fashion. The Abrahamic faiths are agreed on the idea that homosexuality is an abomination.

I understand that this conflicts with your beliefs, and I do not wish to indulge in a debate on the issue, since that would be counter-productive.

 

[Perfection]

My friends, I do not mean to offend you, just stating the Islamic position. Let us agree to disagree.

You're not just stating the Islamic position, you're believing the Islamic position instead of what is the consensus medical and psychological position. You claim it's a medical disorder despite the fact that most the major medical/psychological organisations disagree. Why do you do such a thing?