Ask a Muslim

Status
Not open for further replies.
Salah-Al-Din said:
You have simply listed all of the battles the Prophet (s) took part in. These were all legitimate Holy Wars (Jihad) that were fought to defend Muslims.
Only a complete ignoramus would bring this list forth as evidence of any wrongdoing on the Prophet's part. (I'm not saying you are an ignoramus, but whoever you copied and pasted it from.) These battles were fought by the State of Medinah against the Meccan Quraish who persecuted the Prophet (s) and his early followers. The minute the Prophet (s) declared the Message of Islam, the leaders of the Quraish began the process of persecuting the early Muslims. This is a fact that is known to anyone who has even an iota of knowledge about early Islamic history, which you obviously do not, or you simply wish to misguide or impress us with your copy-and-paste.

In fact, the Muslims had lived in Mecca, but their properties were confiscated and stolen by the Meccan Quraish who expelled many Muslims, beat and tortured yet others, economically boycotted the Muslims, stole their wealth, and eventually attempted to assassinate the Prophet (s) himself, who barely fled Mecca with his life. He (s) found refuge in Medinah, which was no match for the more powerful Mecca. Repeatedly the Meccans sought to conquer Medinah and destroy the nascent Islamic state, but with the Grace of Allah, the Muslims prevailed.

All of the wars you have mentioned were in this rivalry between (infidel) Mecca and (Muslim) Medinah, in which the former aggressed the latter.

You have mentioned the Battle of Qurayza. Let us talk about this then. There were many Jewish clans in Medinah, and overall the relationship between the Prophet (s) and them was cordial enough. They signed a mutual pact and treaty to help each other in battle and protect the State of Medinah.

However, one of the tribes (Banu Qurayza) betrayed the State of Medinah, broke the treaty, and committed high treason, by giving inside help to the enemy armies. The Muslims paid a steep price for this treachoury, and many Muslims lost their lives for this.

So after the Muslims and their Jewish allies barely managed to save the day, it was time to take punitive action against the traitors, the People of Qurayza. The Prophet (s) laid seige to this township. Any leader of any country would punish traitors and those guilty of high treason.

In fact, the Prophet (s) delegated the role of judging these people to Sad bin Mua'adh. The latter asked the men of the tribe--who by the way confessed to their crime--if they wanted to be punished by Islamic Law or Jewish Law. In other words, he gave them the choice: either accept Islamic Law for treason or Jewish Law for treason. These people did not realize that Islamic Law was much more forgiving than the harsh Torah, and they asked to be ruled by Jewish Law.

Based on Jewish Law, traitors were to be killed. And it was so. The traitors were put to death.

I see your parenthetical insertion is designed to make it look embarassing to the Muslims. As if the Muslims would check pubic hair...this is deciet on the part of whoever you copied and pasted from. Basically, those with *facial* hair were punished and those without were forgiven. The Arabs of that time (and even today) attribute manhood to facial hair. The beard has special significance in the Arab and Islamic custom.

Therefore, the Prophet (s) was so forgiving that he only punished the traitors who were adults, and he spared the minors, despite the fact that they had also engaged in treason to which they readily admitted. But this is the great code of Islam.

Take care, brother.


Brother Salah-Al-Din,

Unfortunately, as I am sure you are aware, we no longer have Ishaq's Original Sirat Rasul Allah as it is no longer in existence. Ibn Ishaq collected hadiths and arranged them in chronological order (basically making them into a biography of Muhammad) and this was called Sirat Rasul Allah. Tabari quoted some of Ishaq's work in his own hadith collection. However the Ishaq Manuscripts were all lost.
Hisham came along and decided to collect and 'redo' the book; but collected the only known surviving sources for it (from Tabari). By his own admission, Hisham censored much of it, added some of his own thoughts/writings etc. and released it as the abridged Sirat Rasul Allah.
Then Alfred Guillame comes along and takes Hisham's work, translates it into English, edits it some more and releases it as "The Life of Muhammad."
Any quotes from Guilliame's work, are second generation corruptions of the original Tabari text (Tabari >> Hisham >> Guillame).

The parenthetical insertion of 'pubes' was not of my own device, it is presented in the hadith Dawud one:
Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Now, can you please provide evidence for your claim that "those with *facial* hair were punished and those without were forgiven."

My intention was not to make it look "embarrasing" to Muslims, I was simply relating Muhammads history of violence. I find it very disturbing that you preceive the "insertion" of pubes as embarrasing to Muslims, however Muhammads barbaric actions do not embarrass you at all, in fact you find them all justified. That, my friend, is a tragedy. Does it matter whether the pubes or facial hair was examined? the outcome was the same, a genocidal massacre by a man who claimed to have "sublime morals" (Q68:4) "a good example to follow" (Q33:21). He referred to himself as "the mercy of God for all the worlds" (Q21:107).
You call me a "complete ingnoramous," such harsh words from such a nice guy. The list I presented was not to demonstrate the "wrongdoings" of Muhammad. If all the barbaric and horrific action attributed to him in the Quran and ahadith do not convince you of Muhammads wrongdoings then I know there is no amount of evidence that will. I presented the list to show the many battles that the prophet of Allah, the prophet of all times, participated in. You only succeed in fooling yourself by stating they were all defensive battles, one needs only to research the Quran and ahadiths objectively to achieve a different conclusion. Although I do agree with you that according to the Islamic doctrine they were all legitimate Holy Wars (Jihad).
 
Hi, everyone. :salute:

I have over one million posts to respond to, not only in this thread but the other thread as well. Because of this, please forgive me if it takes me some time to respond. Good thing is that I still have two more weeks of school break to field questions. :)

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

Howdy, sir. :salute:

I don't know if it is necessarily rude not to give a flowery greeting, but it is definitely a good thing to give a flowery greeting.

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

These stories are recorded in the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings. They are similar, but not identical, to the Biblical versions. In regards to your last statement: I don't really know what you mean.

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

No, there are no instances of this. The Prophet (s) never killed infants or women. In fact, he prohibitively forbade it. There are so many Prophetic Sayings to this effect that I will only reproduce a fraction of them, due to the lack of time on my part. In fact, there is an entire chapter in the Prophetic Sayings with the title: "Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions."

When the Prophet (s) was advising his soldiers before battle, he instructed them: "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman." (narrated Abu Dawud).

On another occassion, the Prophet (s) instructed his top general, Khalid bin Waleed (ra). The Prophet (s) told someone: "Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. (Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.)

The First Caliph instructed his soldiers, on order of the Prophet (s): "I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person..."
(Maliks Mutawwa, Book 021, Hadith Number 010.)

And the following commands were given during other battles, as recorded by the Prophet's disciples:

Narrated By Abdullah: "Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257)

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : "Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.)

"He disapproved of the killing of women and children." (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.)

And many others...


Edit: what scripture condemns consensual homosexual sex?

Both the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings condemn homosexual acts.

Quite an interesting read, all 3 hours off it.

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

Thank you, sir. And welcome to the thread. :salute:

I do however have a few questions.

OK, shoot.

Question 1
To be a Christian you dont need formal training,

To be a Muslim, you don't need any formal training either.

instead the bible encourages us to to study it (This book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night.... Josh1:8).
Most of us read the bible (though at that time they only had the Torah)regularly as God instructed Joshua to do, and the more zealous go to bible college to learn more.

In fact, Muslims read the Quran at least five times per day, during their prayer. In addition to this, Muslims are encouraged to read the Quran every day, at least 5-10 minutes per day.

This is the case for all Muslims, regardless of level of learning and knowledge.

And what training/teaching have you undertaken if any?

I just read a lot. There are a lot of religious texts, and I enjoy reading them. No formal training as such.


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

I do not think my medical training conflicts with my religion. Oftentimes, I find that it in fact supports my medical training. For example, when I see that AIDS/HIV is rampant amongst IV users of illicit drugs (forbidden in Islam), homosexuals (forbidden in Islam), and promiscious heterosexuals (forbidden in Islam)....well, I find that this really confirms my religious beliefs.

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

There is a big difference. In fact, the most orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel and are in fact against Zionism. They have a website which you can visit:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a racist ideology that some Jews adopt and a few Christians do as well. But definitely, not all Jews are Zionists. Zionism refers to the colonial movement to remove the Palestinians from their homeland and replace it with a Jew-only homeland.

----------

More to come, Allah Willing. I have to go pray and then I'll be back, Allah Willing.
 
These stories are recorded in the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings. They are similar, but not identical, to the Biblical versions. In regards to your last statement: I don't really know what you mean.
I was hoping you could give me a bit of a lead on where to look to read the creation stories.

Regarding a literal reading ... well, I don't know what the muslim texts say, but the Bible tells of a 6 day creation event; and there is some trouble in our education because people choose to believe it literally (that 6000 years ago, the universe was created in 6 days).
Both the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings condemn homosexual acts.

I was hoping for a hint as to where the actual scriptures were
 
I can provide you with a copy of the Ethics of War in Islam if you so wish.
That would be great.

Ethics of War in Islam

Spoiler :

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self-defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Quran, Al-Hajj:39)

Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:

1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:

In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.

2-Whom to Fight:

Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not be the one to begin the hostilities. Lo! Allah does not love aggressors.” (Quran, 2:190)

In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.

3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”

4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:

“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:

None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “O you who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people for you lead you to do injustice. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is well-informed of what you do.” (Quran, Al-Maidah: 8)

7-Medical and Nursing Services:

From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.

Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.

In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.

This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).

We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.

8-Prisoners of War:

For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:

“And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Quran, Al-Insan: 5-9)

The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

"Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor" (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)

As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."

Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.

When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.


9-The Fate of War Prisoners:

According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.

Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies."

Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.

Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”

Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.

Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.


10-Nonbelligerents

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.

One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.

But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”

How to Resolve Conflicts

The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:

“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Quran, Al-Hujurat: 9)

11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.

And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’

From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:

“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Quran, Al-Maidah:1)

“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knows that what you do.”
(Quran, An-Nahl: 91)

If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.

“If you fear treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loves not the treacherous.” (Quran, Al-Anfal:85)

Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.

“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)

Concluding Note

And above all, this is not a nicety to be taken or left by the state. It is a binding religious dictate overruling emotion and prejudice: otherwise it would be a grave violation of Islam.
 
I was hoping for a hint as to where the actual scriptures were

Because the rest of your questions will take a bit more time to answer, I will answer them in a bit. First, I'll provide you with the Quranic verses in regards to homosexuality:

"And (remember) Lot, when he said to his people: “Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed amongst all of creation? Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women! Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds! .....And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (Quran, 7:80-84)

The phrase "practise your lusts on men instead of women" clearly shows that the crime in question is homosexuality in general, and has nothing to do with forced sexual acts.
 
"And (remember) Lot, when he said to his people: “Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed amongst all of creation? Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women! Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds! .....And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (Quran, 7:80-84)

The phrase "practise your lusts on men instead of women" clearly shows that the crime in question is homosexuality in general, and has nothing to do with forced sexual acts.

Looks like condemnation to me, although I'm not familiar with the context.

Would you say that it was fair to punish them with 'a shower of brimstone' because they were having sex with men instead of with women?
 
I do not think my medical training conflicts with my religion. Oftentimes, I find that it in fact supports my medical training. For example, when I see that AIDS/HIV is rampant amongst IV users of illicit drugs (forbidden in Islam), homosexuals (forbidden in Islam), and promiscious heterosexuals (forbidden in Islam)....well, I find that this really confirms my religious beliefs.

And here you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that homosexuals who live with a single partner that doesn't have HIV has no greater chance of catching HIV than even the most pious married muslim couple.
 
(I'll write a detailed reply to your previous post later, when I have the time and the energy):

No problem, brother. I myself am having a hard time keeping up with all the posts. Good thing I'm on winter break still.

Do you support the right of a Muslim man to marry four wives?

Yes, I do. It is a right of men in Islam. However, we should follow the example of the Prophet (s) who primarily married widows, women who had no source of income, the needy, etc.

The reason polygamy is allowed in Islam is *not* so that men can fulfill their sexual lust, but rather so that they can help and support needy women, primarily widows, spinsters, etc.

In the time of the Prophet (s), women were solely dependant on men and unmarried women would have no source of income. Therefore, polygamy was seen as a mercy (especially since the Muslims were encouraged to marry the poor, the needy, widows, etc), not as something chauvenistic as it is today.

As for the current day, it depends on the society in which you live in, your personal preferences, and the preferences of your wife(s).

Do you support his right to divorce them by saying the word "talaq" thrice, i.e., by using the triple divorce?

I do not see the issue with that.

Do you support the institution of temporary marriage (muta)?

No. It is considered prostitution in Sunni Islam.

Ali (ra) said: "The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar" (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy)

Ali (ra) saw said to a man who was engaging in Mutah: “You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage” (Muslim and Bayhaqy)

"The Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage." (Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad)

"The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished Mutah, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance." [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

And there are many more of the Prophetic Sayings to this effect. The institution of Mutah is only accepted by the Shia, who are considered heretics for that.
 
And here you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that homosexuals who live with a single partner that doesn't have HIV has no greater chance of catching HIV than even the most pious married muslim couple.

To make an accurate comparison, you need to reduce the variables. You need to compare homosexuals with multiple partners and heterosexuals with multiple partners.

The rate of HIV/AIDS is much higher in the homosexuals with multiple partners.

It is difficult to reject the medical data on this topic, all in the objective of being politically correct.

The CDC reports in its June 2000 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report that gay men accounted for the majority of AIDS cases in the United States. There were 396,477 reported cases of gays with AIDS, compared with only 27,952 for heterosexual men, making the ratio of gay men to straight men who have AIDS to be 14 to 1. That seems insane, but wait till you factor in the fact that gays only make up 1-5% of the population. One in seven homosexuals have AIDS in the Seattle area, whereas that fraction is 1 in 20 nationally.

AIDS was spread by homosexuals, and is still prevalent in homosexuals; it is, for all intents and purposes, a gay disease. In fact, as I'm sure you know, it was first termed Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).

When AIDS was first discovered in the 1980s, all of the cases were with homosexual men and intravenous drug users. In the USA by the end of 1992, 85% of all persons with AIDS were either gay men, or iv drug user, or both. AIDS in Australia is a nearly exclusively male disease: 97.2% of all persons with AIDS in this country are males which suggests an even greater concentration amongst gay-men than in the USA. The situation in Europe is consistent with the US and Australia, with gay men making up a disproportionately large portion of those affected by AIDS.

Anyways, whatever the case--and now you will accuse me of changing the goal posts--the point is that sinful behavior leads to disease. This supports my religious beliefs, and does not negate them.
 
Would you say that it was fair to punish them with 'a shower of brimstone' because they were having sex with men instead of with women?

The People of Sodom were repeatedly called back to the path of righteousness by their Prophet, who was appointed by God. They rejected him, and like any people who rejected their Prophet, they earned the Wrath of God, and I do not find anything wrong in that, as Allah is Most Just and He is the Judge. We will all be called to account for our actions.

You are a liberal--who doesn't even wear clothes according to your signature :p --and you believe that no external force has a right to enforce morality on people. You believe that you have a right to move your arms however you want so long as they don't hit anyone else. You believe that only you and you alone can enforce morality on yourself, and so long as you don't hurt anyone else, then you are not to be called to account for this.

This goes against what I believe. I believe that God can call to account for crimes that we commit against ourselves, even if they don't hurt anyone else. For example, you probably wouldn't find anything wrong with a person looking at pornography because you don't think it hurts anyone. I, however, believe that we are being tested by God, and that God will call to account for that. (I'm just giving an example, not sure if you would be for/against that...but hopefully you get my point.)

This difference between you and I is central, and no argument could change/refute either one of us. All the other topics we argue about are just proxy wars, but the real issue is that central one, which cannot be resolved since we have different views on that.

Take care, brother.
 
To make an accurate comparison, you need to reduce the variables. You need to compare homosexuals with multiple partners and heterosexuals with multiple partners.
The rate of HIV/AIDS is much higher in the homosexuals with multiple partners.
It is difficult to reject the medical data on this topic, all in the objective of being politically correct.
The CDC reports in its June 2000 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report that gay men accounted for the majority of AIDS cases in the United States. There were 396,477 reported cases of gays with AIDS, compared with only 27,952 for heterosexual men, making the ratio of gay men to straight men who have AIDS to be 14 to 1. That seems insane, but wait till you factor in the fact that gays only make up 1-5% of the population. One in seven homosexuals have AIDS in the Seattle area, whereas that fraction is 1 in 20 nationally.
AIDS was spread by homosexuals, and is still prevalent in homosexuals; it is, for all intents and purposes, a gay disease. In fact, as I'm sure you know, it was first termed Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).
When AIDS was first discovered in the 1980s, all of the cases were with homosexual men and intravenous drug users. In the USA by the end of 1992, 85% of all persons with AIDS were either gay men, or iv drug user, or both. AIDS in Australia is a nearly exclusively male disease: 97.2% of all persons with AIDS in this country are males which suggests an even greater concentration amongst gay-men than in the USA. The situation in Europe is consistent with the US and Australia, with gay men making up a disproportionately large portion of those affected by AIDS.
Anyways, whatever the case--and now you will accuse me of changing the goal posts--the point is that sinful behavior leads to disease. This supports my religious beliefs, and does not negate them.

That is a twisted logic if not just plain BS sir. AIDS is now primarely a sub-saharan disease, are you going to tell me that that should "comfort" white supermacist in their racist belief? And here another one: muslims in this world happen to be at the bottom in terms of scientific development, does this support the belief of those that consider Islam a factor in the deep ignorance Mulims are in?
 
Yes, I do. It is a right of men in Islam. However, we should follow the example of the Prophet (s) who primarily married widows, women who had no source of income, the needy, etc.
The reason polygamy is allowed in Islam is *not* so that men can fulfill their sexual lust, but rather so that they can help and support needy women, primarily widows, spinsters, etc.
In the time of the Prophet (s), women were solely dependant on men and unmarried women would have no source of income. Therefore, polygamy was seen as a mercy (especially since the Muslims were encouraged to marry the poor, the needy, widows, etc), not as something chauvenistic as it is today.
As for the current day, it depends on the society in which you live in, your personal preferences, and the preferences of your wife(s).

I am sure than that you'll support that a rich woman marry 4 poor and needy men? just to show mercy?

I do not see the issue with that.

And what about a woman divorcing her husband the same way?
 
Do you want to topple all Western governments? Because according to Katheryn, you do.

No. I don't think Katheryn is our spokesperson. :) :p

The Islamic revolution will take place in MUSLIM lands, and not western or non-Muslim countries. We want to topple our OWN governments, which are puppet regimes of the West.

When will the Muslim societies embrace liberalism and then Communism, or at least socialism and secularlism?

Muslims have dabbled in all of these, and have usually failed to benefit. I believe that Islamism is the only solution to success. It is the only thing that ever worked for Muslims in the past.

Do you wear a burka or one of those headscarves that muslim women wear?

No, I do not. I'm a guy. :p But I know your post is aimed at the Original Poster, but I think she answered your question already. She wears a headscarf to the mosque.


(edited for space)

I just want to say Thank you for the time and effort you've put into answering the questions posted by myself and others. Your response to my last question was far more detailed than I would have expected. :goodjob:
Now I just have to work on the pronunciation of those phrases so I don't accidentally say something else. :)

Thank you for your kind words. It's people like you that make it worthwhile to repsond at all. :)

How does it feel to be an enemy of armerica?

I don't know if that is a real question or simply a taunt? However, I think most Muslims feel a mixture of feelings such as anger, resentment, fear, etc.
 
Salah-Al-Din,

If you truly intend to be a doctor I would strongly suggest that you cease viewing the world through your tunnel vision of 'sin' and take a more objective approach.

To make an accurate comparison, you need to reduce the variables. You need to compare homosexuals with multiple partners and heterosexuals with multiple partners.

No. You specifically said that you think that being homosexual is sinful, and that this is confirmed through the spread of HIV.

If that was really the case it must mean that there is some divine retribution against being homosexual. However, those of us who take an objective view can accurately pinpoint the reasons for the spread of HIV. In case of homosexual males these reasons include a large number of factors; general male sexual behaviour, networking in small groups, strong taboo in society making long-term relationships problematic, the increased risk of transferring HIV through anal sex compared to vaginal sex, and more.

We can also tell that when people avoid the above risk factors and take care of themselves they have no greater risk of getting HIV than other people who take care of themselves.

If you really think that HIV is some divine punishment for homosexual behaviour how do you explain that far fewer homosexual women have HIV? Are they somehow committing less of a sin? Or could it be that the well-known objective reasons are true?


It is difficult to reject the medical data on this topic, all in the objective of being politically correct.

It's not difficult at all. Apparently it's difficult for you to align the real world with your perceived religious morals, however.

AIDS was spread by homosexuals, and is still prevalent in homosexuals; it is, for all intents and purposes, a gay disease.

AIDS used to be 'a gay disease'. That was a long time ago. The worst sufferers from AIDS today are the children of South Saharan Africa. It's not a gay disease anymore. Just like your view of homosexuality as a psychological disorder is severely outdated, so is your view of HIV and AIDS.

Anyways, whatever the case--and now you will accuse me of changing the goal posts--the point is that sinful behavior leads to disease. This supports my religious beliefs, and does not negate them.

Actually what I note is that when you run out of arguments instead of rethinking your position you put your hands on your ears and go la-la-la as if the real world doesn't exist.

I find it highly worrying that people like you attempt to become doctors. I sincerely hope you will become wiser in time and open your eyes and heart.
 
The People of Sodom were repeatedly called back to the path of righteousness by their Prophet, who was appointed by God. They rejected him, and like any people who rejected their Prophet, they earned the Wrath of God, and I do not find anything wrong in that, as Allah is Most Just and He is the Judge. We will all be called to account for our actions.

You are a liberal--who doesn't even wear clothes according to your signature :p --and you believe that no external force has a right to enforce morality on people. You believe that you have a right to move your arms however you want so long as they don't hit anyone else. You believe that only you and you alone can enforce morality on yourself, and so long as you don't hurt anyone else, then you are not to be called to account for this.

This goes against what I believe. I believe that God can call to account for crimes that we commit against ourselves, even if they don't hurt anyone else. For example, you probably wouldn't find anything wrong with a person looking at pornography because you don't think it hurts anyone. I, however, believe that we are being tested by God, and that God will call to account for that. (I'm just giving an example, not sure if you would be for/against that...but hopefully you get my point.)

This difference between you and I is central, and no argument could change/refute either one of us. All the other topics we argue about are just proxy wars, but the real issue is that central one, which cannot be resolved since we have different views on that.

Take care, brother.

Liberals don't mind "religious" people believing that their morals are absolute and coming from God/Allah, well at least I don't. I however will deeply mind if those religious people try to impose their morals upon others by force. Would you support a democratric "califate" (all people vote) or a theocratic one (a few ulema vote)?
 
I don't know if that is a real question or simply a taunt? However, I think most Muslims feel a mixture of feelings such as anger, resentment, fear, etc.

Ah, I should jump in.
I don't think it was either a taunt or a real question. I think it was a jab at hard-liners who try to convince people that Muslims are dangerous. It was an attempt to joke, along with you, that some people are over-reacting.
 
That is a twisted logic if not just plain BS sir. AIDS is now primarely a sub-saharan disease, are you going to tell me that that should "comfort" white supermacist in their racist belief?

First, it is *not* primarily a sub-Saharan disease. It is rather very common there, but it is also very common in Western countries.

I do not think race has anything to do with it, but rather lifestyle. Those countries which promote promiscuity are more hit by the disease. I do not see how race fits in.

Smoking is an evil act just like homosexual acts are evil. I could show you how smokers are more affected by lung disease, to prove to you that smoking is bad. Likewise, I am showing you that homosexual acts are bad for you, and given you the proof for that.

You are countering this with an irrelevant point, by saying something equivalent to: "well, a certian race of people have lung cancer more than another race, so are you being racist" since maybe some races incidentally smoke more than others (for whatever complex reason).


And here another one: muslims in this world happen to be at the bottom in terms of scientific development, does this support the belief of those that consider Islam a factor in the deep ignorance Mulims are in?

Once again, you are mistaken about my position. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I believe homosexuality is an act, as I don't believe you are born like that. I believe even supposedly straight people can commit homosexuality (such as in jail). I am simply arguing that a certain act leads to a disease (such as homosexuality or IV drug use).

I am well aware that certain diseases are more common in different races. I am simply talking about certain actions pre-disposing a person to disease, such as smoking (lung cancer), drinking (cirrhosis), and homosexuality (AIDS).
 
The People of Sodom were repeatedly called back to the path of righteousness by their Prophet, who was appointed by God. They rejected him, and like any people who rejected their Prophet, they earned the Wrath of God, and I do not find anything wrong in that, as Allah is Most Just and He is the Judge. We will all be called to account for our actions.

I'm familiar with the story of Sodom in the old testament, but I assume it differs somewhat in the koran so I won't claim a knowledge on the subject from the islamic perspective.

What I will claim is that if your deity punishes people the way you describe then your deity is brutal and sadistic. If your deity is all-powerful and loving he/she/it would never hurt other beings. It's the easy way out, and a typical way of scaring people to follow your will. Scaring people does not exactly rhyme with being all-powerful, just, merciful, or loving.

You are a liberal--who doesn't even wear clothes according to your signature :p --and you believe that no external force has a right to enforce morality on people. You believe that you have a right to move your arms however you want so long as they don't hit anyone else. You believe that only you and you alone can enforce morality on yourself, and so long as you don't hurt anyone else, then you are not to be called to account for this.

Actually I do wear clothes, I simply defend the right to people to be naked should they so prefer. I consider that morality as described in what is commonly known as 'the golden rule' to be the most fair and senseful there is. It means that I will treat others as I wish to be treated. It means that I will not be violent against you as you spew your hateful propaganda. It makes both rational and emotional sense. It is just and loving. I don't need a deity to tell me how to be just and loving.

This difference between you and I is central, and no argument could change/refute either one of us. All the other topics we argue about are just proxy wars, but the real issue is that central one, which cannot be resolved since we have different views on that.

I disagree. I know of several people who have religious viewpoints of morality as do you. The difference is that they are open to logical debate. They realize that you have no right to condemn homosexuals from a logical viewpoint, only from their own personal moral one, which they do not wish to impose on others. They realize that making up facts and selectively choosing data is unfair to everyone and neither just nor kind.
 
Hi, Iron Duck! :salute:

Are you wearing clothes yet??? :D

If you truly intend to be a doctor I would strongly suggest that you cease viewing the world through your tunnel vision of 'sin' and take a more objective approach.

I will carry out my medical duty with integrity, honor, and following the Hippocratic Oath. This is what my Islamic faith commands that I do. So please do not worry too much about me. :)

No. You specifically said that you think that being homosexual is sinful, and that this is confirmed through the spread of HIV.

If that was really the case it must mean that there is some divine retribution against being homosexual. However, those of us who take an objective view can accurately pinpoint the reasons for the spread of HIV. In case of homosexual males these reasons include a large number of factors; general male sexual behaviour, networking in small groups, strong taboo in society making long-term relationships problematic, the increased risk of transferring HIV through anal sex compared to vaginal sex, and more.

We can also tell that when people avoid the above risk factors and take care of themselves they have no greater risk of getting HIV than other people who take care of themselves.

If you really think that HIV is some divine punishment for homosexual behaviour how do you explain that far fewer homosexual women have HIV? Are they somehow committing less of a sin? Or could it be that the well-known objective reasons are true?

It's not difficult at all. Apparently it's difficult for you to align the real world with your perceived religious morals, however.



AIDS used to be 'a gay disease'. That was a long time ago. The worst sufferers from AIDS today are the children of South Saharan Africa. It's not a gay disease anymore. Just like your view of homosexuality as a psychological disorder is severely outdated, so is your view of HIV and AIDS.



Actually what I note is that when you run out of arguments instead of rethinking your position you put your hands on your ears and go la-la-la as if the real world doesn't exist.

I find it highly worrying that people like you attempt to become doctors. I sincerely hope you will become wiser in time and open your eyes and heart.

I am well aware that you can "explain away" why more gays are hit than non-gays. Yes, you can always argue that it's because they are more promiscious, it's taboo, blah blah blah...I of course believe that Allah has his Asbaab (mechanism of implementing His Will)...For example, I would say that the Muslims defeated the USSR because of Allah's Help, and you would say it was because of America's help and bring a list of other reasons...I don't discount those reasons but I believe that it is just Asbaab (mechanism or manifestation of Allah's Will).

You stated that it's more common in homosexuals because anal sex is a risk factor. You said:
the increased risk of transferring HIV through anal sex compared to vaginal sex

Well, duh. Isn't that capitulating the argument? In Islam, anal sex is Haram (forbidden) and I'm pretty sure that's the same case in Judaism/Christianity. And in fact, yes -- female homosexuality is not considered as grave a crime as male homosexuality -- because anal sex is considered exceptionally odious in Islam. That is the reason why Judaism/Christianity/Islam are always emphacizing male homosexuality (although female homosexuality is also forbidden).

So basically, you are willing to accept two things and associated deduction:

1. Anal sex is a risk factor.
2. Homosexual men have loads of anal sex, because they can't really do anything else.
3. Hence, homosexuality is a risk factor.

I think that this supports my view.

Now excuse me as a put my hands over my ears and sing la-la-la.

Anyways, this is the last post I will respond to about this topic. I think our respective positions are clear, and I do not think it will behoove anyone to discuss it further.

Take care, brother.
 
First, it is *not* primarily a sub-Saharan disease.

Yes it is.

Estimated deaths due to AIDS in 2005: 2.8 to 3.6 million
Estimate of those in sub Saharan Africa: 2.1 to 2.7 million

Compare to Western Europe: 12-15,000

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_pandemic

In other words AIDS is not a 'gay disease'. It is a disaster in sub Saharan Africa.

And you know why it's so contained in Western Europe? Education. You see, it has nothing to do with 'sin', it has everything to do with knowledge. Just like it's the case with every single other disease we try to protect ourselves from. As a medical student you really need to know these things.

Smoking is an evil act just like homosexual acts are evil. I could show you how smokers are more affected by lung disease, to prove to you that smoking is bad. Likewise, I am showing you that homosexual acts are bad for you, and given you the proof for that.

But what you cannot show is that homosexuals who live monogamously with a disesase free partner are at a greater risk to get HIV. Because it's not true. Unlike smoking, having homosexual sex is not in any way damaging to your health.

I cannot believe I have to educate a med student on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom