Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

So you wouldn't eat it at all? Would it be a sin (or the muslim equivalent) if you did eat it to be polite? Or would that be something that could be easily forgiven?

Hi, Turner.

Sorry for the delay.

Yes, it would be a sin. We are not allowed to sin just to be polite. This would be a very dangerous road to follow. I remember this once that I was getting a ride from somebody from the airport, and this girl didn't have a ride, so we offered her to come along. When we dropped her off, I carried her luggage to her room, and then I'm turning to leave, and all of a sudden I see her about to give me a hug.

Of course, then I pull a matrix move and dodge the hug. I kindly explain to her that I'm not allowed to in my religion, but she was visibly offended. I did my best to reassure her that it was not something to offend her, and I think she understood at the end, but who knows. The point is, that fine in that one instance it was just eating meat, but in this instance it was something much bigger. A Muslim wife would kill me if she found out that I hugged another girl before marriage.

It's a dangerous precedent to sin to be nice. A girl asks for your MSN addy because she likes you, but you know it's Haram (forbidden) to engage in such behavior...but should you just be nice and allow it? It's a very slippery slope, for a Muslim I mean.

Indeed, it is very possible to be nice and *not* sin at the same time. This is the methodology of the Prophet (s). In the end, I think that in the case of the meat, I would kindly say that I am not hungry or I just ate and repeatedly say I'm ok. And I would *repeatedly* reassure my friend to not feel bad. If he got angry at me that I just don't eat it, then in the end of the day, *he* is the idiot who is not tolerant. I think tolerance runs both ways: the Muslim should be tolerant when he finds out that the non-Muslim didn't prepare Halal meat, and the non-Muslim should be tolerant when the Muslim kindly explains that he can't eat it.

Take care, brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

What is the Islamic community's beliefs in regards to the Holocaust? Does the Clergy teach that it did happen? Does Islam denounce the Holocaust as "Zionist" propoganda to re-acquire the Holy Land?

Hi, Nick.

I think that Brother Knight's response is on the mark:

Why would the clergy teach history, it is not their job. We have history teachers for that purpose.

And the religion of Islam can not denounce something that happened in 20th century because it was established in the 7th century. If some muslims of today don't believe the holocaust, it is their personal opinion and has nothing to do with religion.

Brother Knight is right on two counts.

Firstly, the clergy do not teach history, but rather historians. Islam has always had its own historians, independant of the clergy...such names as Ibn Al-Athir, Ibn Qalasani, and many others. The clergy do not have power over everything; they would, for example, not be asked about what the treatment for a certain disease is, because this is a job for a doctor and not a cleric.

Secondly, Islam does not have a stance on the Holocaust because the Islamic canon was finalized in the 7th century, and the Holocaust happened much after that.

Therefore, any opinion I give you is strictly *my* opinion. And the opinion of various Muslims differs vastly on the issue. One thing of note, however, is that honestly most Muslims don't really think about this topic or dwell on it.

As for myself, I of course believe in the Jewish Holocaust. I have very deep sympathies for all those Jews who were wrongfully killed. Do I believe that Zionists exploit the Holocaust? Yes, definitely. I take the same stance as the orthodox Jews (i.e. the True Torah Jews) who denounce the Zionists and declare that the Zionists were in fact partially responsible for the Holocaust. The Zionists even went so far as to seek an alliance with the German Nazis, because they shared the same objective as them (which was removal of the Jewry from Europe). The Nazis wanted this because they hated Jews, and the Zionists wanted this because they wanted more and more refugees to enter Palestine to make the case for a homeland there.

This opinion is voiced by the "Jews Against Zionism" and many orthodox Jewish Rabbis of the highest order:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm

I have posted relevant excerpts below, but click on the link to read the entire article which is written by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann of Australia.

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).

2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.

3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler


It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People."

Source for paragraphs marked "[Source]": The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976

Orthodox Jews accuse the Zionists of being hired by the Nazi Germans to work on the inside of concentration camps, where they would announce themselves as leaders and prevent the Jewry from rising up in rebellion, thereby making the job of the Germans easier and allowing the Jews to be expelled from Europe successfully as the Zionists wanted, to boost the number of people in Palestine and make the case for Palestine. Indeed, the Israeli supreme court even convicted some Zionists of this.

This and much more can be found on that site I gave you.

I think the honesty of these Orthodox Jews shows how some Jews can be such amazing people, and this discounts all of the racist things said by some people against Jews (including some radical Muslims). I believe in an alliance between these Jews and Muslims.

I believe that people always hijack catastrophe and exploit it to their advantage. Today, millions of dollars are spent every year by the Zionists to exploit the memory of the Holocaust to make the case for a homeland, even though it was the Zionists themselves who did nothing to save their fellow Jews from being expelled from their homes.

I believe that the Holocaust did indeed take place, and that the memory of the dead should not be tarnished by those who seek to carry out *another* genocide against another peoples.

Take care, brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I understand what you are saying with regards to gender seperation. But I ask you: Living in the west where arranged marriages is not a custom, how would one go about finding a wife if one were to avoid any contact/fraternization with women?

This is a more complicated answer than you can imagine, lol.

But let's just say that arranged marriage is not necessarily the Islamic methodology at all. In fact, I know that in India/Pakistan, Muslims will have arranged marriages where they never even met the person before, or seen them, or talked to them! This is actually discouraged in Islam, explicitly by the Prophet of Allah (although it is not completely forbidden). As for forced arranged marriages, this is completely Haram (forbidden) as the Prophet (s) explicitly stated that women have the right to choose marriage partner. It should be noted that the Prophet's wife Khadijah (ra) actually is the one who proposed to him, and she got to know him only because he (s) worked for her.

There is only *one* situation in which Islam allows a man to "check out" a woman and vice/versa, and that is if he has the sincere intention of marriage. Under a certain Islamic protocol, a man is allowed to talk to a woman to see if they are compatible for marriage, so long as this and this alone is the intention. However, this "courtship" period has some severe restrictions on it, including that the two can never be in a room alone together, cannot touch each other at all (not even shake hands), and ideally they should have parental blessing. Furthermore, the "courtship" period should be as short as possible, and only long enough so that the two know that they are compatible or not. If they deem that they are compatible and are happy with each other, then they should hasten to get married and not delay in this.

It should also be noted that all of these things are only permissible because the two have a sincere intention to get to know each other to see if they are compatible in marriage. Otherwise, such inter-gender mixing is not allowed.

This exception to the Islamic rules of segregation has been allowed by the Prophet (s) to discourage people from getting married to someone and then divorcing her because you don't actually like her (or vice/versa).

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

knigh+, the clergy in Islam are more powerful than in Christianity.

In fact, the Muslim clerics play nowhere as great a role in Islam as Popes/Bishops/Priests/etc do in Christianity.

Islam came and took out a lot of the power of clerics and in fact there is officially no priesthood, no sainthood, and no other such things in Islam.

I am asking about the holocaust because the current Iranian Leader is denouncing it and wish to know if Islam in general, has this same view or if it is just the proclamation of a leader.

He is Shia and therefore he does not represent the mainstream Muslims, who have generally condemned him as a raving lunatic and heretic.

Furthermore, mainstream Islam deplores the immense power that Shi'ism gives to its Ayatollahs and Imams. This conflicts with Islam's viewpoint on the matter.

 

[knigh+]

Knigh+ my friend, you are giving wrong info here. Imam's power is no way near Christian priests... Imams have no power on you he just show you moves of salat (namaz) and gives friday talks thats all.

That is why I said there is irony, because that is how Islam advises it to be. But this doesn't dtop some uneducated people to follow some misguiding clergy blindly and become fanatics, which makes these imams in these cases more powerful than any other priest.

Otherwise, in many other threads (such as the one about Australian imam), I explained to people that our religion doesn't give a camel's a.. about what any imam says/thinks/does.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

That is why I said there is irony, because that is how Islam advises it to be. But this doesn't dtop some uneducated people to follow some misguiding clergy blindly and become fanatics, which makes these imams in these cases more powerful than any other priest.

Otherwise, in many other threads (such as the one about Australian imam), I explained to people that our religion doesn't give a camel's a.. about what any imam says/thinks/does.

Although I agree with your sentiments, I think your last statement should be revised to become more moderate.

Islam strikes a moderate view on the deference shown to scholars. On the one hand, Islam cautions against giving too much power to them, as evidenced by the following verse in the Quran, referring to those who went astray:

“And they took their priests and monks as Lords beside Allah.” (Quran)

However, the Quran commands the average Muslim to ask scholars on matters of faith. Allah says:

"Ask Ahl Adh-Dhikr if you do not know." (Quran, 16:43) Ahlul Adh-Dhikr translates to People of Dhikr, which are the clergy.

As well as:

"O you who have faith, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and Ulil Amri amongst you." (Quran, 4:59) Ulil Amri is also a term used for clergy.

The Prophet (s) said: "The Scholars of my Nation are like the Prophets of Israel."

In another of the Prophetic Sayings, the Prophet (s) says that the learned scholar is very much superior to the average devotee of Islam. And there are many more such Prophetic Sayings on the matter.

Therefore, we do in Islam give a deep respect to scholars and the learned. However, if a scholar says something that conflicts with the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings, then we are not allowed to follow him on this matter, but we should disagree in a respectful manner. Furthermore, certain matters have nothing to do with religious jurisprudence, and we should understand that clergy do not have the answer for everything. When it comes to politics, science, medicine, history, etc., then you should ask the specialist in those fields. If it's specifically about Islamic Law, then ask a religious scholar.

 

[El_Machinae]

edit: keep in mind that there are two 'types' of Christianity. For the non-catholics, a priest (pastor) is a LOT less binding that a Catholic priest. In fact, like the two Islams, it's very important to realise that there ARE two.

Again, what it the major reason why you believe Islam to be true? What would say is the greatest contributing factor to convincing you that it's 'true' when you have your doubts? Why believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired instead of merely a canny fellow? Indoctrination? Personal revelation?

A couple questions on culture: would you say that your distaste for Israel is due to being an arab or being muslim? It might be hard to dissociate the two, I imagine.

I've heard a woman's testimony in court is worth 1/2 that of a man's. How do you feel about that? Does that seem fair, since it leads to cases where a woman is not believed if there are no other witnesses? Do you apply this rule in your personal life (i.e., don't believe a woman if she contradicts a man)?

As well, it's apparently a sin to look upon a woman and find her attractive? If this is true, whose fault is it if you look at a woman and find her attractive? Do you resent the women for being sexily-clad, and do you think it's appropriate to use force (i.e. the law) to force her to coverup? I would think that you can't really blame the woman (no matter her dress), since it's a choice to think inappropriate thoughts about her. It would be tough to not subconsconsiouly resent her, though.

Finally, I'd imagine that western men are much more used to not acting inappropriately or lusting after western-dressed women - we're exposed to it more and thus there's less mystery. Do you think that men who're in societies where a burka is common have a much harder time controlling themselves around western-dressed women (and do you think they resent the women for being 'scantily clad', if they have trouble controlling themselves)? (Please note; I'm not assuming they can't control themselves, I'm just asking if it's harder)

edit2: If something doesn't make sense in the Qu'ran, is it supposed to make more sense if you pray and mediate over the verses? Are there phrases that imply that Allah will help you interpret if you seek guidance?

 

[knigh+]

Yes, it would be a sin. We are not allowed to sin just to be polite. This would be a very dangerous road to follow. I remember this once that I was getting a ride from somebody from the airport, and this girl didn't have a ride, so we offered her to come along. When we dropped her off, I carried her luggage to her room, and then I'm turning to leave, and all of a sudden I see her about to give me a hug.

Of course, then I pull a matrix move and dodge the hug. I kindly explain to her that I'm not allowed to in my religion, but she was visibly offended. I did my best to reassure her that it was not something to offend her, and I think she understood at the end, but who knows. The point is, that fine in that one instance it was just eating meat, but in this instance it was something much bigger. A Muslim wife would kill me if she found out that I hugged another girl before marriage.

I could argue that since you had clothes on you did not physically touch each other, so you are ok

Joke aside,

1- I think that kind of things depends on the societal rules in which you grew. If your society regards a simple hug or handshake to have sexual implications, then eventually you will have the same opinion. If you grew up in a different society, you wouldn't reflexively think sinful thoughts when a girl hugs you. But even then you might feel stuff with some girls, which shall be avoided.

2- My mom hugs me, my sister hugs me, and if some girl with whom I have no attraction hugs me I don't mind. And if any lady holds out her hand to shake, I see no reason to leave it hanging in the air, as I don't see a handshake to have any other implication.

3- It would hurt publicity of Islam, as no matter how much you explain the reasons for not touching a hand, everybody in the room will think you as the guy with the weird religion. And that goes against what you are trying to achieve here.

4- Besides, when Quran talks about "touching women" it seems more like it is talking in sexual context, you can't take everything literally. Quran says don't approach your wife during her periods. Does that mean you stay at 5 meter distance for 3-4 days? Of course not, it is talking about sex. "Touching women" is the same (In Quran, Mary says "no man touched me" and she is obviously says it in sexual context).

Well, that's just my interpretation of things, you have a different opinion, and I respect it.

It's a dangerous precedent to sin to be nice. A girl asks for your MSN addy because she likes you, but you know it's Haram (forbidden) to engage in such behavior...but should you just be nice and allow it? It's a very slippery slope, for a Muslim I mean.

That's new, since when does islam regulate online activities? Again I think it depends on what you and the girl write. If you end up having sexy-chat with the girl, then I agree you should stop, but in most cases it is just chat. And there is nothing wrong with that, as we have been chatting here in Civfanatics with many girls. (PS: I dont do online chatting at all, except here)

Indeed, it is very possible to be nice and *not* sin at the same time. This is the methodology of the Prophet (s). In the end, I think that in the case of the meat, I would kindly say that I am not hungry or I just ate and repeatedly say I'm ok. And I would *repeatedly* reassure my friend to not feel bad. If he got angry at me that I just don't eat it, then in the end of the day, *he* is the idiot who is not tolerant. I think tolerance runs both ways: the Muslim should be tolerant when he finds out that the non-Muslim didn't prepare Halal meat, and the non-Muslim should be tolerant when the Muslim kindly explains that he can't eat it.

I once tried a biteful of ham to see what all the fuss is about, and to recognize its taste. Maybe it is my religious bias, but I did not like it at all. It tastes like rotten meat. Our religion has a good taste

Other than that, regarding the balance with hurting other's feelings, I wouldn't accept pork in any circumstance, but I don't find other non-halal meats (meat of a cow that was killed by suffocation as opposed to bleeding to death) worth making people upset (because no matter how much you try to explain, they will get upset) as I consider upsetting a person who is trying to be nice to be a bigger sin than eating improperly slaughtered beef.

Again that's just my way of trying to balance this life and next.

 

[knigh+]

Although I agree with your sentiments, I think your last statement should be revised to become more moderate.

Islam strikes a moderate view on the deference shown to scholars. On the one hand, Islam cautions against giving too much power to them, as evidenced by the following verse in the Quran, referring to those who went astray:

...

Therefore, we do in Islam give a deep respect to scholars and the learned. However, if a scholar says something that conflicts with the Quran and the Prophetic Sayings, then we are not allowed to follow him on this matter, but we should disagree in a respectful manner. Furthermore, certain matters have nothing to do with religious jurisprudence, and we should understand that clergy do not have the answer for everything. When it comes to politics, science, medicine, history, etc., then you should ask the specialist in those fields. If it's specifically about Islamic Law, then ask a religious scholar.

Yes my wording might have been harsh. I just get pissed off when some clergy somewhere interprets Quran weirdly (i.e. not in the way most people do, such as Taliban imams, or Saudi religion police, or some guy in Australia), and the rest of the world takes his interpretation as representative of my religion.

Yes of course if you can't figure out how to interpret a verse in Quran, go ask the wiser. But a muslim should try to understand by himself first, and then ask the scholar, and still take in the advise with a miniscule scepticism, as nobody is always correct. Scholar and imam aren't necessarily the same thing either. I think if certain crowds weren't following blindly what certain clergies say, the Muslim world would have been in a better shape.

 

[El_Machinae]

Quran says don't approach your wife during her periods. Does that mean you stay at 5 meter distance for 3-4 days?

Strictly, that would require a lot of coordination, so that each movement either maintained the distance from your wife, or moved you further away. "Approach" means "move closer", which can occur at any distance

Since we're discussing literalness; how goes the battle to tell people that Evolution and not Creationism is true? And, on that, how common is the belief that Muhammed's ascension actually happened and is not embellishment?

 

[GenMarshall]

There is only *one* situation in which Islam allows a man to "check out" a woman and vice/versa, and that is if he has the sincere intention of marriage. Under a certain Islamic protocol, a man is allowed to talk to a woman to see if they are compatible for marriage, so long as this and this alone is the intention. However, this "courtship" period has some severe restrictions on it, including that the two can never be in a room alone together, cannot touch each other at all (not even shake hands), and ideally they should have parental blessing. Furthermore, the "courtship" period should be as short as possible, and only long enough so that the two know that they are compatible or not. If they deem that they are compatible and are happy with each other, then they should hasten to get married and not delay in this.

It should also be noted that all of these things are only permissible because the two have a sincere intention to get to know each other to see if they are compatible in marriage. Otherwise, such inter-gender mixing is not allowed.

Dang, Islam is MORE restrictive in terms of female/male relations than the Roman Catholic Church !

 

[knigh+]

edit: keep in mind that there are two 'types' of Christianity. For the non-catholics, a priest (pastor) is a LOT less binding that a Catholic priest. In fact, like the two Islams, it's very important to realise that there ARE two.

depending on how you classify, there might be many more than two interpretations of both religions.

Again, what it the major reason why you believe Islam to be true? What would say is the greatest contributing factor to convincing you that it's 'true' when you have your doubts? Why believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired instead of merely a canny fellow? Indoctrination? Personal revelation?

Easy answer: The same reasons why Christians believe theirs.

More complex answer: Q1&2: When I read Quran, it makes a lot of sense (except very few verses) from both worldly and spiritual points of view. It has a conclusive and all-welcoming attitude. It really fits being the final edition of the Testament, as well as an errata for the previous volumes. Q3: And Quran has too much science embedded in it to be the words of a mere canny fellow. It talks about things that weren't discovered until centuries later. Q4: I wasn't in an indoctrined society, I had some friends who freely chose atheism instead. Q5: Usually people say a personal revelation to turn one deeply to religion occurs when there is a drastic event - a close call to death, loss of a loved one, etc.

A couple questions on culture: would you say that your distaste for Israel is due to being an arab or being muslim? It might be hard to dissociate the two, I imagine.

As a non-arab muslim, my distaste for Israel is not due to their or my religion, not due to how they came

I've heard a woman's testimony in court is worth 1/2 that of a man's. How do you feel about that? Does that seem fair, since it leads to cases where a woman is not believed if there are no other witnesses? Do you apply this rule in your personal life (i.e., don't believe a woman if she contradicts a man)?

That's one of the very few things I mentioned above that don't make sense to me. My best guess at it is: As God designed men and women differently, he is informing us that by design women are more spiritual and act more with their feelings, while men are more adept at worldly businesses. So in legal proceedings of worldly matters, a women may be less likely to act free of her feelings by design. But that's just my clueless guess.

As I don't understand it I don't apply it in life. (PS: I am not indoctrined by Islam, but I am indoctrined by secularism.)

As well, it's apparently a sin to look upon a woman and find her attractive? If this is true, whose fault is it if you look at a woman and find her attractive? Do you resent the women for being sexily-clad, and do you think it's appropriate to use force (i.e. the law) to force her to coverup? I would think that you can't really blame the woman (no matter her dress), since it's a choice to think inappropriate thoughts about her. It would be tough to not subconsconsiouly resent her, though.

I suppose people disagree on how much skin is deemed as provocative. But regardless, God is just, and I find it unjust to hold the woman responsible for a man's lack of willpower. All societies have their limits, in most of the developed countries people do get arrested for indecent exposure. That limit is more conservative in some muslim countries, and I don't see how that is difficult for christians to understand. But I'm just blabbering here, in Turkey girls do wear miniskirts and bikinis, so I'm not sure how others view it.

Islam is big on the battle of desire and willpower. So I disagree with restricting/blaming women so that men can avoid the most important jihad of all.

Finally, I'd imagine that western men are much more used to not acting inappropriately or lusting after western-dressed women - we're exposed to it more and thus there's less mystery. Do you think that men who're in societies where a burka is common have a much harder time controlling themselves around western-dressed women (and do you think they resent the women for being 'scantily clad', if they have trouble controlling themselves)? (Please note; I'm not assuming they can't control themselves, I'm just asking if it's harder)

Surely. If you are in Manhattan, and a woman is in a bikini, you (and everybody else) will unavoidably stare at her. If you are in a beach, you won't be examining every woman in bikini with the same attention.

Similarly if a guy has never seen breast cleavage or above-knee skirt in his life, he can not avoid being turned on by these (of course if it is too much nudity he can be disgusted by its immorality and avoid being turned on).

edit2: If something doesn't make sense in the Qu'ran, is it supposed to make more sense if you pray and mediate over the verses? Are there phrases that imply that Allah will help you interpret if you seek guidance?

Islam is a religion of mind and logic, so I would add study, contemplation and inquiry to your prayer and meditation.

 

[knigh+]

Since we're discussing literalness; how goes the battle to tell people that Evolution and not Creationism is true?

Was there such a battle in Islam? I thought it was an American thing

Islam does not have anything that openly denounces evolution, and I find creating a system in which creatures (including mankind) evolve within God almighty's capability. It isn't hard to believe the names of the first Homo Sapiens were Adam and Eve.

And, on that, how common is the belief that Muhammed's ascension actually happened and is not embellishment?

100% common. We consider anniversary of the night of Miraj (Ascension) to be holy and celebrate with extra prayer. It is not less believeable than Moses talking to God through a burning bush or Jesus will return for the apocalypse (both of which muslims also believe).

 

[Turner]

That's one of the very few things I mentioned above that don't make sense to me. My best guess at it is: As God designed men and women differently, he is informing us that by design women are more spiritual and act more with their feelings, while men are more adept at worldly businesses. So in legal proceedings of worldly matters, a women may be less likely to act free of her feelings by design. But that's just my clueless guess.

As I don't understand it I don't apply it in life. (PS: I am not indoctrined by Islam, but I am indoctrined by secularism.)

So you advocate inequality between the sexes? Does that mean that a man's vote should could for two, where as a woman's for one?

 

[Whomp]

I very much support segregation of the genders. This is an important part of our faith. We believe that the fornication-friendly environment of the West is immoral and, quite frankly, animalistic.

What I find mildly amusing is that the West has the gall to criticize Muslims on this aspect. It is one of the signs of the End of Times that there will come a time that people will show off about bad things and criticize good things.

Having said that, I do not agree with the model of Saudi Arabia, and I believe it is important to keep things equal between men and women. After all, the Prophet (s) said: "The best of you are those who are the best to their women." Indeed, as a Muslim I believe in a strict code of chivalry which revolves around protecting, helping, respecting, and even pampering women. However, I believe it is very much possible to respect women and also respect gender segregation (which I believe is integral to any chaste and honorable society).

That's one of the very few things I mentioned above that don't make sense to me. My best guess at it is: As God designed men and women differently, he is informing us that by design women are more spiritual and act more with their feelings, while men are more adept at worldly businesses. So in legal proceedings of worldly matters, a women may be less likely to act free of her feelings by design. But that's just my clueless guess.

In the west women have been empowered in the business world as well as politics. A few global examples include Wu Yi (Vice Premier in China), Gloria Arroyo (President in Phillipines), Margaret Whitman(CEO of EBay), Lalita Gupte (Joint managing Director of ICICI Bank in India), Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany), Anne Lauvergeon (Chairman Areva Group), Mary McAleese (President of Ireland), Helen Clark (Prime Minister NZ) Hillary Clinton (2008 Pres. candidate), Margaret Beckett(Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs UK), Condelezza Rice (Secretary of State), Tzipora Livni (Foreign Minister Israel) and Tarja Halonen (President of Finland) to name a few.

Since men haven't done a very good job over the last couple of millenniums when it comes to considering others feelings, empathy and compromise maybe it would be good for the west and Muslim world to let women make political decisions. Let the men attend to business matters and women take care of politics. As was said by the Prophet(s) "The best of you are those who are the best to their women."

The rest of the world seems to be empowering (best) women but it seems that Muslim women are considered possessions to be treated like fragile crystal with your comments.

Hypothetically, would it be possible to reverse the roles of men and women in power within the Muslim world? Could a Muslim man take a back seat to a Muslim woman in power for their stronger empathy, feelings and sense of compromise?

 

[knigh+]

So you advocate inequality between the sexes? Does that mean that a man's vote should could for two, where as a woman's for one?

Actually my personal opinion is that women is superior to men, but that is another discussion (male feminist ). I don't advocate inequality at all, with my own logic I see no substantial reason for the two genders to be legally inequal. Besides, I am a strong advocate of secularism. But that doesn't prevent me from trying to understand my religion.

I was merely trying to come up with a reason for a small verse of illogicality in what is otherwise a very sensible and realistic holy book. I am thinking "Why might God have said that?" aloud here.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay, that seems to imply a certain interpretation of the Qur'an, and now I am curious . . .

Would you say that a) the Qur'an is 100% divine, so anything that doesn't make sense must be interpreted in a form that does, or in other words that God may have said one thing but that we view it as another? or that b) there is a human influence in the Qur'an to a greater or lesser degree.

Because there is a wide degree of views of the Bible - some say it is 100% literal, others that there is some of a), others some of b), others that it ius all b), etc., and I was wondering how much range there is in viewing the Qur'an.

 

[parsaman58]

Just a little something to add to all this discussion…

Re: Israel
I don’t care who came first, The Arabs, the Jews, the Chicken or the egg, etc. Israel is there, and there are people living on that land. You may go back and say the “Jews” took the land by trickery, and/or force, and therefore it’s an illegal state, so they should give it back. Fine! But they are not gonna do that, so you better get used it. Put away the dream of re-taking Al-Quds, and the land which you think belong to the rightful owners, i.e. the Arabs. Instead of Fighting, maybe there needs to be a more friendly dialogue.

Re: Islam, and Islamic Law
As I see it you are a fundamentalist. You may think that that is a good thing, but I don’t. The laws, the “fundamental” laws, were written 1400+ years ago. They might have made sense relative to time and place, but we don’t live in 7th century Arabia Felix, so there may need to be a bit of adjustment there. Things like whipping, gender-separation, condemnation of certain groups (you know, like those disease spreading FAGs), beating up women, or taking 4 wives because you want to be merciful… there may need to be a bit of revision/reform there.
Oh, btw, I would really hate to live in a society where the sharia laws are THE LAWS of the LAND. How oppressive! I don’t wish it upon anyone, because I know first hand how horrible it really is.

Final Thought:

Relax. You won’t find communion with God through a microscopic study of a religious Book. If God is the creator of All, then he is a not so F******* strict. Again you may think he is, but something tells this humble soul that God actually feels sorry for us all for being so incredibly uptight. And, Dude, Bro, if you really wish to be a doctor, you really need to change your perspective on things.

P.S. before you get ahead of yourself, I let you know that I am born / raised Shi’a Muslim, Gay, and happy that I am not living under an “Islamist” rule.
Vassalam, nameh tamam !

 

[Masquerouge]

I know it's hard to keep track of all the questions that are fired in this thread, so I hope you will allow me to ask mine again:
I'd like to know what Saudi Arabia is doing to help Palestine: money, support, things like that.

Thanks

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Peace be unto you, Brother Knight. May Allah bless you.

I could argue that since you had clothes on you did not physically touch each other, so you are ok

It is said that People of the Book used to play games with Allah's Laws like that, and they were condemned in the Quran for that. For example, some of the women used to shave their heads and then wear wigs, in an attempt to flout Allah's law about covering hair. There is no room to play games with God.

4- Besides, when Quran talks about "touching women" it seems more like it is talking in sexual context, you can't take everything literally. Quran says don't approach your wife during her periods. Does that mean you stay at 5 meter distance for 3-4 days? Of course not, it is talking about sex. "Touching women" is the same (In Quran, Mary says "no man touched me" and she is obviously says it in sexual context).

Well, that's just my interpretation of things, you have a different opinion, and I respect it.

The Prophet (s) used to take the Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) of men at his hand. They would physically hold his hand and pledge their loyalty to him. However, he (s) took the pledge of loyalty from women *without* touching them.

It is narrated in the authentic Hadith (Prophetic Sayings) by the Prophet's wife, Bibi Aisha (ra), that: “So whoever of the believing women agreed to these conditions, the Messenger of Allah would say to her: ‘I have accepted your bay’ah by words.’ By Allah, his hand never touched the hand of any woman when accepting their bay’ah; he accepted their bay’ah by saying ‘I have accepted your bay’ah on this basis.’” (narrated in Sahih Bukhari)

In no uncertain terms, the Prophet (s) said: “It would be better for one of you to have himself stabbed on the head with an iron needle than to touch a woman that is illegal for him.” (narrated by Al-Tabari and Al-Baihaqi)

Elaborating on the prohibition of shaking hands with the opposite gender, the Prophet (s) said: "If one of you were to be struck in the head with an iron needle, it would be better for him than if he were to touch a woman he is not allowed to." (Narrated al-Tabaraani).

1- I think that kind of things depends on the societal rules in which you grew. If your society regards a simple hug or handshake to have sexual implications, then eventually you will have the same opinion. If you grew up in a different society, you wouldn't reflexively think sinful thoughts when a girl hugs you. But even then you might feel stuff with some girls, which shall be avoided.

It has nothing to do with the society. I grew up in the West my entire life. We cannot allow our faith to be dictated by society. The same society finds fornication to be acceptable; should we allow that now as well? "We hear and we obey."

2- My mom hugs me, my sister hugs me,

They are considered Mehrem to you, and therefore you may touch them so long as there is no fear of Fitnah (evil temptation).

and if some girl with whom I have no attraction hugs me I don't mind.

It doesn't matter if you have attraction or not.

And if any lady holds out her hand to shake, I see no reason to leave it hanging in the air, as I don't see a handshake to have any other implication.

The only exception to the rule is old women, past child-bearing age. The First Caliph (ra) narrated that he used to shake hands with old women. This dispensation has also been granted due to this verse in the Quran:

“As for women past child bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their outer-garment (i.e. cloak) in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” (Quran, An-Nur: 60)

--------

More to come, Allah Willing.