Ask a Muslim

[Nick Garai]

Post deleted. Accidental double post.

 

[ironduck]

I am not defending an oppressor. I am aware of dictatorships in the Middle Eastern Regions of the world and in Theocractic Governments the rights of women are non-existent. Those kinds of reports of women being exectued are regretfully true and reported regularly in the media. I don't doubt that these are true.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you're defending anyone, I was referring to Salah-Al-Din's diatribe of how much greatness the Taleban did for the women of Afghanistan.

The horse was only asleep

 

[knigh+]

I did run into an interesting argument trying to find these scientific explanations on my own; if a deity wanted us to know about these things, wouldn't it have made sense to spell out in clear and exact language how to avoid bacterial infections? That would have made a tremendous difference in the following 1300 years.

But then it wouldn't be a challenge for the humans would it?

Life is a big exam, in the end we'll be placed according to how we did. As God is the exam supervisor, it wouldn't be logical for Him to come and help us, would it? But it is an open book exam, and He is also the author of the textbooks, so He somewhat helps.

 

[knigh+]

Here is a question from me for when Salah-Al-Din returns (as I am about to leave).

Since God has no gender (in Islam), shouldn't the English translations refer to Him as "It"?

 

[ironduck]

But then it wouldn't be a challenge for the humans would it?

Life is a big exam, in the end we'll be placed according to how we did. As God is the exam supervisor, it wouldn't be logical for Him to come and help us, would it? But it is an open book exam, and He is also the author of the textbooks, so He somewhat helps.

I'm a little confused.. does he help or not? I can understand the argument that the deity does not help, as well as the one where the deity helps. You are saying that he helps, and then doesn't? It makes sense to you to hint at science that only makes sense after we have discovered it (at best)?

To me it seems like other famous 'prophesies' - they tend only to make sense after the fact, and then only in a rather abstract sense.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm a little confused.. does he help or not? I can understand the argument that the deity does not help, as well as the one where the deity helps. You are saying that he helps, and then doesn't? It makes sense to you to hint at science that only makes sense after we have discovered it (at best)?

To me it seems like other famous 'prophesies' - they tend only to make sense after the fact, and then only in a rather abstract sense.

God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. Yes one of the cop outs that religions fosters, something that hasn't made me consider being agnostic any less of a viable option. Even the prophecies in the bible are self fullfilling, a prophet will come, and he will... you say that and someone does their darnest to fulfil it? And let's face it in history eventually any prophecy that's vague is going to be fulfilled? Better to have said nothing, and saw the result as totally spontaneous. Speaking of spontaneous did anyone predict Mohammed? Well kind of they predicted the Arabs would have a land unto themselves and they would prosper in the bible, and that God had seen them as deserving of prosperity, but the Jews were his chosen people. It kinda is self fullfilling, but it could also just be random? Who really knows, right man in the right place at the right time?

 

[Nick Garai]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you're defending anyone, I was referring to Salah-Al-Din's diatribe of how much greatness the Taleban did for the women of Afghanistan.

The horse was only asleep

N/P

No personal offense taken. Just didn'tknow who you were referring to (Joy of the forums eh! LOL)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Even the prophecies in the bible are self fullfilling, a prophet will come, and he will... you say that and someone does their darnest to fulfil it? And let's face it in history eventually any prophecy that's vague is going to be fulfilled? Better to have said nothing, and saw the result as totally spontaneous.

To me that merely demonstrates how ineffective prophecies of the future are for fostering faith, but not as to how accurate they may be.

 

[Nick Garai]

But then it wouldn't be a challenge for the humans would it?

Life is a big exam, in the end we'll be placed according to how we did. As God is the exam supervisor, it wouldn't be logical for Him to come and help us, would it? But it is an open book exam, and He is also the author of the textbooks, so He somewhat helps.

Knigh+ I've been having a friendly PM conversation with you and I want to quote the response I gave to this same analogy you are stating (Your PM's with me are still going to remain private)

If a teacher sees that the student(s) have failed and the students are his best class, the honor class then yes they are probably not going to get to go to the playground that is all bright, safe, has protective plastic covers on, lots of slides, etc... but they might get the playground that is all wood, with some pieces of metal that aren't rounded nicely and all those slivers.

But then the teacher would want to know why they failed. It is logical that a teacher wants to see the students pass. Maybe the teacher would come down to the level of a student and see what the problem is. I think it isn't logical but compassionate for the teacher to help.

If someone has the choice of believing in a God who is logical or compassionate which would someone choose? A God who uses cold logic or a God who chose to demonstrate compassion by becoming a student and see what needs to be done so the class can get the grade?

JMHO

 

[knigh+]

I'm a little confused.. does he help or not? I can understand the argument that the deity does not help, as well as the one where the deity helps. You are saying that he helps, and then doesn't?

He sent prophets and books, that's all we'll get (except insubstantial help like faith, inspiration etc.)

It makes sense to you to hint at science that only makes sense after we have discovered it (at best)?

To me it seems like other famous 'prophesies' - they tend only to make sense after the fact, and then only in a rather abstract sense.

As I said at the end of the science post, I don't take them as evidences, I am just saying it makes more sense (to me) to believe in Quran's divinity, rather than believeing all that (plus some other non-scientific stuff) is coincidence. You are asking me to scientifically justify my faith, that can't be done in a convincing way. I am just saying Islam does not contradict science, or other issues of our time (abortion is allowed upto 4 months as that's when God puts the soul in, birth control is not disallowed, etc.).

 

[warpus]

Life is a big exam, in the end we'll be placed according to how we did. As God is the exam supervisor, it wouldn't be logical for Him to come and help us, would it? But it is an open book exam, and He is also the author of the textbooks, so He somewhat helps.

Why would God want to judge us like that? What is his motivation?

Why would he want to set up life, as we know it, to just be one huge test? What does this accomplish? Is he just testing if his creation (ie. people + souls) are up to par?

 

[knigh+]

Why would God want to judge us like that? What is his motivation?

Why would he want to set up life, as we know it, to just be one huge test? What does this accomplish? Is he just testing if his creation (ie. people + souls) are up to par?

No idea. That's what I think when I look at the concepts of heaven and hell. Just wait for the Apocalypse and ask Him

 

[HannibalBarka]

In the West, men and women are considered equal and identical.
In Islam, this is not the case. Men and women are considered equal but different. Each has been delegated a role, and in certain spheres men are considered superior and in others women are considered superior.
Men have been given the role of breadwinner. Women have been given the role of home-maker. Both are considered prestigious positions, despite the West's insistence on the inferiority of the latter.
In all matters related to home-making, the superiority is given to women. For example, the Islamic stance is that in cases of divorce it is actually the WOMAN who gets custody of the children.This is a strict rule in Islam, and many people might not know this, mostly due to confusion with the heretical sect of the Shia who say otherwise. Anyways, the fact is that women get custody of the children. Imagine if it had been the other way around, and men get the custody. Then, all the Islamaphobes and feminists would be crying foul.

That is not the full truth. Custody is given to the mother up to certain age, and than it goes to the father.

Anyways, another instance in which women have been given preference is in parental power. In a Prophetic Saying (Hadith), the Prophet (s) declares that a mother is equal to three times the father, meaning that the man is 1/3rd of the female in this matter. And in Islam, even grown men and women have to obey their parents. So a grown man has to obey his mother above his father.

Euuh, but since spouses are supposed to obey their husbands, kids ultimatly have to obey their father

Now, you have mentioned that a woman's testimony is worth 1/2 in court. This is only true in matters of business and financial transactions. This is because this is a field that men have been given preference as women are encouraged to be home-makers and stay inside the home instead of work outside thereby neglecting their families. It is therefore a symbolic gesture to denote that this is a field to be dominated by men. If man is 1/3rd of a woman in one matter, is it not OK that a woman is 1/2 of a man in another matter? It actually has no real relevance, and it is actually nothing to do with testimony. But rather it is simply that if you draft a financial or business deal, then you need two female witnesses as opposed to one male witness. But in cases of actual court cases, this is not the case.
In other matters, women's testimony has been ranked higher than that of a man's. For example, in court cases of sexual based offenses, a woman's testimony takes precedence over and is considered greater than that of a man's testimony. This is based on verses 24:6-9 of the Quran.
The conclusion is that the matter is actually a lot more complicated than simply saying that Islam denotes a woman as half of a man. The reality is that most of these numbers and values have no real significance other than symbolic in nature, and designed to denote which role a man or woman is to be designated as.
More to come, Allah Willing.

Islam, like other monotheistic religions and like the environment it was born in, is very patriartchal. Men are clearly considered above women. In the Cast System in India, low cats have certain "rights" that Brahmi don't have, only a fool would ay the cast system is "egalitarian". In Islam, man can marry 4 wives, women can't, men can divorce his wife more easily than a women would with her husband.
Don't misunderstand me, I think Islam was very progressive for 6th century Arabia and did give rights to woman back than. But for 21st century, not really.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Congratulations Salah-Al-Din, you walk beautifully in the footsteps of the propaganda machines of brutal dictatorships throughout the world. Weaving outrageous lies in with a few truths to make your stories seem believeable. The more outrageous the lie, the more people are likely to believe it, after all.

You make me sick.

Brother, you are using simple emotion to further an argument. It is your hope that everyone will reach a conclusion based on this, and read into the picture what you intend.

You have shown a picture of an Asian man beating women in a burqa. That is all. In fact, the West routinely recycles a handful of pictures to portray the Taliban. (And this particular picture comes from RAWA, an organization that is hated by most Afghans, for their trickery, deciet, and "unveiled" attempt at destroying Islam.)

The person in the picture is not a Taliban member. He is not wearing the uniform of the Taliban. It is simply an uneducated Afghan man beating women.

The likeness of this is if I showed a picture of an alcoholic living in a trailor park beating his wife and then showed a bunch of Afghanis that *this* is the Bush regime. Because these Afghanis probably never seen that many white people before, they would easily see all white people as the same and reach the same hasty conclusions that you reached.

In any case, I have already stated that I am *not* a 100% supporter of the Taliban. Again, they were Deobandi, whereas I am Salafi. (The two schools have major differences that they joust about.) Furthermore, the Taliban were not Pan-Islamists, which is my basic ideology. Also, I consider myself a Fundamentalist, whereas the Taliban were *not* Fundamentalist. GASP. The Taliban were actually Traditionalists, which is very different from Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists rely only on the Islamic canon alone (Quran and Prophetic Sayings) and fervently reject all else as a basis for Islamic Law. On the other hand, Traditionalists usually rely on custom, passed down religious rites, the passed down sayings of wise people, etc. So as you can see, I have *major* differences with the Taliban. *Nonetheless*, I am trying to be fair and balanced, as opposed to silly and emotional, as is the case with people and the Taliban, in which an unjustified war was waged against them, all for a pipeline.

It was pictures like this one that justified the war on Afghanistan. And yet, I can find you a picture of a white policeman beating up a black person. Does this, in your opinion, typify the American regime? I wonder why such silly logic works when it is used against Afghanis or Muslims. I suspect it revolves around white ignorance of other races; for example, calling Japanese, Vietnamese, etc as being Chinese, etc.

It is, actually, silly "arguments" like this that have made me all the more jaded. If you reflect on your silly "argument" you will see how you relied heavily on emotion, assumption, and nothing else. The person in the picture is not even wearing a Taliban uniform. For all we know, this picture could have been taken in Northern Pakistan and not even in Afghanistan at all. In Northern Pakistani villages, people get their daughters married to the Quran (even though this is considered stupid and Haram by the Islamic scholars) and they sell their daughters and other such stuff...and similar barbaric practises are in Afghanistan. These are *not* policies of Islam, nor of the respective governments...they are simply the result of poor, uneducated people who follow silly customs.

Anyways, this reminds me of how white people can't even tell the difference between a Sikh person or a Muslim person, and how the West routinely mis-uses titles. For example, the Western media calls the Taliban to be Wahhabis, even when they are not. Or even funnier is when they show pictures of Shia and say "look at what the Wahhabis are doing". LOL It is quite funny actually, since Wahhabis call Shia to be heretics and non-Muslims.

Anyways, the Taliban had an official law that their policemen could not touch women. This goes against the Islamic Law completely. In fact, even if a woman were to wear a mini-skirt, the police-men were instructed to punish her father or husband, not her directly. (This is based on Islamic Law, in which fathers and husbands are punished as Dayooth if they allow their women to go out half-naked.) It is therefore impossible that this is a Taliban member. It should be remembered that the Taliban *began* as a grass-roots movement of a few madressa students who sought to *protect* women against rape by the rivalling warlords. The Taliban (students) swept across the nation, taking away guns and dismantling the warlords, bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan after such a long time.

In fact, I could go to Afghanistan even today after the fall of the Taliban and find pictures like these, which are a result of backwards village people and nothing to do with the government or Islam.

 

[Sidhe]

Trying to argue against the bias on this forum, is like trying to lick your own elbow, it's worth a try, but seldom will you achieve the result you were hoping for.

I praise your efforts, but some people don't want to see the bigger picture, they're too comfortable with their own bias to cope with reality. And I see it from both sides, I just sensiblly don't wish to partake of the stupidity so I remain impartial on the issues, stirring myself sometimes to point out the banality of the US media generally.

Just accept the US is the great Satan and anyone who disagrees with it consistently is the axis of evil. It's more convenient that way, you don't have to think for yourselves

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

That is not the full truth. Custody is given to the mother up to certain age, and than it goes to the father.

This is not true.

It is an incorrect position that the father gets the custody at a certain age. There is Ikthilaf on the issue, but the *strongest* opinion is that the woman gets custody of the children up until a certain age, and at *that* age, the children are asked to which parent they wish to go to. This is the strongest opinion amongst the Ulema. And the position that you have stated does not exist.

Shaikh Muhammad Salih Munajjid (r) says:

"Women have more right to custody of children than men; in principle custody belongs to them, because they are more compassionate and more kind, and they know better how to raise small children, and they are more patient in dealing with the difficulties involved. The mother has more right to custody of her child, whether it is a boy or a girl, so long as she does not re-marry and so long as she meets the conditions of custody. This is according to scholarly consensus."

First, comes the Age of Custody, in which the children go to the mother. Then, comes the Age of Sponsorship, and after that the Age of Independance. The most correct opinion is that the child gets to decide which parent in the Age of Sponsorship and Age of Independance. However, I will state all of the positions, and none of them state that the father gets priority to the children.

Shaikh Munajjid continues:

"When the child reaches the age of independence, the period of custody comes to an end, and the period of kafaalah or sponsorship of the young begins, which lasts until the child reaches adolescence or in the case of a girls, starts her periods. Then the period of sponsorship ends and the child is free to make his own choices."

"Women’s rights to sponsor children. It appears from the comments of the fuqaha’ that women have the right to sponsor children in general, and that mothers and grandmothers in particular have this right. But the scholars differed as to who has more right to sponsorship if the parents are in dispute and are both qualified to sponsor the child. The Maalikis and Zaahiris think that the mother has more right to sponsorship of the child, whether it is a boy or a girl. The Hanbalis think that boys should be given a choice, but the father has more right in the case of a girl. The Hanafis think that the father has more right in the case of a boy and the mother has more right in the case of a girl. Perhaps the correct view is that the child should be given a choice if the parents are disputing and they both fulfil the conditions for sponsorship."

Euuh, but since spouses are supposed to obey their husbands, kids ultimatly have to obey their father

Who have to obey their mothers.

Islam is a system that works by creating inter-dependancy amongst family members.

Furthermore, in terms of respect, the mother always gets three times the respect of a father.

Islam, like other monotheistic religions and like the environment it was born in, is very patriartchal. Men are clearly considered above women. In the Cast System in India, low cats have certain "rights" that Brahmi don't have, only a fool would ay the cast system is "egalitarian". In Islam, man can marry 4 wives, women can't, men can divorce his wife more easily than a women would with her husband.
Don't misunderstand me, I think Islam was very progressive for 6th century Arabia and did give rights to woman back than. But for 21st century, not really.

I do not agree that men are considered above women, since Allah says in the Quran that they are both spiritually equal, and that they are differentiated only based on their deeds. However, I will agree with you that Islam is "patriarchal" if I understand the word correctly. Allah says in the Quran that "men are the protectors and maintainers of women", and man has been placed in a position of leadership and he is the head of the household. So yes, in this respect, Islam could be patriarchal. But I do not find that to be wrong. I find it to be the only thing that works and I believe it promotes good family values, as opposed to the corrupt moral decline and the break-up of the family unit as we see in the West. To the Muslims, the Western model promotes broken families, nothing else. On the other hand, it is a good idea to respect each other's right to differ. Take care, sister.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Why would God want to judge us like that? What is his motivation?

Why would he want to set up life, as we know it, to just be one huge test? What does this accomplish? Is he just testing if his creation (ie. people + souls) are up to par?

To strengthen us.

And yes, He is testing us to see who is worthy of Paradise and who is worthy of Hell.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Here is a question from me for when Salah-Al-Din returns (as I am about to leave).

I'm about to leave the forum too, most likely. Just taking up way too much of my time.

Since God has no gender (in Islam), shouldn't the English translations refer to Him as "It"?

The term "it" was considered offensive. Another note is that oftentimes the "royal We" is used when Allah refers to Himself, but this should not be confused: this refers to one entity only. The "We" is used as a sign of respect.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Knigh+ I've been having a friendly PM conversation with you and I want to quote the response I gave to this same analogy you are stating (Your PM's with me are still going to remain private)

If a teacher sees that the student(s) have failed and the students are his best class, the honor class then yes they are probably not going to get to go to the playground that is all bright, safe, has protective plastic covers on, lots of slides, etc... but they might get the playground that is all wood, with some pieces of metal that aren't rounded nicely and all those slivers.

But then the teacher would want to know why they failed. It is logical that a teacher wants to see the students pass. Maybe the teacher would come down to the level of a student and see what the problem is. I think it isn't logical but compassionate for the teacher to help.

If someone has the choice of believing in a God who is logical or compassionate which would someone choose? A God who uses cold logic or a God who chose to demonstrate compassion by becoming a student and see what needs to be done so the class can get the grade?

JMHO

You are asking us to jump to the conclusion that the only way a teacher can be compassionate is if he pretends to be a student and comes down to the level of a student. This is not the case. And in fact, I've never heard of a teacher pretending to be a student.

Likewise, there is no way for the Creator to pretend to be the Creation. There is no way God can be man. This is as nonsensical as a teacher pretending to be a student and playing in the swing set.

You have attempted to portray that Christianity has a Merciful God and Islam does not. In fact, Islam stresses that Allah is Most Merciful. It is a tenet of Islam that God's Mercy far outsurpasses His Wrath. Allah says: "My Mercy overpowers My Anger." (Sahih Bukhari)

In fact, it is said that Allah's Mercy has 100 parts to it, and only 1 part has been given in this world and that one part is responsible for a mother loving her child, for a person forgiving another person, for the love we show each other, etc. But Allah has 99 more parts of Mercy and this will be bestowed upon us after we die.

The Prophet (s) said: "Allah divided Mercy into one-hundred parts and He kept its ninety-nine parts with Him and sent down its one part on the earth, and because of that, its one single part, His creations are Merciful to each other, so that even the mare lifts up its hoofs away from its baby animal, lest it should trample on it." (Sahih Bukhari)

And, the Prophet (s) said: "Allah created one hundred parts of mercy and He distributed one amongst His creation and kept this one hundred excepting one with Himself for the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih Muslim)

And there are many more Prophetic Sayings like this.

In fact, Allah's Mercy is so important that there are 112 verses in the Quran which call Allah the "Most Merciful."

The idea that Islam has a wrathful God and the Christians have a Merciful God is trying to tap into peoples' inherent racism where the view Muslims as terrorists, barbarians, and warlike.

Going back to your analogy, the way a teacher is Merciful to his students is not by pretending to be a student. This would only confuse the students and in fact look quite silly. Instead, the teacher shows mercy by overlooking the faults of a student, giving them many warnings when they mess up, and giving them good grades even when they don't deserve that. In the end, however, a teacher has to be strict enough that the student learns and strengthens himself. If the teacher is too lax, then the student doesn't care any more and knows he can get away with doing nothing, and he harms HIMSELF. So the teacher showing some level of strictness is for the love and benefit of the student himself. This was the view of Islam in regards to Christianity: that the lack of strictness led people astray and harmed themselves. This, to the Muslims, is not a sign of love, to let people go astray.

Furthermore, God cannot be a human being, and we believe this is a blasphemy to say this. God by definition cannot be born nor can he be killed. Anything that can be killed cannot be God. God cannot be a human being, because human beings urinate, defecate, rely on sustenance (and are thus dependant), can be hurt by others, etc. He cannot be born (i.e. begotten) nor does he give birth (beget). Allah says in the Quran:

"He is God, the One. God, The Self-Sufficient. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none equal or comparable to Him." (Quran, Chapter 112)

Take care, brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hi, brother Nick. May this reach you in peace. Here are some verses of the Quran on the Trinity, or the idea that Jesus (as) is the Son of God. Thought you might find it interesting, even if you disagree with them.

Allah says:

"And they (the Christians) say: 'Allah has begotten a son.' Glorified be He (above that)! Nay, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him, The Originator of the heavens and the earth; and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is." (Quran, 2:116-117)

"And say not, 'Three'. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only ONE God; far be it from His glory that He should have a son; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; and Allah is sufficient for a Protector." (Quran, 4:171)

Allah uses as proof that Jesus (as) used to eat food and was dependant on sustenance. On the other hand, God is Self-Sustenant and Self-Sufficient, and dependant on nobody or nothing. Allah says:

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: 'Surely Allah is the third of the three'; and there is no god but One God,…. The Messiah, son of Mary, is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman, they both used to eat food. See how We make the signs clear to them, then behold how they are turned away." (Quran, 5:73 – 75)

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say (to them): 'Who then has the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and everyone that is on the earth? For to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He creates what He pleases. For Allah has power over all things." (Quran, 5:17)

Allah says in the Quran that Prophet Jesus (as) could not even help himself from being put to the cross by the disbelievers, so how could he (as) help anyone else as a God? Allah says:

"Say (to the Christians): 'Do you worship besides Allah that which cannot harm or benefit you?' But Allah, He it is that hears and knows all things." (Quran, 5:76)

The Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus (as) never preached his divinity but rather that he himself preached to worship God alone and that he himself was a servant of Allah. Allah says:

"The Messiah by no means disdains that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His worship and is proud, He (Allah) will gather them all together to Himself [on the Day of Judgment]." (Quran, 4:172)

"And they say: 'The Beneficent God has begotten Himself a son.' Glorified be He (above that). Nay! They are (but) honored servants; they do not precede Him in speech and only according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and for fear of Him they tremble." (Quran, 21:26 – 28)

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: 'Surely God is the Messiah, son of Mary'. But the Messiah himself said: 'O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, surely whoever associates others with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust." (Quran, 5:72)

And Allah says in the Quran that there is no way that Prophet Jesus (as) taught anything else other than pure and absolute monotheism. Allah also says that the true Scriptures and Books of Allah taught nothing other than pure and absolute monotheism. Allah says:

"It is not possible that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: 'Be my servants rather than God's.' On the contrary, He would say: 'Be worshippers of the Lord Who is truly the Cherisher of all, for you have taught the Book and you have studied it earnestly. Or (it is also not possible) that he should enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! Would he enjoin you with disbelief after you are submittors (to Allah)?" (Quran, 3:79-80)