Ask a Muslim

[Bill3000]

Another question to Salah - is the study of philosophy forbidden? Is it forbidden if it leads you into territory which contradicts the Islamic canon? Is it forbidden in its entirety if it happens that philosophy, by it's very nature, is proved to contradict the Islamic canon?

Dude. Just look on Wikipedia instead of baiting him. There's an entire article on Islamic philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

 

[aneeshm]

Dude. Just look on Wikipedia instead of baiting him. There's an entire article on Islamic philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

Indian clerics declare it to be forbidden, so I asked him. Also, I have some questions which the Wiki article cannot answer, such as the latter ones.

 

[knigh+]

Indian clerics declare it to be forbidden, so I asked him. Also, I have some questions which the Wiki article cannot answer, such as the latter ones.

I don't see how can one forbid thinking

 

[El_Machinae]

would you like to share some examples or discredit a bunch of my quotations above? Keeping in mind my highlighted comment above.

Knigh+: Sorry, I was away, and this thread exploded. Did people touch on these comments of yours? (in other words, are there posts in the thread I should read before replying?).

A simple 'ten char' yes/no will save me a bunch of time if I don't need to read through the whole thing. I'll happily stroll through the thread to catch up, if I have to.

edit: click the arrow in your quoted name, to go straight to the post I'm quoting.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, everybody.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was busy studying for an Anesthesia exam. Therefore, I had to distance myself from the internet and Civilization. But Al-Hamdulilah (All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds), I did well on the exam, if any of you care to know.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I've been busy. And I'll probably be gone for the next 3-4 days, so no hurry in getting a response to this.

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

May this reach you in peace.

Sorry, I missed that. So, you don't accept Ibn Ishaq's "Sirah Rasul Allah" as part of the "Islamic canon"? I was under the impression that it was considered a very important piece of the Islamic canon, and that it recorded this incident. Am I wrong about either one of these two beliefs?

Ibn Ishaq was an early historian. His book, "Sirah Rasul Allah", is not religious canon, but rather it is a history book.

The primary source of Asma bint Marwan's murder is located in a forged and fabricated Hadith narrated by Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi, a known fabricator and liar against the Prophet (s).

Ibn Ishaq's book is not the primary source but rather the primary source is Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi. Ibn Ishaq simply copied and pasted the report from Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi and included that forged report in his book.

In the introduction to Ibn Ishaq's book, he explicitly says that he simply compiled all the reports about Prophet Muhammad (s) and he did not have time to check the authenticity of all the reports. His job was simply to compile all the reports, and let the scholars of Hadith to judge which of the reports contained in that book are authentic and which are weak or forged.

Hafiz Zain-ud-Din, says about the biographies including Ibn Ishaq's: "The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false."

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

Primary Sources --> Compilations of Primary Sources --> Authentification of Reports in those compilations

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

Take care, Brother.

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

More to come, Allah Willing.

 

[aneeshm]

Another one:

Is/Are the Hadith of Muslim a reliable primary source?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

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

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

What do you mean they didn't get the chance? If there was time for the declaration to be made, then presumably they could have attacked in that same amount of time, right?

The plan was to attack the Muslims when the Confederates had penetrated the front lines.

It seems to me that the Banu Qurayza more stood by and did nothing than actually fought against Mohammad, at least until he assaulted their section of Medina.

Once again, your continual back-and-forth. I have already stated that Banu Qurayza made a public declaration siding with the Confederates. Wether or not they got the chance to make good on that vow is irrelevant. In Civ, as soon as you say to another leader "Your head would look good on a pole (declare war)", then your two peoples are locked into war after that, no matter if you have yet attacked his troops or cities. If another civ had a mutual protection pact with yourself, and then that civ repudiated that mutual protection pact and instead allied himself with your current enemy, would this not be treachoury?

No, no ill feelings. Just more curiosity.

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

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

More to come, Allah Willing.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Another one:

Is/Are the Hadith of Muslim a reliable primary source?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

I will be replying to earlier posts made be you and others shortly, but since this was a quick and easy question, I'll answer it first.

The Hadith have been graded based upon their authenticity or lack thereof. So some have been rated as "Sahih" and "Hasan" (authentic and good), whereas others have been rated as "Daeef" and "Mawdoo" (weak and fabricated/forged). A Hadith can also be graded as overall Sahih but it can contain Shadh (anomalies); in other words, most of it is accepted, except a portion of it which is discarded.

Therefore, any Hadith which is Sahih and does not contain Shadh is considered a very reliable primary source, and it is a part of our religious canon.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

How do you view muslims who converted from islam?

I know that is a crime in some middle eastern countries with theocracies.

Hello, Brother.

I have already responded to this question earlier. Please scroll up for that. I know it's a big thread.

Take Care.

 

[aneeshm]

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

I will be replying to earlier posts made be you and others shortly, but since this was a quick and easy question, I'll answer it first.

The Hadith have been graded based upon their authenticity or lack thereof. So some have been rated as "Sahih" and "Hasan" (authentic and good), whereas others have been rated as "Daeef" and "Mawdoo" (weak and fabricated/forged). A Hadith can also be graded as overall Sahih but it can contain Shadh (anomalies); in other words, most of it is accepted, except a portion of it which is discarded.

Therefore, any Hadith which is Sahih and does not contain Shadh is considered a very reliable primary source, and it is a part of our religious canon.

Take care, Brother.

So if someone used some material from a book called Sahih Muslim, would it be reliable?

And yes, could you please answer my question about the status of philosophy?


I have an add-on question to that: Are Muslims allowed to indulge in speculation which has as its premises the denial of some aspect of the nature of the Muslim god?

 

[aneeshm]

Another question, but this requires some background.

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

He made a speech recently, in which he said:

Kalam on why Sanskrit is important

February 01, 2007 17:14 IST

President A P J Abdul Kalam on Thursday termed Guru
Raghavendraswamy of Mantralayam as a 'divine soul' and
recalled the rich cultural heritage of Sanskrit in
Indian history.

Dr Kalam interacted with the students of Sree Guru
Sarvabhouma Sanskrit Vidyapeetam at Mantralayam in
Kurnool district. Reciting the Moola Mantram of
Raghavendraswamigal, he said "We worship Guru
Raghavendraswamy, the divine soul who practiced and
taught truth and dharma (the right conduct). We chant
his name as Kalpavrisha (the giver of limitless
material wealth) and bow before him as Kamadenu (the
giver of spiritual knowledge)."

"Though I am not an expert in Sanskrit, I have many
friends who are proficient in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a
beautiful language. It has enriched our society from
time immemorial. Today many nations are trying to
research Sanskrit writings which are there in our
ancient scriptures. I understand that there is a
wealth of knowledge available in Sanskrit which
scientists and technologists are finding today," he
said.

"There is a need to carry out research on our Vedas,
particularly Atharvana Veda, for eliciting valuable
information in science and technology relating to
medicine, flight sciences, material sciences and many
other related fields. Cryptology is another area where
Sanskrit language is liberally used," he added.

He suggested that the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam, apart from
their academic activity, should take up the task of
locating missing literature in Sanskrit available on
palm leaves spread in different parts of the country
so that these could be documented and preserved. He
suggested that they should avail the help of digital
technology for documenting those scriptures both in
audio and video form which can be preserved as long
term wealth for use by many generations.

He asked the Sanskrit Vidyapeetam to go into details
of lives of great scholars, poets, epic creators like
Valmiki, Veda Vyasa, Kalidasa and Panini. He wanted
the Vidyapeetam to invite well-known Sanskrit scholars
so that they can stay and interact with the students
for a certain period. "This will provide an
opportunity for students to interact and get enriched
in Sanskrit and Vedas," he noted.

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

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

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

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

 

[aneeshm]

A (PDF) link to the full speech (note that he sincerely recites a Hindu prayer in that speech).

 

[aneeshm]

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

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

But from what I've read, Mohammad basically started the war by raiding Meccan caravans. The easiest to get at is Wikipedia, so I'll quote that even though I know you don't particularly like it.

This is about the Battle of Badr, which I believe was one of the earliest battles in the Muslim/Quraish war.

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

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

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

I was asking you - is there evidence that the raids were attempting to retake their own property?

...And do you have evidence that is the case? It is an easy claim to make, but harder to verify.

Hello, Brother Eran.

You ask for proof, and by this, I assume you mean secular historical sources. However, it should be noted that *all* history about Prophet Muhammad (s) and early Islam is taken from Muslim historians themselves. ALL of the primary sources are Muslim historians. Therefore, if you argue that I can't find proof from any Non-Muslim source, then this is folly, since quite simply, that entire period is documented ONLY through Muslims. The entire Arabia turned Muslim and therefore the ONLY primary sources that are available are Muslim. Any secular historian today would simply be relying on the reports of the Muslims in order to recreate what happened or did not happen.

Therefore, to answer your question, the Arab historians clearly documented that the Muslims sought to reclaim their lost property as they had been run out of their homes in Mecca. There are no Non-Muslim accounts I can refer you to, since ALL primary sources about the incident are documented by Muslim Arabs only.

And irrelevant, unless you want me to dredge up all the Christian history? cmon man ask about faith not what was faith in 667 AD. This is not what there faith is now any more than it is what your faith is now, I can bring the Catholics down into a myre of corruption and contraversy, with little effort? But does this reflect Catholics now?

What annoys me is the fact that these people are insisting that the raids on the caravans took place but that the persecution of the Muslims before that did not take place, when BOTH INCIDENTS ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE: namely Arab Muslim historians. The historical recording of the caravan raids comes from the SAME Arab Muslim historians. If you reject the persecution of the early Muslims at the hands of the Meccan pagans, then reject the idea that the Muslims raided the caravans...since it was the same source that reported these incidents.

It seems to me that the Meccans had cause to attack Medina,

Of course you do, sir. Your position is clear on the matter: You accept all those parts of history that make the Muslims look bad, and reject those parts that explain those same actions. You cite as evidence against Prophet Muhammad (s) that he ordered the raid of caravans, but you neglect to mention that the very sources that you cite as evidence are the same sources that record in detail the long history of persecution of the early Muslims at the hands of the Meccan pagans.

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

In fact, the conflict started as soon as Prophet Muhammad (s) declared himself a Prophet and called the people to Islam. The Prophet (s) preached monotheism and called to reject all the pagan idols. He (s) called for a radical re-distribution of wealth and status, appealing to all the weak, needy, and poor. He (s) criticized the Quraish leaders, because they exploited religion for money (housing 'gods' in the Ka'abah for money, the main source of money for Mecca), and he criticized them for their hoarding of wealth from the poor. Therefore, the poor and weak were the first to convert to Islam.

This greatly upset the Quraish leaders, because they feared a massive revolution of society as they knew it. They did not want the weak and the poor to demand their rights, and they certainly didn't approve of some new religion agitating them such. Furthermore, they feared monotheism because polytheism was the very source of Mecca's wealth and prestige in the Arabian peninsula. Arabs from all over came to visit the Ka'abah (the House of God) in order to worship their idols, and the Quraish took a tax on this; their entire city's economy flourished from the pilgramages made by the pagans.

And so, the Quraish leaders persecuted the early Muslims, attempting to squash the Prophet's Call to Islam. At first, they only verbally abused the Muslims, but quite quickly they began physically hurting the Muslims, especially the weaker ones amongst them.

We read in Ar-Raheequl Makhtum that "if the new convert was socially weak, he [the Quraish leader] would beat him mercilessly and put him through unspeakable tortures." (Ibn Hisham, 1/320) For example, we read in Rahmatul lil Alamin that Muslims were even lynched by mobs led by the Quraish leaders. Ar-Raheequl Makhtum says: "The [pagan] uncle of Uthman bin Affan used to wrap Uthman in a mat of palm leaves and set fire under him." In Al-Isabah, we read how another Muslim had marks on his skin from the abuse.

Bilal (ra) was a slave who converted to Islam. When his master (one of the leaders of the Quraish) found out, Bilal (ra) was beaten mercilessly and repeatedly, and told that the beating would not stop until he renounced Islam. But Bilal (ra) kept saying "One...One God", and so the beatings continued. We read:

"[Bilal] was severely beaten by his master when the latter came to know of his conversion to Islam. Sometimes a rope was put around his neck and street boys were made to drag him through the streets and even across the hillocks of Makkah. At times he was subjected to prolonged deprivation of food and drink. Once he was bound during the hottest part of the day and placed in the valley in Makkah...[his master] had a giant stone brought and placed it upon his chest. He [the master] said: '..I will not stop until you are dead or until you reject Muhammad and worship Lat and Uzza (the pagan gods).' Yet while Bilal (ra) was suffering, he said only, 'One, One.'"

"Another victim of the cruelty Quraish was 'Ammar bin Yasir (ra), a freed slave of Bani Makhzum. He, along with his mother and father, embraced Islam in its early phase. They were repeatedly made to lie on the burning sand and were beaten severely. Ammar (ra) was at times thrown on embers...Yassir (ra), the father, died because of repeated tortures. Sumaiyah (ra), Ammar's mother was bayoneted to death by Abu Jahl [Quraish leader] himself, and (thus) she merited the title of the first woman martyr in Islam.

"...Abu Fakih (ra)--a freed slave of Bani Abdud Dar, was another of those helpless victims. The Makkan polytheists used to lay him down on scolding sand placing a stone on his back so that he could not move, leaving him like that until he would lose his sense of reason. They also used to tie his legs with rope and drag him around a lintel until they thought he was dead...the oppressors used to fasten his feet with a rope and drag him in the streets of Makkah.

"...He (Khabbab--another early convert) experienced extreme torture and maltreatment. He would be taken by his hair and dragged, twisted by his neck and thrown into fire. Then they would drag him through the fire and not stop until his back would be burnt.

"Even the women converts were not spared, and the list is too long to include all of them. Zanirah (ra), An-Nahdiyah (ra), and her daughter, Umm Ubais (ra), and many others had their full share of persecution at the hand of the oppressors...

"The pagans would also throw some of the (Prophet's) Companions into the animal enclosures and then drag them into the hot sun. They would put iron armor on some of them and throw them upon boulders to fry in the sun. No one would let his conversion to Islam be known about, except that he would have to undergo severe torture and suffering for the sake of Allah."

(source: Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p.107-109)

My God, I can't believe you made me write all that. And the list is soooo long that I can't possibly type it all out. They were not only tortured but their property was confiscated and stolen. All of the Muslims were boycotted, and their stores were vandalized. The Quraish pagans were just like the Nazis when the latter persecuted the Jews.

The Meccan Muslims were persecuted so much that the future of Islam was bleak...until the leaders of Medinah converted to Islam. The Meccan Muslims were tortured so bad that they fled Mecca, including the Prophet (s) who BARELY escaped with his life. The Quraish pagans learned of Prophet Muhammad's intended escape and they put a bounty on his head. And there were many failed assassination attempts on the Prophet's life.

Some of the Muslims were too weak to migrate, and were thus left to be tortured in Mecca. When the Quraish pagans found out that the Prophet (s) had successfully fled to Medinah and that the entire state of Medinah had become Muslim, they were stunned. The Quraish pagans rekindled their persecution of the remaining Meccan Muslims. We read in Ar-Raheequl Makhtum:

"They (Quraish leaders) sent him (Medinite leader) a strongly worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet (s) [and his followers], otherwise they (the Quraish) would launch a widespread military campaign that would kill his people and arrest his women." (Ar-Raheequl Makhtum, p. 239)

It should be noted that Mecca was the strongest city-state in all of Arabia, and Medinah was nowhere near Mecca in power and prestige. Mecca, because it "housed the gods", was considered the leading city-state of Arabia, and in fact, Mecca had made alliances with other city-states against the Prophet (s).

And the Quraish not only increased their persecution of the Muslims, but they again threatened to assassinate the Prophet (s). So much so that the early Muslims had to put a guard outside the house of the Prophet (s).

In Ar-Raheequl Makthum, we read:

"The Prophet's life was not the only target of (the Quraish) schemes, but rather the lives and the whole entity of the Muslims. When the Madinese provided the Prophet (s) and his Companions with safe refuge, the desert bedouins began to look at them all in the same perspective, and outlawed all the Muslims (from their lands)." (p. 241)

The humiliation of the Muslims and the pogroms against them made many Muslims beg the Prophet (s) to defend the Muslims and declare war on the Meccans. But the Prophet (s) refused to do so, because Allah had not given permission yet to fight, and so the Prophet (s) advised patience. But finally, premission to fight was given, and Allah revealed the verse in the Quran:

"Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they have been wronged and are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid, those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said 'Our Lord is Allah.'" (Quran, 22:39-40)

And this was the declaration of war against the Meccans. Notice that this verse, which is the one that gave permission to finally fight, explicitly says that the reason the war was declared was because the Muslims had been wronged and DRIVEN OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

The Quraish pagans had seized all the property of the Muslims in Mecca who had fled to Medinah, and they were selling all the loot to Syria. Prophet Muhammad (s) therefore attacked this caravan which was led by the Quraish leaders and their soldiers.

It should be noted that the Meccans had already made clear--before these raids--that they planned on attacking Medinah directly. They had clearly communicated this to the leader of Medinah himself. However, the Muslims raiding their caravan simply forced the Meccans to move up their time table and march out against Medinah immediately, before they could organize a coalition, which they would only do after their defeat.

then - if Mohammad was effectively the leader of Medina, and Medina was pillaging their caravans, that is an act of war.

No duh. Prophet Muhammad (s) did in fact declare war when he attacked the caravan. For the longest time, the Muslims had been persecuted by the Quraish pagans, and the early Muslims endured this for a very long time. It was to the point of utter humiliation, and the early Muslims begged the Prophet (s) to defend the Muslims with the sword. But the Prophet (s) continually rejected such calls to war, because permission had not been given to him by Allah. Then, finally, after many insults and injuries, Allah revealed the above verse and the Muslims declared war on Mecca, and attacked the caravan.

And they took only their property, and never stole anything else from the Meccans, either in that raid or in any other?

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

I also strongly advise you to watch the movie "The Message" in which Anthony Quinn stars in. Excellent movie and very informative for a Non-Muslim.

Take care, brother.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hello, Brother Eran.

You ask for proof, and by this, I assume you mean secular historical sources. However, it should be noted that *all* history about Prophet Muhammad (s) and early Islam is taken from Muslim historians themselves. ALL of the primary sources are Muslim historians. Therefore, if you argue that I can't find proof from any Non-Muslim source, then this is folly, since quite simply, that entire period is documented ONLY through Muslims. The entire Arabia turned Muslim and therefore the ONLY primary sources that are available are Muslim. Any secular historian today would simply be relying on the reports of the Muslims in order to recreate what happened or did not happen.

Therefore, to answer your question, the Arab historians clearly documented that the Muslims sought to reclaim their lost property as they had been run out of their homes in Mecca. There are no Non-Muslim accounts I can refer you to, since ALL primary sources about the incident are documented by Muslim Arabs only.

Interesting.

Now, I am not going to say that just because a source is biased means it is wrong, or worthless; however, it does mean that they cannot be entirely trusted.

In other words, yeah, it is possible that things happened as described, but also possible that they had a rather pro-Muslim spin put on them by the historians. This is one of the problems of history. So, therefore, I cannot be sure that the claim (that the raids were to reclaim stolen property) is true, but then again ultimately I don't really need an opinion on the matter.

(And thanks for your honesty )

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Interesting.

Now, I am not going to say that just because a source is biased means it is wrong, or worthless; however, it does mean that they cannot be entirely trusted.

In other words, yeah, it is possible that things happened as described, but also possible that they had a rather pro-Muslim spin put on them by the historians. This is one of the problems of history. So, therefore, I cannot be sure that the claim (that the raids were to reclaim stolen property) is true, but then again ultimately I don't really need an opinion on the matter.

(And thanks for your honesty )

Yes, but then you can't be sure that the raids happened either.

EDIT: It should also be noted that the same can be said of many regions and times in history, since oftentimes the only available source is from those people themselves. And yet, contemporary historians have certain standards and enough of the Arab historical records have passed this standard, such that a fairly good image of the Prophet (s) and the early Muslims is available to them. EVERY reputable historian has accepted that the early Muslims were severely persecuted. There are many secular historical works that you can read which state this as fact. I took history classes at UC Berkeley and they were teaching that there as it was fact, not as some religious theory.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

So if someone used some material from a book called Sahih Muslim, would it be reliable?

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Sahih Muslim is a collection of mostly Sahih narrations, although a very small handful of them are not Sahih. But yes, on the whole, most of the narrations in it are accepted, notwithstanding the Shadh in some of them.

And I'm getting to your other questions. Hold your horses.

Take care, Brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Just a warning to every one here on this topic, Salah Addine is not muslim's spoksman, he does not represents the vast majority of the muslims. He said it himself, he is a fundamuntalist and his views are those of a fundamuntalist. He very often talk about the 90% Sunni he is part of as opposed to the 10% Shia, but he is more part of the x% Fundamuntalists. The vast majority of the Sunni consider Shia to be muslim like them, Shia make the pilgrimage to Mecca and Iran is part of the Islamic Coference. Salah Addine call them Kaffir, a very rare opinion among Sunni. The vast majority of Muslims do not consider music to be haram, Salah Addine do.
To consider him a "typical" Muslim would be like considering a Jehovah Witness a typical Christian, he is not. He is a typical Fundamuntalist Muslim.

Hello, Brother Hannibal.

Although I agree with you on the first part of your post, I disagree with the last sentence in which you liken me to a "Jehovah Witness." The proper analogy would be to liken me to a fundamentalist Catholic or fundamentalist Protestant. Yes, you would be right in saying that most Christians alive are not fundamentalists, but you have to admit that the aforementioned fundamentalists would be considered orthodoxy NOT heterodoxy.

I am a follower of the mainstream Islamic orthodoxy, not of a sect or minor group. You say that most Muslims do not believe such-and-such, but these are just Muslim laity, and the reason they don't believe in such things is because they are ignorant or irreligious. For example, most Muslims do not pray five times, and most Muslims do not believe that missing prayer is an act of Major Disbelief (Kufr Akbar). But you will never meet an orthodox scholar of Islam who will deny this.

So while what I say may not represent what the laity believe or practise, what I say *does* reflect what the Islamic scholars have said throughout the ages and what the contemporary scholars say too. In that sense, all my beliefs are in conformity with the orthodoxy. The vast majority of Muslims follow one of the four schools of thought, and all four of the Imams of these schools have stated that music is Haram (forbidden), etc.

The positions and opinions held by Muslim laity does not reflect the orthodoxy but rather it reflects ignorance/irreligiosity on their part. It is, after all, impossible to deny that music is Haram (forbidden) when it says so quite clearly in our canon, in which the Prophet (s) explicitly forbade it.

I mean, what form of Islam do you follow, how strictly do you follow it, what is your ethnic/religious/national background, all that.

As for the form of Islam that I follow, I follow the mainstream Islam on the path of the orthodoxy. I refuse to ascribe to any sects that split away from the main group, as Allah warns in the Quran:

“As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah Who will then tell them what they used to do.” (Quran, 6:159)

“And verily this congregation of yours is a single congregation, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore fear Me and no other. But people have broken their religion amongst themselves into sects, each group rejoicing in its own tenets. So leave them in their overwhelming ignorance for a time.” (Quran, 23:52-54)

"And hold fast together all of you to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided amongst yourselves. Remember Allah's Favor on you, for you were enemies of each other but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren, and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Signs manifest to you, that you may be guided." (Quran, 3:103)

"And be not as those who divided (into sects) and differed amongst themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment." (Quran, 3:105)

"...You should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions therein..." (Quran, 42:13)

And there are many Prophetic Sayings in which the Prophet (s) warns not to split into sects but rather to stick to the Jama'ah (orthodoxy). Therefore I have always stuck with the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah (translated to 'The Followers of the Prophet who are the Orthodoxy'). The short form for this is Sunni, since Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah is too long to say. This is just the short way of saying that you follow the orthodoxy, the mainstream which is Jama'ah (literally 'the large group').

As for how "religious" I am, only a fool would claim that he is religious if he meant to impart on himself a sense of greatness for this. However, if one were to mean that they are practising and a submittor to the Laws, then there is no harm in saying that, because one should show to the world that he is serious about his faith.

I try to strictly follow my faith, but of course I am only human. However, I have never come near alcohol, but then again, I have never known any semi-religious Muslim to approach it. It's funny that Non-Muslims think that this is a sign of a really religious Muslim, but honestly, I've known a lot of irreligious Muslims, but they do not partake in alcohol, since alcohol is considered a *big* deal in Islam. Therefore, this is not that good of an indicator of the religiosity of a Muslim, but it *is* a good sign of someone's irreligiosity. If a person drinks, that's a pretty good sign that they don't give two hoots about Islam. I pray five times a day, I go to the mosque on Fridays, and I stay away from sins as best as I can. I would never claim to be a good Muslim (by default, anyone who claims to be a good Muslim is not being that good by saying that)...but I do try my best to uphold the Laws.

As for my ethnic background, I am Pakistani by ethnicity. As for my nationality, I was born and raised in the United States as a first generation Pakistani American.

It doesn't matter as long as people know
I am happy and glad that Salah Addine joined this forum, as Islam and fundamuntalist Islam are a very "popular" subject on this forum. He can therefore exposes his point of view. He is polite and smart also, so he fits the job perfectly. And frankly an additional person to "defend" Islam and Muslims on this forum is not a luxury ;-)

Why, thank you.

 

[Princeps]

If a person drinks, that's a pretty good sign that they don't give two hoots about Islam.

Maybe he does, but has a drinking problem?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Dude. Just look on Wikipedia instead of baiting him. There's an entire article on Islamic philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

Noooooooo...please people, stop using Wikipedia as a source of information on Islam! This site can be edited by ANYONE with a computer and internet connection! It is very inaccurate and wholly unreliable.

I would much rather that you ask me questions directly.

Another question to Salah - is the study of philosophy forbidden? Is it forbidden if it leads you into territory which contradicts the Islamic canon? Is it forbidden in its entirety if it happens that philosophy, by it's very nature, is proved to contradict the Islamic canon?

Indian clerics declare it to be forbidden, so I asked him. Also, I have some questions which the Wiki article cannot answer, such as the latter ones.

Hello, Brother Aneeshm.

Shaikh Muhammad Al-Salih Al-Munajjid said:

"It should be understood what philosophy is and what its principles are, before stating what the ruling on studying it is, because passing a ruling on something is usually based on the way it is viewed."

Oftentimes, people ask questions to certain Islamic scholars and they will reply to that question with a bias towards the subject being asked. For example, a scholar may hastily declare that television is Haram (forbidden) because he is only thinking of Sex in the City and MTV. However, if you asked this same scholar "do you support Islamic tv shows that talk about Quran and Sunnah", then you would see that he would say that this is a good thing, not forbidden at all.

Therefore, if one particular Islamic scholar declared philosophy to be Haram (forbidden) in toto, then he is wrong to say this. However, usually in the Islamic discourse, certain terms are used to denote a specific implication that is not stated outright but is understood. So when an Islamic scholar says "philosophy is Haram" then he is simply referring to that branch of it which contradicts Islamic teachings. Another common example of this misunderstanding is that oftentimes the Quran will say "infidel" or "Non-Muslim" and say that they will be punished like such-and-such or treated like such-and-such, when in reality it is referring only specifically to the Tawgoot (enemies of Islam) amongst the Kufaar and not the Kufaar in general. This fact is known to those involved in the discourse, but it is not commonly known to those who are viewing the discussion.

For example, Shaikh Munajjid issues a fatwa in which he starts out by saying that not all philosophy is Haram, but then he starts talking about the Haram type of philosophy, and then eventually he starts talking about why philosophy is bad and evil, even though in reality he is only referring to the specific type of philosophy that he distinguished earlier.

My point is that when you see an Islamic scholar saying that studying philosophy is Haram (forbidden), then he is simply referring to that portion of philosophy that would contradict Islam. I took a philosophy class at Berkeley, and it was taught by ardent athiests who were not at all friendly with religion. It is often joked that philosophy and religion are opposites.

Nonetheless, I believe that Islamic scholars should be more careful when they declare things to be Halal and Haram. They should refrain from categorically labelling something as such, when there are exceptions. They should make it clear what is and what is not Haram instead of making such generalizations which confuse people.

Of course, I still haven't answered your question, which is:

Is it Haram (forbidden) to study philosophy?

Answer: No.

Is it Haram (forbidden) to study philosophy which contradicts Islam?

Answer: For the Muslim laity, yes it is. The Muslims who do not have basic training in the Islamic Doctrine, Laws, and Theology are not equipped to deal with ideologies that contradict Islam, because they do not have a sound basis to refute them.

The same goes with reading anti-Islam propaganda. It is Haram (forbidden) for a lay Muslim to do that, if he does not have a sound understanding of the Islamic basics, and therefore he can be easily misled by anti-Islam rhetoric. If there is any fear that you will become an apostate if you read anti-Islam propaganda, then it is Haram (forbidden) for you to do that.

However, if you have a sound basis in the Islamic Doctrine, Laws, and Theology, then you may study this anti-Islam propaganda in order to widen your knowledge base and even to refute them. And in fact, then you SHOULD do that, as Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said:

“It is imperative we study their opinions/views so that we know their falseness and know the truth (that we are upon) and refute those (of them) who discourse with us.” (Kitaabul-’Ilm - Page 128, Question No.25)

Anti-Islam propaganda will make the ardent and knowledgeable believer to become only more ardent and knowledgeable, because he then sees the falseness of what they say and the meekness with which they make their attacks upon Islam, which is the Haqq (Truth). To such a Muslim, these anti-Islam attacks only expose the Baatil (false) nature of those who seek to malign Islam. And by debating them and disproving them, he becomes a servant of God and an instrument of His Will.

However, the same cannot be said of those who have no sound basis in Islam. They do not possess enough knowledge to refute the enemies of Islam, and instead they are easily tricked. For example, an anti-Islam propagandists will quote one verse out of context about Jihad, which will then make the ignorant believer to become doubtful of his faith. However, a knowledgeable Muslim would know the Quran and easily refute the disbeliever by quoting the verse that comes right before it and after it.

In conclusion, those who do not possess a basic understanding of Islam should not waste their time on studying other things when they should first be studying their own faith to understand the basics.

Shaikh Munajjid says:

"The philosophers...had some views and ideas which were unique to them, some of which constitute kufr and some bid’ah (innovation) [and some that do not contradict Islam at all]."

Take care, Brother.