Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

Thanks. Ah, there's a potential cultural divide there, then. Because it seems sneaky to try to obfuscate your ill-actions towards others, even if you will seek to recompense them later.

As well, since the obfuscation is suggested as a matter of course, it can become the first instinct ("first obfuscate, and then rectify").

Hello, Brother El_Machinae.

I think you are being unfair. Nobody said anything about obfuscation. I do not understand your point at all. Care to give even one example? And then I will tell you how a Muslim would handle it.

I do not see how admitting your sin to another person benefits anyone at all. Can you please elaborate on this? And I have stated, if there is ever such a situation, then you should admit your sin because this would be part of restoring rights to the person.

You asked about two situations: stealing and gossip.

Please tell me how admitting your sin in either of these two situations benefits anyone? And in fact, it can even be harmful such as gossip which would cause the person to be hurt. As for admitting about stealing, this would only tarnish your reputation, nothing else. If someone stole my money, explain to me how it would benefit me at all that the person who did it tells me his name? How does this information benefit me at all?

You have said that the Islamic approach is sneaky. I beg to differ, and strongly so. I ask you to give one example in which this could be a bad thing, and I will tell you the Islamic response to said situation, and then we can all judge for ourselves as to if it is appropriate or not. But to summarily judge this as sneaky is not appropriate.

I do not mean to sound rude, my brother and friend in humanity. I simply think that you are being too hasty to reach such a conclusion. Care to elaborate on a specific situation in which you feel that such a policy would be counter-productive? I will then provide you with the Islamic stance on such an issue, and we can move on from there. Indeed, I am very confident that you will find the Islamic view on this to be very well-balanced and logical.

I think it might be a distasteful policy, because it means that I cannot expect someone to tell me the truth when I confront them regarding a harm they've done to me. While the muslim is not beholden to lie, it seems he's not beholden to be honest.

But brother...lying is completely Haram (forbidden) in Islam. It is completely Haram (forbidden) for you to lie about this, as lying is one of the Major Sins.

The Prophet (s) said: "Truthfulness guides to righteousness and righteousness guides to Paradise. Verily, a man will be truthful until he is recorded with Allah as ever-believing. And lying guides to moral corruption and moral corruption guides to the fire."

The Prophet (s) said: "The signs of a Munaafiqh (hypocrite) are three (even if he prays, fasts and claims/believes he is a Muslim): (1) when he speaks he lies, (2) when he promises he breaks his promise and (3) when he is entrusted he betrays the trust."

"Truthfulness and lying are in combat in the heart until one of them expels the other." (Malik ibn Deenaar)

"Beware of lying. Whenever you think it will benefit you, it only harms you." (Ash-Sha'biy)

Prophet Luqman (as) said: "Dear son, beware of lying for it is surely attractive like the meat of a quail which its owner is just about to pluck off and eat."

Allah says in the Quran:

"O you who believe! Fear Allah and be in the company of those who are true in word and action." (Quran)

And the Prophet (s) said: "A dishonest person does not have any faith."

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "If you guarantee me six things on your part I shall guarantee you Paradise: Speak the truth when you talk, keep a promise when you make it, when you are trusted with something fulfill your trust, avoid sexual immorality, lower your gaze (in modesty), and restrain your hands from injustice."

And there are so many other Quranic verses and Prophetic Sayings on honesty and the sin of lying that I cannot possibly provide them all for lack of time and energy.

The issue is not about lying or obfuscating at all! Who said to do any of that? Did I say to do that? Then why, sir, are you saying that I said that? The issue at hand is about going out and admitting your sin openly to everyone as a requirement to have that sin forgiven.

If you stole money from someone, then you should restore that money to him. How is that obfuscation or lying to not reveal yourself? Yes, if that person confronts you and thinks it is you, then honesty is the best policy and Islam doesn't say otherwise. Just look at the quotes above. But the issue is if the person has no idea about any of it. For example, if you stole money from someone when you were in your teenage years. You simply need to restore that money, but you don't have to reveal your sin to him.

How is that obfuscation or lying? I do not understand at all.

I might be misreading, but this looks like intercession (though not necessarily effective, like a Catholics version is). I thought that wasn't part of your doctrine? I thought Allah's mercy was something held between the sinner and the god?

Nothing is contingent upon another person. You do not need to seek others help in reaching Allah. But you yourself can ask for anything you want, and very much should ask for forgiveness for yourself, for your loved ones, for your neighbor near and far, etc.

Intercession means that people feel obliged to use another person as a conduit to Allah, without which they cannot reach pennance or salvation. Nothing in Islam necessitates you to seek another person's help in reaching Allah, but you yourself can make as many beautiful prayers as your heart desires and this is a very noble and virtuous thing to do in Islam.

Take care, Brother.

 

[El_Machinae]

In before the lock!

But brother...lying is completely Haram (forbidden) in Islam. It is completely Haram (forbidden) for you to lie about this, as lying is one of the Major Sins.

Oh, I understand that; this is why I use the word 'obfuscation'. If one is not beholden to admit to sins (and is, in fact, beholden to hide their sins from others) then one will obfuscate an issue. As Clinton showed, one can obfuscate without lying.

This leads to sneakiness, mostly importantly as the 'default' setting.

(sorry, I gotta duck out for a bit ... see you next thread!)

 

[Elrohir]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

As usual, the media sensationalizes news about such matters, and they have the flashy title of "20 Face Lashes for Dancing in Saudi Arabia." This is a half-truth designed in such a way that the reader reaches a hasty (and inaccurate) picture.

The lashes were not given for dancing but for drinking alcohol. Muslims who drink alcohol are to be punished by the Shariah with forty lashes. I do believe that the article is mis-reporting and inaccurate because I cannot see how the Saudis would give twenty lashes when the minimum punishment for alcohol is forty lashes. Not only this, but the title of the article says "for dancing" when it should be "for drinking"; and the title also says "face lashes" even though it is Haram (forbidden) in the Shariah to whip the face, head, or the private parts. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

They were whipped for attending a party where alcohol was served and dancing took place. Saying that they were whipped for dancing doesn't strike me as terribly inaccurate. Even if, for the sake of argument, they were whipped solely for consuming alcohol, so what? How is whipping them for that justifiable? This is a religious law being enforced upon foreigners. That is unjust. This is precisely the thing that makes people afraid of Muslims and that they will institute Sharia law - the fact that it applies to not only Muslims, but those around them as well is rather unsettling.

Also, the article says nothing about "face lashes", in fact, the word "face" does not appear in this article at all.

You are Christian, so you are the last person who should be repulsed by such a law. Why should our Christian brothers be against forty lashes given by the Islamic Law when we read that forty lashes are ordained in the Bible itself:

"If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him" (Deuteronomy, 25:2-3)

I'm not so much repulsed by the punishment itself, as I am by what it was given for. I don't personally have a problem with corporal punishment instituted by the government, although many Americans would. I have a problem with religious laws being enforced by that same government upon non-religious foreigners.

In another verse of the Bible, II Corinthians 11:24, we read how forty lashes were administered to such a person. And we read in Proverbs 26:3 that whipping is also the Biblical punishment for naughty children. I would say that a bunch of young adults drinking alcohol, doing dirty dancing such as grinding, making out, etc, would be pretty naughty children, wouldn't you?

Once again Salah-Al-Din, you show that miscommunication and misreading of another religions scriptures is a problem we both have. Both those verses are taken terribly out of context. In the second, what you're recounting is poetry - not religious or secular law. In the first, (II Corinthians 11:24) the Apostle Paul is recounting what happened to him, as a way of effectively telling the people of Corinth "I don't have grounds to boast, and I have better cause than you do - don't be prideful!" In context:

16I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then receive me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

30If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

However, in this instance, I do not see anything wrong with the way Saudi punished the offenders. These people were not only drinking but they were clubbing. I do not know of anything more sinful than clubbing, which involves dirty dancing, lewd inter-mingling of the sexes, drinking, making out, drugs, etc. Would not the American police break up a party in which illicit drugs were being used? Would not these people be jailed for using marijuana? So what then is the issue? From a purely medical standpoint, alcohol is an even more dangerous substance than marijuana (proven by evidence based studies).

And you seriously think it's the government's job to whip people bloody and imprison them for mingling with members of the opposite sex? Again, it's precisely this attitude that make people nervous about large amounts of Muslims entering into their society.

In America, you get thrown into jail and raped by your cell-mate Bubba...I'd rather take 40 lashes, thank you.

That's a terribly ridiculous stereotypical and false view of American prisons. The odds of being sexually assaulted in prison, especially for a relatively low-level crime like smoking pot (Which you say is the American equivalent) is incredibly low, especially since many people don't go to prison for their first offense if it's only pot. (Unless they're driving over the border with 2 tons of the stuff, or something.)

I believe that the West can really benefit from Islam. Yes, the Muslims have a lot to learn from and benefit from the West (such as technology), but I think the West can also benefit from the Muslims. Many believe that Western society has become morally defunct, engulfed in sin, sex, and vice. Ninety percent of youth have engaged in pre-marital sex, and most have had multiple partners before marriage. If one visits a random high school in America, one would find youth obsessed with sin, even to the point that they boast about it. I remember being in high school in which the coolest kids were the bad kids, the ones doing drugs, partying, fornicating, and doing evil. Even in the English slang, "bad" means "good"; it is a complete reversal of morality.

OK Salah-Al-Din, you can stop right there - I agree with you on some points, I think our society is very sinful, but a lot of what you are saying is total crap. The percentage of American youth who have had premarital sex by the time they graduate high school is something like 40% - not 90%. "Bad" does not mean "good", at least not in America - a "bad boy" can be considered "cool", but no one would say that he is "good" in a moral or ethical sense. Things are bad here, but not a quarter as bad as you seem to think.

Alcohol is a dirty and filthy thing which has ruined many lives and it does not benefit anyone in the least. The removal of alcohol from society only makes society better, not worse.

Alcohol can be bad if taken to an extreme, in moderation it is not. I'll do a little quoting of my own:

Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

And of course, John 2, where Jesus turns water to wine:

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."

5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[a]

7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

You should probably start a new thread Salah-Al-Din, the mods will probably be along soon....

 

[Trajan12]

Ask A Muslim II? That would make this the most succesful "ask a ___" thread I've ever seen.

 

[Elrohir]

Yep, pretty impressive, actually. Just be sure to link to the first thread in the first post of the next. (Assuming you want a new one, Salah-Al-Din)

 

[aneeshm]

It appears that Islam is the only religion whose "Ask a...." thread can compete with the Babe threads.

 

[Elrohir]

They have a ways to go before Islam can say that it competes with scantily clad women. They're certainly on their way, though.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

the article says nothing about "face lashes", in fact, the word "face" does not appear in this article at all.

LOL I just realized that I horribly misread the title. Actually, looking back at it now, I can't believe I did that.

I actually read it as "20 face lashes for dancing in Saudi Arabia" instead of "20 (people) face lashes for dancing in Saudi Arabia."

Quite embarassing on my part.

They were whipped for attending a party where alcohol was served and dancing took place. Saying that they were whipped for dancing doesn't strike me as terribly inaccurate. Even if, for the sake of argument, they were whipped solely for consuming alcohol, so what? How is whipping them for that justifiable? This is a religious law being enforced upon foreigners. That is unjust. This is precisely the thing that makes people afraid of Muslims and that they will institute Sharia law - the fact that it applies to not only Muslims, but those around them as well is rather unsettling.

Brother, all of the foreigners were Muslim. They were foreigners in the sense of nationality (i.e. non-Saudis). I just talked to my friend from Saudi and he says that it was mostly Arabs from neighboring countries. In the Shariah, the punishment for alcohol is administered only against Muslims. Non-Muslims are allowed to consume alcohol, pork, etc. In fact, in Saudi Arabia, alcohol is served in foreign embassies (such as the US one), and even in really hi-fi five star hotels that are frequented by foreigners. In Pakistan, another country that claims to follow Shariah (but really doesn't) and which prohibits alcohol to Muslims, alcohol is also available freely to Non-Muslims.

Your irrational fear of Shariah is unjustified, because such laws affect only Muslims. Your xenophobia is not justified, and your fear is a phobia. Shariaphobia, based on misunderstanding and hasty assumptions. (I am going through my psychiatry rotation right now, and just learned about phobias, so I had to insert the use of phobias somewhere.)

I have a problem with religious laws being enforced by that same government upon non-religious foreigners.

They were foreign nationals but they were Muslim, and they were specifically told when they landed in Saudi that the punishment for alcohol is whipping. I myself have travelled to Saudi twice for pilgramage, and as soon as you land, you are told on the overhead that this is the punishment for alcohol in Saudi. Therefore, no Muslim can claim that he didn't know. If you are a Muslim and you want to drink alcohol, you can't do that in a Shariah country. (Not that Saudi is one.)

Once again Salah-Al-Din, you show that miscommunication and misreading of another religions scriptures is a problem we both have. Both those verses are taken terribly out of context. In the second, what you're recounting is poetry - not religious or secular law. In the first, (II Corinthians 11:24) the Apostle Paul is recounting what happened to him, as a way of effectively telling the people of Corinth "I don't have grounds to boast, and I have better cause than you do - don't be prideful!"

No, I am taking nothing out of context. The first verse I quoted was as follows:

"If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him" (Deuteronomy, 25:2-3)

How is this out of context? Is this simply poetry? It is a direct and imperative command in the Bible.

As for the second verse I quoted, which you have simply waived off as poetry, we see that the Christians all agree that Saint Paul was *actually* flogged and it was very much literal.

Pastor Walter Snyder was asked the following question:

Q: What is the Biblical origin of thirty-nine stripes?

In his reply, Pastor Walter Snyder says:

"We note that the punishment was to be carried out in the presence of the sentencing judge. His job was to guarantee that the beating didn't exceed his command, whether forty lashes or less. We may think the forty lashes harsh, but evidently up to that point was not what God considered to be "cruel" or "unusual." With this in mind, it's easier to see why Paul (and others) would receive "the forty lashes less one." Those responsible for interpreting and carrying out the Law of God didn't want to exceed His command, so they built in a safeguard. If someone accidentally missed one count, the flogging would still stop before forty was exceeded."


Souce: http://www.xrysostom.com/askthepastor/columns/0303.txt

You can simply click that link and see clearly that Saint Paul was very much flogged based on Biblical Law. And your pastor quite clearly says that there is nothing cruel about flogging so long as it does not exceed forty.

Not only is flogging found inside the Bible, but you will find stronger punishments, such as stoning. In fact, there are 18 places in the Bible in which stoning is prescribed.

If a woman is found not to be virgin on the day of her wedding, then she is to be stoned to death:

Deuteronomy
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die

If a person preaches the wrong religion, then they are stoned to death:

Deutoronomy
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die

You seem to have a problem with adults getting whipped for drinking alcohol who were also doing dirty dancing, clubbing etc. And yet, what about the Bible which advocates stoning to death simply for breaking the Sabbath? On the one hand, you have taking an illegal and illicit drug and getting flogged for that, and on the other hand you have working on the Sabbath and getting killed for that?

Numbers
15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

These were a bunch of young adults engaging in horrible behavior (i.e. drugs and clubbing), and they were punished for that by flogging. Why should you have a problem with that when the Bible advocates stoning to DEATH rebellious children? And we see from the following verses that getting drunk is punished by DEATH in the Bible, so what is the big deal with punishing someone for drinking by flogging?

Deuteronomy
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die

And you seriously think it's the government's job to whip people bloody and imprison them for mingling with members of the opposite sex?

Again, the punishment in Shariah is for alcohol, not for intermingling with the opposite sex. As for intermingling with the opposite sex, the only thing the religious police do is ask the couple if they are married, and if they are not, they tell them to leave that place. No corporal punishment.

Again, it's precisely this attitude that make people nervous about large amounts of Muslims entering into their society.

A very strange xenophobic statement.

That's a terribly ridiculous stereotypical and false view of American prisons. The odds of being sexually assaulted in prison, especially for a relatively low-level crime like smoking pot (Which you say is the American equivalent) is incredibly low, especially since many people don't go to prison for their first offense if it's only pot. (Unless they're driving over the border with 2 tons of the stuff, or something.)

Chances of being raped in an American prison are low? Try again. Over twenty percent (that's one in five) admit to having been sexually molested in jail:

"The most authoritative studies of the problem, conducted by the University of South Dakota professor Cindy Struckman-Johnson, found that over 20 percent of prisoners are the victims of some form of coerced sexual contact, and at least 7 percent are raped. Extrapolating from Struckman-Johnson's findings suggests that some 140,000 current inmates have been raped. The corrections industry itself estimates that there are 12,000 rapes per year, which exceeds the annual number of reported rapes in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York combined."

(Source: Legal Affairs, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/feature_brook_marapr04.msp )

The percentage of American youth who have had premarital sex by the time they graduate high school is something like 40% - not 90%.

I did not say by the time they graduate high school. I said that 90% of Americans have pre-marital sex. Here a bunch of sites that corroborate that:

http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=...1&ct=result&cd=1&q=premarital+sex+90%&spell=1

But thank you for contributing a new figure. So you are saying that 4 out of 10 kids graduating high school have lost their virginity. That in itself is a huge number, and nothing to boast about. In fact, I think I'll quote that figure from now on.

May Allah save our children from that and protect the chastity and honor of our boys and girls that they be upright and virtuous, not used and defiled. May Allah protect them from sin and instead may they find their way to all that is good.

Things are bad here, but not a quarter as bad as you seem to think.

I think it's far worse than I stated. I was being nice.

Alcohol can be bad if taken to an extreme, in moderation it is not. I'll do a little quoting of my own:

The dangers of alcohol are well-known. It has not benefitted society in the least. From a purely medical standpoint it would be very easy to prove this. One need not be a Muslim in order to agree that alcohol has brought much harm to society, and no real good at all. It is an evil thing: why else did America try to prohibit it at one time?

Take care, Brother.

 

[aneeshm]

Actually, I think that alcohol is good in very very small (as in a few millilitres, nothing even remotely to have an intoxicating effect) quantities for the digestive system's functioning.

 

[Elrohir]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.



LOL I just realized that I horribly misread the title. Actually, looking back at it now, I can't believe I did that.

I actually read it as "20 face lashes for dancing in Saudi Arabia" instead of "20 (people) face lashes for dancing in Saudi Arabia."

Quite embarassing on my part.

We're all human.

Brother, all of the foreigners were Muslim. They were foreigners in the sense of nationality (i.e. non-Saudis). I just talked to my friend from Saudi and he says that it was mostly Arabs from neighboring countries. In the Shariah, the punishment for alcohol is administered only against Muslims. Non-Muslims are allowed to consume alcohol, pork, etc. In fact, in Saudi Arabia, alcohol is served in foreign embassies (such as the US one), and even in really hi-fi five star hotels that are frequented by foreigners. In Pakistan, another country that claims to follow Shariah (but really doesn't) and which prohibits alcohol to Muslims, alcohol is also available freely to Non-Muslims.

Your irrational fear of Shariah is unjustified, because such laws affect only Muslims. Your xenophobia is not justified, and your fear is a phobia. Shariaphobia, based on misunderstanding and hasty assumptions. (I am going through my psychiatry rotation right now, and just learned about phobias, so I had to insert the use of phobias somewhere.)

I can't find anything saying these people were Muslims, much less Arab's from neighboring nations. Do you have a link to back this up?

Then why do American women in Saudi Arabia have to wear veils when they visit? Why did the Taliban enforce their bans on everything from radio's to TV to kites on everyone, not just the Muslims in Afghanistan? You may say that Sharia should only be applied to Muslims, but it seems to me that a significant portion of Muslims today disagree.

No, I am taking nothing out of context. The first verse I quoted was as follows:

"If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him" (Deuteronomy, 25:2-3)

How is this out of context? Is this simply poetry? It is a direct and imperative command in the Bible.

That is not taken out of context, no - however, it's also not part of Christian law, so you might want to try again. That's part of Judaic law, but Christians actually aren't bound by it.

As for the second verse I quoted, which you have simply waived off as poetry, we see that the Christians all agree that Saint Paul was *actually* flogged and it was very much literal.

Yes, the Apostle Paul was flogged - but the Jewish authorities, not by the Christian authorities. You aren't getting this; he wasn't talking about his being flogged as a good thing or an acceptable means of punishment, he was talking about it in context of all the bad things that had happened to him. Did you read the Bible passage I put up? It was right in between Paul talking about his shipwrecks! Yes, this was a literal passage, but it was not a favorable one.

A very strange xenophobic statement.

Not if those Muslims want to enforce Sharia law on everyone. You wouldn't want to live in a society where you had to sacrifice an animal to an idol every year, would you? I wouldn't. I don't see a practical difference between that, and enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims.

Chances of being raped in an American prison are low? Try again. Over twenty percent (that's one in five) admit to having been sexually molested in jail:

"The most authoritative studies of the problem, conducted by the University of South Dakota professor Cindy Struckman-Johnson, found that over 20 percent of prisoners are the victims of some form of coerced sexual contact, and at least 7 percent are raped. Extrapolating from Struckman-Johnson's findings suggests that some 140,000 current inmates have been raped. The corrections industry itself estimates that there are 12,000 rapes per year, which exceeds the annual number of reported rapes in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York combined."

(Source: Legal Affairs, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/M...k_marapr04.msp )

I never said American prisons were perfect, I said they were better than being whipped.

I did not say by the time they graduate high school. I said that 90% of Americans have pre-marital sex. Here a bunch of sites that corroborate that:

http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=e...+90%&spell=1

But thank you for contributing a new figure. So you are saying that 4 out of 10 kids graduating high school have lost their virginity. That in itself is a huge number, and nothing to boast about. In fact, I think I'll quote that figure from now on.

Which is meaningless unless you have a similar statistic from Muslim majority countries.

I think it's far worse than I stated. I was being nice.

I disagree. And I live here. Where do you live, by the way? England?

The dangers of alcohol are well-known. It has not benefitted society in the least. From a purely medical standpoint it would be very easy to prove this. One need not be a Muslim in order to agree that alcohol has brought much harm to society, and no real good at all. It is an evil thing: why else did America try to prohibit it at one time?

Alcohol in large quantities can be dangerous, in small quantities it can actually be quite healthy - beer contains a lot of vitamins, and red wine can help you live longer. Can you get those things elsewhere? Sure. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in moderation will kill you, either.

American Prohibition was a mistake on every level. It was a violation of the rights of American citizens, and it helped set up organized crime to an unprecedented level, something we are still dealing with today.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Hello, Brother Elrohir.

I can't find anything saying these people were Muslims, much less Arab's from neighboring nations. Do you have a link to back this up?

I don't need to have a link. I've been to Saudi twice. Whereas your experience comes from Wikipedia, mine comes from actual knowledge. I've been to Saudi, my best friend lives in Saudi, and I've known hundreds of Muslims who've been there.

When we go there, we jokingly say that we should pretend we are Non-Muslim so we can get some booze. (A joke of course.) But yes, this is common knowledge.

Alcohol is permitted for the Non-Muslims to drink in the privacy of their own quarters, their embassies, etc. Even the American troops stationed in Saudi are allowed to drink up.

This is fact.

Sigh, OK...since you think the internet is the best source of knowledge, how about BBC News? Will that do for you?

BBC News says about Saudi:

"Saudi Arabia has a large number of expatriates, some of whom live in special quarters. Alcoholic beverages are available to them, but the unwritten rule is that the drinking takes place behind closed doors.

"... embassies of non-Islamic countries are able to bring in alcoholic beverages. It means their staff may have access to alcohol, especially at special occasions like Christmas.

Western military personnel serving in Saudi Arabia may also be able to get access to alcohol."

Source: BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1160846.stm

NOTICE that only embassies of NON-ISLAMIC countries are allowed to bring in alcohol. Therefore, this fortifies my statement that the foreigners were MUSLIM. People from Non-Islamic countries can drink alcohol, but Muslim foreigners are not allowed to, and this prohibition includes Muslim foreign embassies.

Then why do American women in Saudi Arabia have to wear veils when they visit?

Non-Muslim women do not have to wear the veil.

Once again, just your faulty assumptions.

An American woman in Saudi only has to wear it if she is Muslim.

Women who visit Saudi and Afghanistan opt to wear the headscarf when they are warned that it is the cultural norm in these countries and that they will be out of place if they come in their typical clothing. And this is why the Non-Muslim women decide to don the headscarf, and even this, they barely throw over their head, with most of their hair exposed. But even this much is their own choice.

Why did the Taliban enforce their bans on everything from radio's to TV to kites on everyone, not just the Muslims in Afghanistan?

More comments said out of pure ignorance.

First of all, Muslims make up an almost 99% majority in Afghanistan. So I wonder how many Non-Muslims in Afghanistan you've talked to.

As for kites, those were banned because they cause deaths. They were banned in Pakistan for this same reason. Silly westerners jump to conclusions without knowing anything. It's ridicolous actually how they can just go around and trumpet "kites are banned, omg!" Without looking at the reasons at all.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are dirt poor countries, and the kite strings would be made out of deadly material that would slit the throats of children. There is this one kite flying festival in which children have "dog fights" with other kites, and the objective is to cut the string of the other kite. BBC News says: "Kite flyers use metallic strings or coat them with glass shards to take part in 'dog fights' where the objective is to cut their opponent's string." But worse than that was the fact that the strings were made out of metal and they would collide with electricity wires. These kites in those countries are a very dangerous toy. This is not cushy America in which all toys get checked for safety. Every year, dozens and dozens of children die during the kite flying festival, and it was finally banned for that reason.

Read this article from BBC News:

Pakistan tackles killer kites

Kite flyers in Pakistan's Punjab Province will face murder charges and a possible death penalty if their sharpened strings cause more deaths.

Several people have had their throats cut this year by strings that are either metallic or coated with abrasive materials.

Police throughout the province have now been instructed to treat such deaths as murder cases.

Kite flyers use metallic strings or coat them with glass shards to take part in "dog fights" where the objective is to cut their opponent's string.

The Punjab chief minister's adviser on law and human rights, Rana Ejaz Ahmad Khan, announced the move on Tuesday.

Mr Khan said dangerous kite flying practices had forced the government to take this extreme measure.

Some of the victims were young children, he said.

Basant festival

Mr Khan said the government had the authority to count chemically-finished and metallic strings as offensive weapons.

Police have been instructed to carry out raids on shops selling banned strings and make arrests, Mr Khan said.

Kite flying reaches its climax during the Basant festival at the beginning of spring but is a popular pastime all year round.

The kites pose a particular threat to motorcyclists and pedestrians in busy residential areas and have also been known to cause power cuts by interfering with electricity lines.

People have also been killed or injured falling from buildings or by walking into the paths of cars while flying kites or gazing at them in the sky.

Source: BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2978988.stm

And we can go on and on with your hasty conclusions.

See how sensationalism and active disinformation is used to malign and slander Islam?

Oh, those Moslems banned kites, can you believe that!? Who would ban kites!? (Of course, they are banned for the above reasons, namely that kites kill dozens of children every year.)

Oh, the Muslims whipped Non-Muslims for dancing. (No, they flogged Muslims for taking illicit drugs.)

And it goes on and on...same tactics. May Allah save us from this campaign of lies which engineered in such a way only to foster xenophobia. And yet, even still, more and more people are turning to Islam, perhaps because they find out that these are all lies and that the *real* Islam is quite beautiful.

You may say that Sharia should only be applied to Muslims, but it seems to me that a significant portion of Muslims today disagree.

Wrong. In fact, the most hardcore anti-Westerner Muslims say that Non-Muslim women SHOULDN'T wear the Hijab because this is only the clothing of the believers and a sign of the nobility of Muslim women alone. Although they say that they can't enforce this at all, but they encourage Muslims to *not* encourage Non-Muslim women to wear the Hijab. (I don't agree with this attitude.) But it's just in your imagination and head that such Shariah laws would be forced on Non-Muslims.

That is not taken out of context, no - however, it's also not part of Christian law, so you might want to try again. That's part of Judaic law, but Christians actually aren't bound by it.

I don't care if you are bound by it or not. I care that it is in your holy book, so you have no right to criticize my holy book for that.

Yes, the Apostle Paul was flogged - but the Jewish authorities, not by the Christian authorities.

Based on Biblical Law.

You aren't getting this; he wasn't talking about his being flogged as a good thing or an acceptable means of punishment, he was talking about it in context of all the bad things that had happened to him...Yes, this was a literal passage, but it was not a favorable one.

Bad things = Biblical Law?

I very much understand the context, sir. No need to elaborate. I know that you do not believe the Old Testament Laws are binding on you. However, that is not the point. At one point in time, your Divine God said that this is the religious law to be enacted on all the people, and that your God is just. Therefore, if your God did all those things and that was just, then what is wrong with the lighter and more sensible punishments in the Quran?

Not if those Muslims want to enforce Sharia law on everyone. You wouldn't want to live in a society where you had to sacrifice an animal to an idol every year, would you? I wouldn't. I don't see a practical difference between that, and enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims.

How many times do we have to review that it is only applicable to Muslims?

I never said American prisons were perfect, I said they were better than being whipped.

You'd rather have a 1 in 5 chance that you get sexually molested by a man? No thank you, I'll take one time whipping any time.

Which is meaningless unless you have a similar statistic from Muslim majority countries.

Haha, lol. It would be on the order of less than 2%. Almost insignificant.

I disagree. And I live here. Where do you live, by the way? England?

I double disagree, and I also live in America.

Alcohol in large quantities can be dangerous, in small quantities it can actually be quite healthy - beer contains a lot of vitamins, and red wine can help you live longer. Can you get those things elsewhere? Sure. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in moderation will kill you, either.

Alcohol, overall, has done way more damage than any good. Any potential good is infinitismally small, and no real evidence to prove it. The few scientific studies they did on "moderate drinking" being "somehow" benefitial are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. No doctor in his right mind would tell a patient to drink, and abstinence from alcohol is always preferred from a purely medical standpoint.

But this is not about an individual, but rather society as a whole. Nobody can say that alcohol has done good for the society as a whole, but rather it has brought overwhelming bad.

American Prohibition was a mistake on every level. It was a violation of the rights of American citizens, and it helped set up organized crime to an unprecedented level, something we are still dealing with today.

Yes, I believe that along with strict laws, you also need to change peoples' hearts by guiding them to the Haqq (Truth). In the end of the day, alcohol is not a problem in Muslim countries only because of faith.

Take care.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I had temporarily abandoned this thread due to school, but it seems as if it has died. Rest in peace, thread.

 

[Goonie]

augurey:

You've got a great gal here!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well, most of the other "Ask a..." threads died peacefully once everyone had asked their questions, and I suspect it's also due to the imminent lock that nobody is posting.

RIP indeed.

 

[Trajan12]

That's actually good that they answered so many questions no one has anything to ask anymore!

 

[Katheryn]

I've been gone for a while and am catching up.

I saw this:

Now let us read the entire passage, to get the context which you eliminated. Allah says that there are believers and disbelievers amongst the People of the Book (i.e. the Jews, Christians) and pagans. Allah says:

"Those who disbelieved from amongst the People of the Book and amongst the Polythiests, were not going to depart from their ways until there had come to them clear evidence: a Messenger from Allah rehearsing scriptures kept pure and holy wherein are right and straight Laws. Nor did the People of the Book become divided until after the proof came unto them. And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true in faith; to establish regular prayer and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight. Surely those who disbelieve from amongst the People of the Book and the polythiests shall be in hte Fire of Hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men. As for those of them who believe and do good, surely they are the best of men. Their reward is with their Lord: Gardens of Eden beneath which rivers flow; they will dwell therein forever. Allah (is) well-pleased with them, and they with Him: all this for such as fear their Lord and Cherisher." (Quran, 98:1-8)

So Allah divides the People of the Book and the pagans into two groups, one that are the worst of men but one that are the *best* of men. The latter group from amongst them are promised Paradise.

We see now how deceptive and vile these propaganda attacks are against Islam.

It seems to me that there is a split in the Muslims' mind between polytheist Christians and monotheist Christians.

Polytheist Christians believe in the Trinity and monotheist ones do not.

The entire concept of "Allah is one" is a denial of the concept in Christianity that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, not a part of a trinity.

Isn't this a more accurate reading of this text? That the "divide" in Christianity is the fundamental belief that Jesus Christ is divine? Those who believe in the Trinity are polytheists and are destined for hell?

Those who do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity are monotheists who will simply be corrected by Jesus later, that he did not die on the cross and the universal forgivenenss of sin is a hoax spread by his disciples?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I've been gone for a while and am catching up.

I saw this:




It seems to me that there is a split in the Muslims' mind between polytheist Christians and monotheist Christians.

Polytheist Christians believe in the Trinity and monotheist ones do not.

The entire concept of "Allah is one" is a denial of the concept in Christianity that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh, not a part of a trinity.

Isn't this a more accurate reading of this text? That the "divide" in Christianity is the fundamental belief that Jesus Christ is divine? Those who believe in the Trinity are polytheists and are destined for hell?

Those who do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity are monotheists who will simply be corrected by Jesus later, that he did not die on the cross and the universal forgivenenss of sin is a hoax spread by his disciples?

I do not really understand your post.

 

[Gogf]

I do not really understand your post.

It looks, to me, like more of a question about Chrsitianity than Islam...

 

[Ansar]

I had another question:

So, what skin do (Islamic) women usually show? Just their feet and hands? And their face?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

I had another question:

So, what skin do (Islamic) women usually show? Just their feet and hands? And their face?

Yep. That's about right. Face, hands, and feet.