Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[Quasar1011]

Exactly one week after opening this thread , I see that nobody has seen fit to grant me my humble request , the one which I made in the opening post , to keep the discussion confined to an almost academic discussion of the texts of Islam .

Let's see, as a disbeliever of Islam, the Quran says I can be killed.

Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Or it says fight me until I surrender, and then pax tax to support Islam.

Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

So it seems that Islam is in direct confrontation with American principles of freedom of religion. Not only that, my property could be seized, under Islamic law, for not believing in Islam.

Mind you, if I surrender, what is there to stop them killing me anyway?

 

[superisis]

Mind you, if I surrender, what is there to stop them killing me anyway?

Islamic law saying that the people of the book need to be protected.

 

[superisis]

I have no wish to incite a riot . Non-Muslims are not allowed inside mosques.

Funny, I believed that the sunni school in india was Hanifi (a very relaxed school, that does allow non-muslims into mosques) not Maliki (which doesn't allow non-muslims into mosques).

I listen to the people appointed by the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh. ) as the spokespersons of his religion - namely , the Ulema .

You cannot do that with Islam , as it tells you that the Ulema are always right .

the Ulema is not a body that unanimosly agrees on everything. There are conflicting views within the Ulema. Esoteric Sufism vs. Hanbali Islam is one example.

What the Prophet did is ideal in all cases . If something contradicts what he did , then that something is wrong . End of story ( according to the Quran and the Hadis and the Ulema ) .

Name one (one) modern muslim society (heck just name one that existed after Muhammed) that condoned the practice of the Mut'a. Wierd huh? Here is something that the profet practiced and condoned, yet is not practiced or condoned by any Ulema or society. Perhaps islam isn't as united and simple as you claim it to be.

 

[ainwood]

Funny, I believed that the sunni school in india was Hanifi (a very relaxed school, that does allow non-muslims into mosques) not Maliki (which doesn't allow non-muslims into mosques).

Well, I'm not a muslim, and I've been in a mosque.

 

[Rambuchan]

Yet Shivaji, like Aurangzeb had no qualms in accepting a Turkish head of artillery, like most armies in India at that time..


As for the conservatism..I remember reading it in a couple of places. I'll have to spend some time looking it up again.

I'm happy to wait but you may need to send me a PM to remind me.

I am not saying that Ancient India was some kind of bohemian, hippie paradise, but social norms that are today considered 'acceptable' are a hardening of earlier social practice based on the reaction to foreign influences.

Besides, if the Mahabharata is anything to go by, we have unwed mothers (Kunti), numerous references to sex (even out in the open), polyandrous women( Draupadi and Tilotthama), Arjuna's sexcapades with numerous women in several places and Krishna( who stands in a category all by himself)

A very good observation.

 

[Rambuchan]

BTW...

I am not sure if Aurangzeb was Shia...

Those whom he fought against, such as the Deccan Sultanates were, but I seriously doubt if Aurangzeb himself was a Shia. The Mughals were a mix of Turkish and Mongol lineage, originating in what is now Uzbekistan, not exactly known for Shia Islam.
However, the Deccan Sultanates were all ruled by descendants of Persian nobles and were Shias.

Even today one is likely to find a large number of Shia Muslims in what was once the Princely State of Hyderabad.

The Deccan Sultanates were doubtless Shia, as were their Persian allies. You may well be right about Aurangzeb not being a Shia and you give very good reasons.

However, I do remember reading somewhere (wish I could remember) that he did introduce a breach from previous Mughal religious politics. And by this I don't just mean attitudes to taxation and religious liberties. It was a sense of something far more personal and dramatic.

Now I don't know for a fact that this wasn't an embrace of Shiism. Hence my suggestion / assertion. What have you got that makes you 'seriously doubt' his Shiism?

 

[silver 2039]

Racism implies discrimination based on race . Where do you find any reference to race as a basis for criticism in what I have said ?

And I thought that at least you , being a Hindu , could get the joke about Jamadagni ( Jamadagni's son , Parashuram , is said to have been very aggressive , and to have destroyed the Kshatriyas a number of times when they grew arrogant of their power and tried to inflict suffering on the innocent or those they were supposed to protect . The fact that I was ( and am ) aggressive in this thread , and it's relation to my ancestor's aggressiveness , was the joke . Too bad you didn't get it . ) .

You are rascist against Muslims as it is obivious. Well rascist is'nt the best word but its the closest....
And I'm not Hindu, I'm atheist, I never was Hindu, and I have only basic knowledge of the various religons.

 

[Oerdin]

Which is more deplorable, a group that peverts its own religious teaching to commit wholesale violence? Or a group that obey its own religious doctrine bloody though it may be. I find both to be sickening actually. Hinduism as a religion or culture doesn't seems to be any less violent than Islam, its violence usually directed against people within India itself though. Look at all the violence directed against the lower caste inside Hindu society, is it any less despicable? Or the ancient habit of widows in Hindu societ to leap into her husband funeral pyre and don't forget it was a Hindu that killed Gandhi.

He was Hindu though he seems to have been a fanatic nationalist who was angered over the division of India and Pakistan. He blamed Gandhi for allowing India to be broken up.

 

[Oerdin]

Lastly - Hinduism is undergoing a revival in Indonesia . In about a hundred years , Islam will be but a memory in that land .

Not likely. The Indonesians aren't as devot as middle easterners but they remain Muslim and are unlikely to change any more then The more or less atheist French people are going to revert to worshipping the Roman gods. The best we can hope for is that countries like Indonesia follow the rest of the modern world and turn religion into a private matter which is seporate from the government.

 

[Oerdin]

Islamic law saying that the people of the book need to be protected.

It says both that and to kill the nonbelievers or those who doubt Islam. Like other religions it contradicts itself.

 

[superisis]

Well, I'm not a muslim, and I've been in a mosque.

let me clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhabs

AFAIAA the only school of sunni islam which prohibits non-muslims from entering mosques is the Maliki school (common in North Africa) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki , whilst the school that is predominant in India is the Hanifi school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi , which allows non-muslims into mosques (along with the Shafi'i school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi'i , I'm unsure about the strict Hanbali school - used in Soudi Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali )

It says both that and to kill the nonbelievers or those who doubt Islam. Like other religions it contradicts itself.

well, I wasn't talking so much about the Qur'an as of islamic law... it clearly states that Muslim rulers should protect and treat people of the book in a certain way (giving them more rights than people not of the book, say pagans etc). ofcourse there has been rulers who didn't obey these rules, but then they would make excuse and conjure loop holes, not claim that the law was unfounded.

 

[aneeshm]

You are rascist against Muslims as it is obivious. Well rascist is'nt the best word but its the closest....

You might as well say that I'm a sexist against Muslims .

Perhaps the word you are looking for is "bigoted" ? Has this debate become such a farce that I have to tell my opponents the correct words with which to curse me on a given occasion ? Of course , not being a bigot , I don't mind such juvenile criticism .

My dear fellow , I dislike the religion , not the follower ( who , mostly , knows nothing of the religion , and would be horrified if he did ) . I have , on one occasion , defended a Muslim friend ( in school ) from a person who was trying to curse him based on his religion . So don't make such wild assumptions about me . My objective in this thread was academic debate , not the vicious ad-homimen attacks you seem to specialise in .

And I'm not Hindu, I'm atheist, I never was Hindu, and I have only basic knowledge of the various religons.

It is because you have only a basic knbowledge of Hinduism that you are not a Hindu . Most people , when they study the system of philosophy that is Hinduism , become Hindus is some respect or the other ( i.e. , the usually agree with some or the other point of the philosophy ) .

 

[aneeshm]

let me clarify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhabs

AFAIAA the only school of sunni islam which prohibits non-muslims from entering mosques is the Maliki school (common in North Africa) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki , whilst the school that is predominant in India is the Hanifi school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi , which allows non-muslims into mosques (along with the Shafi'i school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi'i , I'm unsure about the strict Hanbali school - used in Soudi Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali )



well, I wasn't talking so much about the Qur'an as of islamic law... it clearly states that Muslim rulers should protect and treat people of the book in a certain way (giving them more rights than people not of the book, say pagans etc). ofcourse there has been rulers who didn't obey these rules, but then they would make excuse and conjure loop holes, not claim that the law was unfounded.

But the Hindus of India , not being the "People of the Book" , were not granted even these basic rights during the Islamic period of Indian history .

 

[aneeshm]

Funny, I believed that the sunni school in india was Hanifi (a very relaxed school, that does allow non-muslims into mosques) not Maliki (which doesn't allow non-muslims into mosques).

Let me show you how "relaxed" it is . When it comes to dealing with kafirs , we have the injunctions , from Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan :

The word Kafir is also used as a term of abuse , but in Shariah it is a legal term . According to Shariah he who is not a Muslim is a Kafir .

Querist : Are Christians Kafirs ?

Answer : In Shariah every non-Muslim is a Kafir , be he Jew of Christian , Magian or polytheist . And he who does not know the Ahl-I-Kitab ( The People of the Book ) to be Kafirs is himself a Kafir .

Allah is such a God that even though he can bring Kafirs to the light , he deliberately does not do so . In fact , Allah himself is the source of the Kafir's kufr . From the Quran :

If God pleases , he would surely bring them , one and all , to the guidance .
(6.356)

If thou art anxious for their guidance , know that God will not guide him whom He would lead astray , neither shall they have any helpers .
(16.38,39)

Do not waste your breath on them . Just now is our sentence against most of them ; therefore , they shall not believe . On their necks have we placed chains which reach their chins , and forced up are their heads . Before them we have set a barrier and behind them a barrier , ans we have shrouded them in a veil , so that they shall not see . Alike it is to them if thou warn them or warn them not ; they will not believe .
(36.6-9)

Allah is such a god that he would not hold the good done by an unbeliever . Only the believer's good deeds count - those of kafirs are of no account . The believer's punishment is temoprary , but the Kafir's torture and torment in hell are eternal .



How , then , should the believers treat Kafirs ? The Quran and fatwas ( from the Indian school of Islamic law ) dealing with this are given below . The general attitude of believers to kafirs should be that of unremitting hostility and perpetual alertness .

Take not into your intimacy
Those outside your ranks :
They will not fail
To corrupt you . They
Only desire your ruin :
Rank hatred has already
Appeared from their mouths :
What their hearts conceal
Is far worse .
We have made plain
To you the Signs ,
If ye have wisdom .
Ah ! Ye are those
Who love them ,
But they love you not ,
Though you believe
In the whole of the Book ,
When they meet you ,
They say , 'We believe' :
But when they are alone ,
They bite off the tips
Of their fingers at you
In their rage . Say :
'Perish in your rage;
Allah knoweth well
All the secrtes of the heart . '
If aught that is good
Befalls you , it grieves them;
But if some misfortune
Overtakes you , they rejoice
At it . But if ye are constant
And do right ,
Not the least harm
Will their cunning
Do to you ; for God
Compasseth round
All that they do .
(3.118-20)

[ The following surahs are taken from the time when Mohammed and Islam were weak , in Mecca . Allah tells his mesenger to wait . ]

Through the darkest night comes the darkest night comes the penetrating light of a glorious star . Such is the power of revelation . . . . . . So waith with gentle paitence - for his decision .
(Surah 86)

[ As time and circumstances change , Allah tells the Prophet that he himself makes the infidels disbelieve , as given above , and as given in the next two quotes ]

Spend not thy soul in sighs for them : Allah knows their doings .
(35.9)

Leave them to their forging .
(6.139)

[ But once the Prophet's power is consolidated , Allah declares the following ]

They demand thee to hasten the chastisement that Allah has decreed .
(22.45-6)

Kill them wherever ye find them and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you .
(2.186)

Fight them and let them find in you a harshness .
(9.125)

Wheresoever they are come upon they are slaughtered all .
(23.60-4)

When you encounter the infidels , strike off their heads will ye have made a great slaughter among them , and of the rest make fast the fetters . . . .
(47.4-5)

the Ulema is not a body that unanimosly agrees on everything. There are conflicting views within the Ulema. Esoteric Sufism vs. Hanbali Islam is one example.

You do know that Sufis found a home in India because they were driven out nearly everywhere else , don't you ? Not very tolerant , is it ?

Name one (one) modern muslim society (heck just name one that existed after Muhammed) that condoned the practice of the Mut'a. Wierd huh? Here is something that the profet practiced and condoned, yet is not practiced or condoned by any Ulema or society. Perhaps islam isn't as united and simple as you claim it to be.

They are united in their hatred of infidels . Let me quote the Indian school of Islamic law . From the Fatawa-i-Rizvia

The polytheists are unclean , a Kafir howsoever noble the quam to which he may belong , howsoever noble his family , cannot be better than even a slave Muslim . The nasab of Muslims and Kafirs is rent asunder , no relationship between them survives . Without a doubt , all Kafirs - kitabis as well as polytheists - are in the Fire of Hell , and there they shall remain eternally . They are worse than all creation . Without a doubt he who believes in the Faith and does good deeds is better than the whole of creation .

From the sixth volume :

To praise any act or deed of a Kafir is kufr . To respect a Kafir is kufr . Those who utter such words of respect are out of Islam , their wives are out of wedlock ; to restore the status quo ante they must embrace Islam again and go through their nikah again . Even if it be in a poem, not to call a Kafir bad , nor to call a believer good is wholly kufr .

Any doubts ?

 

[aneeshm]

Well, I'm not a muslim, and I've been in a mosque.

Where was this Mosque ? Was it in Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam ?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Originally Posted by aneeshm
I have no wish to incite a riot . Non-Muslims are not allowed inside mosques.

Only in some places, such as only Muslims can go to Mecca. I'm not Muslim and I've been in mosques in Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait and Qatar.

 

[aneeshm]

Only in some places, such as only Muslims can go to Mecca. I'm not Muslim and I've been in mosques in Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait and Qatar.

Problem is , that's wrong . You should not have been allowed in . Oh , and you missed Medina . No infidel can enter Medina .

 

[ainwood]

Where was this Mosque ? Was it in Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam ?

It was a mosque in Egypt. ANd we had the opportunity to sit down with a muslim & have a fairly frank discussion about islam. And it would have been nice if this thread had just stayed where it was.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Problem is , that's wrong . You should not have been allowed in . Oh , and you missed Medina . No infidel can enter Medina .

Yes, Medina also. However, I don't understand why you say it is wrong. Maybe where you live they think that way. It is part of the tourist industry in Egypt and Turkey. In Kuwait and Qatar they semi-reguarly invited US military personnel to take tours which included entry into a local mosque.

 

[silver 2039]

Yes, Medina also. However, I don't understand why you say it is wrong. Maybe where you live they think that way. It is part of the tourist industry in Egypt and Turkey. In Kuwait and Qatar they semi-reguarly invited US military personnel to take tours which included entry into a local mosque.

I've visited mosques in India. Its not forbidden. Like the holy section of Fatephur Sikri where all the saints are buried. And the mosque next to the Taj Mahal both are open to the public.