Ask Me Anything: Muslim Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter shazirah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Shazirah
Another question if you don’t mind:

Did you have misconceptions about Judaism and Christianity as you were growing up?
 
We don’t think Iblis “caused” Adam and Eve to sin, he just provided the temptation. Adam and Eve chose to sin. We don’t have a doctrine of original sin, so Adam and Eve’s choice did not result in a sort of inherited spiritual debt. Their consequence was to be sent out of the Garden to a place where their needs were much more difficult to meet. That’s the only consequence that comes down to us from Adam and Eve, that we have inherited Earth and not the Garden as our living place. Hell is said to be a place of fire and molten metal and torment, while Paradise is described as a place of many estates with cool water and everything anyone could want to be happy. Everything we do here on earth that gives pleasure has a pure corollary in Paradise, so sex, food and drink would all exist for those who want them, except possibly procreation. Since we will live in eternal bodies after the last judgement, I doubt there will be procreation, but who knows?

The “virgins” are the result of a bunch of mistranslations and twisting by those who want to encourage violence and what they see as martyrdom, but the joke is on those poor “martyrs” because they will certain end up in hell until their sins are purified. Houris are the “pure companions” referenced in the Koran. An houri is the spiritual manifestation in heaven of a good deed done by a Muslim, so when one gets to Paradise, one is surrounded by spiritual companions that represent the good things they’ve done in the world.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Question and follow up. As my adult child is engaged to a Muslim, I have tried to learn without the “political chatter” (not an easy task!!)
Click to expand...
I commend you’re willingness to learn and start from a neutral place! 😃 Congrats on the impending wedding!.

I haven’t read Jacques Jomier, but my big three for someone who is totally new to Islam are:

No God But God, by Reza Aslan. I like it because it’s approachable and it’s written from a scholarly perspective and not an ideological one, so it’s a really good unbiased source of information.

The Story of the Quran, by Ingrid Mattson. It’s short and sweet and covers the basics and a little more.

Muhammed, by Karen Armstrong. Some people don’t like Karen Armstrong, she has kind of an unusual philosophy of religion, but this book is pretty good as a primer on the history and role of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
 
ratio1 said:
ility. can it ever be diminished to zero?
Click to expand...
God has written the law on our hearts, and so we have natural law. Part of this is that he has given us an intellect and a reason to use to know right from wrong. So inborn conscience along with reason and intellect dimishes occasions when we know zero to nearly zero.
ratio1 said:
furthermore i’m just not sure what the practical consequences of an absolutist interpretation are. Should good Catholics never join the army for example? as to fight the enemy you have to deceive the enemy.
Click to expand...
Church teaching is not judged on the basis of perceived practicality, though it is the most practicable with grace. How do you think one must deceive the enemy in the army? Do all jobs in the army entail deceit? War can sometimes be just but never good in and of itself, because it involves the taking of life, violence etc
 
Okay, back to the topic, are there miracles in Islam? Does Islam recognize any of the same miracles in the Bible?
 
It’s not a matter of anyone’s testimony being half of anyone elses, really, it’s just an acknowledgement of the social issues at the time and the court was left to decide who was a valid witness, so it’s not a concrete rule in all but the strictest interpretations of Shariah. The idea was that women might be intimidated by being called into a court comprised entirely of men. So, having two women who could testify together would ensure that they would feel comfortable enough to speak. One woman alone might be more easily intimidated by the defendant and their family. Also, there is an acknowledgement that women and men testify differently and pick up on different aspects of any given event. Men are more inclined to err on details and women are more inclined to err on the exact sequence of events, however because of this the corroborated testimony of two women was thought by many jurists to be more sound than that of a man. Because there was a greater separation between women’s and men’s spheres of life in the ancient world, some jurists preferred that women testify only on women’s issues and men on men’s issues, because their testimony could only be authoritative on the events they were familiar with.
 
Last edited:
lol Quite a few, actually, but mostly because I didn’t really have much contact with Christianity when I was growing up. There just weren’t many Christians in the neighborhood in Jordan that we lived in, so when we moved to the US it was quite a shock. For one thing, I didn’t know there were different denominations of Christianity until we moved and I started talking to people at school. Also, the Trinity thing stumps a lot of Muslims, so when I was around 5 I remember asking my grandfather why Christians thought God was a bird (because I had seen the Holy Spirited represented as a dove somewhere and didn’t really get the concept). 😂 Most of my misconceptions were fairly innocent ones because my parents didn’t tolerate anyone talking badly of other religions and I could always put my questions to my grandfather. Also, my dad’s best friend is Jewish so I had a good bit of positive exposure to Judaism. I do have friends that grew up thinking some really bizarre things about Christians and Jews, though.
 
I have some questions now: Does Qur’an really say that Gabriel is Holy Spirit (and/or vice versa)? Do Muslims generally think of angels when Holy Spirit is mentioned?

A little background: As a Catholic, I was taught to make a distinction between a holy spirit (a spirit that is holy) and the Holy Spirit (as the third person of the Trinity), in writing it would be denoted by the capitalization. So in my view, angels would be holy spirits, not the Holy Spirit.

Thank you in advance. I do have a couple more, but I will ask in due time. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Technically, he doesn’t. There are several ways to translate the text and there’s not a very good corollary in English for the word idrbuhunna, which is sometimes translated as “to beat”. The concept is closer to “to condemn” or “to separate” and sometimes “to give example”, but it carries the flavor of doing something vigorously. So, the interpretation varies depending on the linguistic slant of the jurist, but the majority interpretation is that this means that one is first to admonish, next to leave the person alone for a time, and lastly to separate permanently from them. Even the jurists who interpret it as beating indicate that this is never to be severe enough to leave a mark, strike a sensitive area like the face, or be out of proportion to the wrong-doing, and that it is something that falls in the permissible, but ignoble category of behavior. Most reputable linguists agree that the verb used does not imply actual physical contact.
 
There are definitely miracles in Islam, but what events are accepted as fact differ wildly between Sunni, Shia, and Sufi Islam. Sufis on the whole are a lot like Catholics, in that they believe their saints can intercede with Allah to provide miraculous answers to prayers. Shia theology has a less stringent bar of acceptance of miraculous and supernatural events, so you find a lot more miracles being reported in Shia historical sources. Sunnis have traditionally been a little more skeptical of miraculous events (if you ask the average Sunni, it’s almost always those darn pesky Jinn playing tricks on people).

Many of the Old Testament miracles are also held as valid in Islam and most Muslims would agree that Jesus was able to heal the sick and perform miracles, etc, because we think all prophets could do that. The Sunnah records instances of Mohammed (peace be upon him) miraculously healing people among other miracles. It’s said that Medinah was illuminated on the day the Prophet (peace be upon him) arrived and that the sky became dark on the day he died. Mount Uhud shook beneath his feet and then quieted at his command. He threw a handful of dust at some people who were attacking him and they went blind. He was said to have been able to miraculously create food and raise up springs of water from the ground on some occasions. When Suraqa pursued Mohammed (peace be upon him) on horseback to try and kill him, his horse sank into the earth and he was eventually rescued by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself at which point he converted (which I’ve always found extremely funny, because can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?)
 
I will consider it although I have been discussing Judaism for years on the old format of the Catholic Forum.

BTW, I inadvertently deleted your PM to me; not a case of ignoring you.
 
shazirah said:
The concept is closer to “to condemn” or “to separate” and sometimes “to give example”, but it carries the flavor of doing something vigorously.
Click to expand...
Why is the context that of a man “doing it to his wife”? Ought not either spouse have this duty to the other?
 
shazirah said:
Hell is said to be a place of fire and molten metal and torment, while Paradise is described as a place of many estates with cool water and everything anyone could want to be happy.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that there is no reference in either the Quran or the Bible to these places being relative to personal death. Death is not necessarily the entrance to either rather Life is. Our actions in life determine whether those following will enter Hell or Paradise. To perceive Hell or Paradise as a punishment or reward for an individual’s actions is not specified anywhere. In fact it is rather self-centred.
 
Last edited:
shazirah said:
he was eventually rescued by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself at which point he converted (which I’ve always found extremely funny, because can you imagine how embarrassing that would be?)
Click to expand...
Better embarrassed than dead…
 
I don’t think that’s how Muslims throughout the ages have interpreted it.
 
If you look at historical judicial implementation it varies along the lines of what was culturally appropriate at the time of the person writing, so Muslim scholarship has often said one thing and local mullahs have permitted other things.
 
The interpretation I’ve heard from the imams I know are that it has to do with equity in the marital relationship.
Men are required by sharia law to provide for the basic household needs of their family, in return, their wife has an obligation to honor them and treat them with respect. Because of the way marriages are contracted, women have control of the bridal mahr and their dowry, so in practice women usually have a lot more financial power over the household than men do, even though men are obliged to support their family at a basic level. So, a man may contribute his earnings to his family, but still have little say in how they’re spent because the wife is accorded most of the financial management of the household under sharia law. To even this out, sharia gives men certain entitlements in their families - namely that they have a right to sexual relations (within reason, men are not allowed to rape their wives and are required by the commandment to look after their well-being so they’re not allowed to compromise their wife’s health either mental or physical) and to peace within the home (so, if a man makes a reasonable request, the woman is required to honor it, and women are responsible for seeing that the men in their family are just as well-cared for as anyone else in the home).

So, if a woman is being obstinate, her husband should first gently try to correct the behavior. If that doesn’t work, then he should cease sharing her bed for awhile. If that doesn’t work, then he has the right to more serious measures depending on the specific school of jurisprudence and time period. I looked up a reference about this earlier, and at least one medieval jurist said that a man who ever hit his wife with anything larger than a toothpick was committing a grievous sin and the woman would have grounds for a judicial divorce. Another indicated that physical violence according to this rule was to be limited only to cases of infidelity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top