Moderate Islam: Great Article

[pro_universal]

disciple:

that would require an entire article by a Sheikh, which I’ve posted. But I will do snippets with quotes, sure.

1. Jihad violence: (see above, living islam link.)
2. Imposing Shariah on others:amislam.com/review.htm

The traditional view understands the role of politics in terms of what the Qur’an teaches. It indicates that prophets were sent to humans to teach them truths about God, ethics, ways to achieve prosperity in this world, and beatitude in the hereafter, and to warn about the consequences of injustice and sinfulness. A prophet who is called to preach in a stateless milieu has to assume a role of political leadership; this mantle fell on Moses, as it did to Muhammad (peace be upon both of them). Islamic tradition teaches that when this happens, the two roles are combined by accident; political leadership is not a necessary element of the prophetic mission. By way of confirmation, note that the Qur’an uses different titles to describe the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but none of them refers to his political function. Verses 33:45-46 say that he was sent as a witness (shahid), a bearer of glad tidings (mubashshir), one who warns (nadhir), as some one who calls to God (da ‘i ila Allah), and as a shining light (siraj munir). Nowhere does it say he was sent as a political leader or a head of state.

Islamists, however, have a very different interpretation. For them, building an Islamic state is the central achievement of the prophetic mission. Conflating the role of the Muslim scholar with that of a political leader, they hold that the spread of Islam cannot be separated from the creation of what they call the Islamic state.

They argue that “Islam is both religion and government” (al-lslam din wa dawla); and this serves the basic description of their creed. They neglect to mention, however, that this expression is found in neither the Qur’an, the Hadith (sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad), or in any other of the authoritative Islamic sources.

1. Women’s rights: frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444

FP: Do you think that veiling of women in Islam should me mandatory or voluntary?

Palazzi: Wearing or not wearing a veil should be the choice of a Muslim woman alone. No one has the right to compel her to wear or not wear a veil. As with prayer, fasting and all the other religious practices, veiling has meaning when it is spontaneous and reflects one’s will to please God by choosing to observe a religious precept. Forcing people to observe religious precepts does not result in an increase in faith, but rather an increase in hypocrisy. One does not pray, fast or wear a veil as an expression of freely chosen faith to submit to what one believes to be commanded by God, but only due to human coercion.

Consequently, I strongly condemn those regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which force women who do not want to wear the veil to do so; and regimes, such as Turkey and France, which prevent women who do want to wear the veil from doing so. My ideal of religious freedom is that, if a woman wants to veil, she must be free to do so, and the State must defend her right to veil; while if a woman does not want to veil, she must be free to do so, and the State must defend her right not to do so.

 

[Booklover]

pro_universal:

I believe this is quite true. When I read Jack Chick articles claiming that the Pope is the anti-christ, I laugh first, and then I feel more comfortable than ever with my Church, because I realize that those attacks are silly and based on lies.

It makes people feel better when all the attacks on their faith are based on lies, because it gives the impression that the attackers can’t do anything with the truth. This is why Spencer’s work is useful only to people who don’t know anything about Islam; if they don’t see how grossly biased it is, then it might have some appeal. For the rest of us, it’s the anti-muslim incarnation of Jack Chick comics. Spencer might as well be making “politically incorrect” coloring books.

Your double standards are amazing! When the attacks are on the church, “they’re just silly and based on lies” when it’s about Islam on the other hand, “they’re hate campaigns”. I’ve read lots of the things that Chick has said about our Church and they’re disgusting, and diabolical. Do you consider calling the Eucharist, “the death cookie” as “silly”?

Vickie

 

[discipleofJesus]

‘Do the Authentic Teachings of Islam Result in Terrorism?
Examining one Muslim’s Challenge’
by Sam Shamoun

[Part 1]
answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism1.htm

[Part 2]
answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm

One of the Salafi Muslims’ favorite scholars and heroes is Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who has been dubbed Shaykh-ul-Islam. This supposed Muslim scholar had this to say about Jihad:

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight WITH WORDS (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).” (Ibn Taymiyyah, in Rudolph Peters, “Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam”, [Princeton, NJ.: Markus Wiener, 1996], p. 49 – as cited by Andrew G. Bostom, “Khaled Abou El Fadl: Reformer or Revisionist?”, source; underline and capital emphasis ours)

The same quote can be found in the following site, but this time with some additional context:

“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for woman and children and they constitute property for Muslims.” (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad, p. 28; online edition; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Taken from ‘Do the Authentic Teachings of Islam Result in Terrorism?
Examining one Muslim’s Challenge - Part 2’
by Sam Shamoun
answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm

 

[pro_universal]

When the attacks are on the church, “they’re just silly and based on lies” when it’s about Islam on the other hand, “they’re hate campaigns”. I’ve read lots of the things that Chick has said about our Church and they’re disgusting, and diabolical. Do you consider calling the Eucharist, “the death cookie” as “silly”?

How can you read Jack Chick’s infantile, nutty work and not laugh? It’s so far from right that he might as well be giving the Kennedy-faked-the-moon-landing line in his tracts. My point was that reading his material doesn’t make you more interest in his view, it just makes you think that Jack Chick is a clown.

And the comparison was, people who print this “Islam preaches death!!!” material like Robert Spencer look like clowns to muslims, because their information is so bad that anyone who knows something about Islam will read it and say “where on earth did this guy come from?”

 

[pro_universal]

discipleofJesus:

Taken from ‘Do the Authentic Teachings of Islam Result in Terrorism?
Examining one Muslim’s Challenge - Part 2’
by Sam Shamoun
answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/terrorism2.htm

Please note the top of the article: “Salafi muslims…”…the Salafi are not a traditional muslim group, nor are they a large one. And that’s their one scholar, Ibn Tamiyya. In contrast, all four of the major Sunni Schools (Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i) condemn the reasoning of the “Salafis” or “Wahhabis”, and that includes all of their Scholars.

The radicals are the lone voices in the wilderness in Islam. They’re most popular in American anti-muslim writing, not in mainstream Islamic teaching.

In fact, if you look at a site for Sunni fatwas, you will find pages like this:livingislam.org/n/slfm_e.html

“Salafi” forgeries & manipulations
GF Haddad
It seems that every fifteen minutes another textual tampering or distortion of meaning is born at the hands of a certain sect, and to refute them is like trying to reason with Gog and Magog. However, the following reply is not addressed to them.

In addition, to specificaly address Ibn Tamiyya…he was tried as a heretic several times for his unorthodox views:livingislam.org/n/itay_e.html

So how exactly does this represent “Islamic orthodoxy”?

 

[discipleofJesus]

[Sura 9:29] **Fight ** those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

[note:The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran]

 

[murtad]

Gnosis:

I feel that this board has become little more than a place to defame Islam as a terrible religion. I came across this article which discusses how great numbers of muslims fell into the trap of fundamentalism:

scholarofthehouse.com/rmoissttisi1.html

Please tell us what do you mean by Muslims fell into the trap of “fundamentalism” ? I am sure you do not know the meaning of the English word “fundamentalism” or you will not make such a comment.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is a fundamentalist Christian as he follows the basics of the Gospel, which is love. The Islamist fundamentalism is quite different as its basics is hate, which is rooted in Quran and Hadith.

If we were to compare the false prophet Muhammad who preached racism and hate to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI who preaches love, you surely can see Muhammad was led by Satan and he is the Anti-Christ. His Holiness the Pope is led by our Lord Jesus and he is the voice of Christ.

Islamism teaches war is fun and converting all humans by force to Arab culture is a divine duty.

To pro-universal: You hate the Catholic Church so much that you go to such an extent of defaming the Pope and twisting his words. This is why I suspect you are not Christian at all.

 

[pro_universal]

[Sura 9:29]
**Fight ** those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

[note:The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran]

Disciple, the danger of posting quotes out of context and without the the historical interpretation is made clear in the article I posted on terrorism. You can post out of context Koranic quotes and hadiths until you are blue in the face, but that won’t change the fact that the traditional Muslim view does not agree that these verses command general violence against others.

Read the fatwas. It should be telling as to how far out of context and how deep your misunderstanding is when precisely none of the orthodox scholars agree with Spencer’s view of those quotes.

 

[pro_universal]

To pro-universal: You hate the Catholic Church so much that you go to such an extent of defaming the Pope and twisting his words. This is why I suspect you are not Christian at all.

huh?

 

[discipleofJesus]

The following is taken from ‘Question #34770: There is no compulsion to accept Islam’ 63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34770&dgn=4 ( www.islam-qa.com ) [underline emphasis mine]

Question :

Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.

Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allaah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allaah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.

Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

*“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5] *

He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

*“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”

[al-Tawbah 9:29] *

And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):

*“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]”

[al-Anfaal 8:39]

“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Tawbah 9:5] *

This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).

These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.

And Allaah is the Source of strength.

Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 6/219 (www.islam-qa.com)

 

[pro_universal]

discipleofJesus,

You have posted a good example of islamic heresy. The author of that piece cites no traditionally recognized scholar, no historical work, and does not mention any particular method of fiqh.

The link I gave you is one of the major Sunni Schools’ opinions on terrorism. The link you posted is an example of heretical writing.

 

[murtad]

freedomm:

Was there Hamas and Hezbollah or even al-Fatah before the illegal Zionist occupation of Palestine?

We have always had Islamist terrorists such as “Hamas” and “Hezbollah” even before Israel was created in 1948. We called this terrorist group, the Ottoman Empire. It was the Caliph of Islam who joined the First World War for the reasons conquer the world and Islamise it. Just imagine what would have happened if the Ottoman Empire had won the First World War? Europe would have been conquered and its citizens become dhimmis living as foreigners in their own land. That would not be much different from how the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Greek minorities in the Arab world live today in a state of humilation.

freedomm:

Was there Gandhi movement or similiar to it in India before the occupation of India by the British?

This is irrelevant to Christians. India today is much more anti-Islam compared to time under British rule. Do remember, how the Hindu fundamentalist government of former Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani destroyed the Babri mosque and continues to massacre the Kashmiri Muslims?

freedomm:

Was there any Mendela movement in Black South Africa before it was occupied by the White British?

This has nothing to do with religion. It was due to atheism the Black and White divide happened in South Afrika. I am sure you can remember that Ethiopia is the oldest Black Christian nation, which was converted by Byzantine missionaries in the 4th century?

freedomm:

Were there any Afghan Mujahideen movements in Afghanistan before Russia’s invasion?

The Afgan Mujahideen (such as Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Ladin, etc) was funded by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to bring down the atheist Russian Communist Army, which was a threat to the U.S.

freedomm:

People of resistence use different notions/things/sentiments to energise their people to fight injustice/illegal occupation. If people are not religious they spark nationalistic pride/attachment. If people are religious they use religious instruction to fight injustice. Obviously christianity too is not exception.

Its not people but the U.S. government and CIA that funded the two major Islamist terrorist groups, Taliban and Al-Qaeda encouraging them to resist the archrival of the U.S.A., the communist Russians.

freedomm:

What all these movements occurances prove is, people generally of any colour, nation, region, religion and race, are same when it comes to fighting injustice. People do fight back, if they are robbed by the thugs/robbers. Some people may even go further and take the law in their hand if they see law of the land is helpless or collaborating with the thugs/robbers. This fighting back has nothing to do with their faith/beliefs. It is a common thing that all humanity in general have it.

What you say is very true. This is why we, Christians are fighting back Islamist and Arab imperialism that occupy lands of the Coptic, Syriac, Armenians and Greeks in the Middle East (the so-called “Arab world”). The fight will end, when Muslims agree to submit to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and allow freedom to evangelism of Muslims and right to build churches in Saudi Arabia.

 

[pro_universal]

murtad,

You missed freedomm’s point. The point, and it’s true, he was demonstrating, was that resistence movements are responses to violence and attacks.

It’s interesting that you claim the South African system of apartheid had nothing to do with religion. It is most certainly the case that the Afrikaaners’ churches taught that the bible justified apartheid. Does that mean that all christianity is bad, because afrikaaners used it to justify racism?

 

[mike182d]

What makes today’s “radical” Muslims “radical?” What do they do that is different than the first several hundred years of Islamic military expansion and conquest?

A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Let’s say that the Jews kicked Jesus and His followers out of Jerusalem. Then, during their exile, Jesus amassed an army and in a series of three battles laid seige to Jerusalem and conquered it. *Then, *when He passes on control of His Church to Peter, Peter continues this military expansion conquering not just the whole of Israel but launches a full-scale front against the Roman Empire. Would it be logical to say that Christianity is a religion of peace? Could “peaceful” Christians several thousand years later say they’re true to their religion when their “peaceful” nature is contrary to that of its very founder?

Just curious…

 

[pro_universal]

Would it be logical to say that Christianity is a religion of peace? Could “peaceful” Christians several thousand years later say they’re true to their religion when their “peaceful” nature is contrary to that of its very founder?

Christianity allows for warfare in some cases, including in self defense or in defense of others. That has always been true in the Church’s teachings, and if you look at the map of the Christian world…you’ll find that it coincides quite nicely with the expansion of Christian armies.

All major religions of the world have imperial histories. It’s hypocritical and wrong to attack one for it without defaming the others as well.

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

All major religions of the world have imperial histories. It’s hypocritical and wrong to attack one for it without defaming the others as well.

No, it is not. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Christianity is a religion of peace, despite it’s military engagements later in history, because Christians can point to their founder and the first several hundred years of peaceful submission and martyrdom in the Roman Empire.

Can Islam say the same?

 

[mike182d]

pro_universal:

Christianity allows for warfare in some cases,

Furthermore, Christianity *never *allows warfare *over *religion. The criteria for “just war” are in an entirely different league than the beliefs of the first several hundred years of Islam. Christianity forbids wars of conquest. Islam does not.

 

[pro_universal]

No, it is not. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Christianity is a religion of peace, despite it’s military engagements later in history, because Christians can point to their founder and the first several hundred years of peaceful submission and martyrdom in the Roman Empire.

Can Islam say the same?

This is apples and oranges, because the circumstances of both religions were different.

Muhammad battled tribes that tried to kill him and wipe out Islam. Had Christians the power to do this, would they have been unjustified in doing it?

The question is: does the teaching of Christianity prevent christians from making war in the name of their religion? The answer is a clear no. This is also true for Islam.

 

[pro_universal]

The criteria for “just war” are in an entirely different league than the beliefs of the first several hundred years of Islam. Christianity forbids wars of conquest. Islam does not.

This is absolutely not the case. Wars of conquest can be allowed if the religion of Christianity is threatened. And we’ve had Popes specifically call for war to “annihilate the saracens.” So no, Christian teaching does not absolutely forbid conquest.