Muslim who needs answers???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Muslim who also has some concerns with Islam, I have been reading this thread with great interest. Perhaps, this thread is even providential. Please understand that I am not a novice, as regards familiarity with Shari’ah. My concerns are related to the proclivity to violence that appears to exist in Islam. I wonder why Muhammad did not be patient when persecuted, like Christ did (even unto death). I am not a passivist and understand conflict is sometimes justified. However (for example), God permitting a man to beat his wife (even lightly) seems wrong. The closing of the door of Ijtihad in the 13 century is also a huge problem for me, also. Islam seems to require us to become 7th century Arabs to truly live Islam. There is very little permission to practise Islam within ones own cultural context. For example, modesty is an important spiritual principle in Islam and Christianity. The difference is that Islam allows little flexibility in the practice of modesty. Christianity has much more. I do understand that there are differences. I am, specifically, references the degree of flexibility. Most religiously-observant Muslim women that I know feel that the Hijab is mandatory in most occassions (when around non-Maharim males). I personally think that a woman can be modest without a Hijab and, in fact, modesty is seated in the heart.
I will be interested in replies.
Finally, the following statement is incorrect.

“Rape does not require ANY witnesses for the rapist to be punished.”

According to all four schools of thought, rape would have to be proved by 4 witnesses that saw (please excuse the graphic comment) actual insertion. In the Maliki school for example, one of the strongest opinions is that the women would need to prove the rape with 4 witnesses or be punished. This may sound amazing, but look it up if you doubt. 😦
Just coming back from the pre-Christmas Penitential service and saw this.

Sister Amy was practically shouting for attention when she splashed this sentence on her post, **“Rape does not require ANY witnesses for the rapist to be punished.” **I guess it’s quite hard for us kuffurs to learn Islam when we see conflicting advice when we ask for them.

Thanks eichenb2 for your post. Somehow it is rather nice to read for it is without any hint of defensivenesss.
 
There is absolute consensus on the 4 witnesses.

ok maybe Sister Amy was wrong.
Also, the link was to a story about a 13yr old girl in Somalia that stoned to death, after (it was reported) she was raped. No matter how you spin that, a little girl/young lady was killed. Given the Shari’ah and my perception of human behavior, I certainly do accept that this young lady could have been raped and the men accused simply swore by Allah that they didn’t do it and got off. This is an example of my problems with Islam.
 
Punishment that commensurate with the crime and rehabilitation of criminals are the solution, my friend Otherwise both ways you are still using the seventh century method – either too harsh or simply arbitrarily.
in Islam, it is a virtue to cover the sins of other if they repent. I wonder how this applies in case of body mutilation, which is a forever stain of dishonor عار.
 
Islam was invented by Muhammad, after he studied Judaism and Christianity. His primary objective was to create a monotheistic faith, in imitation of the Jews and Christians, that would specifically appeal to the Arabs. This precisely explains Islam’s approval, if not encouragement, of violence and cruelty. These traits were ancient harbingers of Arabic culture, as they are today.
 
in Islam, it is a virtue to cover the sins of other if they repent. I wonder how this applies in case of body mutilation, which is a forever stain of dishonor عار.
Really? This is getting on another dimension - lots of things which I did not think of. No, it cannot apply to the argument that cutting of hands is to act as deterent or example for any would be thief.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Salaam/peace
… I am Arabic.
what do u mean by I am Arabic ?
(Coran, 51 : 47)
I never saw any Muslim writing Coran . Are u really a Muslim ?
reply precisely with references.
to know about Islam , you came to a Catholic forum ? I find it very funny . Must not u go to an Islamic forum ?
 
what do u mean by I am Arabic ?

He means he is a native speaker of the Arabic language.

I never saw any Muslim writing Coran . Are u really a Muslim ?

He is, most likely from a French-speaking country , as the Qur’an is written Le Saint Coran in French.

to know about Islam , you came to a Catholic forum ? I find it very funny . Must not u go to an Islamic forum ?

He probably came to this forum seeking a different perspective. After all if he questions Islam and its sources, someone may try to kill him. 😦
 
to know about Islam , you came to a Catholic forum ? I find it very funny . Must not u go to an Islamic forum ?

Muslim Woman, have you read all his posts? because I asked about it before and he already explained.
He has some doubts about Islam and he already came to any other forums to give him answers which he hasn’t been satisfied with the answers so he came to Catholic Forum
 
Dont’t feel bad, Walid! Sister Amy does the same thing to me. When I ask her a point blank question, she replies with another question. She’s real good at that.😃

Vickie
That seems to be a worldwide muslim retoric, here they do the same, we got a converted woman who defends islam with all her power, even to the extent that she is acctually doing a better job to make people hate islam than 10 bin ladins could ever do.
 
That seems to be a worldwide muslim retoric, here they do the same, we got a converted woman who defends islam with all her power, even to the extent that she is acctually doing a better job to make people hate islam than 10 bin ladins could ever do.
** anjoh66, There is no problem. The soul converted to Islam is safe in this world and the next life too. That is a contented soul. Allah is pleased with him/her and he/she is pleased and in comfort with Allah.

The christians have no religion. First their bibleNt is no more the actual teachings of Jesus. Secondly it is not being practiced. The majority of the so called christians are only in name sake christians i.e. to increase their number to two billion. Otherwise most of them are either atheists or non-practcing christians.

The problem of a any asked question: The christians should not ask any malafide question if a similar thing is reported in their own bibleNT/bibleOT. It becomes unjust to ask us a question when a similar thing is reported in their own books.**
 
** anjoh66, There is no problem. The soul converted to Islam is safe in this world and the next life too. That is a contented soul. Allah is pleased with him/her and he/she is pleased and in comfort with Allah.

The christians have no religion. First their bibleNt is no more the actual teachings of Jesus. Secondly it is not being practiced. The majority of the so called christians are only in name sake christians i.e. to increase their number to two billion. Otherwise most of them are either atheists or non-practcing christians.

The problem of a any asked question: The christians should not ask any malafide question if a similar thing is reported in their own bibleNT/bibleOT. It becomes unjust to ask us a question when a similar thing is reported in their own books.**
The Christian teaching is, when you do good deeds, don’t annouce it the whole world, so that people see that you are good. You will have no reward in heaven for doing so. The Christians are also taught not to Judge other people, especially his/her relationship to God. It is the right of God to judge a Christian is good or bad, not anyone including the muslims. So, if you don’t see any good things done by Christian, it is too bad for you.

Wow, it seems to me that you believe that heaven will full of the muslims. Remember, brother, your muslims brothers do not even considered you as muslim. Perhaps you believe that heaven will full of the Ahmadiyya instead.

If there is something funny in the bible, you can go ahead and ask questions. We will be happy to answer. The problem is when we ask the questions, you ignore them. The best answer we have is either “Muhammad said so or Quran said so”.
 
** anjoh66, There is no problem. The soul converted to Islam is safe in this world and the next life too. That is a contented soul. Allah is pleased with him/her and he/she is pleased and in comfort with Allah.

The christians have no religion.

On the contrary, they do have a religion. It is called Christianity. If you would like to become familiar with the Catholic Church’s teachings, you can read the Bible (preferable NAB or RSV translation), The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or (if you really have alot of Himma) the Code of Canon Law. You should do this prior to hurling accussations out of ignorance. Because you say that Christians have no religion does not make it so. This seems to be a polemical problem in the Muslim mind. They (and you) seems to think if you say something, with enough conviction, it will be true. I guess that this is the result of the Might make Right mentality. Christians, on the other hand, understand that you have to die (to sin) to have everlasting life and that the ultimate victory (of Christ) is achieved by GIVING himself over to defeat (Death). " unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." - Gospel of St. John 12:24

First their bibleNt is no more the actual teachings of Jesus.

The Bible, and specifically the New Testament, has strongest manuscript evidence of any document from antiquity. Don’t take my word for it. Read…In the Name of the Lord Jesus. If you are referencing manuscript variations, there certainly are many. However, these do not amount to sustanstial differences in the text. You should read more about this. By the way, the Qur’an also has textual variations (Qiraa’aat & Ahruf). Since Uthman destroy all copies but one, we may knew know how many other variations there were. The books of Sira and Hadith do give indications that there were many.

Secondly it is not being practiced. The majority of the so called christians are only in name sake christians i.e. to increase their number to two billion. Otherwise most of them are either atheists or non-practcing christians.

I must say that, after visiting several predominantly Muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia), most Muslims are Muslims in name only, also. I hope you are not baseing you comparision of practice on only the Muslims in the Mosque. This is not a proper sample. You would be excluding the Iranian woman in the night clubs and the Iraqi guys, that I know, who love Sangria. Most of these people call themselves Muslim. Consequently, I would agree. Most Christians are in name only, but so are Muslims. I think you will find that the Christians on this forum are, mostly, practicing Christians.

The problem of a any asked question: The christians should not ask any malafide question if a similar thing is reported in their own bibleNT/bibleOT. It becomes unjust to ask us a question when a similar thing is reported in their own books.**
 
The christians have no religion.
This is rich considering what Islam is. To understand it, we must first examine the ethical basis of our [Western] civilization.

All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule – the equality of human beings – we have created democracy, ended slavery, and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

So how is Islam different in this context?

The term “human being” has no meaning in Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill, or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive, or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

This dualistic ethic is the basis for [justifying] jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm, or deceive the unbeliever. [Note: Hitler did the same thing; he told the German people the Jews were sub-human, making it easier to kill them.]

Unbelievers * have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

By contrast, Islam is mostly political and not religious at all. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars – prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting, and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith) is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings – murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.
Credit: Glazov, “The Study of Political Islam” frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769
The problem of a any asked question: The christians [sic] should not ask any malafide [sic] question if a similar thing is reported in their own bibleNT/bibleOT [sic]. It becomes unjust to ask us a question when a similar thing is reported in their own books.
For non-Muslims in this thread who are interested, see “Games Muslims Play” thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

Then there is the experience of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. When they went to Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785 to inquire by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that, “It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

When you consider the above and examine the fate of people conquered by Islamic armies down through history [worse than blacks were treated under Jim Crow, in addition to the jizya extortion tax], it is difficult not to conclude that Islam is not a religion at all but a Mafia with a manual.*
 
** I admire the rule presented in last post. See below.

Treat others as you would be treated.**

I wish every one followed that rule here too. I am sorry, (I regret) I had to write things against my beliefs and wishes at time when some people were harsh against Islam.
 
This is rich considering what Islam is. To understand it, we must first examine the ethical basis of our [Western] civilization.

All of our politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule:

Treat others as you would be treated.

The basis of this rule is the recognition that at one level, we are all the same. We are not all equal. Any game of sports will show that we do not have equal abilities. But everyone wants to be treated as a human being. In particular, we all want to be equal under the law and be treated as social equals. On the basis of the Golden Rule – the equality of human beings – we have created democracy, ended slavery, and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam.

So how is Islam different in this context?

The term “human being” has no meaning in Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill, or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive, or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

This dualistic ethic is the basis for [justifying] jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm, or deceive the unbeliever. [Note: Hitler did the same thing; he told the German people the Jews were sub-human, making it easier to kill them.]

Unbelievers * have frequently failed at applying the Golden Rule, but we can be judged and condemned on its basis. We do fall short, but it is our ideal.

By contrast, Islam is mostly political and not religious at all. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars – prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting, and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith) is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings – murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.
Credit: Glazov, “The Study of Political Islam” frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769*

For non-Muslims in this thread who are interested, see “Games Muslims Play” thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm

Then there is the experience of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. When they went to Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785 to inquire by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that, “It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

When you consider the above and examine the fate of people conquered by Islamic armies down through history [worse than blacks were treated under Jim Crow, in addition to the jizya extortion tax], it is difficult not to conclude that Islam is not a religion at all but a Mafia with a manual.

This a very long and interesting post, but, I assure, that the Muslim answers to these issues exist and are more nuanced. There are answers in Islam and Muslims believe them. Christians must avoid the temptation to frame their discussions only in a Western, Christian cultural framework. I reminds me of a question that was posed to an Orthodox priest (from a Lutheran pastor)about his view of justication by works. The priest said that they simply do not have those category distinctions. I, like you, do find some problematic aspects to Islam (and I have intimate experience), but understand all faithS in the cultural millieu in which they strive. I would suggest that that more reading may aid your analysis. For example, the concept of “Dar-ul-Islam vs. Dar-ul-Harb” has evolved and there is a much more nuanced view my many modern Muslim apologists. Just a thought.
 
I am sorry, (I regret) I had to write things against my beliefs and wishes at time when some people were harsh against Islam.
I do not believe that I was critical of religious Islam or Muslims who try to do good according to the Golden Rule; my criticism is meant for political Islam. Did you consider that perhaps political Islam should be “harshly” criticized?

When a Christian is critical of the Koran, the usual Muslim response is something like, “You have taken it out of context.”

The most common criticism of Christianity by Muslims has been the Crusades. Even Christians feel guilty about them. Why? No living Christian is responsible for them. Consider only some of what happened before the Crusades … to put them in “context”:

632 AD – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims in October, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853-71 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.

The 463 years that elapsed between Muhammad’s death and the calling of a Crusade to free the Holy Places was not, as Islam apologists would have us believe, a time of “peaceful co-existence” between Muslims and European or Byzantine Christians. Nor was it, for Christians living in Muslim-occupied territories. They enjoyed “peace” only by keeping the lowest possible profile, paying the jizya [head-tax], and accepting non-person status in lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived. Conquered peoples converted, lived as dhimmis, or were slain. If the Christian [or Jew] under Islamic rule could no longer pay the jizya, Muslims could resume jihad against him.

These events show that Islam did not spread by Muslim missionaries knocking on non-believer doors. It spread by conquest. As noted above, Mohammed tried the peaceful approach and got only 150 converts in 13 years.

Ref: “The Crusades In Context”
By Dr Paul Stenhouse
answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm
 
…the concept of “Dar-ul-Islam vs. Dar-ul-Harb” has evolved and there is a much more nuanced view my many modern Muslim apologists. Just a thought.
Does their “nuance” include putting the Crusades in context? The pope apologized [unjustifiably IMHO] for the Crusades, which spanned a few hundred years. Has any Islamic leader apologized for 1,400 years of jihad? No. And why not? Because for Islam there is no compromise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top