Question on Islam -- round 4

[pjk123]

Shahrukh Khan’s Comment on prophet and the “Fatwa”(Later Cancelled)
Bollywood(india) Super Star Shahrukh Khan received a “fatwa” few weeks back.it is rumoured that this Sensible man said in a newspaper interview to a question :“According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?” He replied He Hates Mohammad “prophet”,Winsten Churchhil,Hitlern etc.

The Fatwa was cancelled later:
hindu.com/2009/06/23/stories/2009062360621100.htm

^This guy is Prominent and Influencing ,Hence Escaped from Death Sazaa(Punishment).But many unfortunate Non-Muslims and Intelligent Muslims cannot Expect such a mercy from Islam.

1.bp.blogspot.com/_0arosa8qIkc/SjtD_HYD4VI/AAAAAAAAExU/cgmBVs3gwno/s200/sha.jpgBollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan got into trouble with his comments about Prophet Mohammad in an interview in the magazine Time’N Style-Luxury. A complaint has been lodged against him with respect ot this by the Mumbai Aman Committee (MAC) in the Bandra police station. SRK later clarified that his comments to a magazine were misinterpreted due to a “writing error”.

The controversial statement published in the magazine is as follows**“According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?
‘There are lots of them, some negative ones like Hitler, then Napoleon, Winston Churchill and if I can call it history, then Prophet Mohammed and from recent time - Nelson Mandela. And there are the nice ones like Gandhiji and Mother Teresa.’”**The Time’N Style-Luxury magazine has published a corrigendum on this issue in the leading Mumbai newspapers.

As per the corrigendum the article should be read as’According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?’
'There are lots of them. Some negative ones like Hitler. Then Napoleon, Winston Churchill were impressive.

‘If I can call it history then most impressive, positive figure Prophet Mohammad and from recent times there are the nice ones like Nelson Mandela, Gandhiji and Mother Teresa.’

weeksupdate.com/2009/06/shah-rukh-khans-comment-on-prophet.html

Who is ShahRukh Khan?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan

 

[jakasaki]

Shahrukh Khan’s Comment on prophet and the “Fatwa”(Later Cancelled)
Bollywood(india) Super Star Shahrukh Khan received a “fatwa” few weeks back.it is rumoured that this Sensible man said in a newspaper interview to a question :“According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?” He replied He Hates Mohammad “prophet”,Winsten Churchhil,Hitlern etc.

The Fatwa was cancelled later:
hindu.com/2009/06/23/stories/2009062360621100.htm

^This guy is Prominent and Influencing ,Hence Escaped from Death Sazaa(Punishment).But many unfortunate Non-Muslims and Intelligent Muslims cannot Expect such a mercy from Islam.

weeksupdate.com/2009/06/shah-rukh-khans-comment-on-prophet.html

Who is ShahRukh Khan?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahrukh_Khan

Well, at least they canceled the fatwa against this man, but the death fatwa still exists on the Pope and on Father Zakarias…

 

[Agabriel]

Actully its not important what happend to Virgin Mary at the end of her life BUT what will happen after that…

Read this thread about what Muslims believe, but please control yourself while reading it:

Whoa, talk about learning something new every day! This one is new to me!

A lot of cult leaders have taken the bible and twisted it to their own ends. Well, Muhammed took his twist to new levels it seems!

Since we have had people see the Virgin Mary on several occasions since Muhammed died - I would bet that she certainly didn’t ask his permission to take a trip out of heaven. And her message was so different from Muhammed’s message too. It was the total opposite of Muhammed’s message to the world.

 

[planten]

Since this thread is about something more than a year old and every one has commented and it is creating misunderstanding in the minds of christian brothers and sisters, it has to be explained as follows:

1. There is no mention in the Quran that the prophet will be given Mary the mother of
   Jesus in the next world.
2. It is the idea of some person that is a sort of commentary and has no value.
3. I had been telling all christian friends that they should not run to the Hadith too much.
4. This the bad result as you can see.
5. The expalantion of the verse, if based on a true Hadith, can be as follows:

The name of Mary is mentioned specially as a good example of a virgin. Nothing more.
The name of Aasiya is mentioned as a very good example of an honest married lady. Nothing more.

Nobody should read bad things into that matter. It does not mean that Allah will give Mary and / or Aasiya to muhammad in next life. There is no such thing. I do not believe that any foolish Muslim will even think of such bad things. Far from it. So the friends may forget about this affair as a man made idea which has no base. It is not from GodAllah. Most likely not from Muhammad too. So please forget it.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

1. I had been telling all christian friends that they should not run to the Hadith too much.

Running to any hadith, perhaps. Yet it seems even when we turn to sahih hadith it gets ignored. In any case, the hadith are important for providing historical and theological context for certain beliefs and Koranic passages. For example, how can you ignore the hadith sources and then try to understand the context of Surat 111?

 

[planten]

Running to any hadith, perhaps. Yet it seems even when we turn to sahih hadith it gets ignored. In any case, the hadith are important for providing historical and theological context for certain beliefs and Koranic passages. For example, how can you ignore the hadith sources and then try to understand the context of Surat 111?

**B W, thanks for asking. We can understand the Surah easily even without Hadith. There is no special order or command in that Surah. So there is no immediate danger of any mistake due to not fully understanding it.

I am short of time. God willing, I shall try to explain the Sura 111 later. If we leave the Suarh 111 alone as something historical, even then there is no harm. We leave it alone completely. We need not discuss it or preach about it.

When ever the name of Abu Lahab will come up for any discussion, then the Surah will be useful and self explanantory. Until then no need to delve into it. What do you say, Please?.

Hadith is useful as a servant to the Quran and Sunnah. But Hadith cannot overtake the Quran. Hadith cannot pass judgement on the verses of the Quran. Hadith cannot go against Quran. Most of the verses of the Quran are explained by other verses of the Quran and by the practice (Sunnah) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. More later.**

 

[Aydan]

Yikes, I just finished reading the entire thread and the article. I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about Islam but I had never heard this before. It is truly disgusting It reminded me of some of the Ottoman sultan traditions where women would lie in ranked order and wait for the sultan to have intercourse with them since his most important duty was to produce a male heir at all costs. I thought it was some Ottoman tradition I never realized that the Koran would condone this type of behavior. In fact when I started reading the article I had to do a double take because it is so similar to the Ottoman tradition I had to make sure I wasn’t reading about the harem and Turkish sultans. Thanks for sharing this with us Sam.

Actully its not important what happend to Virgin Mary at the end of her life BUT what will happen after that…

Read this thread about what Muslims believe, but please control yourself while reading it:

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I am short of time. God willing, I shall try to explain the Sura 111 later. If we leave the Suarh 111 alone as something historical, even then there is no harm. We leave it alone completely. We need not discuss it or preach about it.

It is fully explained in the hadith sources. A gentleman named Abu Lahab cursed Mohammad, and so Mohammad cursed him back through a revelation.

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Abu Lahab, may Allah curse him, once said to the Prophet (p.b.u.h), “Perish you all the day.” Then the Divine Inspiration came: “Perish the hands of Abi Lahab! And perish he!” (111.1). [Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 477]

…He (the narrator [Ibn Abbas]) said that Abu Lahab then said: Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us? He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed:" Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and he indeed perished" (cxi. 1). A’mash recited this to the end of the Sura. [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0406]

To simply take the Koran as is would be ignorant exegesis, since the Koran was not revealed all at once (let alone collected during Mohammad’s lifetime) but gradually over time. What was behind these revelations, and what was the story behind it? A large number of Koranic passages, in fact, were revealed in response to questions Muslims had, or problems they had to deal with. If you ignore that, then you open up for personal interpretation.

Furthermore, the history of a faith is important in understanding what inspires it or where it comes from. That is what the hadith provides.

 

[elwill]

I know I posted this before but received no replies. By reading this hadith, it’s clear mohamad was speaking about Jesus.

There is no other hadith like this one I posted the entire thing which is pretty short.

The unusual position of this hadith is under the “apostate” category and not in the "prophet category of hadiths.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 63:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, “O Lord! Forgive my, people as they do not know.”

hi jakasaki , i’m sorry , i didn’t see your question before to respond

this hadeeth not talking about jesus (pbuh) , the hadeeth is talking about someone else.
you can read more details from quran as proof that it wasn’t jesus (at least within islamic beliefs ) , may be he was normal man either , not prophet at all

read these verses from quran (chapter 36 )

13-And put forward to them a similitude: the (story of the) dwellers of the town, [it is said that the town was Antioch (Antakiya)], when there came Messengers to them.

14-When We sent to them two Messengers, they belied them both; so We reinforced them with a third, and they said: “Verily we have been sent to you as Messengers.”

15-They (people of the town) said: “You are only human beings like ourselves, and the Most Gracious (Allah) has revealed nothing. You are only telling lies.”

16-The Messengers said: "Our Lord knows that we have been sent as Messengers to you,

17-“And our duty is only to convey plainly (the Message).”

18-They (people) said: “For us, we see an evil omen from you: if you cease not, we will surely stone you, and a painful torment will touch you from us.”

19-They (Messengers) said: "Your evil omens be with you! (Do you call it “evil omen”) because you are admonished? Nay, but you are a people Musrifun (transgressing all bounds by committing all kinds of great sins, and by disobeying Allah).

20-And there came a man running from the farthest part of the town. He said: "O my people! Obey the Messengers.

21-"Obey those who ask no wages of you (for themselves), and who are rightly guided.

22-"And why should I not worship Him (Allah Alone) Who has created me and to Whom you shall be returned.

23-"Shall I take besides Him alihah (gods)? If the Most Gracious (Allah) intends me any harm, their intercession will be of no use for me whatsoever, nor can they save me?

24"Then verily, I should be in plain error.

25-“Verily! I have believed in your Lord, so listen to me!”

26-It was said (to him when the disbelievers killed him): “Enter Paradise.” He said: "Would that my people knew27-“That my Lord (Allah) has forgiven me, and made me of the honoured ones!”

28-And We sent not against his people after him a host from the heaven, nor was it needful for Us to send (such a thing).

29 It was but one Saihah (shout) and lo! they (all) were still (silent,dead,destroyed).

 

[elwill]

I know I posted this before but received no replies. By reading this hadith, it’s clear mohamad was speaking about Jesus.

There is no other hadith like this one I posted the entire thing which is pretty short.

The unusual position of this hadith is under the “apostate” category and not in the "prophet category of hadiths.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 63:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, “O Lord! Forgive my, people as they do not know.”

jakasaki , the prophet mentioned in the hadeeth was himself , the prophet was talking about himself in the battle of “Ahud”

the hadeeth you mentioned with some notes for understanding the correct meaning which very obvious in arabic language

. Abdullah ibn Masud said: As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets (mohammed was refering to himself ) whose people (mean Qurish ) have beaten and wounded him (in the battle of Uhud) , (the next comment is from the narrator him self ) and he (mohammed) was wiping the blood off his face and saying (the Prophet), "O Lord! Forgive my people as they do not know." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

**the details of this event **

After the fall of Ibn Sakan, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] remained alone with only those two Quraishites.
In a version by Abu ‘Uthman — authorized in As-Sahihain— he said: "At that time, there were none with the Prophet [pbuh] except Talha bin ‘Ubaidullâh and Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas That was the most awkward and dangerous hour for the Prophet [pbuh], but it was a golden opportunity for the idolaters who promptly took advantage of it. They concentrated their attack on the Prophet [pbuh] and looked forward to killing him.

‘Utbah bin Abi Waqqas pelted him with stones. One of the stones fell on his face. His lower right incisor Ruba‘iya (i.e. the tooth that is between a canine and a front tooth) was injured. His lower lip was wounded. He was also attacked by ‘Abdullah bin Shihab Az-Zuhri who cleaved his forehead. ‘Abdullah bin Qami’a (Qami’a means ‘a humiliated woman’), who was an obstinate strong horseman, struck him violently on his shoulder with his sword; and that stroke hurt the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] for over a month — though it was not strong enough to break his two armours. He dealt a heavy blow on his cheek. It was so strong that two rings of his iron-ringed helmet penetrated into his holy cheek. “Take this stroke from me, I am Ibn Qami’a.” He said while striking the Messenger with his sword. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] replied — while he was wiping the blood flowing on his face: “I implore Allâh to humiliate you.” (i.e. Aqma’aka Allâh).

In Al-Bukhâri it is stated his incisor broke, his head was cleaved, and that he started wiping the blood off it and saying: **"(I wonder) how can people who cut the face of their Prophet [pbuh] and break the incisor of his — he who calls them to worship Allâh. **How can such people thrive or be successful?" About that incident, Allâh, Glory is to Him, sent down a Qur’ânic verse saying:

“Not for you (O Muhammad [pbuh] but for Allâh) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zâlimûn (polytheists, disobedients, and wrong-doers).” [Al-Qur’an 3:128]
At-Tabarani states that the Prophet [pbuh] said: “Allâh’s Wrath is great on those who besmear the face of His Messenger,” observed silence for a short while and then resumed saying:

"O Allâh, forgive my people for they have no knowledge." [Fath Al-Bari 7/373]

 

[Sam_777]

Yikes, I just finished reading the entire thread and the article. I thought I was pretty knowledgeable about Islam but I had never heard this before. It is truly disgusting It reminded me of some of the Ottoman sultan traditions where women would lie in ranked order and wait for the sultan to have intercourse with them since his most important duty was to produce a male heir at all costs.

:sad_yes:

I thought it was some Ottoman tradition I never realized that the Koran would condone this type of behavior. In fact when I started reading the article I had to do a double take because it is so similar to the Ottoman tradition I had to make sure I wasn’t reading about the harem and Turkish sultans. Thanks for sharing this with us Sam.

It seems the turkish sultans took that idea from Quran and Hadith.

 

[alex55]

One should, prior to putting on Ehraam, take bath washing oneself well. If can not then perform Wudu (ablution). Anoint the hair with fragrant oil and comb them. If possible, get the head shaved off thereby relieving oneself of taking care of the hair. Pare the finger-nails, get the beard trimmed as per the Shari’ah, remove the hair of armpits and pubes. Applying perfume to oneself is Sunnat. Divest oneself of sewn cloths and put on two new or washed and clean sheets of cloth preferrably white. One covering the upper half of the body and the other covering the lower half. cooking momma flash rocket spanish Reaching Meeqaat offer two Rak’at prayer with the intention of Ehraam reciting “Surah Al-Kaaferoon” in the first Rak’at after “Surah Al-Faateha” and Surah Al-Ikhlaas" in the second Rak’at and after completing the prayer form Niyat of Hajj or 'Umrah as the case may be and then say loudly “Talbiyah” i.e. “Labbaiek”. This is Ehraam that brings the pilgrim under sanctions.

 

[Jay53]

I just have another general question and didn’t want to start another thread for this, so hopefully this thread is the appropriate place. If not, please let me know and I will start another thread.

How do Muslims interpret this verse or what is their view of it?

Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus drew near and spoke to them saying, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.”

 

[Aydan]

Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted by people so they only recognize the Old Testament. Muslims would simply conclude that this verse is part of the corrupt portion of the Bible therefore it misrepresents or misinterprets the actions of Jesus and they would also say that the true answer would be found in the Koran since Muslims believe that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God in order to fix these corruptions in the Bible. Yeah you’re in the right place.

I just have another general question and didn’t want to start another thread for this, so hopefully this thread is the appropriate place. If not, please let me know and I will start another thread.

How do Muslims interpret this verse or what is their view of it?

Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus drew near and spoke to them saying, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.”

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted by people so they only recognize the Old Testament.

Most Muslims also denounce the Old Testament (Torat) as well, pointing out what they perceive to be errors in storytelling and/or teachings.

 

[Aydan]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm that’s interesting because all of the stuff I’ve heard from Muslim scholars I’ve never heard them denounce the Old Testament in its entirety I have heard them say those things about certain stories but I never realized they were denouncing the entire thing. Perhaps I misunderstood or something. Just curious where did you come across this information?

Most Muslims also denounce the Old Testament (Torat) as well, pointing out what they perceive to be errors in storytelling and/or teachings.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm that’s interesting because all of the stuff I’ve heard from Muslim scholars I’ve never heard them denounce the Old Testament in its entirety I have heard them say those things about certain stories but I never realized they were denouncing the entire thing. Perhaps I misunderstood or something. Just curious where did you come across this information?

I’ve read Muslim apologetics (they’re sitting on my bookshelf, but I’m comfortable in bed writing on my laptop - if you want to know the exact source, I’ll stop being lazy and cite it directly for you ) that try to say Genesis has errors regarding the age of Ishmael and his exile (was he teenager, baby, etc) along with some other supposed contradictions, while Muslims I’ve spoken to personally who have had a hand in open debate have stated that there is corruption between the original writings of the prophets and ancient Jews up to today.

The problem with Muslim apologetics and scripture is that it is a constant state of circular logic involving exegesis and eisegesis. What goes with the Koran is accepted as God’s written word, but what goes against the Koran is believed to be corruption. This is why it can often be confusing as to whether a Muslim believes a book or passage of scripture to be either holy or relevant.

 

[Aydan]

no need for a direct quotation that explains a lot especially about that video I was asking about on another thread very interesting stuff.

I’ve read Muslim apologetics (they’re sitting on my bookshelf, but I’m comfortable in bed writing on my laptop - if you want to know the exact source, I’ll stop being lazy and cite it directly for you ) that try to say Genesis has errors regarding the age of Ishmael and his exile (was he teenager, baby, etc) along with some other supposed contradictions, while Muslims I’ve spoken to personally who have had a hand in open debate have stated that there is corruption between the original writings of the prophets and ancient Jews up to today.

The problem with Muslim apologetics and scripture is that it is a constant state of circular logic involving exegesis and eisegesis. What goes with the Koran is accepted as God’s written word, but what goes against the Koran is believed to be corruption. This is why it can often be confusing as to whether a Muslim believes a book or passage of scripture to be either holy or relevant.

 

[famdigy]

Why did Mohammed turn his back on a blind man? How could he justify doing this if he werea prophet of God? Mohammed claimed to be following in the footsteps of Jesus but how can this be so when these verses in the Koran show that he turned his back on a disabled person when Jesus never did that?

[1] (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,

[2] Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).

[3] But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?

[4] Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?

I havn’t read the entire thread, and I don’t think this point has been brought up.

The occasion for the revelation of this Chapter was a historic event which took place. Once the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) was with some the rich individuals of Quraish from the tribe of Umayad, among them was Uthman Ibn Affan, who took the office of caliphate later. While the Messenger of Allah was preaching them, Abdullah Ibn Umm Maktoom who was blind and was one of the companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) came to see him. The Holy Prophet received him with honor and pleasure and gave him the closest place to himself. However, the Prophet did not answer the question of the blind immediately Since he was at the middle of his speech with the Qurashites. Since Abdullah was poor and blind, the chieftains of the Quraish looked down upon him and they did not like the honor and the respect bestowed upon him by the Prophet (PBUH&HF). They also did not like the presence of the blind among themselves and his interrupting their conversation with the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Finally one of the wealthy Umayad (namely Uthman Ibn Affan) frowned at Abdullah and turned his back to him.

This act of the chieftains of Quraish displeased Allah and thus He revealed the Chapter 80 (Abas) through Gabriel at the same time. This Chapter commended Abdullah’s position though poor and blind. In the first 4 verses, Allah denounced the detesting attitude of the chieftain of the Quraish. And in the later verses, Allah * reminds * his Prophet (PBUH&HF) that preaching an unbeliever is not necessary if the unbeliever does not intend to purify himself and offenses a believer just because of his lack of wealth and health.

There are some Sunni commentators who align the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) along with below-average ordinary morals, and accuse him of insulting Abdullah, and by that, they try to say that he was not free from the weakness of character and conduct. This is while the one who insulted the poor man was a wealthy member of Umayad who was either still non-Muslim, or had recently joint the companions (namely Uthman). Yet some people, in order to clear the face of Uthman from such misconduct, do not have any hesitation to accuse the Prophet of such action, and to put down the Prophet in favor of Uthman. Such twist of the event was done by the Umayad during their reign through pay-roll narrators. It is well-known that Umayad were the most ardent enemies of the family of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and Islam; as such, it was not befitting of them that their leader, Uthman, be reprimanded in the Quran; thus, the scholars who worked for the Umayad were forced to write that this verse was revealed to reprimand the Prophet (PBUH&HF), not Uthman. Such flat-out lie was to preserve the dignity of Uthman with the price of humiliating the master of all the prophets.

Quran does NOT give any evidence that the person who frowned at the blind was the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and does not state who is being addressed. In the above verses of Quran Allah (SWT) did NOT address the Prophet either by name or title (i.e. O Muhammad, or O Prophet, or O Messenger). Moreover, there exists switching in the pronoun from “he” in the first two verses to “you” in the later verses of the chapter. Allah did NOT state: “You frowned and turned away”.

Moreover, frowning is not from the manners/descriptions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) even with his obvious enemies, let alone believers seeking guidance! One may question how can a Prophet (PBUH&HF) who was sent as a mercy to mankind be cruel when an AVERAGE believer does not in such behavior? This allegation is also in contradiction with the announcement of the sublime morals and the ethics of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) by God himself:
"And most certainly you are on sublime morality (exalted standard of character)." (Quran, al-Qalam 68:4).

 

[Jay53]

Another general question:

Why do Muslims believe Muhammad? It appears that he is just one man who received this revelation which contradicts previous scriptures. What makes his revelation more believable than any other person - what proof has he provided that his revelations are from God?

This may have been answered before and I apologize for any redundancy.