question re islam

[Murcury]

Is that about it in a nutshell?

No. Rather, I would ask to see the verse, try to explain the context if I know it, and then we can have a nice discussion. If you attacked my side too much then I would quote the Bible but I understand how annoying it is to do that and I wasn’t planning to do that. I simply want a friendly discussion.

Bukhari, volume 9, #57

Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire**).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”**

There was only one narrator and thus, in Islamic studies, that Hadith isn’t considered totally valid. It takes at least two people to help give authenticity in Hadith sciences. Some people may use it for justification but there is very shaky evidence behind it. It would be as if, I quoted The Da Vinci Code for information about Jesus. It’s very shaky.

I think you should be aware that the historical record shows that when you are fair to Islam, you are playing with dynamite.

I don’t consider being truthful about the real nature of Islam to be “bashing”. You might find interesting a non-Christian perspective, “The Decrees of Islam”.

I would work on replying to this post in depth to the best of my knowledge (it’d be better for someone with more Islamic Studies, I have crumbs of it) but I have limited time on the Internet. I suggest you ask the Muslim community on Reddit for a clarification. If you need a link I can give it. But, let me say to any people reading (and I know that Sedonaman will have a problem with what I’m about to say): The links and article are not meant to be neutral and scholarly, they are half truths (I’m saying half truths with a lean more towards distortion) and lies. A site called islam-watch.org would of course have propaganda material. I ask everyone not to believe me on my word but to be skeptical, of both sides and seek out scholars who know more than me. But, people, do not take sedonaman’s articles as truth. Islam is peaceful. I have become far more peaceful and less angry since discovering Islam. Islam brings peace and opposes injustice.

Like what? Where did you get this idea? Muslim posters here have said in the past that Allah’s nature cannot be known; only his will can be known.

He has 99 names which are mentioned in the Qur’an. For example, there are the names ar-rahman and ar-raheem: the Merciful and the Gracious (to give a common translation). We know He is the King, the Creator, the Merciful, etc based off the Qur’an.

I see Abu has picked up the defense of Islam. I ask posters to remember that because Islam has no central authority, what he may have heard is different than what I have heard, and I would defend Islam more from the attack in this thread but I am on limited Internet.

Abu, best of luck.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

My original statement was
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedonaman
And the rifts will remain as long as Islamic countries [e.g., Saudi Arabia] deny other religions the same freedoms Islam enjoys in the West. …

Are you referring to a ‘‘Christian Nation’’ under which muslims enjoy some kind of ‘freedom’ because of the nice and kind christian rulers, citizens and christian civil law ? is there any ‘‘Christian Nation’’ in the West ? or perhaps you’re reffering by the ‘West’ to all these ‘‘Secular states’’ ?

If muslim enjoy that much ‘freedom,’ why is Tariq Mehenna, an American, in prison for his thoughts?

If it’s ‘freedom,’ why are they all hating on women who wear niqab or even hijab? Where’s her ‘freedom’ to dress as she pleases? Why did France ban it? Why is a niqab seen as extremism? Let the ‘free’ woman dress however she likes.

And the same can be said for many of the ‘freedoms’ America and the West espouse. The rest of the world simply doesn’t agree - why is it that the West decides what ‘freedom’ is, then gets to enforce it on the rest of the world? Who gave them that right?

Since when does the whole world revolve around the West ?

and I guess you want me to come to the understanding that in contrast to these ‘‘Secular countries’’ Islam is intolerant? right ?

Islam is Allah’s final religion that He has approved for mankind. There will be no true religion after it. Allah has made rules for us to follow in this life - these rules keep us and society in check, but more importantly, we follow them as a form of worship.

The West also has rules. America doesn’t allow a man to marry two women. Intoleran?. America doesn’t allow a ‘young’ adult to marry an ‘older’ adult. Intolerant?

America will throw people in prison for having thoughts they dislike. Intolerant?

America will invade a country, bomb it, destroy it, murder, torture, and rape the innocents, all on the basis of a complete lie (Saddam has WMDs), and then shrug and say, “Oh wells.” Intolerant.

Point is: Every society has rules. The West included. Why are their rules ‘freedom’ whilst Islam’s (Allah’s) rules are labeled ‘intolerant’?

Wherever they live under Islam, they have to live as dhimmis. There are no equal rights.

Do you even know who a Dhimmi is ? what’s the meaning of it? and what is the status they enjoy under Islamic jurispridence ?

These are the people about whom our beloved prophet Muhammad (saw), the Seal of the prophets said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”

and also in another narration ‘’ “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”’’

Don’t have a credible response? Hurl ad hominems.

Strange how the whole world is against Islam, isn’t it?

Could it be because it’s the truth? Don’t you find it odd that from the 1800s until now virtually thousands of books have been written on Islam many of which are hardly friendly towards Islam plus all the bad press that it gets over the television and the internet so much so that when Islam is mentioned the first association made is with terrorism? Yet, with all these negative imagery hoisted upon Islam it continues to surpass all other religions in its growth.

Though on one side of the spectrum we find strong opposition there is also another side of the spectrum that commends.

Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,’ 1840
“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.” “A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.”

A. S. Tritton in ‘Islam,’ 1951
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other is quite false.

De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923.
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.

Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.” “I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.” “I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

It has had a persecution complex since the beginning. It is because of dar al Islam vs dar al harb. Which brings me to another observation: Islam never looks back at itself when it fails; its reaction is always, “Who did this to us?” never, “What did we do wrong that caused us to fail?”

Islam is the name of a religion, would it be a sound claim saying ‘Christianity’ never looks back at itself when it fails ? or would it be better sayings ‘‘Christians’’ never look … fails?

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Mohammed was the perfect Muslim, right? If he is the perfect Muslim, aren’t you supposed to imitate his actions? Whatever wrongs that Christians committed in fighting Crusades, they did so contrary to Jesus’ commands; Muslims who waged wars of conquest did so in imitation of Mohammed. While we can’t judge a religion on the actions of some of its followers, we certainly can on the actions of its founder.

I agree with your last sentence, and the same should apply to today’s Christians and the Crusades. The pope should have never apologized for them.

This is a faulty comparison, since Jesus never assumed the role of a statesman, never fought a single battle and therefore never gave any instruction as to how a battle should be fought and what are the limits one should avoid transgressing etc. a more reasonnable comparison, if you wish to make any, then let it be between Moses and Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

Reverend Bosworth Smith in ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism,’ London, 1874, said:

“Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.”

Wassalam Alaikum, enough for today, see you tomorow Inchallah (God Willing)
Son of Adam

 

[sedonaman]

… I suggest you ask the Muslim community on Reddit for a clarification. If you need a link I can give it. But, let me say to any people reading (and I know that Sedonaman will have a problem with what I’m about to say): The links and article are not meant to be neutral and scholarly, they are half truths (I’m saying half truths with a lean more towards distortion) and lies. A site called islam-watch.org would of course have propaganda material. I ask everyone not to believe me on my word but to be skeptical, of both sides and seek out scholars who know more than me. But, people, do not take sedonaman’s articles as truth. Islam is peaceful. I have become far more peaceful and less angry since discovering Islam. Islam brings peace and opposes injustice.
…

OK. Here’s an example.

A Muslim poster said the only true Qur’an is one in Arabic. So, I wondered, do you have to know Arabic to become a Muslim? Otherwise, how would you know what a true Qur’an said? Turns out you don’t have to know Arabic, according to this islamic-world.net/invitation.php?ArtID=338 Islamic website. [Note: this Q&A has since been removed.] It said, “All that is required is to submit to Allah and memorize a few prayers in the Qur’an.”

But, to submit to Allah, isn’t it necessary to know his will, and where do you find it but in the Qur’an?

“Learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic,” the site continues.

A Muslim told me that an Islamic scholar would explain it to me. OK. In what language will he explain it? He would have to use Arabic because, according to the same Muslim, “Only Arabic can convey the true meanings and translations of the meaning have lost total understanding of the verses.” Without knowing Arabic, I wouldn’t understand what the scholar was saying or what to believe; but according to them, I would be a “believer” nevertheless. How can you believe dogma you don’t have the meaning for? In an attempt to be esoteric and avoid difficult questions, Islamic scholars have created more confusion than answered questions, not the least critical being why would Allah create a plan for all mankind for all times in a language only a handful of people could read?

Bottom line on this reasoning: Catch 22, IOW, you can’t get there until you’ve been there.

 

[jakasaki]

Posted: Jakasaki

If you are going to dismiss this as invalid due to a single transmission, then you need to dismiss the entire Sahih Bukhari collection and while you’re at it, dismiss all of the other hadiths books from Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud and Malik’s Muwatta

Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also known as the sunnah.

The reports of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds are called ahadith.

Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet’s death and worked extremely hard to collect his ahadith.

Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur’an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established.

Bukhari’s collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh).

abdurrahman.org/sunnah/sahihBukhari/index.html

And BTW ~ DaVinci Code is a NOVEL!

 

[sedonaman]

This is a faulty comparison, since Jesus never assumed the role of a statesman, never fought a single battle and therefore never gave any instruction as to how a battle should be fought and what are the limits one should avoid transgressing etc. a more reasonnable comparison, if you wish to make any, then let it be between Moses and Muhammad.

Moses was not the founder.

Reverend Bosworth Smith in ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism,’ London, 1874, said:

“Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.”

Wassalam Alaikum, enough for today, see you tomorow Inchallah (God Willing)
Son of Adam

As long as we are quoting Western observers:John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, un-compromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series, “…he [Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. …The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet [sic] is the prophet of God.”
Also, one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired 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 Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
[It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.]

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam:
“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.’ Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military.”
And that is why wherever there is Islam, you will also find war.

A question for your further research is if peace will rule once the whole world becomes dar al-Islam, how is it that more Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims than by unbelievers?

 

[jakasaki]

Well then… let’s add Winston Churchill in here as well from 1899.

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

OK. Here’s an example.

A Muslim poster said the only true Qur’an is one in Arabic.

He is right, since the revelation of Allah has been conveyed to His messenger in the arabic language, the Arabic Qur’an is what we believe to be the Literal word of God, a translation of it in any given language, be it in english is all it is, a ‘translation of the word of God’ and not the ‘Word of God’ in the literal sense of the term.
A translation of the Qur’an is the human effort to convey the words of God in another language and it can’t be equate with the actual words of God as revealled in the arabic language.

So, I wondered, do you have to know Arabic to become a Muslim?

No, you don’t. The hadith known as the “hadith of Gabriel” is one of the most comprehensive hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him):

‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) said: Once we were sitting in the company of Messenger of Allah (saw) when there appeared a man dressed in very white clothes and having extraordinary black hair. No signs of fatigue of journey appeared on him and he was known to none of us. He sat down facing the Prophet (saw) leaning his knees against the knees of the Prophet (saw) and placing both of his palms over his two thighs and said, “O Muhammad (saw)! Tell me about Islam”. He (saw) replied, "Islam is to testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and that Muhammad (saw) is the Messenger of Allah; that you observe Salat (prayers), pay Zakat, observe Saum (fasting) of Ramadan and perform Hajj (pilgrimage) of the House, provided you have resources of making journey to it.’’ He replied: “You have spoken the truth”. We were surprised to see that he had asked him and confirmed the correctness of the answers. He then enquired: “Tell me about Iman”. He (saw) said, "It is to believe in Allah, and His Books, and His Messengers and the Last Day and that you believe in foreordainment, its bad and good consequences.’’ He said, "You have spoken the truth.’’ He then enquired: "Tell me about Ihsan.’’ He (saw) said, “It is to worship Allah as if you are seeing Him; and although you do not see Him, He sees you”. He enquired: “Inform me about the Hour (i.e., the Day of Resurrection)”. He (saw) replied, “I have no more knowledge thereof than you”. He said, “Inform me about some of its signs”. He (saw) said, “They are - that a bondswoman gives birth to her own master, and that you will find the barefooted, naked, poor shepherds competing one another in the construction of higher buildings”. Then he departed. The Messenger of Allah kept silent for a while then he said to me, "O `Umar! Do you know who the questioner was?’’ I replied, “Allah and His Messenger know better”. The Prophet (saw) said, “He was Jibril (Gabriel); he came to you to teach you your religion”.

Otherwise, how would you know what a true Qur’an said? Turns out you don’t have to know Arabic, according to this islamic-world.net/invitation.php?ArtID=338 Islamic website. [Note: this Q&A has since been removed.] It said, “All that is required is to submit to Allah and memorize a few prayers in the Qur’an.”

Good.

But, to submit to Allah, isn’t it necessary to know his will, and where do you find it but in the Qur’an?

the Qur’an is available to all of mankind and its message has been conveyed in all languages. However we insist, that a translation of the Qur’an (which is an interpretation of the arabic Qur’an and the human effort to convey the original message as revealled in the arabic language by Allah himself) can’t be held to the same status as the arabic Qur’an as revealled by Allah. Only if you can appreciate the distance between you little creature and your Creator, then you can appreciate the difference between the Qur’an (Word of Allah) and a translation of it.

“Learning Arabic will be an advantage as there is a big difference between reading the translations of the Qur’an and the original text in Arabic,” the site continues.

So clear.

A Muslim told me that an Islamic scholar would explain it to me. OK. In what language will he explain it? He would have to use Arabic because, according to the same Muslim, “Only Arabic can convey the true meanings and translations of the meaning have lost total understanding of the verses.” Without knowing Arabic, I wouldn’t understand what the scholar was saying or what to believe; but according to them, I would be a “believer” nevertheless. How can you believe dogma you don’t have the meaning for?

Part of what is lost in a translation, it’s not the message, but the Miracle and it is difficult to convey the Literacy gems of the Quran in another language. But many people have taken upon them this task to convey the Miracle Literacy of the Qur’an in english for exemple, you can look after a man who’s name is Nouman Ali Khan, he does an excellent job in conveying the Message as well as the literacy gems of the Qur’an.

part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=BaS5NsvZ4yM

part2
youtube.com/watch?v=aWUy_luMq0Q

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

In an attempt to be esoteric and avoid difficult questions, Islamic scholars have created more confusion than answered questions, not the least critical being why would Allah create a plan for all mankind for all times in a language only a handful of people could read?

wasnt the Torah revealled in Hebrew ? and wasnt the Gospel revealled in Aramaic ? Indeed, they were. I don’t understand whats the point your trying to make.
Are you looking after a translation of the Qur’an in english ? you can find it here : www.quran.com

Bottom line on this reasoning: Catch 22, IOW, you can’t get there until you’ve been there.

Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created―
(the Noble Qur’an 96:1)

you can read further here : www.quran.com/96

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Moses was not the founder.

and as far as Muslims are concerned, Muhammad (saW) isnt the founder either.

As long as we are quoting Western observers:John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, un-compromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series, “…he [Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. …

Where is this to be found ?? did John Quincy Adams left any reference to Islamic sources to support this claim, I’'d like to see IT !?

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet [sic] is the prophet of God.”

and How did M. Adams manage to explain the fact that christian and jewish communities knowing that both of them reject this belief of Muhammad (saw) being a prophet of God lived in the Islamic Empire since the Beginning of Muhammads prophetic mission up to this day ?

Also, one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired 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 Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Again, mind to provide a source ? and please do quote from the Qur’an as the man says ‘‘it is written in the Qur’an 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’’

[It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.]

Oke.

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam:
“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.’ Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military.”

This is funny, it says ‘‘confirming Adams’ assessment’’ and then it quotes an alledged text that is suppose to confirm Adams assessment but end up contradicting him, while Adam stated ‘‘The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet [sic] is the prophet of God’’ the quote you quote from (that is suppose to confirm his allegations) says the opposite and I quote ‘‘Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God.’’ on one hand there is a man stating that musllims are commanded to wage wars against all those who reject and deny that Muhammad (saw) is the prophet of God and on the other hand, we have a man stating that the ultimate purpose of waging wars is to spread Monotheism and abolish paganism.

And that is why wherever there is Islam, you will also find war.

Agree on that, people since the beginning of revelation waged war against Islam, be it psychological, anti-islamic propaganda or on a military and physical level up to this day, but fighting Islam is the same as throwing stones at a mountain, it only gets bigger. I’m aware that the Islamic civilisation got itself involved in wars, I do not deny it but who didnt ? which Civilisation didnt involve itlsef in (offensive) wars ? the difference whoever between other civilisation and the Islamic one, is the purpose and intentions behind these conquest. Where many civilisation made conquest to conquer and dominate people in order to steal them their ressources, the Islamic Civilisation did it to spread the Word of Allah so that people may have access to its message, so that they might hear that which their leaders didnt want them to hear.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

A question for your further research is if peace will rule once the whole world becomes dar al-Islam, how is it that more Muslims have been killed by their fellow Muslims than by unbelievers?

it assumes that Muslims killed more muslims than Disbelievers did. When a muslim kills another muslim, it sure is a sad thing and it is wrong, and the reason why it is wrong is not because I think it’s wrong but because Islam speaks against it.

I’ll give you your answer straight from the Quran, and from the prophet Muhammad (saw):

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him” (4:93)

And from the prophet Muhammad:

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 9:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

The Prophet said, “A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands. And a Muhajir (emigrant) is the one who gives up (abandons) all what Allah has forbidden.”

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 10:
Narrated Abu Musa:

Some people asked Allah’s Apostle, “Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?” He replied, “One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands.”

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 46:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, “Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (an evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief).”

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30:
Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:

While I was going to help this man ('Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, “Where are you going?” I replied, “I am going to help that person.” He said, "Go back for I have heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, “He surely had the intention to kill his companion.”

So Islam is quite clear, Muslims are forbidden from killing other Muslims, and according to Islam a Muslim who kills another Muslim will go to hell, as has committed an evil crime, and has committed and act of disbelief.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Well then… let’s add Winston Churchill in here as well from 1899.

Maybe Winston Churchill was a great man according to you and his negative opinions of Islam are the supposedly correct ones ?

Churchill was greatly dedicated in preserving British Occupation of India.
How can anyone expect Churchill to utter anything positive about Colored Peoples, regardless of their Creed or Gender. Here is what he had to say about the Great Soul Ghandi. “It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle-Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace…to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”

and since we’re speaking about Ghandi, let’s quote what he had to say about Islam and Muhammad (saw) :
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
-Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in ‘Young India,’1924.

Sir Churchill, was also responsible for the Bengal famine of 1943. In which 3 million died from starvation and malnutrition.
Of the Many honorary titles Lord Churchill received was the Butcher of Dresden.
Here is what Churchill had to say about that.
“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed … I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive”

Immensely impressive, learned and knowledgeable man he was?
Are these the moral guides that you are beseeching all of us to follow?

Ah! alas for (My) servants! There comes not an messenger to them but they mock Him!
[the Noble Qur’an 36:30]

People love to mock the best of Mankind and the most distinguished of the Messengers, Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), the likes of whose nobility, honour, justice, and manners the earth has never known of. Neither has it known of a more complete and comprehensive message than his, nor a more just and merciful one.

It is a message that embraces belief in all of the prophets and messengers, honoring them and defending them from calumniation and defamation. It has also preserved an accurate history of the prophets, including Jesus and Moses. So whoever disbelieves in Muhammad and speaks of him in a derogatory manner has disbelieved in all of the prophets and disparaged of all of them.

Let it be known that never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), nor his righteous successors or any of his honorable companions, ever establish factories for even the most primitive of weapons, like swords and spears, let alone atomic bombs, long-range missiles, or any other weapon of mass destruction.

Never did Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) build a single weapon factory. Rather, he was sent as a mercy for the entire creation, to guide all Mankind towards happiness in their worldly lives and in their hereafter, such that they fulfill their Creator’s right upon them, for it is He who created them to worship Him alone.

Behold, the messengers came to them, from before them and behind them (preaching): “Serve none but Allah.” They said “If our Lord had so pleased, He would certainly have sent down angels (to preach): now we reject your mission (altogether).”
[The Noble Qur’an 41:14]

And if they reject thee, so were messengers rejected before thee: to Allah go back for decision all affairs.
[the Noble Qur’an 35:4]

Wassalam Alaikum
Son of Adam

 

[Inishfree]

Welcome Abu,

I have a question and I hope that you don’t mind answering it. I have heard that Muslims have a simular belief to Christians and Jews in regards to the end of days. For me, it would be the second coming of the Christ. But, I would be interested in reading a Muslim’s point of view.

I will not attack or debate you. I appreciate your time and effort. I have great respect for your faith.

Thank you in advance.

Peace be with you.

 

[jakasaki]

Welcome Abu,

I have a question and I hope that you don’t mind answering it. I have heard that Muslims have a simular belief to Christians and Jews in regards to the end of days. For me, it would be the second coming of the Christ. But, I would be interested in reading a Muslim’s point of view.

I will not attack or debate you. I appreciate your time and effort. I have great respect for your faith.

Thank you in advance.

Peace be with you.

I’m not a muslim and I’m not Abu

I’ll post in simple words what islam considers the end of times in a summary version.

Jesus will return in favor for the muslims/islam because Christianity is wrong

Jesus whom they, the muslims call **Isa **will return and he will do the following:

Isa will break all of the Crosses
Isa will destroy Christianity
Isa will kill the swine
Isa will do away with the tax
Isa will destroy the anti-Christ
Isa will make islam the religion of the world.
Isa will live on earth for 40 years, marry and die on earth after accomplishing the above.

In a nutshell that is what they believe

 

[gmcbroom]

Then I have a question for any one here that knows Islam and its tenets preferably a muslim as they know their faith best. Do they practice the Thanksgiving sacrifice what the Jews call Passover and Christians the Divine Liturgy or Mass? If not why not?

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Welcome Abu,

I have a question and I hope that you don’t mind answering it. I have heard that Muslims have a simular belief to Christians and Jews in regards to the end of days. For me, it would be the second coming of the Christ. But, I would be interested in reading a Muslim’s point of view.

I will not attack or debate you. I appreciate your time and effort. I have great respect for your faith.

Thank you in advance.

Peace be with you.

Yes, the Prophet of Allah Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) will descend at the end of time and judge among the people with justice, following the Law of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He will break the crosses and kill the swine. HE shall put an end to the payment of the jizya. He will only accept Islam from the people. The People of the Book, the Jews and Christians, will all believe in him before his death, after he descends at the end of time. Allah has stated, “There is none of the People of the book but must believe in him (as only a Messenger of Allah) before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) will be a witness against them.” [an-Nisa, 4:159]

Allah has stated that all of the People of the Book, Jews and Christians, will believe in Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) before his death - that is, before the death of Jesus. That will be when he descends at the end of time as a judge and just caller to Islam, as shall be noted in the hadith describing his descent.

This is the meaning of the words [in the verse quoted above]. The context of the verse is demonstrating the stance that the Jews took toward Jesus (peace be upon him) and what they conspired to do against him. It also shows the way of Allah in saving Jesus and refuting the works of his enemies. The pronouns in the phrase, “believe in him before his death” must both refer to Jesus to be consistent with the context and so that the antecedents will be the same. It is confirmed in numerous authentic hadith, that have come through numerous chains and have reached the level of mutawatir [narration that has been reported through so many chains and from so many people that there is no way to doubt its authenticity], that Allah raised Jesus to the heavens. They also state that he will descend at the end of time as a just ruler and will kill the False Messiah [Anti-Christ].

Ibn Taimiya said, after quoting the numerous chains reporting Jesus’ being raised to heaven and his descent at the end of time, “These hadith are mutawatir from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). They have been narrated from Abu Huraira, Ibn Masud, Uthman ibn Abu al-as, Abu Umama, al-Nawas ibn Samaan, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As and Hudahifah ibn Usaid (may Allah be pleased with all of them). These hadith contain indications concerning how and where he will descend.”

One of those hadith is the following: Abu Huraira reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, soon the son of Mary will descend upon you as a just judge. He will break the crosses, kill the swine and will put an end to the jizya. And wealth will spread to the extent that on one will accept it.” Then Abu Huraira said, “Recite if you wish, “There is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him (as only a Messenger of Allah) before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) will be a witness against them.”” [an-Nisa 4:159] [Al-Bukhari & Muslim]

In another narration from Abu Huraira, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “How will you be when the son of Mary descends among you and your leader will be from among yourselves?” [Al-Bukhari & Muslim] It is also confirmed in the Sahih from Jabir ibn Abdullah that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) say, “A group of people from my Nation will continue to fight in defense of the truth and remain triumphant until the day of Judgment.” He also said, “Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon him), will descend upon them and their leader will say (to him), ‘Come and lead us in prayer.’ He will say, ‘No, Allah has honored this Nation by putting some as leaders over others.’” [Saheeh Muslim]

In the time of Jesus (pbuh), the intellectual system of the dajjal will be destroyed and he dajjal’s sovereignty over the world will be brought to a complete end. Such centers of duplicity as freemasonry and the like will be completely annihilated and the whole world will live at peace.

It should also be noted that in Islam only two people have been adressed with the title of ‘Massih’ and they are the Massih Jesus (pbuh), son of Mary (peace be upon her) and the Massih Daajjal (which refers to the Anti-Christ).

the term ‘‘Massih’’ means the ‘‘anointed’’ and this is a great title that refers to Jesus (peace be upon him) as he was anointed and clean from any kind of impurity, but it should also be noted that the word ‘Massih’ comes from the same root as that of ‘Massaha’ which means ‘to erase’ and indeed the Massih Jesus (pbuh) is the only one who will be able ‘to erase’, or in other words, to kill the false Massih, Massih Dajjal, as Allah has already prescribed.

and Peace be upon you too,

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

Then I have a question for any one here that knows Islam and its tenets preferably a muslim as they know their faith best. Do they practice the Thanksgiving sacrifice what the Jews call Passover and Christians the Divine Liturgy or Mass? If not why not?

No, we do not practice the thanksging sacrifice, however we do have a kind of similar holiday such as the Eid holiday where the sacrifice of a ram takes place in order to commemorate Abraham and Isma`il’s great self sacrifice, As far as the yearly tradition that has followed this event we must understand it and the Qur’anic versus that pertain to animal sacrifice, in relation to the time and place circumstances under which these revelations were received and how people were trying to make a personal sacrifice by sharing their limited means of survival with the poorer members of their community.

That is to say, the underlying implication of Islam’s attitude toward ritual slaughter is not that of blood atonement, or seeking favor with Allah through another’s death, but rather, the act of thanking Allah for one’s sustenance and the personal sacrifice of sharing one’s possessions and valuable food with one’s fellow humans. The ritual itself is NOT the sacrifice. It is merely a method of killing where the individuals kill as quickly as possible and acknowledge that only Allah has the right to take a life and that they do so as a humble member of Allah’s creation in need of sustenance just like every other species in Allah’s creation.

Allah says: (It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: And proclaim the Good News to all who do right.) (Al-Hajj 22: 37)

No one should suppose that meat or blood is acceptable to the One True God. It was a pagan fancy that Allah could be appeased by blood sacrifice. But Allah does accept the offering of our hearts. He has given us power over the brute creation, and permitted us to eat meat, but only if we pronounce His name at the solemn act of taking life, for without this solemn invocation, we are apt to forget the sacredness of life. By this invocation we are reminded that wanton cruelty is not in our thoughts, but only the need for food.

in pre-Islamic Arabia with regard to animal sacrifice. Not only did the pagan Arabs sacrifice to a variety of gods in hopes of attaining protection or some favor or material gain, but so, too, did the Jews of that day seek to appease the One True God by blood sacrifice and burnt offerings. Islam, however, broke away from this longstanding tradition of appeasing an “angry God” and instead demanded personal sacrifice and submission as the only way to die before death and reach “fana’” or “extinction in Allah.” The notion of “vicarious atonement of sin” (absolving one’s sins through the blood of another) is nowhere to be found in the Qur’an. Neither is the idea of gaining favor by offering the life of another to Allah. In Islam, all that is demanded as a sacrifice is one’s personal willingness to submit one’s ego and individual will to Allah.

Wassalam Alaikum

 

[gmcbroom]

Abu Toshiba,
Thank you for explaining that. I was a member of a muslim website called IslamicBoard.com for a brief time. I asked that question and never got an answer just attacked and banned by one of the Moderators there. I should have used more tact when asking previous questions there as well as in explaining what I’ve learned in Catholism to them. My questions were likely seen as an attack on Islam and thats against the rules there. I thought that I could ask them in safety in the comparative religions section for those of a different faith. However, I was mistaken.
I have another question do muslims practice baptism? If not, why not? The jews practice mikveh or ritual immersion. The practice was so sacred they would do this before building synagogues and the the Highpriest conducted the service on the Day of Atonement. It continued in Christianity as Holy Baptism where Christians are baptized with fire and the Holy Spirit though the medium used is flowing water or immersion.

 

[Inishfree]

Thank you Abu.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Inishfree]

Thank you, jakasaki for your reply.

I feel if we have a better understanding of each other’s faiths. Hopefully it will be greater respect between us. Us, meaning all of the people on our planet.

Peace be with you.