Questions About Islam

[Sister_Amy]

Bravo to those of you who have managed to totally disregard the questions of the original poster, and his/her request to abstain from Muslim-bashing.

Everybody knows the Taliban are bad. But just as they are bad, they don’t represent Islam.

For the person who idealized the Christian perception of marriage, here is that in Islam.

30:21 And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.

The word translated as affection is also in other translations rendered “amity” and “love,” and I think that very strong, deep love is the best meaning, the one which has been taught to me by those who know more than I do. Mawaddah. The Qur’an also describes (in 2:187) husbands and wives as being clothing/raiment/apparel/garments for one another. Clearly, clothing is a kind of protection, which also beautifies the person wearing it, and which covers their faults, and is also intimately close to the person. That is the description of spouses in Islam, if any of you want to understand.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Tu quoque is a “you too” reply. I’m not saying that Christians have not done bad things, but when we do them, we are going against the teachings of Jesus and the Church. Can Muslims say the same?

I didn’t say Christians did bad things. I said that the Catholic religion has the same sort of restrictions in place about how is allowed to interpret scripture. When it came to Islam you made it sound like Muslims were just brainwashed and not allowed to think–but when Catholicism is exactly the same, does your criticism apply as well? Obviously it doesn’t apply, which was my point, meaning you were making an unfair and silly criticism of Islam. Like saying Box A is red and red is bad so Box A is bad. But I just showed you that Box B is red too, even though you won’t concede that Box B is bad. Therefore red isn’t bad.

Of course they’re wrong! I’ve heard of translations of the Quran made for western markets where the harsh statements are given a milder interpretation to make it more palatable for gullible westerners.

Yeah, you and my brother-in-law are like the only people who believe this. MUSLIMS read those Qur’an. MUSLIMS. The English translations (particularly those produced by Muslims) are first and foremost intended for MUSLIMS to read and understand them. Just fyi. So they don’t soften things for the audience, it would be a stupid thing to do.

You made that statement about it’s being forbidden.

No, my statement was something else. It’s forbidden to INTERPRET, not forbidden to STUDY.

 

[inJESUS]

Everybody knows the Taliban are bad. But just as they are bad, they don’t represent Islam.

 

[inJESUS]

No, my statement was something else. It’s forbidden to INTERPRET, not forbidden to STUDY.

can you study without interpreting?

 

[adstrinity]

Obviously there is questions about interpretation of Islamic Scripture. By whom are these matters settled?

Also, in the, ‘Mohammad Marrying his D-I-L,’ thread, there was something about God forming man from a clot. What is that about? Is the Adam & Eve story not believed in Islam?

 

[inJESUS]

Not really. My position is overwhelming, yours is based upon an ayah which is basically telling people not to make their lives more difficult

searchquran.net/search.php?q=do+they+not+consider&lang=%7B%24lang%7D

by mere coincidence i read the following:

It is advisable not to approach the status of Prophethood with enquiries except with the highest good manners. Prophets are the select of the Creator and like or above the angels in rank. We should take care, also, to focus on what is vital to our salvation and relinquish pursuits that are not only irrelevant but actually damaging to faith and works.

the words of this mufti remind me of a certain aya

 

[D_M]

I have an unexplained puzzle about Islam:

The life and ministry of Mohammed was very much intertwined with his mission against the idolatry of the Arabs and to lead people to worship the One God. He preached against the paganism of Mecca, and when he took control of the city in his re-entry, he destroyed all of the idols. I think he taught that jews and christians were ‘people of the book’ who were above the pagans insofar as they had received true revelation.

Idolatry is a serious sin in Islam,

and the first part of the Muslim creed is of course 'there is no god but God…" (which is directly related to idolatry)

But, in the past fourteen hundred years there are many examples of idolatry existing under Muslim rule, consider India as the greatest of such examples which was ruled by Muslims for over four hundred years and yet when did Muslims ever actually follow in Mohammed’s footsteps and destroy the idols and the temples that were paxing the taxes that kept those empires in place?

My question:

What did Islam have to do with Mohammed’s example?

I mean, if his whole life was devoted to the destruction of the idolatry in Mecca, then how does one reconcile this with the fact that so many idols have existed in the Muslim world unmolested for its whole history when Mohammed’s mission on this earth, as the Muslim creed will testify, was to put an end to idolatry and worship the One God?

I cannot figure out this puzzle…My only conclusion is despite what they may claim, Islam is not the religion of the One true God who is only know through His Son and who (as Mohammed preached his whole ministry) hated idols.

Deuteronomy 27:15 "‘Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen.’

Wisdom 14:12-14 For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life, for neither have they existed from the beginning nor will they exist for ever. For through the vanity of men they entered the world, and therefore their speedy end has been planned.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.

1 Corinthians 10:19-20 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

And finally, once we see that the Ummah is not acting on behalf of the One God who hates idols that Mohammed worked his whole life to destroy;

explanation is provided regarding false religion that has denied the Son of God.

1 John 2:22-23 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

 

[Angelos]

For the person who idealized the Christian perception of marriage, here is that in Islam.

30:21 And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.

**Surah 2:36 **
But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time.

The Qur’an also describes (in 2:187) husbands and wives as being clothing/raiment/apparel/garments for one another. Clearly, clothing is a kind of protection, which also beautifies the person wearing it, and which covers their faults, and is also intimately close to the person. That is the description of spouses in Islam, if any of you want to understand.

The context of that verse in its entirety reveals that the metaphor aims to underline sexual intercourse:

Surah 2:187
It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast. They are raiment for you and ye are raiment for them. Allah is Aware that ye were deceiving yourselves in this respect and He hath turned in mercy toward you and relieved you. So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn.

 

[planten]

I have an unexplained puzzle about Islam:

The life and ministry of Mohammed was very much intertwined with his mission against the idolatry of the Arabs and to lead people to worship the One God. He preached against the paganism of Mecca, and when he took control of the city in his re-entry, he destroyed all of the idols. I think he taught that jews and christians were ‘people of the book’ who were above the pagans insofar as they had received true revelation.

Idolatry is a serious sin in Islam,

and the first part of the Muslim creed is of course 'there is no god but God…" (which is directly related to idolatry)

But, in the past fourteen hundred years there are many examples of idolatry existing under Muslim rule, consider India as the greatest of such examples which was ruled by Muslims for over four hundred years and yet when did Muslims ever actually follow in Mohammed’s footsteps and destroy the idols and the temples that were paxing the taxes that kept those empires in place?

My question:

What did Islam have to do with Mohammed’s example?

I mean, if his whole life was devoted to the destruction of the idolatry in Mecca, then how does one reconcile this with the fact that so many idols have existed in the Muslim world unmolested for its whole history when Mohammed’s mission on this earth, as the Muslim creed will testify, was to put an end to idolatry and worship the One God?

I cannot figure out this puzzle…My only conclusion is despite what they may claim, Islam is not the religion of the One true God who is only know through His Son and who (as Mohammed preached his whole ministry) hated idols.

Deuteronomy 27:15 "‘Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen.’

Wisdom 14:12-14 For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life, for neither have they existed from the beginning nor will they exist for ever. For through the vanity of men they entered the world, and therefore their speedy end has been planned.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.

1 Corinthians 10:19-20 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

And finally, once we see that the Ummah is not acting on behalf of the One God who hates idols that Mohammed worked his whole life to destroy;

explanation is provided regarding false religion that has denied the Son of God.

1 John 2:22-23 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

**You seem to be travelling on more than three platforms at once. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah. he preached against praying to the idols. But there was no command to forcibly break the idols in all the world. The Muslims attacked India many times and some time broke their idols too. That was not Islam.

There was no order for Muslims to break any idols in India or to punish any idolator. That is your lack of knowledge about islam.
Then you have suddenly started preaching about Jesus being the son of God. Did you forget that Muhammad preached against that too? There is no son business with God and no business of any adopted son too. They are not real sons at all. God (or gods) do not have any wife or son or daughter or father. But in christianity, God has a son that is Jesus. And Jesus is a god. And that God (Jesus) has got a father.

So God has a son and son God has a father god. Please teach that to some one who could decode such complexity.**

 

[D_M]

**You seem to be travelling on more than three platforms at once. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah. he preached against praying to the idols. But there was no command to forcibly break the idols in all the world. The Muslims attacked India many times and some time broke their idols too. That was not Islam.

There was no order for Muslims to break any idols in India or to punish any idolator. That is your lack of knowledge about islam.
Then you have suddenly started preaching about Jesus being the son of God. Did you forget that Muhammad preached against that too? There is no son business with God and no business of any adopted son too. They are not real sons at all. God (or gods) do not have any wife or son or daughter or father. But in christianity, God has a son that is Jesus. And Jesus is a god. And that God (Jesus) has got a father.

So God has a son and son God has a father god. Please teach that to some one who could decode such complexity.**

Hello Planten,

You’re right I do have a lack of knowledge about Islam, for while I knew that it taught idolatry was a serious sin, I did not know that it also preached tolerance of the sin…

I suppose one could argue that Mecca was a holy ground, whereas any in other place Muslims should rule, one could worship demons as one pleased…and yet, how absurd is that?

The Mughals made money from the Hindu religion, they supported the culture in India with state funds and they even had pagan performances in their court chambers. Even if the idols were not to be destroyed; I don’t know how one morally justifies the fact that Muslims have therefore tolerated and consented to what what their religion correctly teaches is an offence against God.

Another question though:

Could you show where it was he taught that idols should in fact not be destroyed (since as you say, it is ‘not islam’, and I’m assuming you are not simply forming your own interpretation)?

In answer to your query (whether honest or not, I cannot determine, but I shall strive to give the benefit of the doubt), about the Son of God.

Christians do not believe that Jesus is a biological son of God, in the sense that you or I have a father whose DNA we have inherited, but rather we believe that He is One with God, and is God, and of the same substance as God. Jesus was not created but existed from the beginning. This is what it means when we say He is the Son of God and God.

We know that Muhammad did not come from God, for he preached against this revealed truth.

Anti-trinitarians have in the past usually argued that this belief is either irrational or even polytheist. You have so far seemed to have argued the first of these two.

Arius saw the verse about Jesus saying ‘My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?’ as proof the Jesus could not have been God. The Socinians in Poland wrote books in re-interpreting the new testament to try to show references to the trinity in a light that made it look like that calling Jesus the Son of God, was just a metaphor or some literary device… there are many more I can choose from too…

God is a unity of three Persons who are One. One God who has one will, who is one eternal substance. It is not a biological father-son, and the words Father and Son, I think are meant to convey the kind of deeply loving relationship between God and Jesus moreso than they mean papa - boy, and it is that relationship that all people including you and I are called to emulate in that we need to love God with all of our being.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah. he preached against praying to the idols. But there was no command to forcibly break the idols in all the world. The Muslims attacked India many times and some time broke their idols too. That was not Islam.

So, i) “Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah”, and ii) “Muslims attacked India many times and some time broke their idols too”. I see a pattern here.

… Did you forget that Muhammad preached against that too?..

I certainly haven’t forgotten. I just know Muhammad was wrong.

Praise be to the Lord, Jesus Christ, King of endless glory.

 

[dolphinlove]

You seem to be travelling on more than three platforms at once. Muhammad destroyed the idols in Makkah. he preached against praying to the idols. But there was no command to forcibly break the idols in all the world. The Muslims attacked India many times and some time broke their idols too. That was not Islam.

Hmm, that is why when he attacked Mecca in 630 he destroyed all the idols.

There was no order for Muslims to break any idols in India or to punish any idolator. That is your lack of knowledge about islam.

But he DID destroy idols… who lacks knowledge about Islam?? Or who doesnt follow the hadiths…

Then you have suddenly started preaching about Jesus being the son of God. Did you forget that Muhammad preached against that too?

And Muhammad was wrong yet again, Jesus is the son of God

There is no son business with God and no business of any adopted son too. They are not real sons at all.

What do you call boys then? When my mother gave birth to my brothers, i believe she called them ‘sons’. And when there are homeless orphans and are adopted, they are also known as ‘sons’.
Moses was also ‘adopted’ when his real mother had to send him down the river also was he not?
Also the bible mentions adoption:
Es2: 7
He was foster father to Hadassah, that is, Esther, his cousin; for she had lost both father and mother. The girl was beautifully formed and lovely to behold. On the death of her father and mother, Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter.

But in christianity, God has a son that is Jesus. And Jesus is a god. And that God (Jesus) has got a father.

Everyone, cut out and paste on a seperate page and print it out, planten has finally got it…

So God has a son and son God has a father god. Please teach that to some one who could decode such complexity.

Well we understand it, we tried to explain it to you, but your heart isnt open… yet…

 

[Sister_Amy]

There is a difference between idols in the Ka’ba, a Sacred House of Worship devoted to God… and pagan statues in India.

 

[algebra]

There is a difference between idols in the Ka’ba, a Sacred House of Worship devoted to God… and pagan statues in India.

What on earth would that difference be?

 

[inJESUS]

What on earth would that difference be?

i think the answer lies in her sentence when she wrote : “a sacred house of worship devoted to God” which does not apply to Indian idols .

 

[Lapell]

If in a heated discussion where the wife says something really hurtful and brutal, in French or American movies, years ago at least, the husband would slap her just once. And such couples were not even Muslims! If it were just that way, would you still say it’s a crime to do that, even just to make her come back to her senses? (In movies, the wife would also do that to her husband in a similar situation.)

 

[D_M]

I came across this by shear chance very recently (I say chance, although I think the Spirit must be guiding me in ways unseen)

This is a scene from a famous bollywood movie made in the 60s called Mughal-e-azam (‘The Great Mughal’) that while having a made-up plot, did correctly depict some aspects of the historical setting including the fact that the Muslim Emperor Akbar (played by the elder actor on the throne here) really did have a great interest in Hindu temple music that he would have performed in his court chambers.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8828721745136475429&q=mughal-e-azam+subtitles&ei=98yHSNDuDoTi-wHU37CSCA&hl=en

Could you imagine this? A song about God flirting with women being played before the Muslim emperor with his approval?

I really don’t think this is what Mohammed had in mind.

 

[Booklover]

I didn’t say Christians did bad things. I said that the Catholic religion has the same sort of restrictions in place about how is allowed to interpret scripture. **When it came to Islam you made it sound like Muslims were just brainwashed and not allowed to think–**but when Catholicism is exactly the same, does your criticism apply as well? Obviously it doesn’t apply, which was my point, meaning you were making an unfair and silly criticism of Islam. Like saying Box A is red and red is bad so Box A is bad. But I just showed you that Box B is red too, even though you won’t concede that Box B is bad. Therefore red isn’t bad.

'Muslims are victims of their religious brains: their religious brains are indoctrinated, from the moment of birth, by an extensive ruthless in-power cadre of self-serving mullahs and imams who are intent at maintaining their stranglehold on the rank and file of the faithful—their very source of support and livelihood.

The mullahs and imams, as well as parents and others envelope the receptive mind, feed it their dogma, and shield it from information that may undermine or falsify their version of belief.

For as long as there are bigoted, self-serving clergy and their collaborators with first exclusive access to the blank slate, the problem of supplying wave after wave of Islamofascists will persist. It is the brain/mind that assesses things, makes decisions, and orders actions. To the extent that the in-place software of the religious brain is exclusionary in nature, hateful in orientation, and violent in tendency, to that extent the individual is both the perpetrator and the victim of barbaric acts."


Blind obedience. A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulate-able instruments in the hands of authority figures.


An elaborate package of mostly illogical and bizarre prescriptions and proscriptions comes with the Islamic offer, covering every imaginable aspect of life. In the matter of being a good Muslim, nothing is left to chance that one needs to figure out for himself. “I think, therefore I am” said Rene Descartes in substantiating his claim to being a conscious being. “I don’t think, I faith; therefore I am an automaton,” says the Muslim in absolving himself of the need for independent thinking.

In short, Islam treats its believers as children irrespective of age. An extensive cadre of mullahs and imams, who themselves are thoroughly indoctrinated, minister to the children. These professional leeches—the mullahs and imams—systematically program the mind of their charges through liberal use of fear, threats of hell, and occasional promises of eternal life of bliss in Allah’s paradise if they be obedient good children.


Vickie

 

[Booklover]

Amy, I stated this:

Of course they’re wrong! I’ve heard of translations of the Quran made for western markets where the harsh statements are given a milder interpretation to make it more palatable for gullible westerners.

This was your reply:

Yeah, you and my brother-in-law are like the only people who believe this. MUSLIMS read those Qur’an. MUSLIMS. The English translations (particularly those produced by Muslims) are first and foremost intended for MUSLIMS to read and understand them. Just fyi. So they don’t soften things for the audience, it would be a stupid thing to do.

The Deceptive Translations of the Quran

"In the past I used to read the Quran fairly regularly, but I do not do it anymore. The Quran is not an interesting, or an easy book to read or understand. Muslims rely on repetition to help them to recite and to familiarize themselves with its unfamiliar words. Because the Arabic language happened to be an area of special interest to me, I rarely needed to read the Quran in English. However, referring to the English translations is unavoidable when debating with non Arab Muslims. I am afraid the degree of inaccuracies found in the various English translations is too conspicuous to go unnoticed. We are not talking about mistakes in translations. It is about the deliberate efforts made by the translators to change the meaning of the verses with the intention of presenting the Quran in an acceptable form to the western readers" Ex-Muslim Mumin Salih

Vickie

 

[planten]

'Muslims are victims of their religious brains: their religious brains are indoctrinated, from the moment of birth, by an extensive ruthless in-power cadre of self-serving mullahs and imams who are intent at maintaining their stranglehold on the rank and file of the faithful—their very source of support and livelihood.

The mullahs and imams, as well as parents and others envelope the receptive mind, feed it their dogma, and shield it from information that may undermine or falsify their version of belief.

That is not true. Nothing of the sort is done. The Muslims are taught their own religion, their own books i.e. Quran and Hadith. And they are told to pray five times a day and to practice their religion. That is not a crime.
On the other hand we know and there is a proof that the christians are taught to deny the truth of Islam and to oppose it and to abuse it in their special school classes. Many persons who had gone through such bad training later told all about it on the net.