Straight Answers to Controversial Questions about Islam

[Muslimbr.]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Download the book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam, from: http://cris.co.nf/English.html
This book is very good in studying comparative religion.
Copy the link given and paste in your browser.
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

[theplains]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Download the book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam, from: cris.co.nf/English.html
This book is very good in studying comparative religion.
Copy the link given and paste in your browser.
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

Thank you for the link.

One part said, "The lives of the captured men and women in an Islamic state under the God’s
Guidance is much better than the lives of the captured men and women in a secular state
under the severe biased laws of the state".

Are Christians freely able to build churches and gather for worship without persecution like Muslims
build their mosques and attend on Fridays or are the Christians' freedoms much less that captured
men and women?

Jim

[Amat Allah]

One part said, "The lives of the captured men and women in an Islamic state under the God’s
Guidance is much better than the lives of the captured men and women in a secular state
under the severe biased laws of the state".
Are Christians freely able to build churches and gather for worship without persecution like Muslims
build their mosques and attend on Fridays or are the Christians' freedoms much less that captured
men and women?
Jim

Greetings my respected and noble brother Jim,

May you read this post while you are in the best of all conditions Aameen


are muslims allowd to build mosques in Vatican?

it is too holy to let any other beliefs have their own places of worship on it's land, it is pure christian and if talking about some muslims land preventing building churches or other places of worship on it then they are holy too to us and pure muslim too just like the Vatican...if you would come to the muslims land then none has the right to force ya to leave your religion nor embrace another cause Allah says:

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (256)" Surat Al Baqarah

but if would wanna build a place of worship for yourself on its land then it is from their rights to say no cause it is their land whether holy or not and I can't force anyone to give me what belongs not to me...we are free to belong to whatever religion we want on others land but has no right to violate others rights without taking their consent or permissions...the freedom is within something you have not in others properties...

May The One Who Created heavens and earth lead your way to the path of the endless happiness; giving ya the best of this life and of the afterlife too Aameen

Take the best care of your precious self.

Leaving ya under The Creator's sight, care and protection...

Humbly and with all respect, your sister:

Amat Allah.

[Muslimbr.]

Jazaki Allaahu Khair

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muslimbr.]

replies are awaited

[Muslimbr.]

Do u like this sharing?

[Independent]

are muslims allowd to build mosques in Vatican?

The Vatican covers an area of just 110 acres which were entirely built up centuries ago, or dedicated to permanent gardens. You couldn't squeeze anything in there now. It has a population of 800 none of whom (so far as is known) are Muslims.

It's not really a city, it's an administration centre for the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the Vatican is not a fair comparison with the principle of building churches or mosques in entire countries. If you oppose building churches in majority Muslim countries then in fairness you should oppose building mosques in majority Christian countries - which I doubt that you do? If there is no compulsion in religion, should that not include their places of worship?

[M.I.A.]

The Vatican covers an area of just 110 acres which were entirely built up centuries ago, or dedicated to permanent gardens. You couldn't squeeze anything in there now. It has a population of 800 none of whom (so far as is known) are Muslims.

It's not really a city, it's an administration centre for the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the Vatican is not a fair comparison with the principle of building churches or mosques in entire countries. If you oppose building churches in majority Muslim countries then in fairness you should oppose building mosques in majority Christian countries - which I doubt that you do? If there is no compulsion in religion, should that not include their places of worship?

i agree,

people fail to understand that the message of islam was of religion, which ultimately lead to responsibility over lands and people.

it was something that came from humble beginnings that overcame much personal oppression.


which is probably the best environment for learning.



...i could be entirely wrong though.


"Taghut" i didnt know what it mean.

and even in definition it can be applied however a person applies it.

[Vito]

The Vatican covers an area of just 110 acres which were entirely built up centuries ago, or dedicated to permanent gardens. You couldn't squeeze anything in there now. It has a population of 800 none of whom (so far as is known) are Muslims.

It's not really a city, it's an administration centre for the Catholic Church.

Therefore, the Vatican is not a fair comparison with the principle of building churches or mosques in entire countries. If you oppose building churches in majority Muslim countries then in fairness you should oppose building mosques in majority Christian countries - which I doubt that you do? If there is no compulsion in religion, should that not include their places of worship?

On the topic of spacing, one can simply take an existing structure and use that. Its not necessary to build a mosque on an empty lot. Not that it'll happen but, I just thought I'd point that out. Although we can only speculate, even if the Vatican were a much larger place, I'd imagine placing mosques there wouldn't fair well with them.

And also, there are churches in places that have a Muslim majority. If a country were to follow Islamic law, then one much consult what the laws say in regards to religious tolerance and not what you or I say. If a non Muslim living in a Muslim majority country feels like their religious freedom has been taken away, can they not move to a different location? Just like with Muslims, if we lose our right to practice our religion, we are encouraged to move to a more tolerant place.

[M.I.A.]

On the topic of spacing, one can simply take an existing structure and use that. Its not necessary to build a mosque on an empty lot. Not that it'll happen but, I just thought I'd point that out. Although we can only speculate, even if the Vatican were a much larger place, I'd imagine placing mosques there wouldn't fair well with them.

And also, there are churches in places that have a Muslim majority. If a country were to follow Islamic law, then one much consult what the laws say in regards to religious tolerance and not what you or I say. If a non Muslim living in a Muslim majority country feels like their religious freedom has been taken away, can they not move to a different location? Just like with Muslims, if we lose our right to practice our religion, we are encouraged to move to a more tolerant place.

i guess so, but in reality people dont want to lose there home lands.. especially if they have significant religious roots there.

take isreal and palestine as a long running example.

in theory a person can move freely within his or her own means, but it is very hard to relocate an entire peoples.

[Vito]

The issue with the Palestine has nothing to do with religious freedoms or a lack of it.

[Independent]

one much consult what the laws say in regards to religious tolerance and not what you or I say

But if a country were to prohibit building mosques, would you think that was acceptable? The principle of fairness has to go both ways.

[Vito]

The answer is in the second half of my first reply. It applies to both Muslims and non Muslims. Don't forget that although mosques are preferred, they aren't needed for me to fulfill my duties as a Muslim. I can pray at home, or I can pray outside. It makes no difference to me.

[Amat Allah]

it matters not at all if living in a country where it prohibits building mosques or not my respected brother; do you know why?

cause if there is not even one mosque on earth then that won't stop us Muslims from worshiping The One Who Created us...if you wish; go and search through internet and you will see how Muslims get to gather in lines standing for prayer even in streets, snowy weathers, even above trains and wherever just to worship The One...

Nothing and none can stop us or prevents us from being the slaves and servants of Allah The Only and Alone Lord of The Whole World...

Not to forget to mention that whatever land in this world is the land of God Al Mighty The Creator and we the slaves and servants of Him The Exalted will be His slaves and servants wherever and will not wait for four walls gathered with some roof to be built to worship our Lord and we must not get busy wasting our times
demanding of such thing from anybody anywhere while The Lord The One and Only One Who deserves to Be worshiped taught us:

" And to Allah belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn yourselves or your faces there is the Face of Allah (and He is High above, over His Throne). Surely! Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knowing. (115)" Surat Al Baqarah

"And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Allah has power over all things. (189) Surat Aal Im'raan

Laa ilaha illa Allah and Allahu Akbar wa Lellahi Elhamd.

I don't care how much small the land is I am talking about; I have given an example to be understood more than a matter of comparison between whatever.

And in another way; you are welcome to enter my house with whatever religion you have in your heart but it is not from your right to change my house, or is it?

May The Lord of Heavens and Earth guide us all to Him The Exalted Aameen

[Independent]

The answer is in the second half of my first reply.

Ok, if I understand correctly: in your view, it would indeed be ok for any country to prohibit the construction of minority religion places of worship. You are even-handed about this and you do accept that it would therefore be ok for another country to prohibit building mosques.

A few observations - firstly, it seems to me that although you yourself are being scrupulously fair, I'm not sure all Muslims would react the same way. Say, for instance, if the UK were to start banning further construction of mosques.

Secondly, is this not starting to encroach on the principle of 'let there be no compulsion in religion'. If life is made hard enough a minority religion, isn't that breaking the spirit of the law?

Thirdly, what do you think would be fair in the case of countries where the Christian community pre-dates the arrival of Islam? An obvious case is the Coptic Church in Egypt. (It is even said that a specific deal was negotiated on their behalf at the time of the Muslim invasion although the exact history is hard to be sure about.) Should the Copts be allowed to construct new churches? This starts to drift into the territory of new conversions too, which of course is even more controversial.

[Vito]

If they were to ban mosques from being built or destroy the mosques that are currently standing, than I'd say they are doing it with bad intentions. How many other different places of worship are there? Why only target mosques? In places like the Vatican, I could understand why they would prevent other places of worship from being built. In places like Saudi Arabia, I can understand why they would prevent other places of worship from being built. But in places like the US or UK, again, I think if it were to be done, it would be done with bad intentions and I don't think it would be OK. Simply getting rid of mosques for the sake of it will not go well with many groups of people, including non Muslims.

On your second point, I don't see how this has anything to do with there being no compulsion in religion. As mentioned earlier, if no mosques existed where I currently live, that would not make my life any harder as a Muslim. If there were no churches where a Christian lived, would that make them any less of a Christian or make their lives as a Christian that much harder? I wouldn't think so.

We believe the mes

[Ahmad H]

It is true that if Muslims had no Mosques, then worshiping Allah would still be able to go on without any hindrance:

Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was built first?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram." I asked, "Which (was built) next?" He replied, "Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem)." I asked, "What was the period in between them?" He replied, "Forty (years)." He then added, "Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you." (Book #55, Hadith#636)
(Sahih Bukhari)

As for the freedom to build churches in Muslim countries, there is no hindrance to any of this allowed at all in Islam, in fact, during times of Jihad all places of worship are to be protected:

2:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
2:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

Thus, Allah does not allow for places of worship of any other religion to be destroyed since His names is mentioned in them. Freedom of religion is allowed in Muslim countries, but at the present time, Muslim countries are not actually following Islam, despite their outward posing to follow it. They are hypocritical to say the least.

[Independent]

Simply getting rid of mosques for the sake of it will not go well with many groups of people, including non Muslims.

Please understand, in my personal view, although i don't subscribe to any organised religion I am in favour of total freedom of worship including places of worship, in every country.

In places like the Vatican, I could understand why they would prevent other places of worship from being built. In places like Saudi Arabia, I can understand why they would prevent other places of worship from being built. But in places like the US or UK, again, I think if it were to be done, it would be done with bad intentions and I don't think it would be OK

In the Vatican it would be impractical and unnecessary but I' don't think it's actually illegal - I doubt anyone has ever applied! It would be very difficult to acquire property for any purpose.

Saudi is a huge country. There is no practical difficulty. There are Christians in the country. Is there a ban here?

If Saudi or any other Muslim country were to ban Churches for theological reasons, then surely the UK, US or any other country can ban mosques for any reason they like, just as a Muslim country makes its own decisions for its own reasons? Isn't that fair?

Again, I stress that I personally am in favour of complete freedom of worship in all countries, for all religions.

If there were no churches where a Christian lived, would that make them any less of a Christian or make their lives as a Christian that much harder? I wouldn't think so.

I'm not sure all Muslims or Christians would agree with you. Coming together as a group to worship means a lot to many people. If a country makes it harder to follow one religion rather than another, then it seems to me this is indeed breaking the spirit of 'no compulsion' - perhaps not the letter.

[M.I.A.]

The issue with the Palestine has nothing to do with religious freedoms or a lack of it.

you are right, i am really quite thick.


i just saw a comparison in the post above mine, maybe not in your line of thinking.




...i feel constantly trolled.

[Vito]

Please understand, in my personal view, although i don't subscribe to any organised religion I am in favour of total freedom of worship including places of worship, in every country.

In the Vatican it would be impractical and unnecessary but I' don't think it's actually illegal - I doubt anyone has ever applied! It would be very difficult to acquire property for any purpose.

Saudi is a huge country. There is no practical difficulty. There are Christians in the country. Is there a ban here?

I'm not sure of the laws in those areas but, I was just trying to make the point that I can understand why they choose to only allow their place of worship to be built and not others considering IF that were the case, as compared to places like the UK or US.

If Saudi or any other Muslim country were to ban Churches for theological reasons, then surely the UK, US or any other country can ban mosques for any reason they like, just as a Muslim country makes its own decisions for its own reasons? Isn't that fair?

Again, I stress that I personally am in favour of complete freedom of worship in all countries, for all religions.

The other point I was making in my reply was, why would they target mosques only? If the Saudis only allow mosques to be built, that's different than the US saying "hey, everyone here can have their place of worship except the Muslims", don't you think? Saudi claims to follow Islamic laws. The US does not claim to follow any religious law, so I believe IF the US ever decided to ban all mosques from existing, I'd question their reasoning behind it.

I'm not sure all Muslims or Christians would agree with you. Coming together as a group to worship means a lot to many people. If a country makes it harder to follow one religion rather than another, then it seems to me this is indeed breaking the spirit of 'no compulsion' - perhaps not the letter.

That may be true but, while I can't speak for Christians, Muslims should not use the lack of mosques in their area as an excuse to not pray. I still can't see the reasoning as to why the lack of a mosque would make it harder for a Muslim to follow their religion. This was also pointed out earlier by Amat Allah and Ahmad H.

[Independent]

The other point I was making in my reply was, why would they target mosques only?

Well, this is a Muslim forum so we're talking about mosques. If the US banned all religious houses except Christian ones, would that make it any better? Surely the principle is, there should be no bans, anywhere. Anyone can create a reason to ban something if they want.

You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.

[جوري]

You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.

The same level of fairness that Vatican city enjoys!
It isn't a tourist spot and they've enough problems accommodating Muslims many who go on a waiting list & die before completing a compulsory ritual. Saudis themselves are restricted from going except every five years unless they're to accompany a woman as a mahram.
Once the Vatican has a mosque will Saudi have one!
Seems quite fair to anyone not blinded by doublespeak!

[M.I.A.]

why would somebody even want a mosque in vatican city?

or a church within mecca?


the fact of the matter is distrust.

i mean that says a lot for monothiesm as a whole.


i mean the reference point should be who is able to provide a true reflection of monothiesm?

and im afraid you cant honestly say any one at the moment.


i heard of a time when the keys to a church in Jerusalem were held by muslim hands.. entrusted by choice.


i hope you can understand.

that is what is lacking today, although everybody is keen to stress they are the only correct entity within monotheism.

[جوري]

i hope you can understand.

No I don't. I think you failed to understand at least the portion I'd written. And secondly I have reservations on calling Christianity a 'Monotheism' it is clearly not!

best,

[M.I.A.]

well here is how i would explain it.

intention, the why?


if a person does something out of sincerity, im sure it is noted.

and if a person does something for power im sure allah swt is aware of it.


so why would you need a mosque in vatican city?

or a church in mecca?


religious dominance is not the same as religious integrity.

although one may lead to the other, if not the other way round.


...sorry for not making sense again.



to be fair i cant work out why vatican city is located within rome.

it just seems like theater again.

...even though peoples lives depend on it.

[جوري]

This is irrelevant to the topic!

best,

[M.I.A.]

lol yes, i spend half my time off topic and the other half apologising for it.



to be fair just because people are of differing monothiesm does not make for a cause.

i mean look at places like iraq... where there were mainly mosques.

[Vito]

Well, this is a Muslim forum so we're talking about mosques. If the US banned all religious houses except Christian ones, would that make it any better? Surely the principle is, there should be no bans, anywhere. Anyone can create a reason to ban something if they want.

You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.

The idea of idolatry, crosses, etc hanging around in places like Mecca or Medina should not be allowed. I'll leave the rest of the post open for someone who is more knowledgeable in regards to Islamic laws and religious tolerance rather than to continue giving my opinion. As I stated in my very first post, its all about what the laws are and not what you or I think. That's about as simple as I can make it.

[Independent]

The idea of idolatry, crosses, etc hanging around in places like Mecca or Medina should not be allowed

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the symbols of other faiths should be placed directly in the churches, mosques or temples of others. But they should at least be allowed to be in the same city or country. (For instance, the largest mosque in Italy is indeed in Rome.)

As I stated in my very first post, its all about what the laws are and not what you or I think

A country can make any law it likes, but that doesn't make it just or fair. And it's especially unfair if citizens of that same country expect rights of worship etc in other countries which they visit/emigrate to.

You can't in fairness criticise any country for discriminating against Islam if you think it's ok to discriminate against other religions in a Muslim country.

Looking at Saudi in particular, it seems that they do indeed ban churches from any part of their vast country (if someone thinks this is inaccurate please say so). Clerics are not allowed to visit the country at all. In addition the Saudis ban all visible signs of Christianity including crucifixes, statues, imagery and even Bibles.

There are many hundreds of thousands of Christians in the country including a few Saudi citizens - although they don't officially exist according to the government. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. (How is that not 'compulsion in religion'? You could be brought up a Muslim with no say in the matter.)

Do you think this is fair? You say you wouldn't mind not having a mosque in another country - how about not being allowed the Qur'an either? Even more extremely, 'visible signs of religion' could be taken to include dress and beards.

Shouldn't all countries agree complete freedom of worship of all religions?

[جوري]

Where's the mosque in the Vatican Indy?
I'll be waiting!
furthermore which part of even Saudis aren't allowed in Makkah except every five years unless they can prove they're accompanying a different Mahram each time mean to you?
Kaffirs are there in Saudi a plenty robbing it, and thanks to (I can't think of an adjective filthy enough to describe the UK) having given birth to kaffir Ahamadis to separate Muslims from the act of Jihad around the time they came to colonize India, they also enable them to Makkah since they mark them as Muslims when they apply for visas which is very sneaky since they're not Muslim. So we've kaffirs from your neck of the wood in the holiest spot taking up space for someone who really needs to fulfill their ritual but can't.

[Independent]

Where's the mosque in the Vatican Indy

This has been dealt with already. It's a shame you derail so many threads this way, you turn everything into pointless abuse. I'll run though it again:

1. The Vatican is tiny, it's a city in name only - all it consists of is a Church, a museum, the Pope's residence, some offices, and a nice garden. Whereas Mecca or Medina are true cities with large populations. In any case the comparison here is with Saudi as a country, not just these two cities.
2. Planning permission for anything at all in the Vatican would be very hard to obtain. Whether it was a mosque or a Macdonalds restaurant. Out of interest I checked online and I can find no properties at all currently for sale.
3. The Vatican's tiny population of 800 includes (so far as it's known) zero Muslims so there is no need to be filled. Whereas in Saudi, it is estimated there are over 1 million Christians. There is huge need - but it is not fulfilled.
4. It's not actually illegal to build a mosque in the Vatican anyway - it's just that no one has ever asked. They haven't asked, because there is absolutely no need. Whereas, it is illegal to build a church anywhere in the vast expanse of Saudi.
5. The Vatican is in Rome, and Rome is a true city which can be properly compared with Mecca or Medina. Rome has not banned mosques. In fact now it has the largest mosque in Italy.
6. Why is ok to build a mosque in Rome, but not a church in Mecca?

i think anyone should be free to practice their faith in any country, including having their own places of worship. But if you don't think that, and you oppose the building of churches in Saudi, then you should equally oppose building mosques in countries such as the US, Japan, China and Europe.

which part of even Saudis aren't allowed in Makkah except every five years unless they can prove they're accompanying a different Mahram each time mean to you

Visiting restrictions is another, irrelevant, subject.

Kaffirs are there in Saudi a plenty robbing it

Another irrelevant diatribe - you can't seem to get through even a short post with a good rant. But I'll answer it anyway.

The largest number of 'kaffirs' by far are employed as servants to rich Saudis. Most of them are women. Most of them are from the Philippines. Most of them are Christian. No matter how many years they work there, they will never ever be given citizenship. They have no rights. They are servants. I very much doubt that these unfortunate women, who because of poverty have had to leave their country and their families to work in a country that cares nothing for them, are the ones doing the exploiting.

[جوري]

This has been dealt with already. It's a shame you derail so many threads this way, you turn everything into pointless abuse. I'll run though it again:

It is the crux of the argument in fact- your inability to deal with it doesn't turn the query into pointless abuse. Just renders you a hypocrite!

1. The Vatican is tiny, it's a city in name only - all it consists of is a Church, a museum, the Pope's residence, some offices, and a nice garden. Whereas Mecca or Medina are true cities with large populations. In any case the comparison here is with Saudi as a country, not just these two cities.

So is Makkah and Medina barely able to accommodate Muslims even the natives of that country hence the restrictions.. outside of the two cities there are kaffirs galore doing whatever it is they're doing there!

2. Planning permission for anything at all in the Vatican would be very hard to obtain. Whether it was a mosque or a Macdonalds restaurant. Out of interest I checked online and I can find no properties at all currently for sale.

Same for Makkah & Medinah- but how does this reconcile with your other statement? that it isn't illegal to build or we're descending down to word play as usual? like with the opium wars? legal when your country imposes it on the chinese, illegal when a poor country plants it for whatever reasons medicinal or otherwise. God how do you live with yourself?

3. The Vatican's tiny population of 800 includes (so far as it's known) zero Muslims so there is no need to be filled. Whereas in Saudi, it is estimated there are over 1 million Christians. There is huge need - but it is not fulfilled.

Of course it has zero Muslims, Makkah and Medinah have zero kaffirs, what kind of argument is that exactly? You're funny!
When they do come they're there to fill their bags full money & take off, there is hardly a spiritual need to be fulfilled!

4. It's not actually illegal to build a mosque in the Vatican anyway - it's just that no one has ever asked. They haven't asked, because there is absolutely no need. Whereas, it is illegal to build a church anywhere in the vast expanse of Saudi.

Yeah not illegal? You've insider info? let me see it writing!

5. The Vatican is in Rome, and Rome is a true city which can be properly compared with Mecca or Medina. Rome has not banned mosques. In fact now it has the largest mosque in Italy.

Kaffirs have their churches all over the Muslim world!
Midan Aljami3 in Egypt so named after a mosque has more churches than mosques in fact Christians of Egypt have illegally taken land including those where endangered species exist that are larger than Makkah, medina and Vatican city combined even though they're a tiny population less than 10% and if anyone questions them about it they go crying human abuses.. your point being at the end of this?
by the way here it all is in pictures:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1555635

6. Why is ok to build a mosque in Rome, but not a church in Mecca?

Again, perhaps this time it will stick. Makkah is a tiny place barely able to accommodate its pilgrims, even with them removing buildings and expanding the area every other day, when the Vatican accommodates a mosque will Makkah accommodate a church!
Some places are just that a 'makkah' for a certain type of people!

Visiting restrictions is another, irrelevant, subject.

There's no visitation it isn't a tourist spot, it is a place to complete a pillar of Islam!

Another irrelevant diatribe - you can't seem to get through even a short post with a good rant. But I'll answer it anyway.

Adequate assessment of your drivel!

The largest number of 'kaffirs' by far are employed as servants to rich Saudis. Most of them are women. Most of them are from the Philippines. Most of them are Christian. No matter how many years they work there, they will never ever be given citizenship. They have no rights. They are servants. I very much doubt that these unfortunate women, who because of poverty have had to leave their country and their families to work in a country that cares nothing for them, are the ones doing the exploiting.

This is much crock as we're so accustomed from you- you've been to Saudi? You haven't established credibility for anyone to simply go by your words..
for others who are interested to know exactly what kaffirs are doing in Saudi please read:

best,

[Vito]

I think this would provide better info on the subject than I ever could. That index is probably the best thing on this forum. I wasn't really aware of it.

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1550876


And just for the record, I don't care much for the governing bodies of Saudi. I only used them as an example because of the area having religious significance in Islam. And you're right, any country can come up with whatever laws they like which is why most Muslims would love to see a khalifah established during their lifetime because what we have now is a mixture of man made laws and religious laws put in place by corrupt people.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

But if a country were to prohibit building mosques, would you think that was acceptable? The principle of fairness has to go both ways.

There are already places where Mosques are not allowed to be built:

Athens - the EU capital city without a mosque

Since Greece gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832, no government has allowed a mosque to be built in the city. It was seen by many as "un-Greek" - out of place in a country in which much more than 90% of the population are Orthodox Christians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20820349

When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.

[Independent]

Greeting Muhammad

There are already places where Mosques are not allowed to be built:

As I said, I am in favour of freedom of worship and places of worship in all countries, for all religions. So if Greece restricts that freedom, I don't agree with it - although you must understand that Greece was occupied for many centuries by the Ottomans. Independence was achieved at great cost and great brutality (on both sides) with intense bad feeling to this day. So even if I don't agree with it, there is a background.

Curiously enough - and this is bizarrely topical - I could almost get religious about the timing - but Greece has just 5 days ago approved the building of a mosque in Athens. This is to be funded - astonishingly - by the Greek government. I see also that there is a legal challenge against it, because this seems to break Greek planning laws, but nevertheless it's expected to go through. I can't think of anything remotely similar in the Islamic world:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350002

So i guess the Greeks have wiped their particular slate clean. Time for the Saudis!

When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.

I think I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. If I understand him correctly, this is also what Vito is getting at. I respect your principles, and if you believe they are inscribed in Islam there's not much you or anyone else can do about it except follow them.

But let's look at the result. Essentially, it means that it's ok for the Saudis to prohibit churches etc in their country - yet if another country (the US or otherwise) were to prohibit mosques in their country, this would be wrong and the cause of outrage amongst Muslims. That's a very hard sell to convince anyone who isn't a Muslim that it's fair.

In this instance, the US, or any other country, could quite reasonably ban mosques on the grounds of reciprocity, fairness and equality (all of which are key western principles). This is typical of the way states relate to each other in other areas such as trade (ie you put a tax on my imports and I'll do the same to yours). So this action of reciprocal banning could be taken by the US on principle (although again I say i don't agree with it).

Your belief is in Islam, mine is equality. Both of them are wonderful ideals although a little harder in practice. I fundamentally and passionately don't see how it's fair or anything less than hypocritical for Saudi to restrict other religions in Saudi - unless they also agree that Islam should be restricted to the exact same degree of reciprocity in other countries.

If those other countries decide to ignore Saudi's actions, and still permit freedom of worship to Muslims on a unilateral basis, this is for them to be praised (which is very far from what happens in this forum or other Muslim circles).

[Vito]

Yes Independent that's essentially what I was trying to get at. Other members here are much better at explaining things than I am :D

[Pygoscelis]

When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.

I agree with this. If a country claims to be secular and fair and egalitarian to all of its citizenry, it is hypocritical for it not to try to live up to that. If it doesn't make such a claim, then this doesn't apply. It isn't hypocritical; just oppressive.

I also understand what Independent is saying though. People who will endorse the repression of religious freedom of others are hypocrites if they then themselves complain if they are likewise repressed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect their rights, even if they would deny them to others.

[Pygoscelis]

So is Makkah and Medina barely able to accommodate Muslims even the natives of that country hence the restrictions.. outside of the two cities there are kaffirs galore doing whatever it is they're doing there!

Hold on... are churches banned all throughout Saudi or just in those two cities?

We seem to have conflicting claims in this thread. Which is true? Can you build a big Christian Cathedral on the outskirts of Saudi legally?

[Independent]

Hold on... are churches banned all throughout Saudi or just in those two cities?

We seem to have conflicting claims in this thread. Which is true? Can you build a big Christian Cathedral on the outskirts of Saudi legally?

I asked this earlier but didn't get a reply - as far as i can see the ban is nationwide.

[جوري]

Hold on... are churches banned all throughout Saudi or just in those two cities?

We seem to have conflicting claims in this thread. Which is true? Can you build a big Christian Cathedral on the outskirts of Saudi legally?

The place of Hijaz aka modern day saudi in its entirety can be considered for the 1.8 billion Muslims to be 'Vatican city' it is a relative compared to population size. Do non-Muslims visit? sure they do, they come raking in the money - that's not the purpose of that place.. the entire Muslim world otherwise is studded with churches that are hardly frequented since christian practices in general include nothing but idolatry, song and dance which doesn't need a congregation in fact like many mosques in the west where even minarets are banned and are confined to nothing but a room where all parishioners can't fit in can be held for them if the worship is busting at the seams in anyone's house. So in conclusion if you understand about relativity, purposes and percentages the day the Vatican builds a mosque can we have this conversation again!

best,

[Independent]

The place of Hijaz aka modern day saudi in its entirety can be considered for the 1.8 billion Muslims to be 'Vatican city' it is a relative compared to population size.

I guess this indirectly confirms that yes, it is the whole country.

According to what i read on the web the ban extends not just to religious buildings but also all religious imagery, symbols, church representatives and writings (including the Bible in Christianity's case).

[جوري]

I guess this indirectly confirms that yes, it is the whole country.

According to what i read on the web the ban extends not just to religious buildings but also all religious imagery, symbols, church representatives and writings (including the Bible in Christianity's case).

and I certainly hope they impose that policy which I doubt since I have seen with my own eyes in the four years that I have lived there, bacon in the supermarkets and liquor in the palatial homes where kaffirs dwelt. I gather if they didn't like it there, they should just leave, and from what I understand you yourself subscribe to that philosophy as you suggested I do the same not a couple of days ago!

best,

[M.I.A.]

i guess for any objective viewpoint to be achieved a person would have to know the religious history of mecca and madina.

i know there were jews in the area at the time of the prophet pbuh but i am not sure about christians.

i dont know how and when that religious standing changed or what became of those people belonging to other religions.


so i guess unless somebody with real knowledge enters the thread its just going around in circles like many others.



in personal opinion i can understand why the saudi's dont want any churches

...and can not blame any other country for not wanting mosques.. the fact they allow it is a reflection of the non religious governments and secular states that most muslims love to hate.

insane.

[جوري]

i know there were jews in the area at the time of the prophet pbuh but i am not sure about christians.

There were only two christian tribes in that area during the time of the prophet banu harith & I forget the name of the other now, they converted to Islam and no backing from the Roman empire came to save them from the savages!

best,

[M.I.A.]

well i guess that is testament to the power of god.

unfortunately i guess the same cannot be said for any of us.


so go about it how you will.

[Independent]

i know there were jews in the area at the time of the prophet pbuh but i am not sure about christians.

Yes there were Christians in the area both at the time of and before the Prophet. But I don't think that matters. There were no Muslims in Europe at the time of the Prophet - does that mean they're not allowed now? The presence or absence of religions in the distant past is not relevant to freedom of worship today.

All countries should allow all people freedom of religion - and that has to include places of worship, holy books, clerics etc. It's what every country and every religion has the right to expect for their own citizens/members if they're abroad.

[جوري]

...and can not blame any other country for not wanting mosques.. the fact they allow it is a reflection of the non religious governments and secular states that most muslims love to hate.

They only allow them so they can spy on them and plant agents provocateurs and then flash it over the front page news about how 'intolerant' we're and how we preach hate- who are you kidding with that comment?
The mosques that I have seen here in the U.S with the exception of one which no one frequents are downtrodden rooms that barely fit anyone and often have a cop outside to make sure you feel as uncomfortable as possible.

[M.I.A.]

They only allow them so they can spy on them and plant agents provocateurs and then flash it over the front page news about how 'intolerant' we're and how we preach hate- who are you kidding with that comment?
The mosques that I have seen here in the U.S with the exception of one which no one frequents are downtrodden rooms that barely fit anyone and often have a cop outside to make sure you feel as uncomfortable as possible.

absolutely, if you would only stop listening to anybody wanting to make a bomb we could finally move forward!

as for the second part of your post, i dont understand the problem?

iv prayed outside in the company of my friends.

Yes there were Christians in the area both at the time of and before the Prophet. But I don't think that matters. There were no Muslims in Europe at the time of the Prophet - does that mean they're not allowed now? The presence or absence of religions in the distant past is not relevant to freedom of worship today.

All countries should allow all people freedom of religion - and that has to include places of worship, holy books, clerics etc. It's what every country and every religion has the right to expect for their own citizens/members if they're abroad.

it matters because the manner in which they were treated is actually relevant to some posts in the thread if not the actual thread.


the post before yours, i actually cant take at face value.

there is a lot of evidence within the quran about treating people of other faiths and non aggressors.

also the inclusion of the sabians requires some thought,

although again im not sure of the historical time line of those people, although they are included in the quranic definition of.. ?people of the book?



im not in any way qualified to question the saudi peoples.

they have lived according to there own choices.

they have according to some posts, the modern day equivalent of slaves.

which may be a foreign concept to some, but thats how the world works.

i read recently that the pyramids were actually built by paid workers.

...the internet.

[جوري]

absolutely, if you would only stop listening to anybody wanting to make a bomb we could finally move forward!

What does this mean exactly?

as for the second part of your post, i dont understand the problem?

I didn't say there was a problem in fact the opposite!

iv prayed outside in the company of my friends.

Yes christians in Saudi can do the same find a room clap & dance hallelujah ..
I hope you lay off whatever you're smoking though when you pray!

let's stop here just so we don't turn this into 35 pages nonsense which is incoherent and irrelevant.
Generally have a look around at who enjoys your posts the most and that should tell you something about your person & priorities!

best,

[M.I.A.]

Originally Posted by M.I.A.
absolutely, if you would only stop listening to anybody wanting to make a bomb we could finally move forward!
What does this mean exactly?

i guess it means that people should have ideals and dreams they chase.
and for me it would be to leave my little corner of the world in a better state than i found it.

unfortunately i only remember the past most days.


so yeah maybe there is nothing wrong with the world unless you try to change things.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

The reason I mentioned Greece was to point out that restrictions of this kind are not exclusive to certain Muslim countries, and that it is not simply a case of one-sided unfairness. Whilst it is good news that Athens may be considering a change in its policy, the discomfort with Islamic symbols is still apparent in Europe with the minaret ban in Switzerland and the ban on Niqab in France, and perhaps other examples.

But let's look at the result. Essentially, it means that it's ok for the Saudis to prohibit churches etc in their country - yet if another country (the US or otherwise) were to prohibit mosques in their country, this would be wrong and the cause of outrage amongst Muslims. That's a very hard sell to convince anyone who isn't a Muslim that it's fair.

As I said above, this comparison is flawed due to the very different values and systems according to which these countries are governing. If a country declares that only Islamic practice can be apparent, we will expect no different from it. The hypocrisy arises when a country says that it is open to all religions and thought, and allows all places of worship and practices, but then decides to only prohibit Mosques. In the latter case, the country is going against the values it is promoting whereas in the former case that is not so.

I can't think of anything remotely similar in the Islamic world:

Saudi Arabia is only one of a few Muslim countries that apparently prohibit churches. According to Wikipedia, there are 48 countries that are predominantly Muslim, and from what I could find, many if not most of these allow churches.

In this instance, the US, or any other country, could quite reasonably ban mosques on the grounds of reciprocity, fairness and equality (all of which are key western principles). This is typical of the way states relate to each other in other areas such as trade (ie you put a tax on my imports and I'll do the same to yours). So this action of reciprocal banning could be taken by the US on principle (although again I say i don't agree with it).

The reciprocation would be totally unfair because it would be based on the policies of only a few countries such as Saudia Arabia and ignore those of many other Muslim countries. It would also be quite strange for secular, multicultural countries to demonstrate this level of concern for the Christian community. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not have, as an example, totally ignored what their own churches have been protesting against by legalising same-sex marriages. Reciprocity may work in universal areas like trade. But I cannot see how it could work in something far more complex as religious freedoms.

If those other countries decide to ignore Saudi's actions, and still permit freedom of worship to Muslims on a unilateral basis, this is for them to be praised (which is very far from what happens in this forum or other Muslim circles).

I didn't understand what you meant by your last statement. But as mentioned above, allowing other places of worship is not unique to countries like UK or USA.

I also understand what Independent is saying though. People who will endorse the repression of religious freedom of others are hypocrites if they then themselves complain if they are likewise repressed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect their rights, even if they would deny them to others.

I am not endorsing repression of religious freedom here. I was simply commenting on the comparisons being made with Saudi Arabia. It is interesting to note the implications of Muslims being hypocritical (not from you specifically), and on this point of tolerance and thinking about entitlement to praise, I think it's worth remembering the centuries of tolerance Muslims have demonstrated to people of other faiths across the Muslim world, from Moorish Spain and Sub-Saharan Africa to Egypt, Syria, India and Indonesia. Here are just some of the quotes:

Gustave Lebon says:

From the said verses of the Qur'an we can see that Muhammad's tolerance towards Jews and Christians was truly very great. None of the founders of the religions which appeared before his time, especially Judaism and Christianity, has spoken or acted in this manner. Then we saw how his caliphs followed his traditions. This tolerance has been recognized by some European scholars who have deeply contemplated Arab history. The following quotation, which I have taken from their numerous books prove that these are not exclusively our opinions. Robertson says in his book The History of Charles V that Muslims are the only people who possess a zeal for their faith as well as a spirit of tolerance toward the followers of other religions. Although they fight for the sake of Islam and its dissemination, they leave those who do not know their religion free to adhere to their own religious teachings. (Gustave Lebon, Arab Civilisation (trans. 'Adil, Za'aytar), p. 128)


Patriarch Ghaytho wrote:

The Arabs, to whom the Lord has given control over the world, treat us as you know; they are not the enemies of Christians. Indeed, they praise our community, and treat our priests and saints with dignity, and offer aid to churches and monasteries. (Arthur Stanley Tritton, The People Of The Covenant In Islam, p. 158)


Gustav Lebon writes:

"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam." (Lebon, G, The Civilization Of The Arabs, p. 605)

American historian Will Durant wrote:

At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges. (Will Durant, The Story Of Civilization, Volume 13. p. 131-132)

Muslims protected Christian churches in the lands they occupied from being harmed. In a letter to Simeon, the Archbishop of Rifardashir and leader of all the bishops of Persia, the Nestorian Patriarch Geoff III wrote:

'The Arabs, to whom God has given power over the whole world, know how wealthy you are, for they live among you. In spite of this, they do not assail the Christian creed. To the contrary, they have sympathy with our religion, and venerate our priests and saints of our Lord, and they graciously donate to our churches and monasteries.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation To Islam, p. 102)


Sir Thomas Arnold wrote:

'We never heard of a report of any planned attempt to compel non-Muslim minorities to accept Islam, or any organized persecution aimed at uprooting the Christian religion. If any of the caliphs had chosen any of these policies, they would have overwhelmed Christianity with the same ease with which Ferdinand and Isabella exiled Islam from Spain, or with which Louis XIV made following Protestantism a punishable crime in France, or with which the Jews were exiled from England for 350 years. A that time Eastern churches were completely isolated from the rest of the Christian world. They had no supporters in the world as they were considered heretical sects of Christianity. Their very existence to this day is the strongest evidence of the policy of Islamic government's tolerance towards them.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation To Islam, p. 98-99)

The American author, Lothrop Stoddard wrote,

'The caliph Umar took the utmost care to tend to the sanctity of the Christian holy places, and those who became caliph after him followed his footsteps. They did not harass the many denominations of pilgrims who came annually from every corner of the Christian world to visit Jerusalem.' (Lothrop Stoddard, The Islamic World At Present, Volume 1, p. 13-14)

[Independent]

Thank you for your reply, Muhammad. With regard to Saudi specifically - would you regard them as offering complete freedom of worship? (From what you say above, I assume not - although you think the limitations are justified in their case.)

If not, then how does that affect the oft-repeated statement that 'other religions have complete freedom of worship under Islam'? Does this require some qualification - geographically at least?

[Muhammad]

Regarding Saudi Arabia specifically, I'm not sure what their exact policies are - from what is apparent, it doesn't look like they allow churches but as for freedom of worship, this could still be possible. In any case, I don't think I've said they are justified or not. It's important to note that Saudi Arabian laws and practices in that country are not necessarily representative of Islam. Some of their decisions may be based on other factors.

[Independent]

I don't think I've said they are justified or not

I thought that's what you meant when you said this:

If a country declares that only Islamic practice can be apparent, we will expect no different from it.

But perhaps not?

I used the phrase 'complete freedom of worship', in order to include all possible progressive degrees of restriction such as no churches etc. (There are many ways to make a religion difficult to practise short of outright prohibition.) Again, if any country were to ban mosques, for whatever reason (principled or not) I would certainly define that as preventing 'complete freedom of worship' - wouldn't you?

To clarify for me - when Saudi bans churches, do you think they are following Islamic principles, or not?

[M.I.A.]

hold on,

i know that without firsthand knowledge of saudi arabia and the people that inhabit it.. its all just a little hit and miss.

it may be the difference between the law of the land... and the enforcement of the law of the land.


same as any government in the world.

take frances veil banning..

or removing religious symbols from childrens schools.. and children in those schools.

its almost the same as arabia.. without the mosques/churches issue.

although the government would like to progress in whichever manner you allow them.



the flip side is a large muslim community in france.


...how they fair against discrimination is a case of how they approach there own religion.



i have no idea how the saudi arabians govern and select government.

[Independent]

i know that without firsthand knowledge of saudi arabia and the people that inhabit it.. its all just a little hit and miss.

I realise it's a controversial question, but that is the title of the thread...

take frances veil banning..

or removing religious symbols from childrens schools.. and children in those schools.

I agree that these could be considered as affecting complete freedom of worship (although on that basis you could argue that a woman visiting a Muslim country, and being obliged to cover up, is also restrictive - clothing is such a complicated issue as to what extent it relates to 'worship'). I'm certainly agree there are issues in a number of countries - but it seems to me Saudi is one of those countries.

Just to keep repeating, I personally believe in freedom of worship for all religions in all countries, and that includes their permitting their places of worship.

[Muhammad]

I thought that's what you meant when you said this:

But perhaps not?

I have not said that they are right or wrong in making those restrictions. I've only said that the country is not going against its own policies, in contrast to others which would be.

I used the phrase 'complete freedom of worship', in order to include all possible progressive degrees of restriction such as no churches etc. (There are many ways to make a religion difficult to practise short of outright prohibition.) Again, if any country were to ban mosques, for whatever reason (principled or not) I would certainly define that as preventing 'complete freedom of worship' - wouldn't you?

Yes, I agree.

To clarify for me - when Saudi bans churches, do you think they are following Islamic principles, or not?

This is what I don't know. I was about to write in my earlier post that whether this ban stems from their understanding of Islamic law or is based on other factors needs to be verified. I don't know of any country which governs entirely according to Shariah law, hence we have to be careful of assuming that anything a Muslim country does is from Islamic law.

[M.I.A.]

I realise it's a controversial question, but that is the title of the thread...



I agree that these could be considered as affecting complete freedom of worship (although on that basis you could argue that a woman visiting a Muslim country, and being obliged to cover up, is also restrictive - clothing is such a complicated issue as to what extent it relates to 'worship'). I'm certainly agree there are issues in a number of countries - but it seems to me Saudi is one of those countries.

Just to keep repeating, I personally believe in freedom of worship for all religions in all countries, and that includes their permitting their places of worship.

thats the thing, its a progressive society as time passes trends take hold and disappear.

some things are beneficial and some are not.

time does not stand still but you have to ask where these social trends come from?


...and so the restrictiveness of a religious society is not necessarily a bad thing.. for religious people.

so muslims and christians and jews dressing conservatively.. is not an issue.

because its part of religion.. and i guess you can point to much in the bible that goes against that.

but i guess having words and making meaning of them is what makes the world turn..


but actually it is the people.


so we have to go back to something fundamental, how to achieve a productive and almost self reliant society.

that has moral value and integrity.



..any steps towards it will teach you all you need to know about monothiesm.

..i dont know what happens if you dont take life seriously, case in point.




and so we get to "religious freedom"

what you preach and how you act, for what intent.. and how the people receive it.



so how does one change a restrictive government?

well "other" thats a thing to think about.



(as a person who knows my own sins, i know im not one for preaching.. but whatever)

[Independent]

This is what I don't know. I was about to write in my earlier post that whether this ban stems from their understanding of Islamic law or is based on other factors needs to be verified. I don't know of any country which governs entirely according to Shariah law, hence we have to be careful of assuming that anything a Muslim country does is from Islamic law.

Ok - thanks for your answers.

[Ahmad H]

I don't know of any country which governs entirely according to Shariah law, hence we have to be careful of assuming that anything a Muslim country does is from Islamic law.

Very good point Muhammad. I wish more Muslims thought this way. That way more of them would get involved in making sure that the most qualified scholars are actually helping to install Sharia law into the countries with majority of Muslims already. We can only pray that happens someday.

[truthseeker63]

Good Topic.

[جوري]

Greetings Independent,

The reason I mentioned Greece was to point out that restrictions of this kind are not exclusive to certain Muslim countries, and that it is not simply a case of one-sided unfairness. Whilst it is good news that Athens may be considering a change in its policy, the discomfort with Islamic symbols is still apparent in Europe with the minaret ban in Switzerland and the ban on Niqab in France, and perhaps other examples.

:sl:

I hope you are aware that Greece isn't having any 'sudden change in policy out of the goodness of their heart of because they're über conscientious of 'freedoms', 'human rights' and whatever nonsense this fellow is selling you on. He merely shared a portion of his insta google scholarship you know the 'history is there and all' All there is to it, is that the Qatari emir is helping them financially just bought an island from those low lives!
So they'll begrudgingly and with protest as if they're doing us a favor change their policy.
And I say this with utmost disdain just thinking back on their recent history with Egypt and how they aided the (France/England) against us in the wars of 56 and 67!
What a hefty price to pay quite literally for a structure we can do without!

Also if you're not sure whether or not it's a good idea to have churches in umm al Qura I recommend reading suret at'tawbah!

We're not on equal footing here as decided by a secularist!
Blindness can't be equated with sight even with most florid terms!

:w:

[Muslimbr.]

............ ............. ...............

[Muslimbr.]

.............. ............. ...............

[Born_Believer]

There are some people giving the wrong answers on this thread with regards to Christians and their churches within Muslim lands. I can't post any links on this site as I don't have permission yet but there is a very good place to read up on these things : call to monotheism. It talks about the rights of non-muslims within muslim lands and what they can and can not do.

Please read and since I can't post a link, if you want it, do not hesitate to message me personally. :D

[Muslimbr.]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Download the PDF book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam. This book, alhamdulillaah, clarifies the misconceptions about Islam.
Click here: www.cris.co.nf/English.html
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

[Muslimbr.]

Thanks for visiting this post. Expect replies.

[Muslimbr.]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Download the book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam, from: www.cris.co.nf/English.html
This book is very good in studying comparative religion.
Please let me know if you like the book
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

[Muslimbr.]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
I have found a book, which clarifies almost all famous misconceptions about Islam very effectively, alhamdulillaah. So I am sharing it here. The book is “Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam.” Every Muslim should read it, so that we may be able to deal with non-Muslims effectively. You can download it from: www.cris.co.nf
Please reply here if you like this book.
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

[Umm Malik]

jazakom lahu khayran ...

[Muslimbr.]

Thanx Maryam for your reply.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Isn't it remarkable that a supposedly perfect system of life, designed by a perfectly intelligent being, contains so many controversies and requires such constant explanation and justification? It's also notable that the justifcations given are almost never satisfactory to non-Muslims, and the same issues keep coming up again and again, despite all the attempts to resolve them.

Peace

[AabiruSabeel]

Isn't it remarkable that a supposedly perfect system of life, designed by a perfectly intelligent being, contains so many controversies and requires such constant explanation and justification? It's also notable that the justifcations given are almost never satisfactory to non-Muslims, and the same issues keep coming up again and again, despite all the attempts to resolve them.

Being an old-timer here, you should be aware that perfectly satisfactory answers have already been given to all the questions, yet new members or people new to Islam keep repeating the same questions again and again. Nobody wants to search and lookup the answers which were given previously.

Your post looks like an attempt to discredit all the debates our members had with you over the last decade. You should have known better.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Being an old-timer here, you should be aware that perfectly satisfactory answers have already been given to all the questions, yet new members or people new to Islam keep repeating the same questions again and again.

I think I'll be the judge of whether I find the answers given in discussions here satisfactory or not, thank you very much. I have seen no adequate defence or justification for many of the injunctions of Islam; for example, among many other issues, the rulings on music and homosexuality, as well as the general hostility to free thought that exists in Islam.

People keep bringing up the same questions because they matter. You may not agree, but you ought to realise that to many of us outsiders, many of the teachings of Islam appear to be obviously false, unhelpful and / or dangerous. Would you agree that I'm perfectly entitled to hold that view?

Your post looks like an attempt to discredit all the debates our members had with you over the last decade. You should have known better.

Some of them have been worthwhile.

Peace

[talibilm]

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Download the book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam, from: http://cris.co.nf/English.html
This book is very good in studying comparative religion.
Copy the link given and paste in your browser.
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah

:sl:

Jazakallah khair for the link , its covering a wide range of Quran , Hadith & Madhabs but still did not go through.

[AabiruSabeel]

I think I'll be the judge of whether I find the answers given in discussions here satisfactory or not, thank you very much. I have seen no adequate defence or justification for many of the injunctions of Islam; for example, among many other issues, the rulings on music and homosexuality, as well as the general hostility to free thought that exists in Islam.

People keep bringing up the same questions because they matter. You may not agree, but you ought to realise that to many of us outsiders, many of the teachings of Islam appear to be obviously false, unhelpful and / or dangerous. Would you agree that I'm perfectly entitled to hold that view?

Once it has been explained that Allah :swt: is our Lord and Sustainer, and that He alone can be worshipped, then there remains no question of trying to justify His commands and prohibitions. Whatever He commands is for the best of His creations, whether we understand His wisdom or not.

It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [33:36]

Allah :swt: does not command something or prohibit something except for our own benefit. What would Allah gain if we follow His commands or what would He lose if we disobey Him? Nothing. He is Self-Sufficient and does not require our praise. It is all for our own benefit, in this world as well as the Hereafter.

Allah :swt: says:
... Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship [2:185]


Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise. [4:26]
Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow [their] passions want you to digress [into] a great deviation. [4:27]
And Allah wants to lighten for you [your difficulties]; and mankind was created weak. [4:28]


... Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favor upon you that you may be grateful. [5:6]


And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. [33:33]

[czgibson]

Greetings ibn-Adam,

Your post above is a perfect example of what I mean by Islam's hostility to free thought. Your words are a hymn to voluntary suspension of the critical faculties. Your intention is to obey without question. You do not seek to understand. You would rather shut all discussion down with an elaborate tribute to Allah's magnificence that doesn't address the points I made in any way.

Civilisations make progress largely through experiment and observation, research and innovation. This requires a basic curiosity about the world and its workings that is absolutely negated by your myopic position. A civilisation that adopted your point of view would stagnate and find it very difficult to recover.

Peace

[piXie]

Civilisations make progress largely through experiment and observation, research and innovation. This requires a basic curiosity about the world and its workings that is absolutely negated by your myopic position. A civilisation that adopted your point of view would stagnate and find it very difficult to recover.

Peace

Dear Czgibson,

With all due respect, you have been on this forum for many years but from your words and how you write about Islam, it seems that you know and understand very little about it, it's teachings and its history. Because if you compared between the pre Islamic era and the Islamic era you wouldn't be making statements such as the last one, unless you were quite bias and unfair in your research, observation and analysis.

Peace.

[AabiruSabeel]

Your post above is a perfect example of what I mean by Islam's hostility to free thought. ...

Not at all. You are being too judgmental in your post. Islam does not prevent understanding and using one's faculties to reason. What I am saying is from the faith point of view. Once we have faith in Allah, we place absolute trust on Him.

It is perfectly allowed to question and find reasons. Ibrahim :as:, even though he was one of the great Messengers, questioned Allah :swt: on how He raises the dead once again. Allah :swt: says:

And when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." [ Allah ] said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied." [ Allah ] said, "Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then [after slaughtering them] put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." [2:260]

Several Muslim scholars have written books on reasoning and understanding. See for example, Hujjatullahi AlBaalighah by Shah Waliullah Dehlawi.

... your myopic position

I would say your vision is myopic, not Muslims'. Muslims (practicing ones) are the most far-sighted people because we prepare for we need in the Hereafter.
Whereas atheists like you are the most myopic people, because they say "You live only once".

If atheists are right and Muslims are wrong, then nobody is at loss. Both of them live this life and die at the end.
But when Muslims are right and atheists are wrong, then Muslims win the Hereafter and atheists loose their chance.

Logically, any sane person would choose what is best for him in the long run. So what do you choose? Do you want to live your life being skeptical about the hereafter and ultimately loose it, or are you ready to take no chances and prepare yourself for it?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Yes, I'd say that you're perfectly entitled to hold that view.

As to the matter of perspective, well, there are some things in Islam that simply do not and probably will not make sense to an outsider looking inside from still the outsider's perspective.

For example, and I kid you not, when I was an atheist, I had a friend who was Muslim, and I once asked her when I was more comfortable with her about why she wore the headscarf. I don't know what I expected to hear, but to hear her say "it makes me a better person" was not it. My reaction, although I was polite enough not to say it out loud, was, "A piece of cloth on your head makes you a better person?! What?!" I thought I'd never heard anything as preposterous in my life. I just could not wrap my mind around a thing like that.

Well, fast forward many years later when I did decide out of my own free will to start wearing the hijab as a Muslim woman, I for the first time realized what she'd meant. One of the things that hijab does (whether you want it to or not) is have it become the first thing about you that people notice, not your smile, not your eyes, not the clothes on your body, but this thing on your head. You cannot lead with your femininity as I was previously used to doing as an ex-sorority girl or the girly girl whose first thought in the morning was about how to look fashionable, beautiful, and desirable. So, whether I wanted to or not, I had to learn to lead not by things that are perfectly normalized and accepted in this culture or even now changing globalized society but to actually be forced to stop and think about how I was presenting myself to the world and then actually present myself as the person I am inside. So, did it make me a better person? Yes, oddly enough. Before I wore the hijab, I would never have thought twice about showing my frustration to the person who got my food order wrong. After I started wearing the hijab, it forced me to slow down and realize that I am essentially now a person that now represents Islam to both non-Muslims and nonpracticing Muslims, and I will have to do justice to it. So, even if I was having a really bad day, I'd still zip my mouth and smile and choose a better alternative response not to be fake obviously but because I realized that I could not afford to sweat the small stuff and that I was put on this mission (which by the way I had never desired) to represent Islam. Wearing hijab relaxed me as a person and simultaneously I became an individual not defined by her sex, which I felt was empowering because I had been so used to doing the opposite.

So, while I had a perfectly skeptical reaction to the hijab and her answer as an atheist, I now understand her words as a Muslim woman, something that could never have happened earlier in my life because I simply could not see myself accepting her answer because I had not been in her shoes and I didn't ever think I'd be. It's just not something you can automatically understand; you have to experience some things on your own as I'd realized.

Also, I'd like to point out that Islam actively seeks to foster an Islamic culture, which is why things will also seem strange because you cannot really understand a culture and its inner workings until you're either immersed in it or trying to see the logic and reasoning of things on Islam's own terms. For example, there is an African tribal culture that forces men to physically fight one another to win a lady's hand in marriage. From one aspect, this can be seen as barbaric. However, from another aspect, it can be seen as a means for the men to prove their strength and virility as a protective mate for the woman.

Also, this discussion might cause a little chagrin, but I myself cannot really understand why some African tribes consider being topless for a woman everyday to be perfectly normal and don't consider breasts a beautiful protrusion of a woman's femininity because both Western standards and Eastern standards do consider them a to-be-concealed mark of beauty. You'll not have these men there going crazy at the sight of breasts because it's not the part of womanhood that is considered the most attractive. There are so many things about beauty, about marriage, about love, about what is right and wrong that we are socially conditioned to accept and essentially culturally-influenced that we don't even think twice about those things because we've never been put in a position of having to do so.

Well, I think if Islam challenges you and forces you to think, then that's not a bad thing because Islam does have that power to do so. It challenged me when I was an atheist, and if it hadn't, I don't think I would be a Muslim today. Do I like the fact that you're regarding Islam as "obviously false, unhelpful and/or dangerous"? Of course not. That said, I respect you trying to understand Islam, and maybe you'll one day be a Muslim like me (hey, stranger things have happened like Donald Trump becoming the GOP's presidential nominee!) or maybe you won't. But at the end of the day, does that matter so much as you being able to respect what you cannot understand at this moment in time?

many of the teachings of Islam appear to be obviously false, unhelpful and / or dangerous. Would you agree that I'm perfectly entitled to hold that view?

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings ibn-Adam,

Your post above is a perfect example of what I mean by Islam's hostility to free thought. Your words are a hymn to voluntary suspension of the critical faculties. Your intention is to obey without question. You do not seek to understand. You would rather shut all discussion down with an elaborate tribute to Allah's magnificence that doesn't address the points I made in any way.

Civilisations make progress largely through experiment and observation, research and innovation. This requires a basic curiosity about the world and its workings that is absolutely negated by your myopic position. A civilisation that adopted your point of view would stagnate and find it very difficult to recover.

Peace

I have to agree very strongly, and I point you to the Obedience vs Morality thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...obedience.html. I made an offhanded comment in another thread about how Obedience is not morality and a mod here turned that into its own thread. It became very interesting reading the posts from the Muslims there, in how they didn't seem to be able to see Obedience and Morality as separate concepts. They insist that Obedience to authority (Allah) is the very definition of morality and it seems blind, as if no independent thought is applied. This truly perplexes me.

This is a very sensitive topic and I think it may be the very weakest point in Islam. I stand by my signature below.

[Pygoscelis]

If atheists are right and Muslims are wrong, then nobody is at loss. Both of them live this life and die at the end.
But when Muslims are right and atheists are wrong, then Muslims win the Hereafter and atheists loose their chance.

Logically, any sane person would choose what is best for him in the long run. So what do you choose? Do you want to live your life being skeptical about the hereafter and ultimately loose it, or are you ready to take no chances and prepare yourself for it?

This is Pascal's wager, and I am very surprised to still see it being presented after all these years.

There are numerous serious flaws with this logic, the most obvious of which is that it is a false dichotomy. If you read these holy books, the Gods seem more concerned with the worship of false Gods than the worship of no Gods. If you picked the wrong God, and the odds are you did, since there are so many millions of different Gods that could exist, you may be far worse off than those of us who picked none. It also assumes that we are able to choose if we believe or if we don't. That doesn't make sense. Can you make yourself believe what you don't? Can you make yourself believe than an apple in your hand is actually a golf ball? No, I can't either. And it is no different when trying to make myself believe Gods exist. Finally, if we were able to make ourselves believe, on evidence our minds find unconvincing, then Pascal's Wager (above) presents a God who would rather we foolishly believe things we don't find convincing, and basically turn our minds off (in favour of "faith") than use the very thinking brains that he created for us.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Okay, what I'll say to this is that I think it would be fair characterization of atheists to say they are skeptics. But I'd also say for atheists there is also presumably no harm in being skeptical of their own skepticism. For example, all atheists I presume have either met or know of people or have family or friends that are theists; it would be entirely self-defeating to not learn about how or why theists think as they do or to place themselves in a walk-the-shoes-of-a-theist type of thing as per the religion's own terms, if for no other reason than to understand theists better and to be able to better explain atheism to theists who would otherwise continue to see them in a negative light.

This is Pascal's wager, and I am very surprised to still see it being presented after all these years.

There are numerous serious flaws with this logic, the most obvious of which is that it is a false dichotomy. If you read these holy books, the Gods seem more concerned with the worship of false Gods than the worship of no Gods. If you picked the wrong God, and the odds are you did, since there are so many millions of different Gods that could exist, you may be far worse off than those of us who picked none. It also assumes that we are able to choose if we believe or if we don't. That doesn't make sense. Can you make yourself believe what you don't? Can you make yourself believe than an apple in your hand is actually a golf ball? No, I can't either. And it is no different when trying to make myself believe Gods exist. Finally, if we were able to make ourselves believe, on evidence our minds find unconvincing, then Pascal's Wager (above) presents a God who would rather we foolishly believe things we don't find convincing, and basically turn our minds off (in favour of "faith") than use the very thinking brains that he created for us.

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Once it has been explained that Allah :swt: is our Lord and Sustainer, and that He alone can be worshipped, then there remains no question of trying to justify His commands and prohibitions. Whatever He commands is for the best of His creations, whether we understand His wisdom or not.

That's the point of disagreement.

First off you have to explain why your book, written by God or God's prophet or what ever, is better, more believable, more credible than all the various other religions books and myths.

Secondly you must show why worshiping this God will do the world good.

Given you will find, as you have always, that showing any evidence at all for the first is utterly impossible and that the evidence for the second is generally against the case, you will keep getting the same questions thrown at you. They are the obvious ones.

[AabiruSabeel]

I have to agree very strongly, and I point you to the Obedience vs Morality thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...obedience.html.

Replied in the original thread there.

This is Pascal's wager, and I am very surprised to still see it being presented after all these years.

There are numerous serious flaws with this logic, the most obvious of which is that it is a false dichotomy. If you read these holy books, the Gods seem more concerned with the worship of false Gods than the worship of no Gods. If you picked the wrong God, and the odds are you did, since there are so many millions of different Gods that could exist, you may be far worse off than those of us who picked none. It also assumes that we are able to choose if we believe or if we don't. That doesn't make sense. Can you make yourself believe what you don't? Can you make yourself believe than an apple in your hand is actually a golf ball? No, I can't either. And it is no different when trying to make myself believe Gods exist. Finally, if we were able to make ourselves believe, on evidence our minds find unconvincing, then Pascal's Wager (above) presents a God who would rather we foolishly believe things we don't find convincing, and basically turn our minds off (in favour of "faith") than use the very thinking brains that he created for us.

I am not a debate person and I have not gone through previous debates here. So I didn't know what was already presented.


We are not forcing you to believe. It is all up to you. You both have been here for a very long time and almost all the concepts have been thoroughly explained to you.

Why can't there be any other god besides Allah (or a false god)? Because anything else does not fit the qualities or characteristics of being a god. You know it very well that you cannot accept any of the other mythological gods. The only remaining choice is the One who has created you, the Creator, the Sustainer. Now if you think you were created by chance or by evolution or whatever, it is your misconception and it has been debunked several times over.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I'd like to also point out one very, very, very important thing. When the man you know today as Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) was divinely conferred prophethood, he :saws: began receiving the Revelation in ayats or verses (sometimes two, sometimes one, sometimes more) at different stages and events of his life throughout 23 years and not in one go. The Quran as we know it today is the product of that progressive Revelation.

In the beginning, for 13 years, the only emphasis in the Revelation was the existence of the One God for pagan Arabia. The message was focused on just this aspect and not injunctions.

This is crucial to understand because one of the reasons that you'll find injunctions or rulings on a specific topic difficult to grasp like for example a blanket ban on homosexual behaviors is that you do not have that foundation yet. For example, it is widely known that in pagan Arabia drinking alcohol was common. In the beginning, there was no injunction forbidding the consumption of alcohol. Only after a group of persons in pagan Arabia began believing in the One God was this injunction issued.

For example, if a man came to you and told you, czgibson, you're to stay inside your office until further notice. You'll probably be like, "Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? I'll do what I please." However, what if we tweak this scenario a bit. Not just any man but a man who'd previously on another occasion identified himself as a security officer came to you and said, "Please stay inside your office as we've heard gunshots." Would you stay inside? Yes. Because you know who it is that has issued this directive and why.

In that same way, Islam doesn't say believe in this/that injunction or ruling without a foundation. Why? Because you won't agree to submit yourself as a person under the authority of anything you do not consider legitimate, and Islam recognizes that and that is why asks you to investigate the foundation (as rulings or injunctions are a byproduct of that foundation). Even in mathematics, you need the basic foundation of addition, subtraction, division, multiplication before you're considered ready for the next step, say, algebraic equations. That's why if you really are interested in Islam for study purposes, it is a disingenuous idea to investigate the injunctions/rulings without first investigating the foundation first: The One God.

Does the One God exist?

Formula for Receiving Divine Proof:
The One God says, "Indeed I am near. I respond to the person who calls me" (Quran 2:186). So, I am assuming that you are to call upon the One God.
The One God asks us to say to you, "He will show you His Signs and you will recognize them" (Quran 27:93). So, ask for Signs to be shown that you will recognize as being Signs.
The One God says to you, "Ask the people of the message if you do not know" (Quran 16:43). And if you are still unsure about the Signs given, then ask people of knowledge.

Greetings,

I think I'll be the judge of whether I find the answers given in discussions here satisfactory or not, thank you very much. I have seen no adequate defence or justification for many of the injunctions of Islam; for example, among many other issues, the rulings on music and homosexuality, as well as the general hostility to free thought that exists in Islam.

People keep bringing up the same questions because they matter. You may not agree, but you ought to realise that to many of us outsiders, many of the teachings of Islam appear to be obviously false, unhelpful and / or dangerous. Would you agree that I'm perfectly entitled to hold that view?



Some of them have been worthwhile.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

For example, if a man came to you and told you, czgibson, you're to stay inside your office until further notice. You'll probably be like, "Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? I'll do what I please." However, what if we tweak this scenario a bit. Not just any man but a man who'd previously on another occasion identified himself as a security officer came to you and said, "Please stay inside your office as we've heard gunshots." Would you stay inside? Yes. Because you know who it is that has issued this directive and why.

Think about how different the two situations are. Here we have a real security guard who can be seen and engaged with, who is telling us to take a sensible precaution.

Compare that with a deity who nobody has ever seen, and who has no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he exists, who is telling us to do all kinds of things, many of which have no justification outside of belief. We are told not to think, but to obey this invisible creature. Obviously, you have come to the view that it is a good idea to obey, and in your case I am sure that has had largely benign consequences. But I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the enormous dangers that this kind of blind obedience can lead to.

Peace

[greenhill]

Peace to you czgibson.

Just talking about self here, my belief is not from any individual thing, message or whatever but the collective dots not usually seen as it is very similar to the dots being the stars and the distraction very much like the sun blinding us from being able to connect those star (dots).. stare long enough at the sun you will blind yourself.. like being lead astray.

I see conistencies in the messages sent throughout history via the 4 Books. I also see incremental milestones for people to adapt as they learn the messages. As humanity grows and learn, I see consistency in the guidance given.

Even if I just consider the many thousands of years passing from the first message to the last and the design of the messages, it is not something any man, nation or race can plan and have it happen. Only by Divine intervention.

But, as Allah has decreed, "Thus we have appointed for every prophet an adversary devils from mankind and the jinn who inspire in one another plausible words that are deceiving". 6:112

So, do we become distracted by the sun or do we reach for the the truth behind the blinding light?

It is obvious that the nation of Priest that the Jews were meant to be (they were trained since time immemorial) have done little to bring us closer to our Creator, but instead imposed on us a system contravening their Creator's command.

We? We are just the pawn in their game with God. In the end, they will lose. So will most who fall prey to the system and can't see it falseness.


:peace:

[AabiruSabeel]

Compare that with a deity who nobody has ever seen, and who has no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he exists, who is telling us to do all kinds of things, many of which have no justification outside of belief.

We are back to square one now. The basic for all this discussion is the belief and faith.

I am not going to link you to all the previous discussions we had on the existence of God, evidences etc. It is up to you if you do not want to believe. You are welcome here as long as your intention is to sincerely learn and understand Islam and Muslims. But the day you start belittling our beliefs and causing doubts in weak Muslims, you will not be allowed anymore.

We are told not to think, but to obey this invisible creature.

Not at all. We are told to think, seek knowledge and understand. Do not make false claims about Islam.

Your statement is actually about obedience without protest. That is off topic here. You can discuss it in the other thread.

And Allah :swt: is the Creator.

[TafiNami]

Walikuassalam . :statisfie
Much need full some link.
I suggestd you to read those story: New Muslim Khadem

[czgibson]

Greetings,

We are back to square one now. The basic for all this discussion is the belief and faith.

I am not going to link you to all the previous discussions we had on the existence of God, evidences etc. It is up to you if you do not want to believe.

You've mentioned that you are not a debating person, and your previous attempt to enter the discussion using Pascal's wager was a clear indication that you haven't thought very much about this issue at all. You must realise that people don't start believing in God just because you tell them to.

You are welcome here as long as your intention is to sincerely learn and understand Islam and Muslims.

That is absolutely my intention and always has been. I have learned a lot through asking questions and examining claims, not just switching off my brain and accepting whatever answers I receive.

But the day you start belittling our beliefs and causing doubts in weak Muslims, you will not be allowed anymore.

Does having an opinion on your beliefs amount to belittling them? If you don't wish to discuss your beliefs, then why enter the discussion? There are some Muslims here, like Search, who are making valuable contributions and are able to discuss their beliefs in a rational way.

Not at all. We are told to think, seek knowledge and understand. Do not make false claims about Islam.

You are encouraged to seek knowledge, but only knowledge that doesn't contradict Islam, which is not the same thing at all.

Peace

[AabiruSabeel]

The only reason I entered is because you were making false claims about Islamic teachings and subtly belittling our beliefs. We are not asking you to believe without understanding. But as Search explained above, unless you grasp the concept of believing in a God, you will not be able to fully appreciate all other Islamic injunctions.

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Why can't there be any other god besides Allah (or a false god)? Because anything else does not fit the qualities or characteristics of being a god. You know it very well that you cannot accept any of the other mythological gods. The only remaining choice is the One who has created you, the Creator, the Sustainer. Now if you think you were created by chance or by evolution or whatever, it is your misconception and it has been debunked several times over.

What qualities does your Allah have that would not be also claimed by other gods and how do you support your claim that only Allah has these qualities other than you shouting that it is so? Any sort of evidence to support it?

If you supply real, outside the Koran, evidence that your God is more cedible than any other you win.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The only reason I entered is because you were making false claims about Islamic teachings and subtly belittling our beliefs.

Show me one false claim I have made or one place where I have belittled your beliefs.

We are not asking you to believe without understanding.

That is exactly what you are asking all believers to do, with statements like the following:

Once it has been explained that Allah is our Lord and Sustainer, and that He alone can be worshipped, then there remains no question of trying to justify His commands and prohibitions. Whatever He commands is for the best of His creations, whether we understand His wisdom or not.

But as Search explained above, unless you grasp the concept of believing in a God, you will not be able to fully appreciate all other Islamic injunctions.

Not necessarily. Even if I did believe in a God, I could never respect a being that makes claims or rulings that I consider to be false or dangerous.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Even if I did believe in a God, I could never respect a being that makes claims or rulings that I consider to be false or dangerous.

My point exactly.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

My point exactly.

Meaning what?

I have tried to make sense of your post, but I cannot see how it relates to any of what I've said. I'm not asking you to modify your beliefs, I'm asking you to examine them. You clearly think that there is no point in doing this because you would rather obey than understand. As history clearly shows, societies that adopt this approach always fail, while those that favour understanding usually prosper.

Peace

[piXie]

Compare that with a deity who nobody has ever seen, and who has no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he exists, who is telling us to do all kinds of things, many of which have no justification outside of belief. We are told not to think, but to obey this invisible creature. Obviously, you have come to the view that it is a good idea to obey, and in your case I am sure that has had largely benign consequences. But I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the enormous dangers that this kind of blind obedience can lead to.

To say that there is no evidence whatsoever is quite a bias and ignorant statement. Just because someone refuses to accept the evidences doesn't mean they aren't there. In the Quran it mentions about the people of the past who rejected Allaah, despite witnessing the miracles and evidences with their own eyes.

"Yes! Verily, there came to you My Ayat - the proofs, the evidences, the verses, the signs etc., and you denied them, and were proud and were among the disbelievers."
Al-Qur'an 39:59

"They are only like cattle - nay, they are even further astray from the Path - even worse than cattle."
Al-Qur'an 25:44

If you study psychology, you will understand that people refuse to listen and accept for various reasons (personal, emotional, other motives etc), and it is not necessarily because there is a lack of evidence.

You don't have to believe in Islam or accept it, but it's very unfortunate to see you and your friend make appalling statements such as "there is absolutely no evidence" and "belief in God is dangerous", and "there is just about as much evidence for God as there is for Fairy's" and a society which believes in Allah will stagnate" etc. These statements are either very ignorant or very bias or both. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but atleast be fair. Be fair in your evaluation, research about Islam and it's history. And please don't speak about The Creator as some invisible "creature" when you can use the word "being" because it is very disrespectful.

Peace.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I take your point about the invisibility of the deity to whom I'm directing but my two responses to this are the following:

1. In the aftermath of Virigina shootings in the U.S., one of the things that universities started implementing is sending out emails to students' and faculty's and staff's accounts if there was any specific concerning incident. So, for the purposes of the discussion, let's revise the scene and then put in an email that comes to you from an unknown man without an identifying name that tells you there is a security situation versus an email that comes to you from campus security telling you there is a security situation. My entire point is that you'd have assumable have differing reaction in the two different scenarios because you are aware of the who and why. In the case of Islam, the One God is not asking you to believe blindly. This is a misapprehension you seem to have developed, and I don't know if it is because you have not come across this ayat or verse from the Quran:

كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
“It is a Book We have sent down to you, full of blessing, so let people of intelligence ponder (liyaddabbaru) its Signs and take heed” (Quran 38:29).

Obedience (not though blind obedience) is considerable the highest and most desirable state of being AFTER you have verified (1) the existence of this One God and (2) have given thought and time to contemplating the Revelation which is considered the highest Sign though you may ask for your own signs or whatever you personally require to guide you to make this decision on the existence of the One God, and (3) then submit to the authority of the One God with certitude.

Why? Because faith develops on the basis or foundation of knowledge. There is a reason that the first command given to Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) was "Iqra." Iqra means in Arabic to "recite," "read," or "rehearse," underscoring and memorializing the importance of knowledge. As you know, the Sunnah (prophetic foosteps) and ahadith (prophetic sayings or traditions) inform our understanding and application of Quran.

And Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “People are either possessors of knowledge or seekers of knowledge, and only those two groups are of any use to humanity.”

The Quran mentions the word “knowledge” in various forms 854 times. Let's compare.

Do you know how many times the verb "believe" is used in the Quran? 537.

Do you know how many times the verb "follow" is used in the Quran? 136.

Also, there are only 25 times in the Quran when God asks us to "obey" the messenger.

Do you know what the most frequently occurring injunction is in the Quran? Some variation of "ponder", "reflect," "learn," "teach," "think," "infer," and "imagine."

Do you know what is the most frequent invitation in the Quran? Some variation of "travel in the earth" and "observe" and "see."

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “God makes the way to Paradise easy for him who treads the path in search of knowledge.”

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “He who goes forth in search of knowledge is considered as struggling in the Cause of God until he returns.”

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) has said, “Acquire knowledge and impart it to the people.”

Quran (20:14) also includes a prayer that a human being should make, "My Lord! Enrich me with knowledge."

So, hopefully, you now realize that Quran does not blindly asks us to obey.

That said, what I was taught by an Islamic scholar is that we cannot only balance on the level of mind this knowledge of which we're speaking because the belief in the One God requires both our minds and hearts to work together in synchrony. Iman (faith) is said to either exist or not exist in the qalb (heart), not the mind, because qalb is ultimately that which rejects or accepts ultimately the unseen.

2. I am sure you know that 7 + 1 = 8. Now, what if I repetitively give you this mathematical sum to solve 7 + 1 = ? You will keep answering 8 because you have 100% certainty or certitude that 7 + 1 = 8.

How though did you get this certitude? To get this certitude, you had to first obtain knowledge of basic count. Then you were given the foundation of arithmetic that probably started with 1 + 1 = 2. After obtaining this knowledge, you exercised your mind and were able to see the interpreted probabilistic assignment. This interpreted probabilistic assignment is really "belief" which turned to certitude as you increased in both knowledge and belief with further advancement in mathematics so that you probably no longer even think about answering the sum with the number 8.

In this case, certitude did involve obedience. Can you guess obedience of what? Obedience to the immutable law of mathematics where an increase in one number will give you the next number.

So, certitude and obedience go hand in hand together, because certitude is informed by both belief and knowledge.

I would like to distinguish certitude from belief, because belief may not involve certitude or knowledge, but certitude involves both knowledge and belief.

Examples of certitude:
1. Jesus (peace be upon him) says in Matthew 11:22-24, "Have faith in God! If you have faith in God and don’t doubt, you can tell this mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will. Everything you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith."

2. Similarly, student Habib Al-Ajami came to find that his beloved teacher Hasan Al-Basri awaiting the arrival of a boat, and he admonished his teacher and said to have faith and said the words "Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem" ("In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful") and walked on the water to the other side leading Hasan Al-Basri to faint at witnessing this incident.

In both these cases, when "faith" is mentioned here, it is really certitude that is being discussed.

That said, I recognize the truth in Pygoscelis's proposition when he'd said that nobody can make themselves believe what they do not believe. I know this from my days as an atheist because I could not turn myself into a theist just by waking up one day because life doesn't work that way, and I admit that usually theists have a hard time accepting that proposition because to them belief is as obvious as the nose on one's face and as natural as breathing.

That said, please know Islam recognizes that people will need to search and engage to understand. This early quest for knowledge pushed Muslims to excel once in different fields and the Muslim world witnessed the Islamic Golden Age. The importance of reason cannot be underestimated. That said, I do believe that Muslims today are less willing to engage or be engaged on reasoning because dogma has replaced desire for investment in knowledge or active furtherance of knowledge (read both religious and worldly knowledge).

I well understand the dangers of blind obedience, but I also think Islam doesn't ask for blind obedience because obedience must be informed if the matter is of ihsan (excellence) with either combination of or progressive movement in knowledge, belief, and certitude.

Greetings, Search,



Think about how different the two situations are. Here we have a real security guard who can be seen and engaged with, who is telling us to take a sensible precaution.

Compare that with a deity who nobody has ever seen, and who has no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he exists, who is telling us to do all kinds of things, many of which have no justification outside of belief. We are told not to think, but to obey this invisible creature. Obviously, you have come to the view that it is a good idea to obey, and in your case I am sure that has had largely benign consequences. But I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the enormous dangers that this kind of blind obedience can lead to.

Peace

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Not necessarily. Even if I did believe in a God, I could never respect a being that makes claims or rulings that I consider to be false or dangerous.

Okay, this made me smile.

Trust me: You'd be surprised at what you can or cannot accept or respect once you develop belief or certitude; you may think you know, but you don't.

I'd once overheard some girls say they'd never engage in prostitution even if they were starving. I'd categorize that as useless speculation because no one knows what he/she is willing to do in that situation until he/she is literally in that situation. This is not to say that I knew the girls in question more than they knew themselves. Absolutely not. In fact, they may be 100% right, but it is doubtful they have any solid basis on which they're basing this understanding.

Also, I highly recommend you to read revert stories because you'll find that inevitably what people think they can or cannot accept is very different from what they do or will accept.

The truth is our experiences, other people's experiences, and life most of all generally teaches us things about ourselves, about others, about things, about existence that it is impossible for our ideas and thoughts to remain static.

Your comment here reminds me of what Mark Twain once said, “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” Do you really think the old man had suddenly grown so much in knowledge in those 7 years or had Mark Twain just become wiser with age and experience?

[czgibson]

Greetings, Pixie,

I'm very sorry you've had your feelings hurt. Unfortunately this sometimes happens in discussions like this. For example, apparently it's OK for you to use words from the Qur'an to compare people like me to cattle ("worse than cattle", in fact - this seems a bit harsh on the cattle; does the Creator hate cows for some reason?), which some people might be offended by. Not me, though. Don't worry, it takes a lot to make me upset. :)

If you study psychology, you will understand that people refuse to listen and accept for various reasons (personal, emotional, other motives etc), and it is not necessarily because there is a lack of evidence.

No, in this case it's a lack of evidence. And I have studied psychology to Master's level.

You don't have to believe in Islam or accept it, but it's very unfortunate to see you and your friend make appalling statements such as "there is absolutely no evidence"

There isn't.

and "belief in God is dangerous"

Not exactly what I said, but still often true.

"there is just about as much evidence for God as there is for Fairy's"

True. In fact, there is exactly the same amount of evidence.

and a society which believes in Allah will stagnate"

Again, not what I said. A society that privileges obedience at the expense of understanding will stagnate. Prove me wrong - show me a successful society of this kind.

These statements are either very ignorant or very bias or both.

Do you mean 'biased'?

You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but atleast be fair. Be fair in your evaluation, research about Islam and it's history. And please don't speak about The Creator as some invisible "creature" when you can use the word "being" because it is very disrespectful.

Again, sorry you've had your feelings hurt, but I think I have made considerable efforts to learn about Islam. If you can demonstrate that anything I've said is wrong, don't just call me a cow - show me where I'm wrong, with evidence.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

Thank you for your excellent post. You always make thoughtful contributions to these discussions and I'm very grateful to you. I disagree with some of of what you say, but it's refreshing to hear from someone who is actually able to discuss these issues.

So, for the purposes of the discussion, let's revise the scene

Does this change things in any significant way? You're still comparing a human being to an invisible being with no evidence.

In the case of Islam, the One God is not asking you to believe blindly. This is a misapprehension you seem to have developed, and I don't know if it is because you have not come across this ayat or verse from the Quran:

كِتَابٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ إِلَيْكَ مُبَارَكٌ لِيَدَّبَّرُوا آيَاتِهِ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
“It is a Book We have sent down to you, full of blessing, so let people of intelligence ponder (liyaddabbaru) its Signs and take heed” (Quran 38:29).

That's rather a well-known quote from the Qur'an, so yes, I'm familiar with it. It's an assertion, and not evidence of anything supernatural.

Obedience (not though blind obedience) is considerable the highest and most desirable state of being AFTER you have verified (1) the existence of this One God and (2) have given thought and time to contemplating the Revelation which is considered the highest Sign though you may ask for your own signs or whatever you personally require to guide you to make this decision on the existence of the One God, and (3) then submit to the authority of the One God with certitude.

Obedience is the highest state of being? Are you sure? Have you considered moving to North Korea?

The Quran mentions the word “knowledge” in various forms 854 times. Let's compare.

Do you know how many times the verb "believe" is used in the Quran? 537.

Do you know how many times the verb "follow" is used in the Quran? 136.

Also, there are only 25 times in the Quran when God asks us to "obey" the messenger.

Do you know what the most frequently occurring injunction is in the Quran? Some variation of "ponder", "reflect," "learn," "teach," "think," "infer," and "imagine."

Do you know what is the most frequent invitation in the Quran? Some variation of "travel in the earth" and "observe" and "see."

I've seen lists like this before. I'm not sure what purpose you think this serves. The Lord of the Rings mentions the word 'hobbit' 802 times - what should we conclude from this?

The Qur'an can encourage knowledge as much as it likes, but many Islamic scholars will tell you to disregard any knowledge that contradicts the Qur'an, like this or this.

So, hopefully, you now realize that Quran does not blindly asks us to obey.

Of course it does. It makes assertions about a being nobody has ever seen or detected in any measurable way.

That said, what I was taught by an Islamic scholar is that we cannot only balance on the level of mind this knowledge of which we're speaking because the belief in the One God requires both our minds and hearts to work together in synchrony. Iman (faith) is said to either exist or not exist in the qalb (heart), not the mind, because qalb is ultimately that which rejects or accepts ultimately the unseen.

The heart pumps blood. It has nothing to do with belief or the supernatural.

I am sure you know that 7 + 1 = 8. Now, what if I repetitively give you this mathematical sum to solve 7 + 1 = ? You will keep answering 8 because you have 100% certainty or certitude that 7 + 1 = 8.

How though did you get this certitude? To get this certitude, you had to first obtain knowledge of basic count. Then you were given the foundation of arithmetic that probably started with 1 + 1 = 2. After obtaining this knowledge, you exercised your mind and were able to see the interpreted probabilistic assignment. This interpreted probabilistic assignment is really "belief" which turned to certitude as you increased in both knowledge and belief with further advancement in mathematics so that you probably no longer even think about answering the sum with the number 8.

I'm surprised that you have used the example of mathematics here. Mathematics is an idealist axiomatic system of reasoning and measurement that humans have created. We believe 7 + 1 = 8 with certainty not because it represents some fundamental truth about the universe (you can't go out and find a 7 existing anywhere in reality), but simply because it is convenient to do so if we intend to make any sense of mathematics or to use it in any meaningful way. Is this similar to your religious belief?

In both these cases, when "faith" is mentioned here, it is really certitude that is being discussed.

The two things are very different. You have convinced yourself that your faith is certain, but it can't be by definition since faith is reliant on personal belief rather than evidence.

That said, I recognize the truth in Pygoscelis's proposition when he'd said that nobody can make themselves believe what they do not believe.

Yes, as with so many of the things Pygoscelis says, he is absolutely right. :)

That said, please know Islam recognizes that people will need to search and engage to understand. This early quest for knowledge pushed Muslims to excel once in different fields and the Muslim world witnessed the Islamic Golden Age. The importance of reason cannot be underestimated.

Yes, when the Islamic world was open to other ideas it led the world of ideas. I don't dispute that. Once the Ash'ari school gained traction, though, privileging faith and obedience over reason and investigation, that all came to an end. Do you think this has anything to do with the stultifying ignorance and incuriosity that exists across the Islamic world, as described in this article or this?

That said, I do believe that Muslims today are less willing to engage or be engaged on reasoning because dogma has replaced desire for investment in knowledge or active furtherance of knowledge (read both religious and worldly knowledge).

Here you appear to have conceded my central argument. I'm so glad we agree. There is plenty of evidence in this thread alone to support this.

I well understand the dangers of blind obedience, but I also think Islam doesn't ask for blind obedience because obedience must be informed if the matter is of ihsan (excellence) with either combination of or progressive movement in knowledge, belief, and certitude.

Well, it's nice to have ideals.

Peace

[noraina]

Just wanted to suggest that if you're not familiar with Muhammad Asad you should read up some of his work, it's a real eye-opener for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

As has been stated above, the Qur'an encourages us as Muslims to discover and learn for ourselves, and with research and independant thinking we'd be able to see the inherent wisdom in every one of His commands and rules - as humans beings we are imperfect and very limited in reasoning, there is no way we can formulate a perfect way of life for ourselves without falling into disagreement or chaos. It's not a matter of blind faith and obedience, but obeying Allah swt because we understand His wisdom and understand that this way of life is better for us in every respect.

But going back to Muhammad Asad - he often points out how the Muslim world is facing so much cultural and intellectual decay because of the way we have abadoned itjihad (independant reasoning) for taqlid (blindly following rules). Look back to the first five or so centuries after Islam, and I know this is brought up a lot, but Muslim civilization was leading the world in every respect including sciences and art, and completely transformed world history. It's because they understood the importantance of seeking knowledge and reasoning - and not because they felt the Qur'an needed reinterpretation, as it doesn't, but to understand and make use of the human intellect the Qur'an frequently makes reference to in order to understand the creation around them and their place in it.

Now, we've become stagnant and strayed which is why we are no longer progressing as we once did...something Asad was very passionate about.

ETA - I know Asad is very rational in his approach compared to some scholars, but his basic ideas are very sound (seriously everyone should read his book 'The Road to Mecca' *amazing* book looking into contemporary Muslim civilization.)

[greenhill]

Thank you for that @noraina .. I especially like to quote you here..

"It's not a matter of blind faith and obedience, but obeying Allah swt because we understand His wisdom and understand that this way of life is better for us in every respect."

Simply put. Could not have said it better. I feel the same way. It is on the road of surrendering to His Will. It is just that the education system teaches us to only trust what we can physically measure. Spirituality is going to be history. Perhaps in future confined to the lunatic section.

But as you also said the inherent wisdom in every one of His (Allah's) commands, rules and for me the grand design and epic scale of it. How time is only important and relevant to us, but not for Allah. How fragments from all around adds up. Like the formation of the foetus, and even our salat motions, my grandmother was supple to a ripe old age. And I notice at masjids, many old people can sit on the floor and get up of their own without aid. They are more flexible than most I have seen in the west who would find it hard to squat for long. There is also health benefits in doing salah.. then, for those healthy, fasting. Even that has physical benefits. And the list is long..

:peace:

[piXie]

For example, apparently it's OK for you to use words from the Qur'an to compare people like me to cattle ("worse than cattle", in fact - this seems a bit harsh on the cattle; does the Creator hate cows for some reason?), which some people might be offended by.

Please tell me, which of the two are more offensive; For a group of people (who refuse to use their faculties of reason) to be compared to cattle or for the whole of humanity to be considered animals whose ancestors are apes and monkeys?

No, in this case it's a lack of evidence. And I have studied psychology to Master's level.

The members on this forum have discussed countless evidences which have convinced thousands of people and still convincing thousands of people to this day. As for other people they are waiting for Judgement Day, because nothing else will convince them. What kind of evidence will you accept? To actually see God?

True. In fact, there is exactly the same amount of evidence.

Did the fairies produce a book like the Quran?

Prove me wrong - show me a successful society of this kind.

You should study Islamic history.

Do you mean 'biased'?

Yes, thank you. :)

Again, sorry you've had your feelings hurt, but I think I have made considerable efforts to learn about Islam.

This is not a personal issue. This is about Our Creator, and this is an Islamic forum. This should be respected. I hope you understand.

Peace.

[Pygoscelis]

Please tell me, which of the two are more offensive; For a group of people (who refuse to use their faculties of reason) to be compared to cattle or for the whole of humanity to be considered animals whose ancestors are apes and monkeys?

Would you rather be a vegetable or a mineral? Of course we are animals. That is only insulting if you don't understand what it means. And why be offended by having evolved from common ancestors with other living beings on the planet? Why be so self important? Why not have some humility? The sun doesn't go around the earth either, and the sun is just one of billions of stars in the universe. But don't feel small. Feel at one with the universe, because you are made of the same materials that burst out of stars. We are literally star stuff. How is that not awesome?

The above offends you? Do you think it is more offensive than telling people that you endorse a God that would torture people forever and ever because they simply don't believe he exists, because he himself created them that way? I can think of little more offensive than that. You can duck and dodge and say it isn't you that thinks we should suffer eternally, and that it is God's decree, but in endorsing said God and calling him Good, plenty of theists ARE taking that position.

The members on this forum have discussed countless evidences which have convinced thousands of people and still convincing thousands of people to this day.

Thousand of people believe in homeopathy, scientology, etc. Billions of people were once completely convinced that faeries and ghosts were rampant. There is no evidence for any of this; just as there is no evidence for Gods. Convincing people and having actual evidence are not the same thing.

As for other people they are waiting for Judgement Day, because nothing else will convince them. What kind of evidence will you accept? To actually see God?

That would be something. It would also be a lot more convincing if the religions were set up in ways that didn't look totally man made. Y'know, like being smoothly distributed instead of geographically or family based. Or like not having books written by in ink by humans. Why not some supernatural means of communicating the message? In fact why does God not simply make us all believe he exists and know what he wants of us. Then it would be a fair test for us and we could do that or not do that. You can't really fairly fault people for not following a command that they don't believe in a real command. I bet you don't lose much sleep over not follow the commands of Darth Vader or Voldemort. The mere existence of holy books and of atheists are points against you here.

Did the fairies produce a book like the Quran?

Oh I am sure there are some books out there that people say were written by faeries, or dictated to humans by faeries, just as Mohammed claims regarding an angel.

This is not a personal issue. This is about Our Creator, and this is an Islamic forum. This should be respected. I hope you understand.

Don't ask questions you don't want or can't handle the honest answer to.

[piXie]

Why be so self important? Why not have some humility?

Indeed why not have some humility. Why not know our place before our Creator and put our head on the ground and submit to Him. Why be so self important that we expect Him to come to us personally and tell us. And why be so arrogant as to think that we know better than our Creator and argue concerning His legislations.

You are right. Why not have some humility.

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Indeed why not have some humility. Why not know our place before our Creator and put our head on the ground and submit to Him. Why be so self important that we expect Him to come to us personally and tell us. And why be so arrogant as to think that we know better than our Creator and argue concerning His legislations.

You are right. Why not have some humility.

Given the vastness of the universe is it not extremely arrogant to think that whatever made it happen would have the slightest awareness of humanity at all let alone any single person?

[greenhill]

I think this is out of context... I believe this was raised due to the Quran comparing some people to cattle and that was maybe questioned... hence the explanation and comparison.

To take it just from there is a bit misleading, no?


:peace:

[Txyib]

Masha Allah , such an amazing philosophical response ! Atheists love philosophy ;)))

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Masha Allah , such an amazing philosophical response ! Atheists love philosophy ;)))

Yes. Without an old book to tell you what is right you have to think for yourself.

[Scimitar]

Yes. Without an old book to tell you what is right you have to think for yourself.

It's that "Old Book" which taught me how to "think for myself"... Tim, I've yet to find another holy book which actually encourages the reader to ask the BIG QUESTIONS, to ponder them, to seek knowledge, to question, to investigate and more. I've not yet found anything like the Qur'an.

You should read it, with commentary by Ibn Kathir or another - you clearly do not know what you are missing out on bro.

Scimi

[Txyib]

Yes. Without an old book to tell you what is right you have to think for yourself.

asalam Alaikum
Lets go to the basics of philosophy since you love philosophy , as the brother mentioned before , about it being better to believe in an afterlife than not to believe in one. Let's look at the philosophy of John Hick in his eschatological verification.
Eschatological verification describes a case where a statement can be verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false. The term is most commonly used in relation to God and the afterlife.
John Hick has expressed the premise as an allegory of a quest to a Celestial City. In this parable, a theist and an atheist are both walking down the same road. The theist believes there is a destination, the atheist believes there is not. If they reach the destination, the theist will have been proven right, however if there is no destination on an endless road, this can never be verified. This is an attempt to explain how a theist expects some form of life or existence after death and an atheist does not. They both have separate belief systems and live life accordingly, but logically one is right and the other is not. If the theist is right, he will be proven so when he arrives in the afterlife. However, if the atheist is right, they will simply both be dead and nothing will be verified.

So tell me , which one sounds better to you brother ?

[greenhill]

Given the vastness of the universe is it not extremely arrogant to think that whatever made it happen would have the slightest awareness of humanity at all let alone any single person?

That just about sums up the limit of human understanding.

I mean really? That this precious life is insignificant in the overall sceme of things? It may be so. But I believe that the One that made it happen also put the motion in place that has lead to where we are and our moment in that motion is here and now.

All these things set from an earlier plan, very much like planting a tree and nurturing it to fruition. From the soil, the sun, the rain, the pollinators, through to the tree itself, the root, trunk, branches, leaves and the seasonal fruits. All in due time. Like the formation of the universe for man. Because we are special. We can realise that there has to be a Creator for all this. We can seek Him. And be humble and thankful to Him.

Or.

We can choose to be arrogant and deny His Existence and live here on earth ungrateful to His mercy though we know weighing all the odds, even statistically, there has to be that initiating point.

That point was when Allah said, ' "Kun" fayakun.' Or "Be!" And it was. The Big Bang...

And He told the story, taught us what we knew not, through prophets, and most, had a torrid time. Idris pbuh taught us to make clothes. Another prophet Daud(?) made metal armoury and stuff, and I am sure there are other examples, and from there, the knowledge expanded.

And yet the message survives, people, from moment of the first man, Adam pbuh, set foot on earth, until today, there has been a continuous chain of people or groups of people who believe in Allah. As the Quran message is more understood, by more people of intellect, the growth has been phenomenal.

But there will always be detractors. Those who cannot bow down and submit to Allah's command. Like Satan. As he was in the presence of Allah, he got immediate retribution, but was granted a reprieve.

We, on the other hand, don't get to be in that presence, so far out in the universe and set in this earthly body. Hence, our freedom to choose, almost without consequence (if you want to believe it) for a defined period and then it is over.

When you leave this earthly life, that moment is gone. So then, there might be nothing. But then again, there might be questions... then what?

Then what?

Didn't you ponder? Didn't you reason? Didn't you... ?.... and denial.. even Einstein quipped that there must be God. Only he spent his time on theories and not religion.

(On that note, I wonder what he would have thought of the Quran...)

But still, people at large fail to see any relevance about the story of satan's fall from grace to our own relationship with God. Will you submit to His Will?

Will you?

The tempation of the world is like telling a kid to eat a packet of candies slowly. They will finish it almost soon after it's opened. We are like that kid with the packet of candies, with regards to the real world, almost like we will lose out if we don't stuff it down our throat quickly, we just can't accept the advice.

That and (coming back to Satan), we don't like to be ordered. Our pride...

... or our freedom to choose..


:peace:

[Tim_the_Plumber]

^ That old question.

But it's not really that question that is asked. The cost of agreeing that you might as well believe, or at least not question, the idea of there being an afterlife and it's only availible to you if you .......... is all that .........

You must give lots of power and money to the priest/vicar/Imam. You must kill who he says. You must die to defend this idea you have not thought it worth questioning.

Well, I have the keys to the gates of heaven. All you have to do is send me $1000 and I will send your soul to heaven when you die. I have this power.

Why would you not apply the same reasoning to the above statement as the do you believe in God one? It's a lot cheaper in the long run.

[Serinity]

^ That old question.

But it's not really that question that is asked. The cost of agreeing that you might as well believe, or at least not question, the idea of there being an afterlife and it's only availible to you if you .......... is all that .........

You must give lots of power and money to the priest/vicar/Imam. You must kill who he says. You must die to defend this idea you have not thought it worth questioning.

Well, I have the keys to the gates of heaven. All you have to do is send me $1000 and I will send your soul to heaven when you die. I have this power.

Why would you not apply the same reasoning to the above statement as the do you believe in God one? It's a lot cheaper in the long run.

No, cause you have no proof. You are not a Prophet, therefore, whatever you claim of the unseen, is mute. You are lying and you speak from ignorance.

Read the Qur'an, reflect, think and reason, go back read again, reflect.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes. Without an old book to tell you what is right you have to think for yourself.

But Tim, thinking for yourself is dangerous! You may have bad thoughts or reach incorrect conclusions! If God is all good and all knowing, isn't it better to stop thinking for yourself, and just do whatever God says? Submit your will, your thoughts and your moral decision making to him. And if anything he tells you to do sounds bad or wrong, don't worry, it can't really be bad or wrong, because he is all good and all knowing, and he knows better than you. So go ahead and do that horrible thing that God is telling you to do! It'll be ok. Its actually a good thing to do and your victims beneficiaries will be happy for it in the end.

^ About sums it all up, right?

[Tim_the_Plumber]

No, cause you have no proof. You are not a Prophet, therefore, whatever you claim of the unseen, is mute. You are lying and you speak from ignorance.

Read the Qur'an, reflect, think and reason, go back read again, reflect.

Correct I am not any more able to do magic than you. I am not devine. You have sucessfully detected a scam.

Why does your book pass the same test which I failed? If I wrote a book or used one already written why could I not make the same claim with the same force? It worked for L. Ron Hubbard. He invented Scientstology.

[Serinity]

Correct I am not any more able to do magic than you. I am not devine. You have sucessfully detected a scam.

Why does your book pass the same test which I failed? If I wrote a book or used one already written why could I not make the same claim with the same force? It worked for L. Ron Hubbard. He invented Scientstology.

Cuz, if you wrote a book and said "come here, heaven is here" . I could do the same, proving you wrong. What you must be able to do is do something NONE except someone sent by God, can. Something that is outside physics, the human capacity.

If you make a claim, where is your proof? A book you wrote yourself? Anything that is imitatable, or anything that is comparable to creation, can never be from God.

First you have to know God exists, then you will know how to search for Him. Not the other way around. God can not contradict sound human nature, reason or logic

God said, if The Qur'an was from other than God, you'd find in it much contradiction. God also challenges mankind to write a book like The Qur'an (which is impossible, since it is from God)

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's that "Old Book" which taught me how to "think for myself"... Tim, I've yet to find another holy book which actually encourages the reader to ask the BIG QUESTIONS, to ponder them, to seek knowledge, to question, to investigate and more. I've not yet found anything like the Qur'an.

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

You should read it, with commentary by Ibn Kathir or another - you clearly do not know what you are missing out on bro.

It fascinates me that a book with supposedly divine authorship can look so impressive to someone like you and so unimpressive to someone like me. I've read it and I just cannot see any of the qualities that Muslims claim for it.

Peace

[Scimitar]

Greetings,

Howdy,

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

Sure bro.

People used to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) many questions which were of no practical relevance to either religious or day-to-day affairs. For instance, a person asked the Prophet (peace be on him) in the presence of a crowd: 'Who is my real father?' Likewise, many people used to ask unnecessary questions about legal matters. By these uncalled for inquiries they sought knowledge of matters which had for good reasons, been deliberately left undetermined by the Law-giver.

In the Qur'an, for example - Pilgrimage - had been declared obligatory. A person who became aware of this came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and inquired: 'Has it been made obligatory to perform it every year?' To this the Prophet (peace be on him) made no reply. When he inquired for the second time the Prophet (peace be on him) again stayed silent. On being asked for the third time, he said: 'Pity on you! Had I uttered "Yes" in reply to your question, it would have become obligatory to perform it every year. And then you would not have been able to observe it and would have been guilty of disobedience.' (See Bukhari, 'Riqaq', 22; 'Zakah', 53; I'tisam', 3; 'Adab', 6; Muslim, 'Aqdiyah', 10, 11, 13, 14; Darimi, 'Riqaq', 38; Muwatta', 'Kalam', 20; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 327, 360, 367; vol. 4, pp. 246, 249, 250, 251, 255 - Ed.)

The Prophet (peace be on him) discouraged people from being over-inquisitive and unnecessarily curious about every question. We find in the Hadith the following saying from the Prophet (peace be on him): 'The worst criminal among the Muslims is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim, Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.) According to another tradition the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'God has imposed upon you certain obligations, do not neglect them; He has imposed certain prohibitions, do not violate them; He has imposed certain limits, do not even approach them; and He has remained silent about certain matters - and has not done so out of forgetfulness (rather, it is a mercy unto you) - do not pursue them.' (See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 2, n. 110 - Ed.)

In both these traditions an important fact has been called to our attention. In matters where the Law-giver has chosen to lay down certain injunctions only broadly, without any elaborate details, or quantitative specifications, He has done so not because of neglect or forgetfulness. Such seeming omissions are deliberate, and the reason thereof is that He does not desire to place limitations upon people, but prefers to allow them latitude and ease in following His commandments. Now there are some people who make unnecessary inquiries, causing elaborately prescribed, inflexibly determined and restrictive regulations to be added to the Law. Some others, in cases where such details are in no way deducible from the text, resort to analogical reasoning, thereby turning a broad general rule into an elaborate law full of restrictive details, and an unspecified into a specified rule. Both sorts of people do our rendering of context no good. For, in the area of belief, the more detailed the doctrines to which people are required to subscribe, the more problematic it becomes to do so. Likewise, in legal matters, the greater the restriction, the greater the likelihood of violation. When we are asked to "Question, ponder, reflect, reason, investigate" it is to do so with a keen focus on the moral codes as well as intellectual reasoning in mind, and not counter-productive, often hasty thought processes which lead one to circular logic.

قَدۡ سَاَ لَهَا قَوۡمٌ مِّنۡ قَبۡلِكُمۡ ثُمَّ اَصۡبَحُوۡا بِهَا كٰفِرِيۡنَ‏ 
(5:102) Indeed some people before you had asked such questions and in consequence fell into unbelief.

Some people first indulged in hair-splitting arguments about their laws and dogma, and thereby wove a great web of confused elaborations and legal minutiae. Then they became enmeshed in this same web and thus became guilty of dogmatic errors and the violation of their own religious laws. The people referred to here are the Jews and the Christians, and the Muslims who followed in their footsteps and left no stone unturned, despite the warnings contained in the Qur'an and in the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).

It fascinates me that a book with supposedly divine authorship can look so impressive to someone like you and so unimpressive to someone like me. I've read it and I just cannot see any of the qualities that Muslims claim for it.

It is not to be read like a book - but studied like a science... worked like math... weighed against a philosphers stone and drunk til the waters run black.

Only then, can you claim you have "read it". And remember, without Lanes Lexicon and an Exegesis to hand, you are winking at a girl in the dark - only you know what you are doing, but no one else does.

Peace

And unto you, be the peace.

Scimi

[czgibson]

Greetings, Scimitar,

I was going to ask "how did you type that so quickly?" but then I realised that you've copy and pasted most of it from somewhere else.

The Prophet (peace be on him) discouraged people from being over-inquisitive and unnecessarily curious about every question.

In that case, how can you claim that this is someone who encourages questioning? This looks like the very opposite attitude.

We find in the Hadith the following saying from the Prophet (peace be on him): 'The worst criminal among the Muslims is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim, Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.)

The worst criminal? Really? Worse than a child rapist or a serial killer? That's crazy!

It is not to be read like a book - but studied like a science... worked like math... weighed against a philosphers stone and drunk til the waters run black.

This is meaningless, so I think I'll stick to reading it. :)

Peace

[Scimitar]

How do I say this... Picard facepalm.

Scimi

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How do I say this... Picard facepalm.

Scimi

I suppose it's an option if you don't fancy answering any of the questions!

Peace

[Scimitar]

I see two options, entertain your circular logic - or get popcorn and watch celebrity masterchef... popcorn and masterchef win.

Scimi

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Cuz, if you wrote a book and said "come here, heaven is here" . I could do the same, proving you wrong. What you must be able to do is do something NONE except someone sent by God, can. Something that is outside physics, the human capacity.

If you make a claim, where is your proof? A book you wrote yourself? Anything that is imitatable, or anything that is comparable to creation, can never be from God.

First you have to know God exists, then you will know how to search for Him. Not the other way around. God can not contradict sound human nature, reason or logic

God said, if The Qur'an was from other than God, you'd find in it much contradiction. God also challenges mankind to write a book like The Qur'an (which is impossible, since it is from God)

So if I can find contradictions and plain wrong bits in the Koran it is to be considered as valid as all the other religious books of gibberish then?

'cos I can.

That is my point.

[Serinity]

So if I can find contradictions and plain wrong bits in the Koran it is to be considered as valid as all the other religious books of gibberish then?

'cos I can.

That is my point.

Bring your proof. Make a thread, and have people refute / correct you, cause there are no contradictions in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself challenges you. So go ahead, make a thread, and bring the verses you see contradictions in and wrongs. And the Qur'an is superior to any book on this Earth. It is incomparable.

Point is: there are no contradictions. So the challenge is: find contradictions in it! If it was from other than Allah, you would find.

So, make a thread, and bring the verses that bothers you. Pretty fair challenge, right?
And Allah :swt: knows best.

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Bring your proof. Make a thread, and have people refute / correct you, cause there are no contradictions in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself challenges you. So go ahead, make a thread, and bring the verses you see contradictions in and wrongs. And the Qur'an is superior to any book on this Earth. It is incomparable.

Point is: there are no contradictions. So the challenge is: find contradictions in it! If it was from other than Allah, you would find.

So, make a thread, and bring the verses that bothers you. Pretty fair challenge, right?
And Allah :swt: knows best.

Well for contradictions I went to this site;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/qu...a/by_name.html

I found, amongst others;

For the question "Was Pharaoh Drowned or saved?"
Drowned:-

17:102-3
I deem thee lost, O Pharaoh. And he wished to scare them from the land, but We drowned him and those with him, all together. 28:40 We seized him [Pharaoh] and his hosts, and abandoned them unto the sea. 43:55 So, when they angered Us, We punished them and drowned them every one.

Saved:-

10:90-92
Pharaoh ... when the (fate of) drowning overtook him, he exclaimed: I believe that there is no God save Him in Whom the Children of Israel believe ... But this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayst be a portent for those after thee.

Then there is the thing about salt water not mixing with river water. It does.

[Serinity]

Well for contradictions I went to this site;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/qu...a/by_name.html

I found, amongst others;

For the question "Was Pharaoh Drowned or saved?"
Drowned:-

Saved:-


Then there is the thing about salt water not mixing with river water. It does.

make a thread and have other answer you. I am not qualified. But there are no contradictions. I checked that website. Not to be trusted.

But go ahead, make a thread, we will answer you. One by one. :D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I see two options, entertain your circular logic - or get popcorn and watch celebrity masterchef... popcorn and masterchef win.

Nothing circular about my logic. I doubt very much that you truly understand what that phrase means.

Given that Scimitar has attempted to answer my question with a few quotes that do little except reinforce my point, let's leave him to his popcorn and see if anybody else is able to help explain this passage from the Qur'an. I refer you to my question:

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

Peace

[noraina]

Greetings,



Nothing circular about my logic. I doubt very much that you truly understand what that phrase means.

Given that Scimitar has attempted to answer my question with a few quotes that do little except reinforce my point, let's leave him to his popcorn and see if anybody else is able to help explain this passage from the Qur'an. I refer you to my question:

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

Peace

Islam does encourage questioning and reasoning, yes, but it is also a religion of balance, as I'm sure you've heard us say many times, so excessive questioning to the point you distress yourself or others is discouraged.

For example some people would ask the Prophet (pbuh) questions which had no importance to their religion or daily affairs, and the answers to which would do more harm than good, and others would ask him questions to mock him or Islam. Asking rigid questions or questioning purely for the sake of argument is far from beneficial as you'd know, it's a waste of time and can be divisive in society. Just because it is put forward as a question doesn't necessarily mean the questioner wants to seek knowledge, they could have other intentions.

And about excessive questioning 'making you a disbeliever', then I believe this example comes from the people of the Prophet Moses (as), they began question the laws of their religion excessively, constantly hair-splitting and arguing so much they became divisive and actually strayed from the original purity of their faith. I think in pretty much any human it is a characteristic of ours to complicate things, and Islam is a relatively simple religion, so when you excessively question things already decided upon or explained well - it's not going to lead to anything good.

Obviously this doesn't apply if you are asking someone qualified a question about your religion or someone with experience about worldly things if the intention is to learn.

Allah swt knows best.

[Serinity]

Islam does encourage questioning and reasoning, yes, but it is also a religion of balance, as I'm sure you've heard us say many times, so excessive questioning to the point you distress yourself or others is discouraged.

For example some people would ask the Prophet (pbuh) questions which had no importance to their religion or daily affairs, and the answers to which would do more harm than good, and others would ask him questions to mock him or Islam. Asking rigid questions or questioning purely for the sake of argument is far from beneficial as you'd know, it's a waste of time and can be divisive in society. Just because it is put forward as a question doesn't necessarily mean the questioner wants to seek knowledge, they could have other intentions.

And about excessive questioning 'making you a disbeliever', then I believe this example comes from the people of the Prophet Moses (as), they began question the laws of their religion excessively, constantly hair-splitting and arguing so much they became divisive and actually strayed from the original purity of their faith. I think in pretty much any human it is a characteristic of ours to complicate things, and Islam is a relatively simple religion, so when you excessively question things already decided upon or explained well - it's not going to lead to anything good.

Obviously this doesn't apply if you are asking someone qualified a question about your religion or someone with experience about worldly things if the intention is to learn.

Allah swt knows best.

I tesitfy to this. I used to question a lot, to the point I almost left Islam. Not because I didn't get my answers, but because, I kept doubting, and my questions answered, yet I was overthinking, etc.

Say shirk, I know shirk is to worship anyone or anything besides Allah. I know Tawheed is to worship Allah alone, and none else, no matter who he is. This is the message of Islam.

Yet I was overthinking it, and kept questioning, seeking more and more proof. I got the proof, yet this over-questioning rather than helping can turn someone insane.

Various people answered my question regards to Shirk, and I know. But this over compulsiveness in over-questioning, can do more harm than good.

I knew the Qur'an's defiintion of shirk was "to worship anyone or anything besides Allah" yet I kept questioning in circular logic / reasoning I knew but still got those doubts. Baseless doubts. @muslimah_B helped me.. yet I still.. I know tho! :D
Allahu alam.

[czgibson]

Greetings, noraina,

Thank you for your reply.

So the situation with Islam appears to be: ask questions, but not too many. This is the attitude of someone who is opposed to free inquiry, and, if it's backed up divine authority, one of the most effective ways to discourage questioning. I know Muslims will deny it, but that's a straightforward contradiction in the Qur'an, right there.

Hopefully we can all bear this in mind the next time someone makes the absurd claim that Islam encourages questions.

Peace

[piXie]

But Tim, thinking for yourself is dangerous! You may have bad thoughts or reach incorrect conclusions

Indeed you may. Didn't you say yourself earlier that:

Our senses can fail us

I am glad you acknowledge this very important fact.

So the situation with Islam appears to be: ask questions, but not too many. This is the attitude of someone who is opposed to free inquiry

And what is the attitude of Pygoscelis, is he opposed to free inquiry too? :ermm:

Don't ask questions you don't want or can't handle the honest answer to.

With all due respect, you both sound very biased and unfair in your conclusions and in the
way you speak about Islam. Why not be fair?

Peace.

[muslimah_B]

Greetings,



Nothing circular about my logic. I doubt very much that you truly understand what that phrase means.

Given that Scimitar has attempted to answer my question with a few quotes that do little except reinforce my point, let's leave him to his popcorn and see if anybody else is able to help explain this passage from the Qur'an. I refer you to my question:

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

Peace

Hi

In islam we are commanded to seek knowledge, to think, to contemplate, to understand and act.

{“And Allâh has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts that you might give thanks (to Allâh)
[al-Nahl 16:78]*

“Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists).

He has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood).

Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.

Who has taught (the writing) by the pen.

He has taught man that which he knew not”
[al-‘Alaq 96:1-5]*


In Islam, knowledge comes before action; there can be no action without knowledge, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“So know (O Muhammad) that Laa ilaaha ill-Allâh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and ask forgiveness for your sin, and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women”
[Muhammad 47:19]*

Allaah warns every Muslim against speaking without knowledge, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“And follow not (O man, i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not) that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allâh)”
[al-Israa’ 17:36]*


Emphasizing the status of knowledge and the scholars, Allaah calls upon the scholars to bear witness to His Oneness, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“Allâh bears witness that Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), and the angels, and those having knowledge (also give this witness); (He always) maintains His creation in justice. Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the All‑Mighty, the All-Wise”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:18]*


Knowledge and fear of Allaah may be attained by knowing His signs and creation. The knowledgeable are those who know that, hence Allaah praises them by saying (interpretation of the meaning):*

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allâh”
[Faatir 35:28]*


The scholars occupy a noble status in Islam, and which is higher than the position of others in this world and in the Hereafter. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“Allâh will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge”
[al-Mujaadilah 58:11]*


Because of the importance of knowledge, Allaah commanded His Messenger to seek more of it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“and say: ‘My Lord! Increase me in knowledge’”
[Ta-Ha 20:114]*

Allaah praises the scholars, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):*

“Say: ‘Are those who know equal to those who know not?’ It is only men of understanding who will remember (i.e. get a lesson from Allâh’s Signs and Verses)”
[al-Zumar 39:9]*


Those who have knowledge are the quickest of people to understand the truth and believe in it:*

“And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it (this Qur’aan) is the truth from your Lord, so that they may believe therein, and their hearts may submit to it with humility”

[al-Hajj 22:54 – interpretation of the meaning]*

Islam calls us to seek knowledge. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made seeking knowledge an obligation upon every Muslim, and he explained that the superiority of the one who has knowledge over the one who merely worships is like the superiority of the moon over every other heavenly body. He said that the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets and that the Prophets did not leave behind dinars and dirhams (i.e., money), rather their inheritance was knowledge, so whoever acquires it has gained a great share. And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that seeking knowledge is a way to Paradise. He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allaah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, Kitaab al-‘Ilm, 10)*

Islam calls us to learn all kinds of beneficial knowledge. Branches of knowledge vary in status, the highest of which is knowledge of sharee’ah, then knowledge of medicine, then the other fields of knowledge.*

The best of all branches of knowledge are the sciences of sharee’ah through which man comes to know his Lord, and his Prophet and religion. This is the knowledge with which Allaah honoured His Messenger; He taught it to him so that he might teach it to mankind:*

“Indeed, Allâh conferred a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses (the Qur’ân), and purifying them (from sins by their following him), and instructing them (in) the Book (the Qur’aan) and Al‑Hikmah [the wisdom and the Sunnah of the Prophet (i.e. his legal ways, statements and acts of worship)], while before that they had been in manifest error”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:164 – interpretation of the meaning]*

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Allaah wishes good for a person, He makes him understand the religion.” (Agreed upon. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 69)*

Concerning the matter of paying attention to the Qur’aan and learning and teaching it, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who learns the Qur’aan and teaches it.” (Agreed upon. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4639)*

There is no goodness in knowledge which is not confirmed by action, or words which are not confirmed by deeds:*

“O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do?

Most hateful it is with Allâh that you say that which you do not do”
[al-Saff :2-3]*

The ummah needs knowledgeable people at all times and in all places. A nation without knowledge and scholars will live in illusions and sink in darkness. If a person knows what Allaah has prescribed ..?? {where does this go?} Whoever conceals this knowledge and deprives the ummah of it, Allaah will place on him a bridle of fire on the Day of Resurrection, and he will deserve to be cursed, except for the one who repents. Allaah says (interpretation of the* meaning):*

“Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers.

Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare (the truth which they concealed). These, I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful”

[al-Baqarah 2:159-160]*

Knowledge brings a great reward. The one who points the way to something good is like the one who does it. When the knowledgeable person dies, his reward with Allaah does not cease when he dies, rather it continues to increase so long as people benefit from his knowledge. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man dies, all his deeds come to an end except for three – an ongoing charity, beneficial knowledge or a righteous son who will pray for him.” (Narrated by Muslim, 1631)*

If the scholar spreads his knowledge among the people, he will have a reward like that of those who follow him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever calls people to right guidance will have a reward like that of those who follow him, without it detracting from their reward in the slightest, and whoever calls people to misguidance will have a burden of sin like that of those who follow him, without it detracting from their burden in the slightest.” (Narrated by Muslim, 2674)*

Proper understanding of Islam is one of the best of good characteristics with which a Muslim may be honoured, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Allaah wishes good for a person, He makes him understand the religion.” (Agreed upon).*

Reading Qur’aan, learning it and teaching it, are among the best deeds, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be no envy (hasad) except between two people, a man to whom Allaah has given (knowledge of?) the Qur’aan, so he recites it night and day, and a man to whom Allaah has given wealth, so he spends it (in good deeds) night and day.”* (narrated by Muslim, 815) }
{From islamqa, which you may use to find any other answers if you wish, this is a reliable islamic website}

So now we have established that seeking knowledge is extremely important in being a muslim, the issue of asking questions is simple.

If you want to know something with the INTENTION of taking information from the answer you recieve and accepting it when the answer is given then you can ask as much as you like. As you are asking a question to gain something from it.
But if you are asking questions to cause disunity, distress, or to insult then questions are not allowed as there is no benifit in you asking, no good can come from it.
If you are asking a question and you already know the answer but your trying to find a way for the answer to be along the lines of your desires, then no your not supossed to ask questions.

Everybody has explained to you that, knowledge and questioning are allowed and obligatory in islam within reason the reason being that the questions asked are genuine to understand something, not to mock, insult, or belittle.

Here is the verse you specifically mentioned explained by people of knowledge, i hope that you can take out 5minutes to read it and understand

https://islamqa.info/en/187398

Think of it this way, a small child asking why is the car red, you tell them they painted it red, and the child goes on and on and on asking why, these are pointless question which have nothing to offer of benifit and leads no where.

Now if a child was to ask, why do we pray 5 times a day, then why do we pray, why do we worship Allah, there is benifit in these questions as something can be learned and understood, benifit can be taken from this.

Intentions are very important.
Why are you asking this
What are you going to do with what you just asked
Will asking this benifit you or take away any doubt

How do you learn, by asking questions, THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

[ardianto]

Greetings, noraina,

Thank you for your reply.

So the situation with Islam appears to be: ask questions, but not too many. This is the attitude of someone who is opposed to free inquiry, and, if it's backed up divine authority, one of the most effective ways to discourage questioning. I know Muslims will deny it, but that's a straightforward contradiction in the Qur'an, right there.

Hopefully we can all bear this in mind the next time someone makes the absurd claim that Islam encourages questions.

Peace

Greetings, czgibson.

If you ask me question about how to salah, what is zakat, In Shaa Allah, I can answer. But if you ask me, what makes me believe that Allah does exist, what makes me believe that Islam is the right religion?. I am sorry, I can't answer, but you must seek the answer by yourself through journey of faith.

Question about faith is question that cannot be answered by someone else, because only Allah himself who can answer it.

Honestly, sometime I doubt about existence of Allah, sometime I doubt about Islam. But I never stop my journey of faith which I can feel that Allah guide me. I always feel a clue that drive me to the place where I can get the answer of my doubt through what I experience. And that experience always raise faith in my heart.

So, does Islam encourage questions?. I will not say yes or no. But one thing that I know. Without question, there is no answer.

:)

[noraina]

Greetings, noraina,

Thank you for your reply.

So the situation with Islam appears to be: ask questions, but not too many. This is the attitude of someone who is opposed to free inquiry, and, if it's backed up divine authority, one of the most effective ways to discourage questioning. I know Muslims will deny it, but that's a straightforward contradiction in the Qur'an, right there.

Hopefully we can all bear this in mind the next time someone makes the absurd claim that Islam encourages questions.

Peace

That is one way to look at it.

However, when I read this verse from the Qur'an, it's an example of the balance behind all Islamic concepts. By all means, questioning is good and is encouraged, but in an intellectual, beneficial sense.

And I know you'll deny this, but I see inherent wisdom in the fact that Allah swt also warns us about questioning with intentions other than gaining knowledge, for example purely for the purpose of arguing or continuing to ask when the answers are clear and yet we ourselves fail to (or refuse to) understand.

This can be compared to the power of free-will. The Qur'an guides us on how to use it and rewards those who make certain choices, I don't see it in any way as compromising or contradicting the whole concept behind free-will and my ability to make a choice. The ability to ask questions in unique to humans and a part of our free-will, we are guided how to use questioning for our own benefit, again I don't see the contradiction.

As I said, questioning is a tool and tools can be used for good or bad. This verse warns about using it for anything other than good.

Peace to you as well :)

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I'm not sure why there are so many misrepresentations of Islamic teachings being thrown around here. I suppose it's far easier to attack a position that Muslims do not even hold than to address actual points being made. And what's with all the whining about the mods are making me say this or that? That is utter rubbish. Neither does it add any more credibility to one's argument. I know the mods very well, and what they ask for is respect. Unfortunately, reading this thread and the other one about morality and obedience, I see very little by way of respect coming from those championing noble ideals about good moral conduct and free inquiry. Instead, I see responses laced with derision and ridicule. The only shutting down of human faculty and opposition to reason is bending over backwards to prove religion wrong by turning a blind eye to facts and answers.

czgibson, you should know better than to misquote Islamic texts to support preconceived opinions. As before, instead of looking at the context and taking into account the perspective, you insist on your own incorrect conclusion. On the topic of seeking knowledge, inquiry and progress of civilisations, I posted the following some time ago:

Centuries before the European Renaissance there were Muslim explorers, scientists, philosophers and physicians. During most of its history, Islamic civilization has been witness to a veritable celebration of knowledge. Every traditional Islamic city possessed public and private libraries and some cities like Cordoba and Baghdad boasted of libraries with over 400,000 books. The scholar has always been held in the highest esteem in Islamic society. The Islamic university system predates renowned schools such as The University of Oxford and Cambridge by more than three centuries.

Have a look at the following link, a website which contains more than 1000 peer-reviewed articles regarding the Golden Age of Muslim civilisation and contributions of Muslims to every field of intellectual discovery:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/

A civilisation hostile to inquiry and basic curiosity does not contribute to the modern world in terms of science, medicine, technology and culture. And yet, you will find an overwhelming contribution from Islam and Muslims throughout history:

Science
The impact of Al-Battani on European Astronomy
From Alchemy to Chemistry
Contribution of Al-Khwarizmi to Mathematics and Geography
Botany, Herbals and Healing In Islamic Science and Medicine
Gleanings from the Islamic Contribution in Agriculture
Ibn Khaldun: Studies on His Contribution in Economy


Medicine
Medical Sciences in the Islamic Civilization
Insights into Neurologic Localization by Al-Razi (Rhazes), a Medieval Islamic Physician
The role of Ibn Sina (Avicenna)’s Medical Poem in the transmission of medical knowledge to medieval Europe
Anaesthesia 1000 Years Ago (II)
A Medical Classic: Al-Razi’s Treatise on Smallpox and Measles
Paediatric Urology 1000 Years Ago

Technology
Top Seven Ingenious Clocks from Muslim Civilisation that Defied the Middle Ages
Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision
The Six-Cylinder Water Pump of Taqi al-Din: Its Mathematics, Operation and Virtual Design
Manuscripts and printing in the spread of Muslim science
A Review of Early Muslim Control Engineering
An 800 Years Old Ancestor: Today’s Science of Robotics and Al-Jazari

Culture
Architectural Links between East and West in Early Modern Times
Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil or the Triumph of the Islamic Architectural Style
Beauty and Aesthetics in Islam
The Islamic Art in the Louvre Museum in Paris
Arab Influences on Spanish Language and Culture
The Coffee Route from Yemen to London 10th-17th Centuries
The Influence of Islamic Culinary Art on Europe


It is time we move on from repeating nonsensical statements to having a meaningful discussion. If that is not possible, there is no point in having a discussion.

[Pygoscelis]

No question that Muslim lands contributed greatly historically to science, especially during the Christian dark ages. But that appears to have changed a few centuries ago. The cynical question wouldn't be what have you done, but what have you done lately :)

[greenhill]

Yes Pygo...they have strayed somewhat from the syariah...

:peace:

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Greetings, czgibson.

If you ask me question about how to salah, what is zakat, In Shaa Allah, I can answer. But if you ask me, what makes me believe that Allah does exist, what makes me believe that Islam is the right religion?. I am sorry, I can't answer, but you must seek the answer by yourself through journey of faith.

Question about faith is question that cannot be answered by someone else, because only Allah himself who can answer it.

Honestly, sometime I doubt about existence of Allah, sometime I doubt about Islam. But I never stop my journey of faith which I can feel that Allah guide me. I always feel a clue that drive me to the place where I can get the answer of my doubt through what I experience. And that experience always raise faith in my heart.

So, does Islam encourage questions?. I will not say yes or no. But one thing that I know. Without question, there is no answer.

:)

This is, I think, a good reason or at least explaination of why people are Islamic. It is not about critical thinking. It is not about individualistic divergence from the norm. It is all about a pathway to a group coherant way of life where the rules are known.

Originally Posted by Tim_the_Plumber

Well for contradictions I went to this site;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/qu...a/by_name.html

I found, amongst others;

For the question "Was Pharaoh Drowned or saved?"
Drowned:-

Saved:-


Then there is the thing about salt water not mixing with river water. It does.

make a thread and have other answer you. I am not qualified. But there are no contradictions. I checked that website. Not to be trusted.

But go ahead, make a thread, we will answer you. One by one. :D

I am resistant to making such a thread because it is exactly putting Islam in the dock of a scientifically structured court.

Clearly there are contradictions in the Koran. But I think that that is not the point of why Islam persists.

[MidnightRose]

This is, I think, a good reason or at least explaination of why people are Islamic. It is not about critical thinking. It is not about individualistic divergence from the norm. It is all about a pathway to a group coherant way of life where the rules are known.


I am resistant to making such a thread because it is exactly putting Islam in the dock of a scientifically structured court.

Clearly there are contradictions in the Koran. But I think that that is not the point of why Islam persists.

Hello Tim,

Where is your thinking?

[Scimitar]

No question that Muslim lands contributed greatly historically to science, especially during the Christian dark ages. But that appears to have changed a few centuries ago. The cynical question wouldn't be what have you done, but what have you done lately :)

your ignorance astounds me - dude - are you asking Muslim as a group of people "what have you done lately?" You're sounding like a nineties pop diva now.

Some juice for ya - I can throw the question back to your camp and you will see how dumb the actual question is.

Allah does not judge a people based on their reputation but on an individual basis - a very personal basis - so when you ask "what have you all done - lately?" I look at you look at my popcorn and look back at you and comment with "hold that thought - I need more popcorn"

Scimi

[Muhammad]

No question that Muslim lands contributed greatly historically to science, especially during the Christian dark ages. But that appears to have changed a few centuries ago.

The fact remains that such an immense contribution at a time when others were asleep speaks volumes about the ideals and values driving it. The very same Book that some here are trying to discredit on the basis of ignorance or distortion is the same by which the earlier generations were inspired and guided by. Surely, if Islam was really about suspending all inquiry and reason, we would not see such a great rise of civilisation at such an early point in its history.

The cynical question wouldn't be what have you done, but what have you done lately :)

However, let us not be so quick to assume that Muslims contribute nothing even now. Muslims continue to contribute in various fields across the world. Here follows a list of achievements from 2014:

Genetics:

Scientists co-led by the Egyptian geneticist Dr. Sherif El-Khamisy at the Center of Genomics (CG), Zewail City of Science and Technology (ZC) in Egypt, identified the first defect in a genetic pathway for individuals who suffer impaired neural function. A team of researchers led by the Iranian computational biologist, medical geneticist and evolutionary geneticist Pardis Sabeti trained doctors from the Muslim countries Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone to use a sequencing and diagnostic technology to improve tracking Ebola virus's mutations. Dr. Teepu Siddique, a Pakistani neurologist succeeded with his team in discovering one of the causes of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The Moroccan geneticist Dr. Ismahane Elouafi was named among the 20 Most Influential Women in Science in the Islamic World under the Shapers category, and the CEO-Middle East Magazine has listed her among the World’s 100 Most Powerful Arabophone Women in the Science category.

Medicine:

A Kashmiri molecular neurotherapist and stem cells professor has successfully discovered a brain cancer treatment. He achieved this via prompting stem cells to kill brain cancer. Two Egyptian scientists created space-based crystals of two proteins of the Hepatitis C virus. The crystals which were developed in space can help in innovating new drugs to fight the virus. Dr. Sheik Umar Khan, the doctor who led Sierra Leone's fight against the worst Ebola outbreak and the one who treated more than 100 patients and dozens of health workers, died from the virus. Scientists in the Muslim country of Bashkortostan are developing a technology to make monoclonal antibodies specific to fight the Ebola virus.

Mathematics:

An Iranian mathematician became the first ever female winner of the celebrated Fields Medal. In a landmark hailed as "long overdue", Prof Maryam Mirzakhani was recognized for her work on complex geometry. Kazakhstani Muslim scientist proves the existence of a solution to Navier Stokes Equation which is deemed one of the hardest in the world.

Engineering:

The Moroccan engineering scientist Rachid Yazami became a co-winner of 2014 Draper Prize by the US's National Academy of Engineering for pioneering and leading the groundwork for today’s lithium ion battery. Three Malaysian academics were chosen among the world’s leading scientific minds, according to a report by business information firm Thomson Reuters.

Education:

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), four Muslim countries were ranked in the top 20 destinations all over the world for international students.

Space:

The European space probes Rosetta and Philae didn't only have Egyptian names to commemorate the Egyptian Civilization’s contributions to humanity, but four Egyptian scientists have also worked in this historic space mission. Egyptian students were ranked internationally among the top 20 teams of space engineering youth groups that participated at the University Rover Challenge (URC), in USA. In 2016, Bangladesh and Egypt are among the teams advancing to the semi-finals. A young female Kazakh inventor Nazifa Baktybayeva has been working on a real in-orbit satellite that will allow Kazakhstani students to conduct research based on materials obtained from space. This invention wasn't Nazifa's first one as in 2012 she created a model of a Venusian spacecraft that was fabricated using parts of her own old computer, headphones, a DVD disk, an umbrella and even a hanger and she calculated the craft's trajectory.

In addition, here is a list of 14 exciting and celebrated nanotechnologists from the Muslim world:

1. Dr. Mostefa El-Sayed [Nano-scale Scientist], Regents’ Professor and Julius Brown Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, Zewail Prize, #17 on Thomson Reuters, Top 100 Chemists of the Decade
2. Dr. Ibrahim Elfadel [Designer of Nano-scale Tools], Professor, Masdar Institute, Winner of Six Invention Achievement Awards, an IBM Outstanding Technical Achievement Award and a Research Division Award
3. Dr. Muhammad Al-Sayah [Supra-molecular Chemist], Professor, American University of Sharjah and winner of Comstech Award
4. Prof. Ali Khademhosseini [Biologically inspired Engineer], Assoc. Prof., Harvard Medical School, President Obama’s Early Career Award
5. Dr. AbdolReza Simchi [Nanostructures & Biomaterials], Assoc. Prof., Sharif University, Khwarzimi International Award
6. Munir Nayfeh [Quantum Nanotechnologist], Professor, University of Illinois (UIUC), Award for Single Atom Detection
7. Sharifah Bee Abd Hamid [Catalyst and nanomaterials], Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Malaysia
8. Dr. Aghil Yousefi Koma [Designer of Micro-vehicles], Professor, University of Tehran
9. Resit Turan [The Solarizer], Director, Center for Solar Energy, Research & Applications, Metu, Turkey
10. Muhammad Mustafa Hussain [Integrated nanotechnologist], Associate Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
11. Halimaton Hamdan [Synthesizer of Nanostructures], Director, National Nanotechnology Directorate, Mosti, Malaysia
12. Prof. Uda Hashim, Director [Micro-electronic Systems Engineer], Institute of Nano Electronic Engg, Malaysia
13. Dr. Irfan S. Ahmed [Bionanotechnologist], Executive Director, Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, University of Illinois (UIUC)
14. Prof. Ali Eftekhari [Electrochemist & Nanoscientist], Avicenna Institute of Technology (USA)

List from: http://muslim-science.com/14-most-ex...-muslim-world/


In terms of the future, there are grassroots efforts across the Muslim world to stimulate curiosity about science among students of all ages, operating without much government support. Eminent international experts have called for comprehensive reforms to universities of the Muslim World seeking to transform societies though scientific excellence.

[Serinity]

This is, I think, a good reason or at least explaination of why people are Islamic. It is not about critical thinking. It is not about individualistic divergence from the norm. It is all about a pathway to a group coherant way of life where the rules are known.


I am resistant to making such a thread because it is exactly putting Islam in the dock of a scientifically structured court.


Clearly there are contradictions in the Koran. But I think that that is not the point of why Islam persists.

Know that you are clearly mistaken. you are probably thinking Islam is "close your eyes and believe" or "believe then you will know" etc.

you do know that the Qur'an condemns blind belief and following?

[Muhammad]

I will add, in response to the following statement:

We no longer [...] keep an entire gender subdued.

How ironic that the world's largest women-only university was opened in Saudi Arabia in 2011. Situated on the outskirts of the capital, Riyadh, the Princess Nora bint Abdulrahman University has the capacity for 50,000 students. An article in the guardian reports that more young Muslim women have been gaining degrees at British universities than Muslim men, even though they have been under-represented for decades.

This is of little surprise, when we consider the central role that Muslim women have played in preserving Islamic teaching. Within the bounds of modesty in dress and manners, women routinely attended and gave classes in the major mosques and madrasas, transmitted and critiqued hadith and issued fatwas. Some of the most renowned scholars among men have depended on, and praised, the scholarship of their women teachers. The women scholars enjoyed considerable public authority in society, not exceptionally, but as the norm. If we look into the biographical works written about the scholars, such as al-Dhahabi’s encyclopedic Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’, we find the biographies of many women mentioned for every era of Islamic history.

Here are just a few of the notable scholars from various eras:

Mu`âdhah al-`Adawiyyah (d. 83 AH). One of the scholars and reliable narrators from the generation of the Successors (the students of the Companions). She related from `Alî b. Abî Tâlib, `A’ishah, and Hishâm b. `Amir.

`Amrah bint `Abd al-Rahman b. Sa`d al-Ansârîyyah (d. 98 AH). She was a Successor and one of the prominent students of `A’ishah. She also learned from the Companions Umm Salamah and Râfi` b Khadîj. She was one of the important legal scholars of Madinah from the generation of the Successors.

Hafsah bint Sîrîn al-Ansâriyyah (died after 100 AH). She was a student of Umm `Atiyyah, Anas b. Mâlik, and other Companions. She was also one of the legal scholars from the generation of the Successors. Qatâdah was among her students.

Amah al-Wâhid bint al-Mahâmilî (d. 377 AH). She was a noted jurist of the Shâfî’î school of law and a muftî in Baghdad.

Karîmah bint Ahmad al-Marwaziyyah (d. 463 AH). She was one of the most important narrators of Sahîh al-Bukhârî and had many prominent students, including al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî.

Zaynab bint `Abd al-Rahmân b. al-Hasan b. Ahmad b. Sahl al-Jurjâniyyâh (d. 615 AH). She was a prominent scholar of Khorasan. She was one of the students of the famous language scholar al-Zamakhsharî from whom she received an academic degree.

Yâsamîn bint Sâlim al-Harîmiyyah (d. 634 AH). She was a scholar of hadîth. Ibn Bulbân was one of her most prominent students.

Zaynab bint Makkî b. `Alî b. Kâmil al-Harrâniyyah (d. 688 AH). She was a prominent scholar from Damascus and a teacher of Ibn Taymiyah, the famous hadîth scholar al-Mizzî (the author of Tahdhîb al-Kamâl), and many others.

Zaynab bint `Umar b. Kindî b. Sa`îd al-Dimashqiyyah (d. 699 AH). She was also one of the teachers of the famous hadîth scholar al-Mizzî.

Khadîjah bint `Abd al-Rahmân al-Maqdisiyyah (d.701). She was a scholar and writer, a student of Ibn al-Zabîdî and others. She was also one of the teachers of the famous hadîth scholar al-Mizzî.

Zaynab bint Sulaymân b. Ibrâhîm b. Rahmah al-As`ardî (d. 705 AH). She was one of al-Subkî’s and al-Dhahabî’s teachers. She had heard al-Sahîh from Ibn al-Zabîdî.

Fâtimah bint Ibrâhim al-Ba`lî (d. 711 AH). She was also a student of Ibn al-Zabîdî and a teacher of Ibn al-Subkî and many others.

Fâtimah bint `Abbâs b. Abî al-Fath al-Hanbaliyyah (d. 714 AH). She was a prominent Hanbalî legal scholar and muftî, first in Damascus and then in Cairo.

Let us not forget that it was a woman who was the first to embrace Islam, Khadeejah bint Khuwaylid :raha:, a woman who reached a high level and an exalted position amongst the Muslims. Let us not forget that it was a woman who was amongst the most prolific narrators of Hadith, Aisha bint Abubakr :raha:. The number of Hadith attributed to her authority reaches over two thousand. She was also a distinguished jurist - an encyclopedic work on her juristic views was compiled which covers some 767 pages. Let us also not forget than an entire chapter of the Qur'an is named after Women, a chapter containing 176 verses. It delineates the rights of women and specifies their rights regarding inheritance, income and marriage. Not only this, but the Qur'an contains another chapter named after one of the most respected women in Islam, Maryam (alayha-salam), mother of Prophet Isa :as:. Her impeccable character is a role model for all. Allah :swt: raised her status and chose her from among the women of the entire world. Indeed, many verses and many Ahadeeth clarified her great status.

In this current age, where the honour and dignity of women is suffering to greater and greater extremes, the growing trend of western women choosing to convert to Islam speaks for itself.

[czgibson]

Greetings, Muhammad,

czgibson, you should know better than to misquote Islamic texts to support preconceived opinions.

I haven't misquoted anything, and you haven't answered any of my questions, as usual.

Peace

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

I haven't misquoted anything, and you haven't answered any of my questions, as usual.

From my previous discussions with you, I have come to learn you are less interested in seeking answers than you are in proving your own opinions. This is why you earlier quoted verse 5:101 from the Qur'an, yet seem to have completely ignored the responses explaining the context and the meaning of not asking too many questions. There are examples of other Islamic texts illustrating how questioning can be good, such as the well-known 'Hadeeth of Jibreel' in which the Angel Jibreel :as: came and asked the Prophet :saws: important and beneficial questions. Indeed, there are some questions that are considered an obligation upon the individual. To prematurely conclude that Islam is against all questioning by quoting one verse of the Qur'an is very clearly misquoting and unacceptable.

However, I did not totally resist the temptation to respond to some points. My earlier post about the contribution of Muslims to modern society and the high esteem for knowledge in Islam had this post of yours in mind:

Civilisations make progress largely through experiment and observation, research and innovation. This requires a basic curiosity about the world and its workings that is absolutely negated by your myopic position.

Despite what you may think you can achieve by picking and choosing Islamic texts, history is a testament against such erroneous views.

[czgibson]

Greetings, Muhammad,

Once again, you have completely misunderstood my position. Never mind.

Peace

[AabiruSabeel]

You must give lots of power and money to the priest/vicar/Imam. You must kill who he says. You must die to defend this idea you have not thought it worth questioning.

Well, I have the keys to the gates of heaven. All you have to do is send me $1000 and I will send your soul to heaven when you die. I have this power.

That was hilarious. We Muslims do not pay the Imam or give him the power to rule out of his own accord. No Imam can send you to heaven, no matter how much you pay him. You must be confusing between Muslims and Christians or Jews.

But Tim, thinking for yourself is dangerous! You may have bad thoughts or reach incorrect conclusions! If God is all good and all knowing, isn't it better to stop thinking for yourself, and just do whatever God says? Submit your will, your thoughts and your moral decision making to him. And if anything he tells you to do sounds bad or wrong, don't worry, it can't really be bad or wrong, because he is all good and all knowing, and he knows better than you. So go ahead and do that horrible thing that God is telling you to do! It'll be ok. Its actually a good thing to do and your victims beneficiaries will be happy for it in the end.

^ About sums it all up, right?

Did we not inform you that Allah :swt: never commands a bad or horrible thing? I would suggest you to go back and re-read both the threads from the beginning once again.

We keep hearing that the Qur'an encourages the reader to think and ask questions. So can anybody explain what the following passage is about?

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers." (5:101-102)

Answered in posts #122, #132 and others. Yet you don't seem to acknowledge them.

The worst criminal? Really? Worse than a child rapist or a serial killer? That's crazy!

Because being a child rapist or serial killer are not the traits of being a Muslim.

So if I can find contradictions and plain wrong bits in the Koran it is to be considered as valid as all the other religious books of gibberish then?

You have clearly not read the Qur'an.

Well for contradictions I went to this site;

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/qu...a/by_name.html

I found, amongst others;

For the question "Was Pharaoh Drowned or saved?"
Drowned:-

Saved:-

Islamophobic and anti-Islamic sites will never teach you what the Qur'an actually says.

The Pharaoh and his army was drowned and his body was thrown out from the water and Allah :swt: preserved it as a sign for those to come.

So the situation with Islam appears to be: ask questions, but not too many. This is the attitude of someone who is opposed to free inquiry, and, if it's backed up divine authority, one of the most effective ways to discourage questioning. I know Muslims will deny it, but that's a straightforward contradiction in the Qur'an, right there.

Hopefully we can all bear this in mind the next time someone makes the absurd claim that Islam encourages questions.

You are getting the wrong conclusion here.

There are two different types of questions. One that gives you no benefit in this world as well as the Hereafter, as already explained by other members above. That is discouraged.

And the other type that helps you in understanding a concept. For example (already stated previously but you choose to close your eyes and mind), Ibrahim :as: asked Allah :swt: about how He raises the dead once again. The same question was also asked by 'Uzair :as:, even though both of them had firm belief in life after death. Go back and read my previous post once again.
This type of questions are not discouraged.

Greetings, Muhammad,

I haven't misquoted anything, and you haven't answered any of my questions, as usual.

Peace

There does not remain anything that is not answered. You just keep repeating the same again and again. Clearly, you are not here to learn and understand, but to troll, misquote and disregard.

[Tim_the_Plumber]

Know that you are clearly mistaken. you are probably thinking Islam is "close your eyes and believe" or "believe then you will know" etc.

you do know that the Qur'an condemns blind belief and following?

If you wish to start a thread about the contradictions in the Koran and why they are not contradictions I will participate but I think it would be a bit aggresive of moe to be the one doing so.

[abumuslim82]

This is, I think, a good reason or at least explaination of why people are Islamic. It is not about critical thinking. It is not about individualistic divergence from the norm. It is all about a pathway to a group coherant way of life where the rules are known.


I am resistant to making such a thread because it is exactly putting Islam in the dock of a scientifically structured court.

Clearly there are contradictions in the Koran. But I think that that is not the point of why Islam persists.

Clearly you are ignorant

[Serinity]

If you wish to start a thread about the contradictions in the Koran and why they are not contradictions I will participate but I think it would be a bit aggresive of moe to be the one doing so.

you are the one who made the claim. So I ask you to make the thread. Besides, that Anti-Islamic page is ozzing of lies, misunderstanding, either deliberate or accidental.

if you are sincere about Islam, I ask you to make the thread.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Because being a child rapist or serial killer are not the traits of being a Muslim.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

There are two different types of questions. One that gives you no benefit in this world as well as the Hereafter, as already explained by other members above. That is discouraged.

And the other type that helps you in understanding a concept....
This type of questions are not discouraged.

And my simple objection to this is: who decides?

There does not remain anything that is not answered. You just keep repeating the same again and again. Clearly, you are not here to learn and understand, but to troll, misquote and disregard.

It's called disagreeing. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist. Your a Muslim and I'm an atheist, we're bound to disagree on some things.

Peace

[MisterK]

No true Scotsman fallacy

Eh, but is it really though? The way it was worded, the statement seems to be saying child rape and serial killer behavior are not promoted/taught as part of Islam, not so much stating that a person isn't a Muslim if they commit those acts. For example (and on a much less serious note than rape or murder), if a Muslim person decides to eat pork, that isn't the trait of a Muslim, even though that person is still Muslim.

Don't get me wrong, if it was intended as "any one who does this isn't a Muslim," then yeah, I'd agree with you on it being the No true Scotsman fallacy, that just doesn't look like it was written to mean that to me, though.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Once again, you have completely misunderstood my position.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

These two seem to be your favourite means of evading a response nowadays.

And my simple objection to this is: who decides?

There is a simple answer, which is to ask your heart and apply common sense. Is one asking with an open heart, sincerely seeking guidance, or are they asking for ridicule and due to obstinacy? Are questions being asked with the real intent of application or beyond what is needed?

It's called disagreeing. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist. Your a Muslim and I'm an atheist, we're bound to disagree on some things.

Please do not insult our intelligence by assuming we don't know the difference between simple disagreement and regularly dropping disrespectful and derogatory remarks about Islam, particularly about Allaah :swt: and the Qur'an. The sarcasm and mockery is not lost on us.

[czgibson]

Greetings, MisterK,

Welcome to the forum. :)

Eh, but is it really though? The way it was worded, the statement seems to be saying child rape and serial killer behavior are not promoted/taught as part of Islam, not so much stating that a person isn't a Muslim if they commit those acts.

Look at the hadith that started this line of discussion:

'The worst criminal among the Muslims is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim, Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.)

As you say, a person could commit an act that is contrary to Islam, yet remain a Muslim. For example, they could be a murderer. Apparently, according to the hadith, this is not as severe a crime as someone inquiring about something not yet unlawful. Do you think this is a fair reading?

If so, then ibn-Adam's response must be interpreted as "any one who does this isn't a Muslim", otherwise it has no logical relation to the preceding conversation. Unless you can think of another explanation?

Peace

[MisterK]

Greetings, MisterK,

Welcome to the forum. :)

Thanks.

Look at the hadith that started this line of discussion:

'The worst criminal among the Muslims is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim, Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.)

As you say, a person could commit an act that is contrary to Islam, yet remain a Muslim. For example, they could be a murderer. Apparently, according to the hadith, this is not as severe a crime as someone inquiring about something not yet unlawful. Do you think this is a fair reading?

I'd say, based on my limited knowledge of Islam, and assuming no other surrounding or historical context in relation to that hadith which changes its meaning in any way, that yes, it is a fair reading if I assume the inclusion of the rest of the hadith, in that such inquiry leads to that thing becoming unlawful, was intended in your statement.

If so, then ibn-Adam's response must be interpreted as "any one who does this isn't a Muslim", otherwise it has no logical relation to the preceding conversation. Unless you can think of another explanation?

Peace

Even with that assumption of a fair reading, it doesn't inherently mean ibn-Adam's statement must be interpreted that way. As I mentioned before, maybe it was intended that way, but I don't see it reading that way. Without further explanation from ibn-Adam, I'd say it is, at worst, a non-sequitur, not the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, while at best simply an incomplete or poorly phrased counter-point. If ibn-Adam were to expand on the point, it may help clarify the matter.

[aamirsaab]

I wish people would stop using hadiths as if they are mandatory obligations applicable to all and sundry in all times and circumstances - a hadith is literally a set of words or actions of the prophet that were recorded. That's it. They aren't automatically legally or religiously binding rulings that must be followed else you will leave the folds of Islam...

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

@czgibson

I created an entire post in response to your post to my words; and I lost the post when I signed in again to post because it wouldn't restore all the words I'd typed despite me clicking on "restore auto-saved content." This is to say I haven't forgotten your post, and I still intend to reply. I'm just trying to get over my frustration first about having lost the original content of my response.

[AabiruSabeel]

The way it was worded, the statement seems to be saying child rape and serial killer behavior are not promoted/taught as part of Islam, not so much stating that a person isn't a Muslim if they commit those acts. For example (and on a much less serious note than rape or murder), if a Muslim person decides to eat pork, that isn't the trait of a Muslim, even though that person is still Muslim.

Look at the hadith that started this line of discussion:

'The worst criminal among the Muslims is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim, Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.)

As you say, a person could commit an act that is contrary to Islam, yet remain a Muslim. For example, they could be a murderer. Apparently, according to the hadith, this is not as severe a crime as someone inquiring about something not yet unlawful. Do you think this is a fair reading?

If so, then ibn-Adam's response must be interpreted as "any one who does this isn't a Muslim", otherwise it has no logical relation to the preceding conversation. Unless you can think of another explanation?

MisterK understood my statement correctly.

Murder and rape are among the major sins in Islam. I don't mean to say they will take a person out of the folds of Islam.

The worst crime mentioned in quoted Hadith does not mean it is the absolute worst crime, worse than everything else. There are several things that are equally worse crimes and this is included among them.

Another Hadith says:
'A'isha :raha: reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The greatest of criminals is the poet who satirises the entire tribe and a man who disclaims his father." [Al-Adab Al-Mufrad]

This does not really mean one crime is more severe than the other. Each crime has to be studied on a case-by-case basis. But they are all worse crimes.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

MisterK understood my statement correctly.

In that case, it's a non sequitur. My mistake!

The worst crime mentioned in quoted Hadith does not mean it is the absolute worst crime, worse than everything else.

Why does he say "[t]he worst criminal", then? Do the words have different meanings in Arabic?

There are several things that are equally worse crimes and this is included among them.

How can something be equally worse? Are we having a language issue here?

Another Hadith says:
'A'isha :raha: reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The greatest of criminals is the poet who satirises the entire tribe and a man who disclaims his father." [Al-Adab Al-Mufrad]

There's definitely a language issue here because of the lack of noun-verb agreement. I don't think we'll get very far when words and their meanings have become as slippery as this.

Peace

[AabiruSabeel]

Whatever you choose to call it, your question has already been answered. You are missing the point, as usual.

You will not find anywhere, in any law of the world, a sequential list of crimes ranging from the most worse to the least worse. Each crime has its own level, some of them would be more severe than the other. The jury deals with each crime on a case-by-case basis because there are a lot of factors involved in the background.

In some cases, a murderer would get 5 years and rapist would get more, but in other cases, a murderer would get life sentence or execution.



If you read the Hadith, you will find there are several things about which the Prophet :saws: has informed about the first thing that will be questioned on the Day of Judgement. It is said in that way to indicate their importance and it means those are all among the first things that will be questioned about (and murder is one of them).


If you don't agree, it is ok, you don't have to keep dragging the discussion just for the sake of it.

[Muslimbr.]

Thanks for your visit

[Muslimbr.]

Thanks for your visit

[popsthebuilder]

I've been speaking to a non Muslim who is openly insisting that Isa is not Jesus and Allah is not GOD. They say these teaching come from the majority sect of Islam. I asked them to refer to what they claim using the Qur'an, but they say it is the Hadiths. could someone clarify as I can't gather such from the simple unbiased reading of the Quran alone and will not be reading any Hadiths at this time.

Thank you,
peace

[talibilm]

I've been speaking to a non Muslim who is openly insisting that Isa is not Jesus and Allah is not GOD. They say these teaching come from the majority sect of Islam. I asked them to refer to what they claim using the Qur'an, but they say it is the Hadiths. could someone clarify as I can't gather such from the simple unbiased reading of the Quran alone and will not be reading any Hadiths at this time.

Thank you,
peace

The straight answer iiiissss

He's an idiot. Stupids can be taught but not Idiots. These Three are semetic religions with Prophet Abraham as the patriarch and revered figure. Mecca is mentioned in the Bible. Jesus Spoke Aramaic a mixture of Hebrew & Arabic. The three scriptures have names of Adam & Eve ( this idiot may say , No its not Adam ;D its Adam's Father ) and other many prophets and near similar histories . Prophet Muhammad :saws: the last prophet was prophesied in all most all religions of the world including this old guard


http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...uhammad-(pbuh)



Let him quote the hadiths if he is not a Liar.

[popsthebuilder]

The straight answer iiiissss

He's an idiot. Stupids can be taught but not Idiots. These Three are semetic religions with Prophet Abraham as the patriarch and revered figure. Mecca is mentioned in the Bible. Jesus Spoke Aramaic a mixture of Hebrew & Arabic. The three scriptures have names of Adam & Eve ( this idiot may say , No its not Adam ;D its Adam's Father ) and other many prophets and near similar histories . Prophet Muhammad :saws: the last prophet was prophesied in all most all religions of the world including this old guard


http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...uhammad-(pbuh)



Let him quote the hadiths if he is not a Liar.

They say Isa replaced Christ or some such thing. It is strange.
Thank you for the input, I will attempt to describe his position better, later, this evening.

peace

[talibilm]

They say Isa replaced Christ or some such thing. It is strange.
Thank you for the input, I will attempt to describe his position better, later, this evening.

peace

Thanks for your kind understanding from my impolite answer since you wanted a straight forward answer.

here's another link explaining the fact i had claimed in my above post from an Israeli Jew.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...sight-by-a-JEW

[popsthebuilder]

The individual desisted in their line of arguing, thankfully. I do appreciate the effort.

I will keep this place in mind when I have questions.

Now that I think of it;

What are the Hadiths exactly?
They aren't in the Qur'an right? So where are they from.

Thank you in advance sincerely. I do apologise for my ignorance.

peace

[Shamnadanu]

The individual desisted in their line of arguing, thankfully. I do appreciate the effort.

I will keep this place in mind when I have questions.

Now that I think of it;

What are the Hadiths exactly?
They aren't in the Qur'an right? So where are they from.

Thank you in advance sincerely. I do apologise for my ignorance.

peace

Are you Christian... ?

[talibilm]

The individual desisted in their line of arguing, thankfully. I do appreciate the effort.

I will keep this place in mind when I have questions.

Now that I think of it;

What are the Hadiths exactly?
They aren't in the Qur'an right? So where are they from.

Thank you in advance sincerely. I do apologise for my ignorance.

peace

Hadith are the sayings of Prophet :saws: to his sahabas or companions. While the Noble Quran was actively & frequently being revealed during the 3/4th of the 23 years after being given Prophet Hood and was written down as manuscripts but earlier then Prophet told to avoid writing hadith so that not to confuse between them both ie the Noble Quran & the Hadith.

But once The Major part the Noble Quran was already revealed and already Memorized by 10,000's of companions since it MUST BE RECITED IN % TIMES SALAH -prayers & other extra prayers WITHOUT HOLDING THOSE MANUSCRIPTS IN HAND ( so the need of a Must memorization) Prophet :saws: ordered that now the hadiths can be written down . So they were written on the latter part and was collected into books by the most Pious & serious collectors with systematic method with CLEAR CUT PROOF of chain of Narrators untill to the first source who heard it DIRECTLY from the blessed lips of Prophet :saws: on a the particular day or incident or whatever which showed he did say those words .

If these collectors doubted credit worthiness of any one in the chain of Narrators the Hadith was termed as weak. USING THIS STRINGENT RULE or CRITERIA TO GRADE THE HADITH Imam Bukhari had thrown away more than 96% of his 300,000 hadith to select only about 7000 among them and futher from it repeating of the same hadith and were further removed to make it 3000 plus.

You are welcome to ask anything about Islam and its a Muslims duty from our Creator Allah and his prophet to share with you, if asked sincerely.

[popsthebuilder]

Are you Christian... ?

I don't exactly agree with divisions and sects of the faithful in GOD. I would describe myself as actively striving to be utterly Faithful to the One Creator GOD of life and creation, of which there are a vast multitude of names.

I'm not certain about organized religion and disagree with much that I have observed of some of the "faithful". I agree with a multitude of sacred texts spanning different ancient faiths, and some not so ancient. I also find that they speak of the same things for the same reasons (namely the will of GOD as it pertains to man). I've asked here before if it would be right or OK to consider myself Islamic (submissive to GOD) to which the general consensus was a reiderated "yes". I too believe in the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD. I believe that when it (Qur'an) says the Christ of GOD didn't die, that it is a testament to the very nature of the Christ; that nature being spiritual. Because of this I consider myself Christian too though not a traditional trinitarian and not of any particular sect. I find the Zend Avesta holds much truth too, as do other writings such as those ascribed to the Baha'i faith.

I'm sorry if that doesn't help to explain.

I was atheist for a long time. I was shown that GOD existed in a very personal, merciful, miraculous, irrefutable way(to me personally). That is to say that my faith was a gift as opposed to a teaching or indoctrination by man. The Qur'an was the first book I read of that sort with a real eagerness to learn and I consider it to hold very much truth but admittedly stay away from the additions within parenthesis.

Sorry, ranting, must go

peace

[Shamnadanu]

bro i was similar like you...even though as born muslim...i too gathered knowledge of all religion..

[Shamnadanu]

I don't exactly agree with divisions and sects of the faithful in GOD. I would describe myself as actively striving to be utterly Faithful to the One Creator GOD of life and creation, of which there are a vast multitude of names.

I'm not certain about organized religion and disagree with much that I have observed of some of the "faithful". I agree with a multitude of sacred texts spanning different ancient faiths, and some not so ancient. I also find that they speak of the same things for the same reasons (namely the will of GOD as it pertains to man). I've asked here before if it would be right or OK to consider myself Islamic (submissive to GOD) to which the general consensus was a reiderated "yes". I too believe in the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD. I believe that when it (Qur'an) says the Christ of GOD didn't die, that it is a testament to the very nature of the Christ; that nature being spiritual. Because of this I consider myself Christian too though not a traditional trinitarian and not of any particular sect. I find the Zend Avesta holds much truth too, as do other writings such as those ascribed to the Baha'i faith.

I'm sorry if that doesn't help to explain.

I was atheist for a long time. I was shown that GOD existed in a very personal, merciful, miraculous, irrefutable way(to me personally). That is to say that my faith was a gift as opposed to a teaching or indoctrination by man. The Qur'an was the first book I read of that sort with a real eagerness to learn and I consider it to hold very much truth but admittedly stay away from the additions within parenthesis.

Sorry, ranting, must go

peace

It is just your mind could tell you sre a muslim...acquiring peace ny submitting will to Allah......and understanding the vow...There is no God worthy of worship other than Allah and Muhammed pbuh is messenger of Allah....muslim is no new to this world...Adam is muslim,jesus is muslim..
even through learning we can understanding Buddha sree krishna are muslim..

details: http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/1...nt-a-messenger


It is the true religion for this reason...people like you could understand if learned more...dont stop eyes ears or mouth from hearing seeing truth...look at a lot of people they have spirit on their religion...or ego problems...they cant hear or accept truth...they are less cared of something...they don't realise all humans are created by one master....


bye bro i got to help work in home...

[popsthebuilder]

It is just your mind could tell you sre a muslim...acquiring peace ny submitting will to Allah......and understanding the vow...There is no God worthy of worship other than Allah and Muhammed pbuh is messenger of Allah....muslim is no new to this world...Adam is muslim,jesus is muslim..
even through learning we can understanding Buddha sree krishna are muslim..

details: http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/1...nt-a-messenger


It is the true religion for this reason...people like you could understand if learned more...dont stop eyes ears or mouth from hearing seeing truth...look at a lot of people they have spirit on their religion...or ego problems...they cant hear or accept truth...they are less cared of something...they don't realise all humans are created by one master....


bye bro i got to help work in home...

Pride and greed seemingly affect all but the most pious, me being no exception at times.

The term Islam is not synonymous with the actions of many, regardless of what their words might profess.

To say all of Islam are submissive to GOD is like saying the Catholic Church is the universal Church of GOD. Sounds great, but due to pride and greed, simply isn't the case.

I agree with what you say about Jesus, Krishna, and Buddha, and all those who submit to and are faithful to GOD.

I will never stop seeking or close my eyes to the Truth until our GOD decides my time is up.

peace friend. Interesting conversation. Thank you.

[talibilm]

I don't exactly agree with divisions and sects of the faithful in GOD. I would describe myself as actively striving to be utterly Faithful to the One Creator GOD of life and creation, of which there are a vast multitude of names.

I'm not certain about organized religion and disagree with much that I have observed of some of the "faithful". I agree with a multitude of sacred texts spanning different ancient faiths, and some not so ancient. I also find that they speak of the same things for the same reasons (namely the will of GOD as it pertains to man). I've asked here before if it would be right or OK to consider myself Islamic (submissive to GOD) to which the general consensus was a reiderated "yes". I too believe in the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD. I believe that when it (Qur'an) says the Christ of GOD didn't die, that it is a testament to the very nature of the Christ; that nature being spiritual. Because of this I consider myself Christian too though not a traditional trinitarian and not of any particular sect. I find the Zend Avesta holds much truth too, as do other writings such as those ascribed to the Baha'i faith.

I'm sorry if that doesn't help to explain.

I was atheist for a long time. I was shown that GOD existed in a very personal, merciful, miraculous, irrefutable way(to me personally). That is to say that my faith was a gift as opposed to a teaching or indoctrination by man. The Qur'an was the first book I read of that sort with a real eagerness to learn and I consider it to hold very much truth but admittedly stay away from the additions within parenthesis.

Sorry, ranting, must go

peace

From my memory Zend Avesta are
for the followers of Zoraster and their book is probably from Zaboor (Prophet David's Book) or the Psalms which has two sections one of commandments and other of Hymns . the hymn part was transferd to the OT as Psalms and the command part was alterated to the Talmud.

I did do comparative relgion in my teens but not that seriously.

In Short All most All religions are from God The Creator but they are existing in different forms in disguise untill the last updated (like a Mobile or a gadget ) one The Last one the Noble Quran

[talibilm]

I don't exactly agree with divisions and sects of the faithful in GOD. I would describe myself as actively striving to be utterly Faithful to the One Creator GOD of life and creation, of which there are a vast multitude of names.

I'm not certain about organized religion and disagree with much that I have observed of some of the "faithful". I agree with a multitude of sacred texts spanning different ancient faiths, and some not so ancient. I also find that they speak of the same things for the same reasons (namely the will of GOD as it pertains to man). I've asked here before if it would be right or OK to consider myself Islamic (submissive to GOD) to which the general consensus was a reiderated "yes". I too believe in the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ of GOD. I believe that when it (Qur'an) says the Christ of GOD didn't die, that it is a testament to the very nature of the Christ; that nature being spiritual. Because of this I consider myself Christian too though not a traditional trinitarian and not of any particular sect. I find the Zend Avesta holds much truth too, as do other writings such as those ascribed to the Baha'i faith.

I'm sorry if that doesn't help to explain.

I was atheist for a long time. I was shown that GOD existed in a very personal, merciful, miraculous, irrefutable way(to me personally). That is to say that my faith was a gift as opposed to a teaching or indoctrination by man. The Qur'an was the first book I read of that sort with a real eagerness to learn and I consider it to hold very much truth but admittedly stay away from the additions within parenthesis.

Sorry, ranting, must go

peace

From my memory Zend Avesta are for the followers of Zoraster ( took Fire as God , why ? i have my own reasoning from a verse ) and their book is most probably from adulteration of Zaboor (Prophet David's Book in Noble Quran) or the Psalms which has two sections one of commandments and other of Hymns . the hymn part was transfered to the OT as Psalms after 600 years after Moses and the commands part was altered and made as the Talmud about 600 years after Moses (pbuh). So that's why Allah claims the Jews Altered books of Allah and killed prophet (John, the baptist but in Jesus's cae they were fooled),

I did do comparative religion in my teens but not that seriously. Hope post # 37 & 41 here will prove what mean https://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ept-god-2.html


In Short All most All religions are from God The Creator but they are existing in different forms in disguise untill the last updated (like a Mobile or a gadget ) one The Last one the Noble Quran.


Bahai is a break away from Islam and are hugely misguided into Kufr since they had used their opinion and Logic more than the commandment of Allah. The same case is with Sikhism whose patriach,Guru Nanak had even done Haj to Mecca.



This also proves & confirms the preface first post here

https://www.islamicboard.com/seerah/...ml#post2943928

[popsthebuilder]

From my memory Zend Avesta are
for the followers of Zoraster and their book is probably from Zaboor (Prophet David's Book) or the Psalms which has two sections one of commandments and other of Hymns . the hymn part was transferd to the OT as Psalms and the command part was alterated to the Talmud.

I did do comparative relgion in my teens but not that seriously.

In Short All most All religions are from God The Creator but they are existing in different forms in disguise untill the last updated (like a Mobile or a gadget ) one The Last one the Noble Quran

I think your thinking of the Torah, not the Zend Avesta. But yes, it is from the Zoroastrian faith.

peace

[talibilm]

I think your thinking of the Torah, not the Zend Avesta. But yes, it is from the Zoroastrian faith.

peace

No I am not speaking of the Torah which is interchangeably used between OT. I am giving from my memory of 3 decades ago when I had some doubts on my religion by Birth , Islam and worked on it for an year or so and I thanked Allah for making me born in the right Religion.

As I always claim all most all religions they are from One Creator Allah who had sent more than 120,000 Prophets to every nation and in their own language ( the Noble Quran ) Zoraster is little bit complicated for me but they were classified by Caliph Umar :RA: as a people of the book . Like in case if the Noble Quran did not say about Jesus we have NO CHANCE of knowing that he was a Muslim worshipping one Creator God . Similarly Zoraster I am not sure it was Prophet David himself or it was some other Prophet who worshipped one God but the later generations transformed him into some one else as it always has been right from the children of Adam , A Satans Trick & misguidance.

IMO some verses of the Noble Quran was in the Torah and the Injeel and I guess this verse of the Noble Quran 24:35 could have been in the Book of Zoraster or Zaboor (Psalms) of Prophet Dawud :AS: or David

Noble Quran 24:35 '' ''Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.''

And So they took the FIRE itself as God such are so many religions of the world ( the MORE older -the MORE misguided they became and the Worst like Zorasters - Fire worshippers- ) which got mislead by their own false assumptions and DOUBTS incited by Shaitan in their hearts as he did with children of Adam who took the statue of saints as their Gods and similar was the case of Arabs within whom Idolatory intruded just before 300 years before the birth of Muhammad :saws: or else they were the monotheists Who lived around the Kaaba right from the time of Prophet Abraham, the renowned Monotheists and were better than the Isralites who were very Mischeivious with substituting God with a Calf just in a month absence of Moses (pbuh) even after seeing greatest Miracles so Allah sent in them, the Isrealites about a 1000 prophets to guide them but in vain unlike the Ishamelites ( Arabs ) where on the right path of monotheism for millenniums so that did not necessitate Allah to send his Messengers unless untill they got corrupted by idolatory and Allah send his seal of his Prophets , The Last Prophet with last or latest Book, the Noble Quran.

Even the wikipedia affirms it ''.....There are 150 psalms in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition (more in the Eastern Christian churches), many of them linked to the name of King David, but his authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars.[3]''


whatever wisdom about Authenticity of scriptures was given about these very old holy books were given ONLY by the Quran, when the world was confused where they actually came from ? Subhanallah.

[talibilm]

Link as a Proof for my claims . Sikhism founder Guru went to Haj post # 47 here
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...ption+of+sikhs

Zoraster http://islamawareness.net/Zoroastria...criptures.html

[popsthebuilder]

No I am not speaking of the Torah which is interchangeably used between OT. I am giving from my memory of 3 decades ago when I had some doubts on my religion by Birth , Islam and worked on it for an year or so and I thanked Allah for making me born in the right Religion.

As I always claim all most all religions they are from One Creator Allah who had sent more than 120,000 Prophets to every nation and in their own language ( the Noble Quran ) Zoraster is little bit complicated for me but they were classified by Caliph Umar :RA: as a people of the book . Like in case if the Noble Quran did not say about Jesus we have NO CHANCE of knowing that he was a Muslim worshipping one Creator God . Similarly Zoraster I am not sure it was Prophet David himself or it was some other Prophet who worshipped one God but the later generations transformed him into some one else as it always has been right from the children of Adam , A Satans Trick & misguidance.

IMO some verses of the Noble Quran was in the Torah and the Injeel and I guess this verse of the Noble Quran 24:35 could have been in the Book of Zoraster or Zaboor (Psalms) of Prophet Dawud :AS: or David

Noble Quran 24:35 '' ''Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.''

And So they took the FIRE itself as God such are so many religions of the world ( the MORE older -the MORE misguided they became and the Worst like Zorasters - Fire worshippers- ) which got mislead by their own false assumptions and DOUBTS incited by Shaitan in their hearts as he did with children of Adam who took the statue of saints as their Gods and similar was the case of Arabs within whom Idolatory intruded just before 300 years before the birth of Muhammad :saws: or else they were the monotheists Who lived around the Kaaba right from the time of Prophet Abraham, the renowned Monotheists and were better than the Isralites who were very Mischeivious with substituting God with a Calf just in a month absence of Moses (pbuh) even after seeing greatest Miracles so Allah sent in them, the Isrealites about a 1000 prophets to guide them but in vain unlike the Ishamelites ( Arabs ) where on the right path of monotheism for millenniums so that did not necessitate Allah to send his Messengers unless untill they got corrupted by idolatory and Allah send his seal of his Prophets , The Last Prophet with last or latest Book, the Noble Quran.

Even the wikipedia affirms it ''.....There are 150 psalms in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition (more in the Eastern Christian churches), many of them linked to the name of King David, but his authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars.[3]''


whatever wisdom about Authenticity of scriptures was given about these very old holy books were given ONLY by the Quran, when the world was confused where they actually came from ? Subhanallah.

I deny no thing such as you state. I am not a scholar and know next to nothing of the historical aspects. I do know that history is two sided but the only side really seen is that of the victor. It is very obvious and certain that said ancient texts are (for the most part) of one accord. It would follow that indeed, very similar precepts, virtues, morals, ethics, and motives would be found in all books inspired by an ultimately singular source.


All praise and thanks is to GOD alone, which all the messengers, prophets, and guides are of and submitted to.

peace

peace

[popsthebuilder]

Link as a Proof for my claims . Sikhism founder Guru went to Haj post # 47 here
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...ption+of+sikhs

Zoraster http://islamawareness.net/Zoroastria...criptures.html

I am not really studying Sikhism at this time. Again; I do not attempt to confirm or deny your claims as I am not interested in any claims of man be they written some time ago, or just now.

I know the Zend Avesta to hold truth. Again I cannot and do not claim that the same stands or stood true for the "followers" of said religions. This goes for all. However I wouldn't dare claim the Zoroaster was of knowing misdirection, nor would I say such of any messenger.

peace

[popsthebuilder]

Sorry for shortness...Must work

[talibilm]

I deny no thing such as you state. I am not a scholar and know next to nothing of the historical aspects. I do know that history is two sided but the only side really seen is that of the victor. It is very obvious and certain that said ancient texts are (for the most part) of one accord. It would follow that indeed, very similar precepts, virtues, morals, ethics, and motives would be found in all books inspired by an ultimately singular source.


All praise and thanks is to GOD alone, which all the messengers, prophets, and guides are of and submitted to.

peace

peace

Yes its wise of you to make more studies before you reject or accept Anything . but i have also come through your stage Once so thats what Allah says to Ponder .

Be sure The Creator who created you fed you in your mothers womb where not even our mother could feed us and gave you fresh pure air, water , food , the sun- the light etc etc did not leave us to loiter in darkness of confused religions . He has shown the Path buts its upto us to use reason and sincerity to find it as we do with every thing needed in our life. I shall leave you with this from your Creator

http://legacy.quran.com/53/37-41

Peace to them who seek guidance.

[Shamnadanu]

understand that this is last of society...our ummah has given so many offers...and ours is final messenger...beloved muhammed pbuh


If you love someone..you try to understamd and investigate and learn more and more details of him/her....so it is compulsary to love beloved prophet and his teachings....it is only way you can reach Jannah

[Muslimbr.]

Thanks for your visit