PDA

View Full Version : 20 Most Common Questions about ISLAM



SunniMuslimah
12-26-2005, 03:49 PM
:sl:

Here you are the e-version of the booklet "20 Most Common Questions about ISLAM" by the prominent Indian Muslim writer Dr.Zakir Naik.

http://20questions.4t.com/

The 20 Questions:

Women

1. Polygamy

2. Polyandry

3. Hijab For Women

4. Equality of Witnesses

5. Inheritance


Food

6. Eating Non-Vegetarian Food

7. Why does the Islamic Method of Slaughtering Animals Appear Ruthless?

8. Pork Forbidden

9. Prohibition of Alcohol


Non-Muslims

10. Why are non-Muslims Not Allowed in Makkah ?

11. Non-Muslims Referred To As Kafirs

12. All Religions Teach Men To Be Righteous. Then Why Follow Only Islam?


Violence

13. Was Islam Spread by The Sword?

14. Are Muslims Fundamentalists or Terrorists?

15. Non-Vegetarian Food Makes Muslims Violent?


Misc

16. Vast Difference Between Islam and The Actual Practice of Muslims

17. Why Are Muslims Divided Into Sects/Different Schools ofThought?

18. Hereafter - Life After Death

19. Do Muslims Worship The Kaaba?

20. Is the Qur an Satan s Handiwork?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
SunniMuslimah
12-26-2005, 03:54 PM
If you are interested to buy the booklet, you can contact:

Saba Islamic Media in Malaysia, their ad is at the end of the first page of the site.

The booklet is really intersting, here you the photo of its cover and a page in it that speaks about Polygamy:








*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
:) To know about Islam in general:
http://itolerance.4t.com/

:) To know about the 20 Most Common Questions about ISLAM:
http://20questions.4t.com/
Reply

sapphire
12-26-2005, 05:03 PM
hmmmm....yeah thats true.......do we have answers provided in the book??
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
12-26-2005, 06:45 PM
:sl:
All the answers are available here:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

:w:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
sapphire
12-26-2005, 08:06 PM
ah jazakallah
Reply

zircon
04-29-2006, 04:34 AM
thank you lots.. i've been finding for its online version for looooong
Reply

Danish
04-29-2006, 11:03 AM
:sl:
Also marriage of Aisha (RA) to prophet Muhammed is also a commonly asked question and 4:34.

And pathetic argument of "Allah is Moon-God" is becoming rather famous too.
Reply

Herostratos
04-30-2006, 10:07 PM
Too bad the authors must resort to lies though...

I read about why polygamy was allowed, and after much blah blah blah in familiar muslem style about the other religions doing it too, they claimed that there were more women than men in the society, therefore polygamy was practical. It is statistically correct, but there's lies, damned lies and statistics you know..

From birth there are born more men than women. Because men has worse health than women, there becomes more women than men when they are about 50 years old... And women above 50 years rarely get married.

It is true as they say, that there are more men killed during wars than women, but when they are using examples from the western world afterwards, the observant reader will understand something is flawed...


After having read the first answer, I decided I had better things to do.

And as an interesting question: Qatar has 185 males to 100 females; why not allow females to have more than one husband?(No, the answers provided in the FAQ were not logical)
Reply

Umm-Layth
05-02-2006, 12:26 AM
It isn't about attacking our tawheed anymore even.

If you carefully examine the questions you can see how it is just about attacking things and bring doubts. They want to start this game with us but you know we can't play by their rules.

We should always turn the tables and call them right back to tawheed so that they have to play by our rules.
Reply

extinction
05-02-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl:
All the answers are available here:
Faq on Islam

:w:
thank you so so much jazakallah.....
Reply

IceQueen~
05-03-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by Herostratos
Too bad the authors must resort to lies though...

I read about why polygamy was allowed, and after much blah blah blah in familiar muslem style about the other religions doing it too, they claimed that there were more women than men in the society, therefore polygamy was practical. It is statistically correct, but there's lies, damned lies and statistics you know..

From birth there are born more men than women. Because men has worse health than women, there becomes more women than men when they are about 50 years old... And women above 50 years rarely get married.

It is true as they say, that there are more men killed during wars than women, but when they are using examples from the western world afterwards, the observant reader will understand something is flawed...


After having read the first answer, I decided I had better things to do.

And as an interesting question: Qatar has 185 males to 100 females; why not allow females to have more than one husband?(No, the answers provided in the FAQ were not logical)
well if you look at the world at the time islam came you will find that poeple were marrying way more than 4 women even. it was the custom of the day to have lots of wives
islam actually limited the number DOWN to 4
besides i think children have the rights to know who their fathers are which would kinda be difficult if ur mom had more than one husband...:rollseyes
Reply

IceQueen~
05-03-2006, 02:04 PM
well if you look at the world at the time islam came you will find that poeple were marrying way more than 4 women even. it was the custom of the day to have lots of wives
islam actually limited the number DOWN to 4
besides i think children have the rights to know who their fathers are which would kinda be difficult if ur mom had more than one husband
Reply

Herostratos
05-04-2006, 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by marge1
well if you look at the world at the time islam came you will find that poeple were marrying way more than 4 women even. it was the custom of the day to have lots of wives
islam actually limited the number DOWN to 4
That means Islam was civilized a thousand years ago. But is todays standard not a little higher?
Originally Posted by marge1
besides i think children have the rights to know who their fathers are which would kinda be difficult if ur mom had more than one husband
No problem, new technology makes that possible.
Reply

al-fateh
05-04-2006, 02:42 PM
[S]20. Is the Qur an Satan s Handiwork?[/S]

never heard this one before
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-04-2006, 04:10 PM
Hello Herostratos,
What is 'uncivilized' about polygamy? :confused:

As for your question about why polygyny is allowed and not polyandry, there are numerous reasons. First of all, if every person in the relationship wishes to have a child, this is possible in a polygynous relationship as each wife has her child, but it is not possible in a polyandrous relationship as there is only one person giving birth, thus putting all the burden on one individual, which is unfair. A man can spend equal intervals of time with each wife, while a woman would not be able to from pregnancy. At some point humans must acknowledge that men and women are different and they have different bodies, so while one arrangement may work out for men, it may not necessarily work out for women.

Does this answer your question?
Reply

Herostratos
05-04-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Herostratos,
What is 'uncivilized' about polygamy? :confused:
Well, most societies promoting it have been very patriarchal, and I really think it is showing a disrespect for women... But, unlike you, I believe the personal relationships of grown up people should not be the issue of the society.

And anyways: If there's nothing wrong about polygamy, why only 4?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
As for your question about why polygyny is allowed and not polyandry, there are numerous reasons. First of all, if every person in the relationship wishes to have a child, this is possible in a polygynous relationship as each wife has her child, but it is not possible in a polyandrous relationship as there is only one person giving birth, thus putting all the burden on one individual, which is unfair.
In most industrialized countries, having children is not that important. If the men does not really care about not having that many children each, what's the problem then?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
A man can spend equal intervals of time with each wife, while a woman would not be able to from pregnancy.
A woman could spend equal time with her husbands as well... What do you mean?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
At some point humans must acknowledge that men and women are different and they have different bodies, so while one arrangement may work out for men, it may not necessarily work out for women.
So... You are in favour of forbidding it because it is impractical? Not to mention that sometimes it isn't, but is this not an issue between the men/women in question? Why shall the society regulate the most intimate affairs between grown-up people?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-04-2006, 07:54 PM
Hello Herostratos,
Originally Posted by Herostratos
Well, most societies promoting it have been very patriarchal, and I really think it is showing a disrespect for women...
Why? How is a husband taking care of more women disrespectful? No one is forcing women to become someone's second wife and if they don't want their husband to have a second wife they can stipulate that condition in the marriage contract.

If anything, polyandry is desrespectful because it reduces a woman's function to reproduction (all the burden is on one individual).
But, unlike you, I believe the personal relationships of grown up people should not be the issue of the society.
But marriage is not personal, it is a public affair regulated by the government in most western countries which requires a marital contract. Cohabitation and marriage are not the same.
And anyways: If there's nothing wrong about polygamy, why only 4?
There is nothing wrong with polygamy so long as the man ensures that he is fair in his treatment of his wives and takes good care of all of them. The more wives, the harder this becomes and the less likely someone will be able to maintain such relationships so the Qur'an has restricted it to 4.
In most industrialized countries, having children is not that important. If the men does not really care about not having that many children each, what's the problem then?
But the same problem does not arise with polygyny so the Qur'an makes a distinction between polygyny and polyandry.

If there is no interest in having a family, then why the need to marry? A polygynous family can actually function as a family, while a polyandrous one cannot.
A woman could spend equal time with her husbands as well... What do you mean?
Women are not like men. Men do not get pregnant or have monthly cycles while women do, which will naturally affect their ability to sustain their relationships with multiple husbands. A man can visit each wife every day because their state and condition remains the same.
So... You are in favour of forbidding it because it is impractical?
Simply because it cannot function as a productive family and it would end up causing harm.

Regards
Reply

NJUSA
05-05-2006, 02:18 AM
Actually, polyandrous socieities have existed and done all right with family functions- they are just not the kind of families we are used to, just as to most in the West, polygynous families are not the kind of families we are used to. Back to the Naik's work in general: it does seem highly tailored to a South Asian context. Perhaps some could be developed more in line with what Western Europeans and those in the Americas find puzzling about Islam, that way, you have something with a broader reach.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-05-2006, 02:54 AM
:sl:
Originally Posted by NJUSA
Actually, polyandrous socieities have existed and done all right with family functions
I have not denied that polyandrous families have existed, and I am aware of the cultural trend in amongst some groups in Tibet. My argument is that it is not a suitable arrangement because of the unfair burden it places on one individual in the relationship.

:w:
Reply

Herostratos
05-05-2006, 02:53 PM
As you have not denied that the FAQ has been using statistics in a very dishonest/ignorant way, I trust you will no longer recommend that site.

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Herostratos,

Why? How is a husband taking care of more women disrespectful? No one is forcing women to become someone's second wife and if they don't want their husband to have a second wife they can stipulate that condition in the marriage contract.
The point I tried to make - although I admit it was a little unclear - was this: Polygamy is practical in countries where women are very dependent on a husband to survive, and where women does not have enough independency to demand that the male shall devote himself to her. Typically because most other men are poor, I'd guess. These countries are typically poor and uncivilized. Civilized cultures will inevitably become so rich that women can demand monogamy.
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
But marriage is not personal, it is a public affair regulated by the government in most western countries which requires a marital contract. Cohabitation and marriage are not the same.
From dictionary.com:

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good.
2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.
3. Capitalized in shares of stock that can be traded on the open market: a public company.
4. Participated in or attended by the people or community: “Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate” (Hannah Arendt).
5. Connected with or acting on behalf of the people, community, or government: public office.
6. Enrolled in or attending a public school: transit passes for public students.
7. Open to the knowledge or judgment of all: a public scandal.

No, a marriage is none of the above

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
There is nothing wrong with polygamy so long as the man ensures that he is fair in his treatment of his wives and takes good care of all of them. The more wives, the harder this becomes and the less likely someone will be able to maintain such relationships so the Qur'an has restricted it to 4.
There is no logic behind this. Some men must be able to deal fairly with more than 4 women, right? Why restrict those at all, if marrying and taking care of many women are a good thing?

Or, if you have to restrict the upper limit because some people will abuse it, why have a limit of 4 at all?
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
If there is no interest in having a family, then why the need to marry? A polygynous family can actually function as a family, while a polyandrous one cannot.
I were not talking about not having children, I were talking about having a limited number of them. Say, each man got two each, not unnormal for an industrialized country, and the women will then give birth to four children, which is certainly not unusual in many muslem countries.

And exactly why is it that such a family cannot function as one?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Women are not like men. Men do not get pregnant or have monthly cycles while women do, which will naturally affect their ability to sustain their relationships with multiple husbands. A man can visit each wife every day because their state and condition remains the same.
Are you serious? Your objection against polyandry is that the men in question would not get their desires satisfied??? What if the men in question simply accepts to not get to "visit" their wifes so often?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Simply because it cannot function as a productive family and it would end up causing harm.
Why?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-05-2006, 04:16 PM
Hello Herostratos,
Originally Posted by Herostratos
As you have not denied that the FAQ has been using statistics in a very dishonest/ignorant way, I trust you will no longer recommend that site.
I haven't seen evidence that they have used statistics in a dishonest way. On the topic of polygamy, I would agree that it is not accurate to simply make the generalization of more women than men in the world, but a single inaccuracy in one article does not render all content on the entire website useless.
The point I tried to make - although I admit it was a little unclear - was this: Polygamy is practical in countries where women are very dependent on a husband to survive, and where women does not have enough independency to demand that the male shall devote himself to her. Typically because most other men are poor, I'd guess. These countries are typically poor and uncivilized. Civilized cultures will inevitably become so rich that women can demand monogamy.
You've made quite a few errneous generalizations. While I agree that polygamy is a more suitable arrangement in some situations, not necessarily all situations, that doesn't mean it is restricted to the "poor and uncivilized". I think we can be more open-minded by simply saying that it works better in some cases than others.
No, a marriage is none of the above
You didn't answer my argument at all. Even in western countries marriage is done through the government because once someone agrees to the marital contract they have assumed obligations and responsibilties towards their spouse which need to be protected. Cohabitation and marriage are not looked on as the same thing.
There is no logic behind this. Some men must be able to deal fairly with more than 4 women, right? Why restrict those at all, if marrying and taking care of many women are a good thing?
Because most people can't.
Or, if you have to restrict the upper limit because some people will abuse it, why have a limit of 4 at all?
Because beyond four, it becomes much more difficult. The point is there has to be a limit somewhere. Islam has placed that limit at four.
I were not talking about not having children, I were talking about having a limited number of them. Say, each man got two each, not unnormal for an industrialized country, and the women will then give birth to four children, which is certainly not unusual in many muslem countries.
You're talking about two husbands here, not four. Again, the problem is that the woman has to alternate between these two with her pregnancies to ensure a fair relationship, which relates to what you said here:
What if the men in question simply accepts to not get to "visit" their wifes so often?
Exactly. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge that because men and women are different a woman would not be able to sustain the same relationship with four husbands that a man can sustain with four wives. You've admitted that the intervals between her visits to her husbands will be larger than a polygynous husband's to his wives. Do you think a relationship that is interrupted by several month intervals will be a healthy relationship? Do you think a relationship that terminates and resumes ever few months will be positive? Obviously not. The woman ends up being with one husband at a time, so in reality she is not really polyandrous, she is just changing husbands every once in a while.
Are you serious? Your objection against polyandry is that the men in question would not get their desires satisfied???
My objection is that the relationship would not be sustainable if there is not adequate time spent together and mutual care between the individuals involved. And the desires a man has are fundamentally different from those that a woman has. A healthy relationship occurs when the needs of those involved are satisifed and they share mutual responsibilities.
And exactly why is it that such a family cannot function as one?
Becuase there is an uneven distribution of burden and obligations within the family. It is a fact that with each relationship comes obligations, responsibilities. You increase the relationships, you increase the obligations. The woman with four husbands has four times the obligations and responsibilities than the woman with a single husband. But the woman who gets pregnant will need support not increased obligations to maintain multiple relationships.
Reply

Herostratos
05-09-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
You've made quite a few errneous generalizations. While I agree that polygamy is a more suitable arrangement in some situations, not necessarily all situations, that doesn't mean it is restricted to the "poor and uncivilized". I think we can be more open-minded by simply saying that it works better in some cases than others.
I guess that's also a way to say it..

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
You didn't answer my argument at all. Even in western countries marriage is done through the government because once someone agrees to the marital contract they have assumed obligations and responsibilties towards their spouse which need to be protected. Cohabitation and marriage are not looked on as the same thing.
Well, you claimed a marriage was public... Which I showed it wasn't.
There is no standard-contract issued by, e.g. the Norwegian government. The obligations and responsibilities are determined by the people involved.

Anyways, what do you think is the main difference between cohabitation and marriage? And would it be okay by you if you a woman and two men merely cohabitated?
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Because most people can't.
Most people can't deal fairly with four either.

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Because beyond four, it becomes much more difficult. The point is there has to be a limit somewhere. Islam has placed that limit at four.
Well.. The second wife will mean a 100% increase in wives.. The third 50%.. the fourth 33%... the next only 25 %, so it doesn't become that much more difficult, assuming that each woman want an equal amount of attention...

Hehe, now I'm just playing with numbers, just kidding.

But, I don't think that answers my question. Why excactly four? "There has to be a limit somewhere" is not good enough. Some are able to handle more, some less. The koran is already limiting those that aren't able to have more than one by saying that they shall not have more than they can take care of.. Why is such a method of limiting sufficient for those with less than 4, but not for those with more?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Exactly. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge that because men and women are different a woman would not be able to sustain the same relationship with four husbands that a man can sustain with four wives. You've admitted that the intervals between her visits to her husbands will be larger than a polygynous husband's to his wives. Do you think a relationship that is interrupted by several month intervals will be a healthy relationship? Do you think a relationship that terminates and resumes ever few months will be positive? Obviously not. The woman ends up being with one husband at a time, so in reality she is not really polyandrous, she is just changing husbands every once in a while.
Well... Muslem unmarried men are not - at least in theory - visiting women to fulfill their needs at all. They are not dying from it... Whether the relationship will be a healthy one is something the people in it is best to decide.

The people may mutually care for each other even though they are not having sex...
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Becuase there is an uneven distribution of burden and obligations within the family. It is a fact that with each relationship comes obligations, responsibilities. You increase the relationships, you increase the obligations. The woman with four husbands has four times the obligations and responsibilities than the woman with a single husband. But the woman who gets pregnant will need support not increased obligations to maintain multiple relationships.
The first part of what you say can be used against polygamy as well as polyandry. And, you know, some people may look at their obligations and responsibilities otherwise than the rest of the society. It is up to them to decide what their obligations to each others are.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
05-09-2006, 08:53 PM
Hello Herostratos,
Nice to hear from you.
Originally Posted by Herostratos
I guess that's also a way to say it..
Well, I'm glad we've acknowledged that!

Well, you claimed a marriage was public... Which I showed it wasn't.
I'm not sure how you've shown that. Marriage is generally regarded as a mutual contract which is to be upheld by the society, and hence the involvement of the government in marital contracts. The same is the case with divorce. If you want a divorce you have to go through the courts, right? Why do you think that is?
There is no standard-contract issued by, e.g. the Norwegian government.
And yet, Norway still has the Norwegian Marriage Act which marriages must be conducted in accordance with. The government is involved with marriage in Norway too.
Anyways, what do you think is the main difference between cohabitation and marriage?
The contract and the agreement to the mutual obligations and responsibilties.
And would it be okay by you if you a woman and two men merely cohabitated?
It would not be okay by me if a man and two women merely cohabited or a woman and two men merely cohabited - both are forbidden in Islam. If you want to have a relationship it must be done within the bounds of marriage and acceptance of the mutual responsibilties that such a relationship entails. This protects the rights of those involved in the relationship.

Most people can't deal fairly with four either.
Some can and some can't. Somewhere there has to be a limit.
But, I don't think that answers my question. Why excactly four? "There has to be a limit somewhere" is not good enough.
Why not? If we agree that there has to be a limit, then there should be no objections. If the limit was three, you would say, "Why three?" if it was five you would say, "Why five?" So you acknowledge the need for a limit on one hand, yet on the other hand you object to every possible limit. The most important thing is the limit, not what exactly the limit is. Now it may be that this is an issue involving human psychology and it turns out that four is the optimum limit - I can't assert that because I don't posses the research required to substantiate that assertion. So there may be divine wisdom in the specifying of the number four, but as far as I'm concerned, the primary issue here is the need for a limit, which sufficiently answers objections.
Well... Muslem unmarried men are not - at least in theory - visiting women to fulfill their needs at all. They are not dying from it...
I agree. But that really has nothing to do with my argument since I was discussing the mutual affection and sacrifice that must be expressed in a healthy relationship. See what I wrote about swapping husbands.
The first part of what you say can be used against polygamy as well as polyandry.
In polygyny the distribution of burden is not unfairly placed on one individual. A man does not get pregnant or have monthly cycles.

Regards
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 08:34 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2008, 04:13 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 04:10 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-21-2007, 02:00 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2006, 12:37 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!