Salahudeen
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,043
- Reaction score
- 683
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Answers
- Thread starter Novice
- Start date
- Replies 40
- Views 9K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Perseveranze
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 232
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
To answer this question, it should first be remarked that Islam has tolerated slavery but has never approved of it, and that all its teachings and prescriptions in this regard lead to its alleviation as far as possible in the short term, and, in the longer term, conduce to its progressive suppression. To abolish it would have been impossible in a world in which it was generally practiced by all the states which bordered on the new Muslim empire, and in which the idea of challenging the principle itself had not occurred to anyone. It was the custom to enslave prisoners of war -- when these were not simply massacred -- and the Islamic state would have put itself at a grave disadvantage vis-a-vis its enemies had it not reciprocated to some extent. By guaranteeing them humane treatment, and various possibilities of subsequently releasing themselves, it ensured that a good number of combatants in the opposing armies preferred captivity at the hands of Muslims to death on the field of battle.
Also -
Prohibiting slavery in the context of seventh-century Arabia apparently would have been as useful as prohibiting poverty; it would have reflected a noble ideal but would have been unworkable on an immediate basis without establishing an entirely new socioeconomic system. - Jacob Neusner, Tamara Sonn, Comparing Religions through Law: Judaism and Islam, 1998
And -
Slavery was too fundamental to the structure of Arabian society in the 7th century to be abolished easily. Doing so would have estranged many of the tribes that Muhammad sought to bring together, and severely disrupted the working of society.
Hope that answers it.
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
here's the verse:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)
it is the duty of the people to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and it is obvious that the stronger would be given more responsibilities as long as they are just.
it is laying out the proper orderly conduct.
it is clear that if one has more strength than the other, then it is highly likely that the stronger would be given more authority.
this is clearly seen in the u.n security council and they seem to act like animals without any sense of right or justice.
this one explains it all:
it is amazing how people justify the government shooting, beating and tear-gassing their wife or child in order to maintain "law and order",
yet find it amazing that the head of the house would use a smack on the chest to maintain law and order in the house.
you don't use truncheons:
if the husband acts unjustly - she can get a divorce as can be seen in the narrations.
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)
it is the duty of the people to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and it is obvious that the stronger would be given more responsibilities as long as they are just.
it is laying out the proper orderly conduct.
it is clear that if one has more strength than the other, then it is highly likely that the stronger would be given more authority.
this is clearly seen in the u.n security council and they seem to act like animals without any sense of right or justice.
this one explains it all:
it is amazing how people justify the government shooting, beating and tear-gassing their wife or child in order to maintain "law and order",
yet find it amazing that the head of the house would use a smack on the chest to maintain law and order in the house.
you don't use truncheons:
if the husband acts unjustly - she can get a divorce as can be seen in the narrations.
Last edited:
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
The monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation. According to Weber, the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on violence, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit. Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.
It defines a single entity, the state, as exercising authority on violence over a given territory; territory was also deemed by Weber to be a prerequisite feature of a state. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid which legitimises the state's use of violence.
problem - what if the state has been proven to be fraudulent and murdered millions, and even shot people dead in train stations and then lied about it to the public?
It defines a single entity, the state, as exercising authority on violence over a given territory; territory was also deemed by Weber to be a prerequisite feature of a state. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid which legitimises the state's use of violence.
problem - what if the state has been proven to be fraudulent and murdered millions, and even shot people dead in train stations and then lied about it to the public?
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
you will get conflicting views on this from both apologists and from absolutists,
however it is not absolute on either argument.
we see here that centre ground is the most understandable due to the variety of recorded cases.
The Qur'an says,
"Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from error." Al Baqarah, 2:256.
"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137.
"Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29)
then we have the hadith:
Ibn Abbaas radhi allahu anhuma says: the Prophet (pbuh) said "Execute the one who renegades from his Deen."
(Sahih al-Bukhariy Hadith6299, Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4059 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)
‘Uthmaan (ra) narrates hearing the Prophet (pbuh) as saying "……The one who changes his religion after accepting Islam must be executed."
(Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4057 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)
Abdullah (ra) narrates the Prophet (pbuh) as saying "It is not Halaal to kill a Muslim except for 3 reasons:
…no.3.The one that turns away from his Deen, thereby disassociating himself from the group of Muslims."
(Sahih Muslim Hadith4351 edited by Shaikh Khalil ma’moon Sheeha)
how do we reconcile both?
we must bear in mind that the Quran is a stable and continuous source of reference while most of the hadith can be contiuous - but some rulings are applied in similar situations to the ones in which the prophet (pbuh) was at the time. there are cases where people apostated and then returned to Islam and even became leaders and warriors later on - during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and afterwards during the time of Abu Bakr (ra).
this guidance was applied according to the situation.
According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by some scholars (e.g. Hasan al-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is illegal in most Muslim countries, and subject in some to the death penalty. Executions for apostasy are rare, but allowed in many Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.
The hadith is quoted both by supporters of the death penalty and critics of Islam. Some Islamic scholars point out it is important to understand the hadith in its proper historical context: it was written when the nascent Muslim community in Medina was fighting for its existence, and the enemies of Islam encouraged rebellion and discord within the community. At that time any defection would have had serious consequences for the Muslims, and the hadith may well be about treason, rather than just apostasy. Under the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned, terms which the Prophet accepted.
"306 British and Commonwealth soldiers [were] executed for...desertion during World War I," records the Shot at Dawn Memorial. "During the period between August 1914 and March 1920 more than 20,000 servicemen were convicted by courts-martial of offences which carried the death sentence. 3,000 of those men were ordered to be put to death and of those just over 10% were executed...."
In the United States, before the Civil War, deserters from the Army were flogged; while, after 1861, tattoos or branding were also adopted. The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death,
however it is not absolute on either argument.
we see here that centre ground is the most understandable due to the variety of recorded cases.
The Qur'an says,
"Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from error." Al Baqarah, 2:256.
"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137.
"Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29)
then we have the hadith:
Ibn Abbaas radhi allahu anhuma says: the Prophet (pbuh) said "Execute the one who renegades from his Deen."
(Sahih al-Bukhariy Hadith6299, Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4059 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)
‘Uthmaan (ra) narrates hearing the Prophet (pbuh) as saying "……The one who changes his religion after accepting Islam must be executed."
(Sunan al-Nasaa’iy Hadith4057 edited by Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah)
Abdullah (ra) narrates the Prophet (pbuh) as saying "It is not Halaal to kill a Muslim except for 3 reasons:
…no.3.The one that turns away from his Deen, thereby disassociating himself from the group of Muslims."
(Sahih Muslim Hadith4351 edited by Shaikh Khalil ma’moon Sheeha)
how do we reconcile both?
we must bear in mind that the Quran is a stable and continuous source of reference while most of the hadith can be contiuous - but some rulings are applied in similar situations to the ones in which the prophet (pbuh) was at the time. there are cases where people apostated and then returned to Islam and even became leaders and warriors later on - during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and afterwards during the time of Abu Bakr (ra).
this guidance was applied according to the situation.
According to some scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time allocated by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by some scholars (e.g. Hasan al-Turabi), who argue that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is illegal in most Muslim countries, and subject in some to the death penalty. Executions for apostasy are rare, but allowed in many Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is legal in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey.
The hadith is quoted both by supporters of the death penalty and critics of Islam. Some Islamic scholars point out it is important to understand the hadith in its proper historical context: it was written when the nascent Muslim community in Medina was fighting for its existence, and the enemies of Islam encouraged rebellion and discord within the community. At that time any defection would have had serious consequences for the Muslims, and the hadith may well be about treason, rather than just apostasy. Under the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned, terms which the Prophet accepted.
"306 British and Commonwealth soldiers [were] executed for...desertion during World War I," records the Shot at Dawn Memorial. "During the period between August 1914 and March 1920 more than 20,000 servicemen were convicted by courts-martial of offences which carried the death sentence. 3,000 of those men were ordered to be put to death and of those just over 10% were executed...."
In the United States, before the Civil War, deserters from the Army were flogged; while, after 1861, tattoos or branding were also adopted. The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death,
Last edited:
Perseveranze
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 232
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
an informative piece - i however "apostasized" from loonwatch ages ago due to their apologetic nature and lack of putting things into context.
they'll take the msm's spin on an event for gospel truth, then condemn fools who commit irrational crimes which are forbidden by the Quran - in an apologetic manner, without questioning the facts behind the story and without mentioning the bigger crimes that the crime (which IS to be condemned) was committed in retaliation to.
the Quran clearly tells us how to deal with it:
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month.
Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence);
but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members."
Tumult and oppression are worse than fighting.
Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can.
And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]218. Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
Quran 2:217-218.
if it's forbidden by Islam, then why not make that clear go into the context of the issue instead of apologising for Islam?
[/FONT]
they'll take the msm's spin on an event for gospel truth, then condemn fools who commit irrational crimes which are forbidden by the Quran - in an apologetic manner, without questioning the facts behind the story and without mentioning the bigger crimes that the crime (which IS to be condemned) was committed in retaliation to.
the Quran clearly tells us how to deal with it:
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month.
Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence);
but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members."
Tumult and oppression are worse than fighting.
Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can.
And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
[/FONT][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]218. Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful
Quran 2:217-218.
if it's forbidden by Islam, then why not make that clear go into the context of the issue instead of apologising for Islam?
[/FONT]
Thanks.
A question about hadiths. Which ones are considered authentic/reliable? Which ones are not? How is the authenticity or lack of authentic determined?
Besides the Qur'an and hadiths, are there any other Islamic sources that are looked upon for information/clarifications?
A question about hadiths. Which ones are considered authentic/reliable? Which ones are not? How is the authenticity or lack of authentic determined?
Besides the Qur'an and hadiths, are there any other Islamic sources that are looked upon for information/clarifications?
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
just click on the links..
Science Of ḤadīthḤadīth & Its Origins
This is a lecture given by Dr. Jonathan Brown, a young, eloquent western ḥadīth scholar at University of Washington where he works as an Assistant Professor. In this lecture, he briefly discusses the history of ḥadīth collection, its criticism and the evolution of western ḥadīth scholarship from Goldziher, Schacht, Juynboll to Motzki. A lot of misconceptions about ḥadīth are clarified in this lecture.
A certain topic came up while having a discussion about Islam with a friend of mine. It concerns itself with the three Jewish tribes of Medina, and the Prophet Muhammad's relations with them. Can you shed light on what exactly occurred (given the historical background at the time)?
What is your purpose in seeking information from this board? If you feel that you know something about Islam that you don't agree with then present your point of contention. However, if your purpose is simply to gain knowledge, then I contend that soliciting random "lay-Muslims" on the internet, will most likely result in confusing you further. If you sincerely wish to gain knowledge about Islam, read the Quran, and search on Google for credible supplemental books. If you have a point of contention, then bring it.
Last edited:
I'd just like to say, you should feel free to ask all of the questions you want. It's always good to seek out knowledge, and may I suggest you call a local Mosque and speak with a imam as well. They are very helpful and will more than gladly give you any answers you might need.
Well the replies so far have been quite sufficient and provide the necessary substantiations. I've been on this forum for years and have passively encountered a number of individuals with an excellent ability at explaining the many aspects of Islam.
My apologies Novice. I did't expect somebody who knows enough to ask detailed questions to actually feel a need to consult an internet forum for answers to these questions. Therefore I assumed that you were attempting to challenge Islamic teachings indirectly. I realize that I was wrong now.
Last edited:
Bump....
Insaanah
★ Islam is THE way ★
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 1,918
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Peace, Novice.
These two links might help a bit:
http://www.onislam.net/english/read...prophet-muhammad-and-the-jews-in-madinah.html
http://www.onislam.net/english/read...t-muhammad-and-the-jews-in-madinah-part2.html
These two links might help a bit:
http://www.onislam.net/english/read...prophet-muhammad-and-the-jews-in-madinah.html
http://www.onislam.net/english/read...t-muhammad-and-the-jews-in-madinah-part2.html
If we treat our wives in a manner as shown by our Prophet (pbuh), we will understand what effect 1. admonishing and 2. refusing to share bed with them would have on them. The prophet (pbuh) never spoke harsh to his wives, he treated them so gently, he raced with them on the desert, he played with them while taking bath (somebody can post the hadeeth as narrated by A'isha (RA)).
It might be an everyday affair for many of us now to turn our faces away from our wives, but If we go to the details of what Islam teaches on treating one's wife and if we treat them in the exact same manner then admonishing them and refusing to share bed with them will certainly be a greater punishment (this is emotional not a physical punishment) that one need not think about resorting to the third which is hitting.