ask me a question about islam

[Knife]

Damn, I have to tell you that you are the only muslim (because you are muslim, right?) that I have ever encountered in the Internet who is capable of making an statement even remotely like that. Are you sure that you are not from a parallel universe?

No offense meant, Knife, really. I have the feeling that this is a very touchy subject with muslims, but I'm really intrigued and you seem like the only muslim capable of ever give a sincere answer without blowing a fuse.

yes, i am a muslim. but sometimes, surprisingly, been told otherwise.

we are not perfect, despite what others will say. only God is perfect. he has a perfect message, a perfect system, WE SCREWED UP IN THE APPLICATION. it is embarassing.

it would not surprise me if the state of affairs of muslims around the world do not change. we are undeserving and can only beg for forgiveness. peace is the way it should be. and if you dont agree, then peace and i will be on my way.

change comes from within. we must face up to ourselves.

no offence taken.

anyway, i hope i have shed some light on some issues, especially since muslims are in a dark time.

peace.

 

[Knife]

Why is it that your own people are killing their own kind? They are all believers in your book but yet there are some who destroy other believers just because they are .......what? Thats what is puzzling me. I can't understand killing your own kind when they have done nothing , as yet, to anyone. Saddam did the same thing as the new government is now trying to abolish. It would seem that , if they are not greedy, those insurgents would stop their bloodshed against their own kind just to see what will happen. I mean they have nothing to lose for the time being.

why? i dont know. and it is sad that humanity has become so decadent.

there is a verse or hadith (please someone correct me if i am wrong) that states if two muslim parties go to war with each other, then both will go to hell. of course, the rules of engagement apply here. i mean if, someone were to attack me for just walking down the street, then i do have the right defend myself.

but, i believe that they will be punished for it. they are killing innocent people and the people who are trying to help the innocent people. Saddam killed many of his own and others, but that is greed for power.

i mentioned somewhere else on this board, i do not beleive any of the conflicts in the world today qualify as religious conflicts, not to any religion. it is all greed.

and you are right, they have nothing to lose. stop for a moment, see what happens and then make a choice. but to make the choice for yourself and force others to choose the same is unfair.

peace.

 

[fadeaway humper]

again, my opinion, is that book is fiction with some basis on a theroy established many years by some guy (i cant remember his name). it is rejected widely among the muslim community due to personal attackes on the prophet himself, his wife, etc. look at it as the muslim version of the movie "the last temtation of christ" or even the new fictional novel "the davinci code".

now, i am not saying that there are no points in the book that arent interesting and raise good points and questions. i dont believe that any writing is 100% useless.

to claim that the Quran is completely man made is unreasoable to anyone who has read it. to claim that some parts are divine and others are man additions would be much more reasonable and harder to disprove. from a totally objective point of view some one could say that "Mohammed did indeed recieve divine revalations, but then added his own agenda". but this would not also make sense since the divine revalation wouldnt be sent to someone with personal agendas.

getting to the book. the all-to-human political endeavor with no godly connection. are you refering to the author salman rushdi, in which case all the reaction of the muslim world was waaaaayyy out of proportion. the fact that some irani clerics "allowed the shedding of his blood" is pathetic. what effect does this mans opinion have on others, nothing! if someone reads it and chooses to believe it, then that is between him and God. many muslims clerics do not want other muslims to read such texts because it will raise questions about faith and lead people astray. that in itself is not the problem, the problem is that it might raise questions against them the clerics and their interpretations will be questioned thus revealing other agendas. politricks plays an important part here.

on the other hand, of you are refering to Mohammed as the "ploitical endeavor with no Godly connection", then i have to say that doesnt make sense based on the contents of the Quran, the history of Mohammed, and the many opinions of non muslims.

i dont consider it an emarrasing episode for anyone. it is literature. salman rushdie has the right to voice his opinion. personally, i think he could have done less offensively. but then again, if he wrote it that way, he would nt have had the publicity he did.

peace.

Oh boy, first of all I have to apologize, because I didn't make myself clear (English is not my native tongue, you see). I was referring to the "original" satanic verses, not Rushdie's book: if I remember correctly, it was about the permissibility of worhispping the three daughters of Allah (don't remember their names), who were local deities of Mecca??, so that the folks there would cut Mohammed some slack. It's the "convenience" of a revelation of such horrifically blasfemous content for the muslims, and the sweeping the whole issue under the carpet afterwards, that reeks of "con-manship" and dishonesty to me. In other words, it screams "sham" to me. But then, I gues I would be a muslim if it didn't

OK, my explanation sucks big time, but I hope you get the jest of it.

As for Rushdie, I won't even go there. I think every belief, ideology or idea is subject to free, fierce and systematic criticism, and that the harder the attempt to stiffle the criticism, the weaker the criticized position. That much is pretty indisputable, I think. But that's another issue.

 

[Knife]

Oh boy, first of all I have to apologize, because I didn't make myself clear (English is not my native tongue, you see). I was referring to the "original" satanic verses, not Rushdie's book: if I remember correctly, it was about the permissibility of worhispping the three daughters of Allah (don't remember their names), who were local deities of Mecca??, so that the folks there would cut Mohammed some slack. It's the "convenience" of a revelation of such horrifically blasfemous content for the muslims, and the sweeping the whole issue under the carpet afterwards, that reeks of "con-manship" and dishonesty to me. In other words, it screams "sham" to me. But then, I gues I would be a muslim if it didn't

OK, my explanation sucks big time, but I hope you get the jest of it.

As for Rushdie, I won't even go there. I think every belief, ideology or idea is subject to free, fierce and systematic criticism, and that the harder the attempt to stiffle the criticism, the weaker the criticized position. That much is pretty indisputable, I think. But that's another issue.

well then you must be referring to verses 53:18 onwards. named by some the satanic verses.

in my opinion, this is taken out of context. these verses are to turn the attention of the muslim to the capability of these idols or actually their incapablility. basically, that they do no good or harm and do not benefit the worshipper in any way. they are not satanic by any means.

this also leads to other aurguments that the Quran contradicts itself by the verse 2:106.

remember that islam, came in revelations over a period of time. and there is moral in it. alcohol for example was not forbidden in the early stages of islam. a verse came prohibiting its consumption at the times of prayer to pray while under the influence. after some time, a verse came banning it all together. the lesson here is that such substances must be weaned away. God, acknowledging that it is hard quitting cold turkey, allowed its phasing out in stages.

i believe, these verses are named by some as the satanic verses due to the belief of these same people, that they must have been revealed to Mohammed by satan due to their apparent reference and conflicts. but look at theme of chapter 53. it is called the star, and its' intent is to make clear that revalation is true and a falsity only in the minds who do not understand the essence of the teachings themselves. hence, the muslim is asked to look around him to compare to existing Gods and evaluate for himself (thus the mentioning of the names of the prominent idols of the time).

i hope that helps a little better.

peace.

 

[OliverJ]

they are criminals by all definitions. it would be an obligation to inform the authorities of their presence and they should be tried to the full extent of the law. and this is based on my beliefs.

there are other ways to fight causes than through violence.

peace.

Good answer bro...

 

[path]

OK my apoligies beforehand to any innocent bystanders but this is twice Bruce has accused me of getting my info from muslim hate sites or being uninformed about both sides of the story so I feel the need to answer.

The quote is "correct" but what I advised you is, if you want to really know the truth and not simply confirm your prejudice by finding pre-kooked, cut and paste quotations from sites committed agains Islam, what I advice you is to go to Muslim scholar sources and learn from them how they handle that material. If you wanted to know how the Pakistani thought and handled in their wars with the Indians you should not ask the Indians about it while they still believe they are at war with the Pakistani..

You want a muslim account of jihad in india here you go

A Hundred Thousand Hindus slaughtered in One Day


“Next day, Friday the 3rd of the month. I left the fort of Loni and marched to a position opposite to Jahan-numa where I encamped… I now held a Court… At this Court Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Sulaiman Shah and other amirs of experience, brought to my notice that, from the time of entering Hindustan up to the present time, we had taken more than 100,000 infidels and Hindus prisoners, and that they were all in my camp. On the previous day, when the enemy’s forces made the attack upon us, the prisoners made signs of rejoicing, uttered imprecations against us, and were ready, as soon as they heard of the enemy’s success, to form themselves into a body, break their bonds, plunder our tents, and then to go and join the enemy, and so increase his numbers and strength. I asked their advice about the prisoners, and they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the [Islamic] rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty. In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword. When I heard these words I found them in accordance with the rules of war, and I directly gave my command for the tawAchis to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghAzis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiru-d-din ‘Umar, a counsellor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives…70

Here is another tidbit

They sent their messengers, and craved for themselves and their families exemption from death and captivity. Muhammad Kasim granted them protection on their faithful promises, but put the soldiers to death, and took all their followers and dependents prisoners. All the captives, up to about thirty years of age, who were able to work, he made slaves, and put a price upon them

That ain't no hindu writing there

And may peace find you

It has Bruce it has

 

[everneo]

..that it would be entirely opposed to the [Islamic] rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.

When the locals resist the occupation by the invading muslim armies, they automatically become 'foes of Islam'. How convinient !

You should not ask the victims, ofcourse, ask those who have no idea of what happened.

If you wanted to know how the Pakistani thought and handled in their wars with the Indians you should not ask the Indians about it while they still believe they are at war with the Pakistani..

Thats ok, it holds good for both ways. But what made you to think that Pakistani military is representing Islam and why it came into the picture.?
Its an on going war between two estranged brothers and it is not religious. There were plenty of muslims in Indian army fighting for their country. Path was referring to medival india whereas Pak-India partition happened just around 60 years back.

 

[path]

(1)

. Muslims also use the Hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophets). there are tens of thousands of these but the most accurate ones are all in a book called Bukhari. the hadeeth are much more detailed and also describe what many of the Verses of the Quran mean.


peace//

Is this true, is Bukhari considered a good source for hadeeth? Just wondering because I have seen some pretty vehement passages in his hadeeths.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Thats ok, it holds good for both ways. But what made you to think that Pakistani military is representing Islam and why it came into the picture.?
Its an on going war between two estranged brothers and it is not religious. There were plenty of muslims in Indian army fighting for their country. Path was referring to medival india whereas Pak-India partition happened just around 60 years back.

I know. And I didn't say that that was a religious war. It was ainly to point out that they might exaggerate or fabricate facts if theyare still at war. think we all know how propaganda is being overused.

 

[bomingo]

:m:

new here, go ahead!.......make my day!

would you be proud to be a muslim fanatic

 

[Bruce Wayne]

OK my apoligies beforehand to any innocent bystanders but this is twice Bruce has accused me of getting my info from muslim hate sites or being uninformed about both sides of the story so I feel the need to answer.

I didn't accuse you of getting all your info from hate sites. But you quoted a couple verses and assigned them a meaning that is nowhere to be found in the Islamic exegeses. That was when I told that if you are sincerely keen on learning how the Muslims view and understand those verses. You should read about them from the Muslims. I say that because you had a superficial and wrong explanation for those verses and that you thought all you needed to make it stick would be a historical example. Let me rephrase; I urge, if you want to know how the rules of war are, to search for them in Islamic sources. And then to see how they have been treated or (ab)used throughout history.

You want a muslim account of jihad in india here you go

Path. I think that if you read the text thoroughly you will find your answer in it.

That ain't no hindu writing there

He promised and he lied. The man has transgressed the laws of Islam. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid was, in the 11th year after the Hijra, tricked into making a truce by a man that lied to him. When the lie was uncovered khali did not come back at his word because as a Muslim he had given his word. And it was not befitting of a Muslim to break his word. So he let their opponents go even though they had lied.

It has Bruce it has

[/QUOTE]

Well then, mon ami, May it be upon you.

 

[path]

I didn't accuse you of getting all your info from hate sites. But you quoted a couple verses and assigned them a meaning that is nowhere to be found in the Islamic exegeses. That was when I told that if you are sincerely keen on learning how the Muslims view and understand those verses. You should read about them from the Muslims. I say that because you had a superficial and wrong explanation for those verses and that you thought all you needed to make it stick would be a historical example. Let me rephrase; I urge, if you want to know how the rules of war are, to search for them in Islamic sources. And then to see how they have been treated or (ab)used throughout history.



Path. I think that if you read the text thoroughly you will find your answer in it.

Bruce WHY were they having 100,000 hindu prisoners to begin with!? Do you understand that? What were they doing in India? If they hadn't been spreading islam by the sword in the first place those people wouldn't have been killed or sold as slaves!! The rules of warfare were applied to those people and they suffered for it.

 

[Enigma'07]

How do you attain salvation?

 

[fadeaway humper]

How do you attain salvation?

I personally rely heavily on the action of certain glands located in the mouth. As soon as a pretty girl walks by, salivation kicks in! Halelujah!

Oh, wait...

 

[path]

I personally rely heavily on the action of certain glands located in the mouth. As soon as a pretty girl walks by, salivation kicks in! Halelujah!

Oh, wait...

Other than the slight misunderstanding you were spot on.

 

[surenderer]

How do you attain salvation?

Hello Enigma,
In Islam, forgiveness is based on a combination of Allah's grace and the Muslim's works. On the Day of Judgment, if a Muslim's good works outweigh his bad ones, and if Allah so wills it, he may be forgiven of all his sins and then enter into Paradise. Therefore, Islam is a religion of salvation by works because it combines man's works with Allah's grace. The Koran says:

"To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9).
"And He answers those who believe and do good deeds, and gives them more out of His grace; and (as for) the unbelievers, they shall have a severe punishment," (42:26, ).
"O you who believe! If you are careful of (your duty to) Allah, He will grant you a distinction and do away with your evils and forgive you; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace," (8:29,)

"O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word, He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your faults; and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, he indeed achieves a mighty success," (33:70-71, ).
". . . But if ye obey Allah and his messenger, he will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Mmerciful," (49:14).
"If you obey GOD and His messenger, He will not put any of your works to waste. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (49:14).



Peace to you

 

[Enigma'07]

What if he isn't allowed in paradise, were does he end up?

How is the Koran organized? I know that with the Bible there is onl/new testament, books, chapters,verse etc.

 

[OliverJ]

GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (49:14).

I am NOT trying to be smart here........ but that's what the Christians God is NOT!

Now I understand why there were all these slaughters all these centuries.... and still going on.

I know Mr. Christian , your God is most merciful..... but Forgiver....... NOT, never was!!!! he is to Holy for that.... but hold on......... hold up!!!! , just a second here....... we have an out ya'll...... and it goes like this...God had a son!!!....wait one more second.... its not really his son... its really him himself..... but its not really....... why we call God Jesus is for anyone to interpret....... hey just take your pick Mr. Christian.

Islam --- Mohammad's convenient cover for the absurdity.
Christianity --- Jesus was that same very convenient cover.

Ok I got it !

Now I understand. :bugeye:

 

[GuessWho]

yes, the Quran is a book. It is the compilation of all the revelations that were revealed to Mohammed by God...

How did God reveal these revelations to Mohammed? By speaking, dreams or just feelings? Whatever the method, was there any witness to confirm?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

(interestingly Allah did not repeat that assurance during this war)

The lesson was, Allah would not be as assuring as in Badr if Allah is taken for granted.

And also they should be obedient to God.

Not my imagination, their imagination of Allah's blessing for their deeds.

No, I think it's yours. Never have I heared one use the verses you quoted. In fact they say that we are in a defensive war. They say look at Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechenya, the Arab dictators...and many other instances. That is their line of reasoning. They say because the enemy does, we do. Their reasonning is reactionnary and pragmatic. They say that if the enemy does not feel the pain he will not stop.

And their reasoning is wrong because it is gainst Islamic teachings, as in: killing the innocent is forbidden ground. Simple as that.

May peace be upon you.