Virgins anyone???

[Arsalan]

When I have time I will question this.


So be straight the question is: Did Mohammad hold Slaves?

No, the people that lived with him and spent time around him became some great teachers later on.

Then why bother with this "perfect" book and this "perfect" philosophy IF it doesn't bring about long lasting change to create harmony in society? Seems like a waste of time. Communism tried the same thing and failed and just like Communism, Islam, didn't work to make a State anymore peaceful and harmonious than another other of your typical heretical monarchies of the time. Pretty much conquered two rich empires and lived off those spoils for a bit. But, Muslims are still living with this erroneous notion that there once was this great time in the past and they cling to this fantasy thinking that they are going to somehow recreate it in the future (if only we really really really follow the Qur'an this time I know it's gonna work!!!). Like some sort of Islamic Renaissance is magically going to occur.

How much longer do you suppose Muslim people have to keep trying to make this great society before everyone can it a day and all just throw in the towel? Well it's been at least over 1300 years how many more? 20 more years? 50? 200? 1000000000???

At least Communist figured it out in a generation. Geesh….

Its nothing new. The decline of the Muslim empire and the decline in religiousness and righteousness of the Muslims was prophesied by the Prophet himself. He also prophesied that reformers would be born at the start of each century, the Mujaddids. It was their duty to reform Islam. Therefore Islam carries the seeds of reform in itself. Comparing Islam to Communism is not going to work here as they are totally different things. Communism failed because of the inherent flaws in its theology. The theology never became reality whereas Islam theology and teachings became reality for 100s of years before the decline started.

I prefer Secular Democracy. Is it the best for all people. No. I personally think that maybe the Middle East should stick with what they know best – that being Theocratic Monarchs. Especially ones who the people think are appointed by Allah. That seems to work well enough for them. It’s an antiquated system but ..myeh…

You do know that the Khalifa was voted for right? By representatives who in turn were voted for by the people.

NOTE: The notion of predestined failure suggests that Mohammad knew his teaching was not up to the task. So again one must wonder – why bother?

He didnt say that Islam would fail, he said the Muslims would turn away from Islams teaching and that nothing would be left of the Quran except its cover and that the relgious clergy would be the worst creatures under the heavens. Thats all come true. But in the same Hadiths he said that at this time and every time such a thing happened, Mujaddids would be sent to bring the people on the right path again. Therefore, if we study the Hadith we see that he never once said that the teaching was going to fail, merely the people.

I'm not saying that Islam encourages Slavery in and of itself. Sure it was your typical revolution, take from the rich give to the poor .. Ooo Ooo done that, now gather up the men and go kill some other people in the name of a God.

Nowhere in the Quran are they told to jsut go off and kill innocent people.

I'm saying that because the Qur'an allows for Slavery during times of war, that this "loophole", can and was exploited by unscrupulous people. A more "Perfect" book would be one where such a loophole did not exist.

The people who are taken captive during war are the POWs as we know them now. And Muslims were told to take these people to a safe place until the fighting was over and afterwards release them. I don’t think the Quran meant to enslavethem but you are right about 1 thing: people have exploited and twisted Islamic teachings for their own gain. That is right yes.

The fact that legal Slavery and War can be tied to one another is, in my mind, pretty poor ideology.

Thats why i was talking about people being taken captive: only allowed in war.

Anyway, you still never told me when the countries in the Middle East, like KSA, Yemen, etc.. made Slavery Illegal. When?

I wouldn’t know. I don’t really care that much for Saudiland or some other "Muslim" countries. All run by bastards in my opinion. Maybe you can tell me? Im guessing never?

 

[Michael]

Comparing Islam to Communism is not going to work here as they are totally different things. Communism failed because of the inherent flaws in its theology. The theology never became reality whereas Islam theology and teachings became reality for 100s of years before the decline started.

Well maybe to you, but not to me. I look at other cultures and see much more and better advancement than that acheivedunder the rule of Islam.

Because these sort of debates can go no where (all the other person has to do is say: nu-uh... nu-uh.... nu-uh...) I once started a thread where I posted the best art and sculpture in Classical Greece as well as that from Renaissance Europe and then asked for any Muslims who think there really was this great 100s of years before the decline started to put up or shut up. Well, it was certainly not better than the Greeks in terms of sculpture and even portrates of Mohammad himself in no way compare to those of Florentine painters. (this is assuming that a painting of Mohammad would be done by the very best artists). In short the artistic style would be like comparing a Master to a child's. YET, get this, it doesn't matter. Some people are so totally brainwashed that they will stare a child's painting and think it a Master's. Really, at such a point, there is no point. So why bother.

You want to think that there existed this time, for which you have never given me the dates of, and for which you have not given any evidence what's so for - go ahead. But, over here in the real world we understand that Islam was in no way shape or form revolutionary. Why do we know this? Because of this question: What is new and revolutionary in the Qur'an?

Now is the time to "put up or shut up"

PS: the statement bla bla bla and "Mohammad was the Last Prophet" is not society-changing revolutionary idea. In modern terms it's called a cult of personality - back then, religion.

Nowhere in the Quran are they told to jsut go off and kill innocent people.

And here I will point out another fault in the Qur'an. To kill innocent people. You see, it's alright to KILL PEOPLE - just so long as they are guilty. You know, like the Persians, the Spanish, the Syrians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Egyptians, the etc.... .... yup all of them were guilty of one thing or another.

Make an opening an opportunists will squeeze through it. So, just like in the case of slavery it would be much better to simply state that killing is immoral and wrong. "turn the other cheek"

But this is what SAM calls a more "realistic" approach to life. You know, where Godly sanctioned killing is ok. Sure many many MANY Muslims kill people and think to themselves, yup, this is OK by God. BUT oooo hoooo hoooo they must not be "real" Muslims. See "real" Islam no one kills unless it's what God wants - which is when it's OK. Just like no one Slaves unless it's in a situation where God says it's OK. And Gee here were have all these societies all over the ME which suck, which slaves until 50 years ago and which people are killing one another (most Muslims killing other Muslims). OOOO but there not "real" Muslims.

Funny thing about not being able to compare Islam with Communism.

Islam is perfect there simply are no "real" Islamic leaaders.
Communism is perfect there simply are no "real" Communistic leaders.

Islam would work perfect if the people followed the "right" path.
Communism would work perfect if the people followed the "right" path.

There are very few true "Muslims" who follow the true teachings of Mohammad.
There are very few real "Communists" who follow the true teachings of Marx.

If they did follow Mohammad then society would be perfect for all.
If they did follow Marx then society would be perfect for all.

The Qur'an contains the "perfect" philosophy for governing society.
The Communist Manifesto contains the "perfect" philosophy for governing society.

There is no evidence a Perfect Islamic society ever existed.
There is no evidence a Perfect Communist society ever existed.

There is evidence today that every attempt to produce a "true" Islamic has lead to a failure (all of them).
There is evidence today that every attempt to produce a "true" Communist has lead to a failure (all of them).

Islamic societies are some of the least progressive totalitarian dictatorships in the world.
Communistic societies are some of the least progressive totalitarian dictatorships in the world.

Resource poor Islamic countries are the protest on the planet.
Resource poor Communist countries are the protest on the planet.

In todays' world Islamic government has been shown to be a failure.
In todays' world Communistic government has been shown to be a failure.


Yup, thems the facts of the matter,
Michael


PS: Countries where the majority of the population consider themselves Muslims only made Slavery illegal in the last 50 years. NOTE: This means ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY. It is not even legal to hold a Slave as proscribed in the Qur'an. 1) Would you consider this a progression past the Qur'an?

2) Do you support countries making Laws superseding those in the Qur'an?



A few dates when Slavery was made illegal:
Bahrain: 1937
Kuwait: 1947
Qatar: 1952
Yemen: 1962
KSA: 1962
Mauritania: 1980

Some intereating notes:

Earlier in the 20th century, prior to the "reopening" of slavery by Salafi scholars like Shaykh al-Fawzan, Islamist authors declared slavery outdated without actually clearly affirming and promoting its abolition. This has caused at least one scholar (William Clarence-Smith[123]) to bemoan the 'dogged refusal of Mawlana Mawdudi to give up on slavery' and the notable 'evasions and silences of Muhammad Qutb.'[124]
Syed Qutb

Syed Qutb, the most renowned scholar of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood said in his (Tafsir) of the Quran

"And concerning slavery, that was when slavery was a world-wide structure and which was conducted amongst Muslims and their enemies in the form of enslaving of prisoners of war. And it was necessary for Islam to adopt a similar line of practise until the world devised a new code of practise during war other than enslavement"[125]

Qutb's brother Muhammad Qutb contrasted sexual relations between Muslim slaveowners and their female slaves with what is, in his view, the widespread and depraved practice of casual consensual sex in contemporary Europe:

Islam made it lawful for a master to have a number of slave-women captured in wars and enjoined that he alone may have sexual relations with them ... Europe abhors this law but at the same gladly allows that most odious form of animalism according to which a man may have illicit relations with any girl coming across him on his way to gratify his animal passions[126]

Maulana Mawdudi of Jamaat-e-Islami has said:

Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of [Muhammad] are as follows:

"There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money" (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).





LAST NOTE: There are the words of Winston Churchill in The River War 1sted Vol.II, p.248-50. Try to remember I didn't write this quote, but also think, this was written in the late 1800s. Almost 100 years ago. It seems to me that the exact same problems exist 100 years later. What does that say? When does this peaceful "Islam" rear it's pretty head and banish this intolerant violent one? When do women have equality under the law? When?

Never?

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”


When do you decide to call it a day and move past the Qur'an as did those governments that decided to fully reinterpret the Qur'an and legally ban Slavery? Leave the Qur'an to people who want to read it and allow society to move past it? You know, secularism?


Ahhh but you see, this is where it's impossible, as any Good Muslims knows the Qur'an is the only correct religion. Just as SAM pointed out in another thread. Only Islam is the true belief. All others are not true and are wrong.

Have fun living in the 600s.

Michael

 

[Arsalan]

Because these sort of debates can go no where (all the other person has to do is say: nu-uh... nu-uh.... nu-uh...)

So nice of you to acknowledge that as well

I once started a thread where I posted the best art and sculpture in Classical Greece as well as that from Renaissance Europe and then asked for any Muslims who think there really was this great 100s of years before the decline started to put up or shut up. Well, it was certainly not better than the Greeks in terms of sculpture and even portrates of Mohammad himself in no way compare to those of Florentine painters. (this is assuming that a painting of Mohammad would be done by the very best artists). In short the artistic style would be like comparing a Master to a child's. YET, get this, it doesn't matter. Some people are so totally brainwashed that they will stare a child's painting and think it a Master's. Really, at such a point, there is no point. So why bother.

Ah, the Western obsession with sculpture and portraits. Not understanding that people on hte other side of the world are not that obsessed with the often superficial imitation of humans and nature and prefer to express their creativity making statements about deeper lying, spiritual, concepts.
Let;s look at some “Islamic contributions to different artistic fields”:

Architecture
To the early architects of the mosque we may attribute the development of the pointed arch, the brick dome, and brick vaulted arcades. Unique to Islamic architecture are the minaret , a tower from which the faithful are called to worship, and the gumbat, turbe or tomb tower .
Interiors and sometimes exteriors of the buildings were extensively decorated with off-set brick, stucco, ablaq (striping) or tile.

Use of script in designs

Just as the universal adoption of Arabic script aided considerably in the melding of these various cultures into one, the use of script as an artistic motif melded the art of these diverse peoples into a distinctive style. Muslims view Arabic as the sacred language and the writing of the Word as the highest form of art. Calligraphers hold a place of honor among Islamic artists. Two basic types of script are utilized in decoration: kufic, a very stylized, rather angular type of lettering and naskhi , a rounded cursive, flowing and easier to read.

Silks
Also famous throughout the world were Islamic textiles, especially silks; these rich fabrics were celebrated for their texture, colors and woven patterns, which included calligraphy, abstracted plants and vine scrolls. Gold and silver threads often played a significant role amongst a riot of rich colors.
The most famous Islamic motif, the arabesque, is a highly stylized version of a popular classical ornament, the acanthus plant's curving leaf. One way to stylize vegetation was to render it flattened, without light or shadow. Another was to create imaginary plants made up of elements borrowed from different types of vegetation. Finally an artist would isolate one part of the plant, repeat and rearrange it into an interlacing design.

Metalwork
In metalwork, Muslim artisans crafted elaborate boxes, basins, bowls, jugs and incense burners decorated with arabesques, inscriptions, and other highly stylized plant forms. These artisans specialized in brass and bronze, luxuriously inlaid with gold, silver and copper.

Carpets
The carpets of Islamic regions are world-renowned for their great beauty and technical excellence. Initially a peasant industry carpets were used not only as floor coverings, but as wall hangings, storage bags, cushions, blankets, prayer rugs, and saddle covers. The carpet styles of various regions developed independently of one another, employing different motifs and favoring certain color schemes.

Ceramics
Islamic potters strove to equal in technical excellence the very fine wares then coming from China. Unfortunately they lacked the correct type of clay for the most delicate pieces. Despite this handicap they succeeded in creating pieces of great beauty and developed many original decorative techniques including lustre ware and a method of polychrome painted ware called Minai. These same decorative techniques were utilized in tile making, and in this industry at least, the Muslims were unsurpassed.

This brief description of Islamic art is indebted to the extensive writings and research of David Talbot Rice, Desmond Stewart, and Ralph Pinder Wilson.
Also, check out:
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/march02_index.php?l=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art

http://www.lacma.org/islamic_art/intro.htm

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHislamic.html#Islamic

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1856690938

http://www.lacma.org/islamic_art/thumbnails/thmbnail.htm

http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/MSA/find_more/islart.html

By Elisabeth Siddiqui, this essay discusses the relationship of Islamic art to the principles of Islam, a relationship that exists largely for Muslim and spiritually interested viewers of Islamic art. This "Islamic aesthetic" has been developed by writers such as S. H. Nasr, Keith Critchlow, Titus Burckhardt, and Martin Lings. Western-trained art historians such as Oleg Grabar generally do not share this perspective.

http://www.zakariya.net/

is the website of the world famous American Muslim calligrapher, Mohamed Zakariya. Containing his articles on the art, history, and the practice of Islamic calligraphy, this website has a number of examples of Zakariya's calligraphies done in the traditional style.

http://arts-of-islam.blogspot.com/

http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/islamic/
Wow, “Program in Islamic Art” at the Uni of Chicago. Not bad...

http://www.islamicart.com/

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/islamic_art

http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/art/

The shariah does not allow the drawing of forms which have a soul: whether you believe that right or wrong, the fact is that this drove 1000 years of geometry

etc. etc. Oh btw, can you tell me what Shah Jahan contributed to the history of Islamic art? It slipped my mind but I think it was something marble-y

You want to think that there existed this time, for which you have never given me the dates of, and for which you have not given any evidence what's so for - go ahead.

I have given you the periods over and over but you seem to read over it. Anyway, Islam made progress in the time of the Prophet and the Rashideen. After that even though the religiousness was declining there were still a lot of Caliphates which tried their best to be righteous and made great progress. The history of the Islamic empires is something which is too long for me to go into but most of those empires were places like I’ve described. Also, Muslim Spain is a particular favourite of mine when pointing out one of the heights in Islamic history. Great universities, arts, scholars etc. But hey, you probably don’t agree with me because it would mean accepting that Islam did a lot of good things when people actually followed it. So ill just let Dr. Ezra Chwat of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem tell you about the Jews in Muslim empires. His account is quite contrary to what you would have us believe:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1990_1999/1999/1/great rabbis of the muslim empire

Or Nosheen Saeed
http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=49711

Interesting article:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article3237245.ece

There is a rich history of great Muslim scholars, chemists, scientists, mathematicians, poets and doctors and more. And Muslim scientists even continue to make progress as we see from the Awards Abdus Salam received: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/salam-bio.html

I find it sad and unfortunate that he is not well known in the mainstream Western World. People should stop associating Islam with morons like Bin Laden and more with people like Malcolm X, Zidane, Abdus Salam and Jinnah. But alas...

But, over here in the real world we understand that Islam was in no way shape or form revolutionary. Why do we know this? Because of this question: What is new and revolutionary in the Qur'an?
Now is the time to "put up or shut up"
PS: the statement bla bla bla and "Mohammad was the Last Prophet" is not society-changing revolutionary idea. In modern terms it's called a cult of personality - back then, religion.

So you really haven’t bothered with my posts in that other thread then? Shame, because then you would know that that I said I, as a true Muslim, don’t believe that he was the last prophet, ever. The debate about Khatam-Nabiyeen is ongoing in some quarters but authentic Hadith and research of the Arabic Lexicon support the argument that he wasn’t the last prophet ever. Ofcourse having this debate with you is pointless because of your lack of knowledge about the Arabic lexicon or any Hadith which aren’t about your image of Islamic history so ill provide the gist of it here: The Prophet was the last law bearing Prophet. The last of the Prophets as “unto Moses” as was the prophecy in the Bible. There will be new prophets but they will follow his Sharia and will be from his Ummah. No new Sharia can come and no new law bearing Prophet will rise again. That is the gist of it. So no, the door to Prophethood has not been closed because that would mean that Islam is dead, and by teh blessings of Allah it continues to grow and will continue to grow. Not by force mind you

Another point which proves that you did not read my other post is that you keep asking for new and revolutionary, instead of the novel and enlightening, in the Quran. Although I disagree with your point of view that for the Quran to be perfect it needs to be new and enlightening at the same time, I will humour you, for the sake of argument.

Let me first repeat what I said in that other post:

First of all, the main problem I have with your reasoning is that you say that for something to be perfect it has to be both novel and enlightening. This is the major flaw in your argument.

But lets move on. The concept of Universality in Islam in short is that God did not send down just 1 message. Over the course of the history of mankind different messengers were sent to different people. This shows that Islam does not deny other religions, but in fact presents the fact that there are other religions as an argument for the existence of God.

Also, some other religions claim to be the only message divinely revealed. This attitude shuts down any kind of cooperation or debate etc with other religions. The Quran itself proclaims that the Prophet was a universal Prophet with a universal message. Contrast this to the Bible here Jesus says he was only sent to the Jews. The fact that Islam is a universal religion, accepting of the Prophets of other religions, be they Christian, Bhuddist or Hindu, and accepting that they were the messengers mentioned in the Quran, means that it can unite the worlds religions instead of keep taking potshots at others.

There are many other concepts in Islam which are unique and or enlightening to the human condition. The concepts of Prophethood, the afterlife, conscience, education, creation/evolution and God in Islam appeal to rationality and are one of the reasons it is the perfect and final religion.
You said that Christianity had a major thing going for it, namely forgiving. Ill take this to mean that you were talking about sin and salvation. Unfortunately, those concepts are fundamentally flawed when examined in the Bible.

Also, i suggest you read the following:

http://www.muslim-answers.org/Introducing-Islam/unique.htm

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar and no the question wasn’t asked by me

And here I will point out another fault in the Qur'an. To kill innocent people. You see, it's alright to KILL PEOPLE - just so long as they are guilty. You know, like the Persians, the Spanish, the Syrians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Egyptians, the etc.... .... yup all of them were guilty of one thing or another.

Guilty of what? Attacking the Muslims? Breaking treaties? Oppression? Then so ya they were guilty.

Make an opening an opportunists will squeeze through it. So, just like in the case of slavery it would be much better to simply state that killing is immoral and wrong. "turn the other cheek"

Yes, if a person is beating you up, turn the other cheek. Dont mind the fact that the other person will continue to pummel you. This is the serious flaw in that reasoning. Forgiving and forgetting are a part of Islamic teaching but they aren’t the only ones. Islam is also unique because it is the only religion which deals with ALL human faculties. A criminal needs to be punished. Or maybe you should show your actions that your “turn the other cheek” argument is not empirically flawed by releasing all criminals. After all, hey, who cares if they are guilty right? Just turn the other cheek...

Funny thing about not being able to compare Islam with Communism.

Islam is perfect there simply are no "real" Islamic leaaders.
Communism is perfect there simply are no "real" Communistic leaders.

On the contrary, there are many “real” Islamic leaders. Ive met several in my lifetime.

Islam would work perfect if the people followed the "right" path.
Communism would work perfect if the people followed the "right" path.

People can only try their best. People followed the right path in the time of the Prophet and were blessed.

There are very few true "Muslims" who follow the true teachings of Mohammad.
There are very few real "Communists" who follow the true teachings of Marx.

Hold on, I never said this. The vast majority of Muslims follows the true teachings of Islam and the Prophet. Its just people like you tend to focus on the minority.

If they did follow Mohammad then society would be perfect for all.
If they did follow Marx then society would be perfect for all.

True

The Qur'an contains the "perfect" philosophy for governing society.
The Communist Manifesto contains the "perfect" philosophy for governing society.

On the contrary, the philosophy for Communism paves the way for dictatorship while Islamic teaching says that leaders need to be chosen by the people and need to rule with consultation.

There is no evidence a Perfect Islamic society ever existed.
There is no evidence a Perfect Communist society ever existed.

Wrong. Perfect Islamic societies existed. Just like all societies they had their bad apples.

There is evidence today that every attempt to produce a "true" Islamic has lead to a failure (all of them).
There is evidence today that every attempt to produce a "true" Communist has lead to a failure (all of them).

Eh?

Islamic societies are some of the least progressive totalitarian dictatorships in the world.
Communistic societies are some of the least progressive totalitarian dictatorships in the world.

So are some “democratic” and or Christian and or secular societies

Resource poor Islamic countries are the protest on the planet.
Resource poor Communist countries are the protest on the planet.

Again: Eh?

In todays' world Islamic government has been shown to be a failure.
In todays' world Communistic government has been shown to be a failure.

Nope. Many Islamic countries with Islamic governments areworking well. As a sidenote, most Western “secular” countries have laws and regulations which are also found in the Sharia i.e. education, healthcare, voting etc.

Yup, thems the facts of the matter,

Aye.

PS: Countries where the majority of the population consider themselves Muslims only made Slavery illegal in the last 50 years. NOTE: This means ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY. It is not even legal to hold a Slave as proscribed in the Qur'an. 1) Would you consider this a progression past the Qur'an?

Islam never allows slavery. Only prisoners of war to be taken. That is also the custom of many “secular” countries as well during wartime.

2) Do you support countries making Laws superseding those in the Qur'an?

Every law which is good for mankind is not against Islam or the Quran.

A few dates when Slavery was made illegal:
Bahrain: 1937
Kuwait: 1947
Qatar: 1952
Yemen: 1962
KSA: 1962
Mauritania: 1980

Cool tnx for info. Nice to see that it took Muslims nowhere near as long as the rest of the world to ban slavery. Did they also find support for banning from the Quran?

Some intereating notes:

Earlier in the 20th century, prior to the "reopening" of slavery by Salafi scholars like Shaykh al-Fawzan, Islamist authors declared slavery outdated without actually clearly affirming and promoting its abolition. This has caused at least one scholar (William Clarence-Smith[123]) to bemoan the 'dogged refusal of Mawlana Mawdudi to give up on slavery' and the notable 'evasions and silences of Muhammad Qutb.'[124]

You do know that Mawdudi has never been a scholar in Islam right? Hes been a sensationalist journalist and, even though his early writings defending the Prophet are good, his work declined later and showed his limited knowledge about Islam, its history and its teachings.

Syed Qutb, the most renowned scholar of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood

Who?

Qutb's brother Muhammad Qutb contrasted sexual relations between Muslim slaveowners and their female slaves with what is, in his view, the widespread and depraved practice of casual consensual sex in contemporary Europe:
Islam made it lawful for a master to have a number of slave-women captured in wars and enjoined that he alone may have sexual relations with them ... Europe abhors this law but at the same gladly allows that most odious form of animalism according to which a man may have illicit relations with any girl coming across him on his way to gratify his animal passions[126]

Wow, now thats a very good scholar, saying stuff thats been explicitly forbidden in the Quran. But then again, we all know the reason you quoted him right?

Maulana Mawdudi of Jamaat-e-Islami

One of the root causes of Problems in the Islamic world. If only the Pakistani government and judicial system had not listened to him the world would be a better place. But this Hadith he points us too is indeed a good Hadith as it discredits your point.

LAST NOTE: There are the words of Winston Churchill in The River War 1sted Vol.II, p.248-50. Try to remember I didn't write this quote, but also think, this was written in the late 1800s. Almost 100 years ago. It seems to me that the exact same problems exist 100 years later. What does that say? When does this peaceful "Islam" rear it's pretty head and banish this intolerant violent one? When do women have equality under the law? When?

Never?

Women ha all the rights and freedoms women in the West had to fight for for ages. But because of people like Mawdudi some Muslim governments have lost their minds.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Ah yes, Churchill. Couldnt resist the temptation of appeal to authority could you? But no, this couldn’t be authority, as Churchill was no authority on Islam. But then again, this is the man who brought us such insights as:

"A sheep in sheep's clothing"

"I wish Stanley Baldwin no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived"

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter."

“I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good...and it would spread a lively terror....”

Hehe, yes, what a great man. Maybe William Joyce was right after all about him?

Have fun living in the 600s.

*Looks at calendar* *Confused* Oh wait! I know what this is! This is.. ehh.. wait i know... YES! This is one of those childish insults kids usually post after having no more points to make. Somehow because ima Muslim i must be retarded right? Dont stoop so low, Michael. Your better than that.

 

[Vega]

So nice of you to acknowledge that as well
because ima Muslim i must be retarded right? Dont stoop so low, Michael. Your better than that....

You are such a lonely person!

 

[Arsalan]

Nah, just bored and annoyed... maybe constipated

 

[decantemix]

I think the message here is if you like it try it.

The dictates of the Koran are through conversion, not tendencies.
In fact, they despise weakness, as opposed to the oppositional factors.

Someone seeking attainment in heaven for such feable notions as sex, would be target practice for the next trainees in suicide bombing training. Which by the way, indicates one should attain no earthy pleasures for so many months, determined by a holy man.

This even includes snacks, which one may enjoy too much.

No, no harem that you dare not touch of the temptation.

Nothing but Western Spaghetti notioning, here.

 

[Michael]

I said I, as a true Muslim, don’t believe that he was the last prophet,

That is interesting. It's too bad most Muslims didn't agree with you on this one. Maybe things could go in a more progressive direction.

Another point which proves that you did not read my other post is that you keep asking for new and revolutionary, instead of the novel and enlightening, in the Quran. Although I disagree with your point of view that for the Quran to be perfect it needs to be new and enlightening at the same time, I will humour you, for the sake of argument.

My point is this: ANYONE can copy what other people have written. Anyone. I can copy the entire Qur’an and make a few changes here and there and *poof* I’m the New Prophet. Sounds stupid but that’s exactly what the Qur’an is. A copy of other peoples thoughts and ideas.

Say someone like Buddha, while he was greatly influenced by Hinduism he still added something of his own. Completely new and enlightening ideas.

Say someone like Aristotle while he was greatly influenced by Plato he still added something of his own to the literature. Some completely new and enlightening ideas.

Get it?

First of all, the main problem I have with your reasoning is that you say that for something to be perfect it has to be both novel and enlightening. This is the major flaw in your argument.

Think about this: Suppose there was a Greek Philosopher, we’ll say his name is Plagiarus, so… suppose Plagerus had set about to copy all of the other great Greek Philosophers works and ideas and put what he thought was the best of each persons’ Philosophy into one book. Indeed, the book may contain a lot of great ideas - other people’s great ideas. Most people would consider Plagerus a Two-Bit Hack as he never added something new to it. If he tried to claim credit for the ideas himself we’d think him a lying cheat. Anyway, how could he? We already have the other philosopher’s writings.

But lets move on. The concept of Universality in Islam in short is that God did not send down just 1 message. Over the course of the history of mankind different messengers were sent to different people. This shows that Islam does not deny other religions, but in fact presents the fact that there are other religions as an argument for the existence of God.

Firstly, the idea of Universality is NOT new.

Universality as a concept is not new and was written about by Greek, Hindu, Buddhist and other philosophers for thousands of years BEFORE Islam.

Islam was not the first to bring up the idea. Universality existed well before the year 600AD/ Christ, it was a central selling point in Xiantiy (and it was NOT new then either!) Even Jews used that idea to get converts. Actually, in the Roman empire, Judaism was a proselytizing religion. About 10% of the populace converted to become Jewish. They sold the idea of Universality too and it wasn't new to them either! .

So again, the notion of "Universality" was not new and only here with us today because of Islam.

The whole idea of Universality goes hand in hand with accepting other people's beliefs - Why did the Muslims attack and kill the Polytheistic Arabs? Why did they smash their Gods (and had the gull to call them “Idols”).

If Islam is sooo universal why tax people based on their belief?

That's because it's not.

Also, some other religions claim to be the only message divinely revealed. This attitude shuts down any kind of cooperation or debate etc with other religions. The Quran itself proclaims that the Prophet was a universal Prophet with a universal message. Contrast this to the Bible here Jesus says he was only sent to the Jews. The fact that Islam is a universal religion, accepting of the Prophets of other religions, be they Christian, Buddhists or Hindu, and accepting that they were the messengers mentioned in the Quran, means that it can unite the worlds religions instead of keep taking potshots at others.

1) Why were those Arab polytheists killed?
2) When asked: Does the possibility exist that Buddhism is the correct belief? SAM stated NO.
3) Why are Muslims murdered for conversion out of Islam?
4) Is there a chance that John Smith was the last Prophet? Are Mormons correct?


Arsalan, it’s good you think like this, and really it’s EXACTLY as many Xians I know think (this is a natural progression of thought living in such a open world with so many beliefs). But the fact is this idea is not knew. It was around for millennia BEFORE Islam.

There are many other concepts in Islam which are unique and or enlightening to the human condition.

I’m still waiting.

The concepts of Prophethood,

nope

The concepts of ..the afterlife,

nope

The concepts of…conscience,

nope

The concepts of… education,

nope

The concepts of creation/evolution

nope

The concepts of God in Islam appeal to rationality and are one of the reasons it is the perfect and final religion.

No the very idea of believing in something for which there is no evidence is by definition not rational.

Anyway, the concept of God is Islam is a Hack of the Jewish and Xian ideas of God. (is there something about the attributes of God in Islam that is different than the Xian God? If so what is that?)

Here let me ask you this question to prove the point.

Is there (a) more evidence for, (b) less evidence for, or (c) the EXACT same amount of evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord worshiped by Scientologists?

a, b or c?

You said that Christianity had a major thing going for it, namely forgiving. Ill take this to mean that you were talking about sin and salvation. Unfortunately, those concepts are fundamentally flawed when examined in the Bible.

Actually, forgiveness is not a new idea either. Anyway, I did not mean as in sin and salvation. Because I don’t believe in either. What I meant is that couched in these metaphors “sin” or “salvation” comes the real human emotion: forgiveness.

Forgiveness has a major positive psychological effect on people.

Guilty of what? Attacking the Muslims? Breaking treaties? Oppression? Then so ya they were guilty.

Of course ..... I’m sure Bush Jr says that exact same thing every time some bombs kill some Muslims. I’m sure the Crusaders said likewise. I’m sure the father who kills his 14 year old daughter for shaming the family says the same, etc.. etc.. etc…

Arsalan, being able to justify killing people by pronouncing them guilty allows for unlimited killing.

Unlimited killing is a serious and fundamental flaw in the Qur’an – in my opinion.

Or maybe you should show your actions that your “turn the other cheek” argument is not empirically flawed by releasing all criminals. After all, hey, who cares if they are guilty right? Just turn the other cheek...

Xians never stopped killing. See Arsalan, the idea may be a little too deep to grasp. You’re too used to the Qur’an and it’s simple ideas. This is what happens when ideas are just copied - they never get to the depth of what the original authors had in mind.

You see, you can never stop people from harming one another. But by making “turn the other cheek” a core principal you can slowly try to guide society as a whole in a positive direction.

The vast majority of Muslims follows the true teachings of Islam and the Prophet.

Well, you’re the first Muslim that I met that believes Mohammad is not the last prophet. Usually people fall into some other religion with such an attitude.

Which I should mention I like that idea It’s too bad most Muslims didn’t take it.

Anyway, I see your point. I’d say most Muslim live lives with the same sort of priorities as most Shinto Japanese and that religion has very little to do with any of it. Mostly people a driven by biological process completely out of their control. Which is why there are universals in all societies of people.

Islam never allows slavery

Then those verses in the Qur’an are poorly written because many Muslims used them to justify Slavery for a LONG time.

Agreed?

Every law which is good for mankind is not against Islam or the Quran.

I didn’t say it was against – I said it supersedes.

Nice to see that it took Muslims nowhere near as long as the rest of the world to ban slavery.

Actually it wasn’t Muslims. It was the Europeans.

Women ha all the rights and freedoms women in the West had to fight for for ages.

Like what?

Michael

 

[Arsalan]

That is interesting. It's too bad most Muslims didn't agree with you on this one. Maybe things could go in a more progressive direction.

Some Muslims do, some dont. Up till the around the 17th-18th most did believe that he was not the last Prophet ever. Once again, thats the debate about Kahatam-e-Nabiyeen. Its a debate we can have here but im not sure you would understand most of that it entails. Therefore I suggest you drop this allegation against Islam.

My point is this: ANYONE can copy what other people have written. Anyone. I can copy the entire Qur’an and make a few changes here and there and *poof* I’m the New Prophet. Sounds stupid but that’s exactly what the Qur’an is. A copy of other peoples thoughts and ideas.

Say someone like Buddha, while he was greatly influenced by Hinduism he still added something of his own. Completely new and enlightening ideas.

Say someone like Aristotle while he was greatly influenced by Plato he still added something of his own to the literature. Some completely new and enlightening ideas.

Get it?


Think about this: Suppose there was a Greek Philosopher, we’ll say his name is Plagiarus, so… suppose Plagerus had set about to copy all of the other great Greek Philosophers works and ideas and put what he thought was the best of each persons’ Philosophy into one book. Indeed, the book may contain a lot of great ideas - other people’s great ideas. Most people would consider Plagerus a Two-Bit Hack as he never added something new to it. If he tried to claim credit for the ideas himself we’d think him a lying cheat. Anyway, how could he? We already have the other philosopher’s writings.

Firstly, the idea of Universality is NOT new.

Universality as a concept is not new and was written about by Greek, Hindu, Buddhist and other philosophers for thousands of years BEFORE Islam.

Islam was not the first to bring up the idea. Universality existed well before the year 600AD/ Christ, it was a central selling point in Xiantiy (and it was NOT new then either!) Even Jews used that idea to get converts. Actually, in the Roman empire, Judaism was a proselytizing religion. About 10% of the populace converted to become Jewish. They sold the idea of Universality too and it wasn't new to them either! .

So again, the notion of "Universality" was not new and only here with us today because of Islam.

The notion of universality may not have been new but the explaining of it was. The thing you seem to misunderstand is that Islam does not claim to be a new religion, rather it is the message that was handed down to generations of Prophets in its final and universal form. You keep saying that it was plagiarism without understanding this simple factor of my side of the argument. If he was someone who said he brought a completely new religion and then had stuff that was in other religions and lived in an area where he had easy access to scholars of ALL religions, then yes that accusation may have something going for it. But that is where your argument falls apart. He was a Prophet in a long line of Prophets, including Buddha, Krishna, Jesus and Moses etc. Islam as the pinnacle of evolution of that religious message coming from the same source, is bound to have comparisons with other religions. This goes hand in hand with the concept of universalism as explained in the Quran and hadith and the fact that it proclaims itself to be a universal message for the whole of mankind. No other religion does that. A Jew today believes only in the Prophets of Israel, a Christian believes in Jesus Christ and to a lesser degree in the Prophets of Israel, a Buddhist believes only in Buddha and a Zoroastrian in Zoroaster, a Hindu in the sages who appeared in India and a Cofucian in Confucius. A Muslim on the other hand believes in all these Prophet AND the Prophet. Whereas other religions are bound by barriers of ethnicity and nations, Islam isnt. No one is claiming that Islam is a new religion because it is the evolution of the religious message sent down to the Prophets before, coming from the same source. What Islam does however, is bring all the best of the earlier teachings in one place and presents them in a perspective completely unknown before. Hence the concept of Universalism, in itself not novel, but the perspective given to it by Islam, is novel and enlightening because it shows that evyerhting comes from the same source, giving hope and a sense of belonging, friendship, comradery and brotherhood with other nations.

The whole idea of Universality goes hand in hand with accepting other people's beliefs - Why did the Muslims attack and kill the Polytheistic Arabs?

On the contrary, the Muslims accepted that the religions of other people came from the same source, mostly.

Why did they smash their Gods (and had the gull to call them “Idols”).

The Kaaba was built by Abraham, a Prophet who followed the religious message coming from the same source as Islam. It is very unlikely that he intended the house of God he built to be used as a place for 100s of Gods seeing as the core of the message in Islam, Christianity and Judasim are the same. So looking at it from that perspective, the polytehists had not accepted the God of Abraham and overthrown his ideals and installed their own Gods in that place.

If Islam is sooo universal why tax people based on their belief?

Muslims pay the heavy Zakat, non-Muslims pay the Jizya. The reason for different taxations being that the Muslim Zakat tax was a core principle in Islam and asking non-Muslims to pay it would not be right since they were not Muslims and then wed have a whole new debate about how Islam subtly forced people to become Muslims wouldnt we

1) Why were those Arab polytheists killed?

Which ones?

2) When asked: Does the possibility exist that Buddhism is the correct belief? SAM stated NO.

Buddhism is the following of a Prophet of God. So for his time and place, that message was right. But the message was supersededbyt final law as was prophesied in many religions.

3) Why are Muslims murdered for conversion out of Islam?

I dont know. They shouldnt be murdered. It is forbidden in Islam to murder someone, let alone when someone changes religion.

4) Is there a chance that John Smith was the last Prophet? Are Mormons correct?

Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity. The Bible and Jesus in it tell of the coming of a Prophet after him. Christians and everyone else were told to listen and follow that Prophet. That Prophet brought a new message and therefore the old one was superseded.

Arsalan, it’s good you think like this, and really it’s EXACTLY as many Xians I know think (this is a natural progression of thought living in such a open world with so many beliefs).

Youd be surprised to know this but these ideas are not all mine. They were preached 100s of years ago in India and Pakistan

nope

nope

nope

nope

nope

Once again the perspectives Islam put these concepts in was unique and enlightening.

No the very idea of believing in something for which there is no evidence is by definition not rational.

You see no evidence, I do. Thats the difference.

Anyway, the concept of God is Islam is a Hack of the Jewish and Xian ideas of God. (is there something about the attributes of God in Islam that is different than the Xian God? If so what is that?)

Its the same God because Why dont you understand this simple fact?

Is there (a) more evidence for, (b) less evidence for, or (c) the EXACT same amount of evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord worshiped by Scientologists?

a, b or c?

Xenu was written about by a scinece fiction writer and the message of Scientology was not Prophesied, neither does it have any connection to the other messages. Therefore, I, as a Muslim, see mor evidence in favor of Allah, God, Brahmâ and Parmatama or whatever name people use to call God.

Actually, forgiveness is not a new idea either. Anyway, I did not mean as in sin and salvation. Because I don’t believe in either. What I meant is that couched in these metaphors “sin” or “salvation” comes the real human emotion: forgiveness.

Which has been a longstanding teaching in all religions. Same source, same teachings, nothing new there

Arsalan, being able to justify killing people by pronouncing them guilty allows for unlimited killing.

Unlimited killing is a serious and fundamental flaw in the Qur’an – in my opinion.

Quran does not allow for unlimited killing. If you had read the Quran, which i sincerely doubt you have, you would know the instances where fighting and taking a life is permitted. No mention of unlimited killing anywhere. But then again, just because some people use excuses to kill other people, doesnt mean the teaching is flawed.

Xians never stopped killing. See Arsalan, the idea may be a little too deep to grasp. You’re too used to the Qur’an and it’s simple ideas. This is what happens when ideas are just copied - they never get to the depth of what the original authors had in mind.

Its not too deep to grasp. I underatdn it perfectly. It is the same teaching contained in any religion. Same source, again. But hey, what is hard for you to accept or grasp at least, is that Islam is not a new religion. Evolution does not mean creation does it? No for evolution you need something to be there, and get better. That is what happened to the message setn to the world. Sent in gradual stages to different places and when mankind was ready, the final, perfect and universal form of it was revealed. Ofcourse, this may to deep for you to grasp, since it starts with the premise that one actually believes in God.

Well, you’re the first Muslim that I met that believes Mohammad is not the last prophet. Usually people fall into some other religion with such an attitude.

Then you havent met many

Then those verses in the Qur’an are poorly written because many Muslims used them to justify Slavery for a LONG time.

Ill let you find the fallacy here on your own.

I didn’t say it was against – I said it supersedes.

How can it supersede when it is actually encouraged?

Actually it wasn’t Muslims. It was the Europeans.

Ah yes, thank God we had the Europeans there to tell the Muslims what their own religious teaching says about this. No sarcasm btw. I believe that a lot of Western countries embody the true spirit of Islam and its teachings. Same goes for a lot of Eastern countries except countries like Saudiland.

Like what?

Ill just throw in the most comming one thrown around in this kind of discussion: voting

 

[Michael]

Well Arsalan,

I understand your point of view and your religious belief much better. I personally think you are probably in the minority on many of your ideas for today's age - It seems reasonable that in the past your ideas were the more prevalent.

What do you think when you hear this statement because I have heard it many times: We must defend Islam for Arabs and Muslims.

I hear such things all the time. Arabs and Muslims. This whole notion of being "Arab" somehow superseding being Muslims suggests that the Universality isn't overcoming National or Ethnic identity.

I disagree with your universality in the sense that the other religions didn't teach pretty much the exact same thing. I mean, take Buddhism - there are probably more Buddhists outside of India than inside India. Take Christianity, the original Xians were Hellenistic Jews - now most are not Jewish. These speak of religions that certainly had Universal appeal.


While I don't think most Muslims today would agree that Mohammad was not the last Prophet. In a similar tone, about 50% of Christians around the year 100AD didn't believe in a real Jesus. Many Christians back then knew Jesus was an allegory - a story, not a real person. Not many Xians think that way today.


If it is true that Mohammad never held any Slaves then he was a much better religious person than one who did own and sell Slaves. I can respect a person for cutting against the grain and doing the right thing. I surprised SAM never made this argument - she always goes back to the "well, back in the day that was the thing that people did..." It leads me to think that your Islamic ideas are much different than most of your modern contemporary's. I'm surprised you're not Baha'i or something along those lines.


Keep an inquisitive open mind of yours and one day you may be lucky enough to find you're an atheist

Ha!

Michael

 

[John99]

While I don't think most Muslims today would agree that Mohammad was not the last Prophet. In a similar tone, about 50% of Christians around the year 100AD didn't believe in a real Jesus. Many Christians back then knew Jesus was an allegory - a story, not a real person. Not many Xians think that way today.

That interesting, why were they called CHRISTians?

 

[Michael]

Yup.

 

[John99]

Yup what?

 

[Kadark]

That interesting, why were they called CHRISTians?

At that point in history, I don't think they called themselves "Christians". I could be wrong.

 

[John99]

At that point in history, I don't think they called themselves "Christians". I could be wrong.

No, looks like they didnt. I always thought the main point of contention was in the resurrection.

 

[Michael]

Yup - that is interesting

 

[iceaura]

There are Muslim slaveholders today, now. Slavery is not gone, and being Muslim appears to be no barrier to it.

This goes hand in hand with the concept of universalism as explained in the Quran and hadith and the fact that it proclaims itself to be a universal message for the whole of mankind. No other religion does that. A Jew today believes only in the Prophets of Israel, a Christian believes in Jesus Christ and to a lesser degree in the Prophets of Israel, a Buddhist believes only in Buddha and a Zoroastrian in Zoroaster, a Hindu in the sages who appeared in India and a Cofucian in Confucius. A Muslim on the other hand believes in all these Prophet AND the Prophet. Whereas other religions are bound by barriers of ethnicity and nations, Islam isnt.

A Buddhist does not "believe only in Buddha", for one thing, and the other religions are not fairly described there either - Christianity is forceful, sometimes, in its claim to be universal.

And we see quite plainly that Islam is in real life bound by ethnic and national identities - to the point of open sectarian war, occasionally.

The notion of being fundamentally different from those other religions dies hard, among believers of any religion.

 

[Vega]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMCNmjBoDQ

Couldn't resist!