No new Mosques?

[smaneck]

There are some differences, there are some similarities. Khidr killed the child for a different reason, but the fact is he did kill him.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such person.

God in the Bible commanded genocide, God in the Quran allowed child murder.

No, the God of the Qur'an like the God of the Bible allows children to die and we are impatient like Moses and ask Him why? A parable about divine providence which has an imaginary man kill a child is not the same as a biblical command to a historical community to commit genocide.

I have to see any evidence from the hadiths or Quran that Khidr was not a historical person.

Why not look for historical evidence that there ever was such a person?

I read tafsirs Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Qathir of these verses, and see nothing that suggests that the Quran teaches he was not a historical personage and that the whole story is just a parable, if that is what you are trying to say.

Yes, I'm saying it is just a parable. I don't much care what the tafsirs say. Virtually all of the stories of the Qur'an are attempting to make a point in the present and none more than this story.

You would get a lot more out of the Qur'an if you would ask yourself after every tale, why is this story being told? Muhammad was not trying to get Muslims to kill their children! He was teaching them patience in the face of all the contradictions of life.

 

[WoodrowX2]

The fact of the matter is that there is no such person.



No, the God of the Qur'an like the God of the Bible allows children to die and we are impatient like Moses and ask Him why? A parable about divine providence which has an imaginary man kill a child is not the same as a biblical command to a historical community to commit genocide.



Why not look for historical evidence that there ever was such a person?



Yes, I'm saying it is just a parable. I don't much care what the tafsirs say. Virtually all of the stories of the Qur'an are attempting to make a point in the present and none more than this story.

You would get a lot more out of the Qur'an if you would ask yourself after every tale, why is this story being told? Muhammad was not trying to get Muslims to kill their children! He was teaching them patience in the face of all the contradictions of life.

Peace My Friend,

One thing I do notice is that many people seem to believe that every ayyat in the Qur'an is a Command and that every Hadith is a command and assume that is how Muslims take them.

I blame a lot of that on the format the translations use.

In the Actual Qur'an the Surah and ayyats are not numbered. this is a convenience for non-Arab readers. To understand any ayyat in the Qur'an, the entire surat should be read. It also helps to understand who was the audience for the Surat and the purpose behind it.

As for the Ahadith. That is not for a casual reader. Many things must first be understood, especially the Levels of Authenticity and reliability.

It also should be known that some Muslims are Hadith rejectors also Shi'ite and Sunni do disagree over which books of Ahadith should even be considered.

Sunni do not believe the Ahadith to be infallible as they are not the word of Allaah(swt) but are the words of man. I'm not certain but I think the Shi'a believe the same.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Woodrow, where did you get the idea that there were those who wanted to join with Iran?



Shi'ites make up a sizable minority in Pakistan but they don't necessarily want to join up with Iran. In fact, they have been major proponents of a secular state. Urdu is more closely related to Hindi than Persian (Farsi). It has some Persian vocabulary but the grammar is the same as Hindustani. They are Indo-Europeans like Iranians but so are Indians.

However, you are correct that Pakistan has always been rather precarious as a nation. It took them eight years to come up with a constitution and it was short lived. They have now gone through three constitutions.

In my opinion Pakistan and Bangladesh should have remained part of India, and let Kashmir become independent.

The only thing I am basing my assumption that a fair number of Pakistanis want to become a State of Iran, is what I heard from the Pakistanis I know in Texas. Even though they were Sunni they all felt that Pakistan would be better off as an Iranian state. Most had come to the US because of the Corruption in the Pakistan government. Perhaps they were just complaining and ventilating. But I do know many, were studying Farsi and thinking of migrating to Iran if possible.

 

[smaneck]

Sunni do not believe the Ahadith to be infallible as they are not the word of Allaah(swt) but are the words of man. I'm not certain but I think the Shi'a believe the same.

There is a category of hadith, namely hadith qudsi which are said to be the word of God, but not in the same sense as the Qur'an.

 

[TG123]

The fact of the matter is that there is no such person.



No, the God of the Qur'an like the God of the Bible allows children to die and we are impatient like Moses and ask Him why? A parable about divine providence which has an imaginary man kill a child is not the same as a biblical command to a historical community to commit genocide.



Why not look for historical evidence that there ever was such a person?



Yes, I'm saying it is just a parable. I don't much care what the tafsirs say. Virtually all of the stories of the Qur'an are attempting to make a point in the present and none more than this story.

You would get a lot more out of the Qur'an if you would ask yourself after every tale, why is this story being told? Muhammad was not trying to get Muslims to kill their children! He was teaching them patience in the face of all the contradictions of life.

There is no historical evidence of the existence of Moses either, do you also claim he didn't exist?

I am not saying that Muhammad told this story in order to get Muslims to kill their kids. Likewise, the account of Joshua and Moses having children killed is also not a call for Christians or Jews to do likewise.

I understand that the point of the story of Khidr is to trust God. One could say that this is the point of the Biblical account of Moses also, as well as a warning to not disobey Him as Moses did when he allowed his pride to get a hold of him, and took credit for something that God did.

 

[smaneck]

The only thing I am basing my assumption that a fair number of Pakistanis want to become a State of Iran, is what I heard from the Pakistanis I know in Texas. Even though they were Sunni they all felt that Pakistan would be better off as an Iranian state. Most had come to the US because of the Corruption in the Pakistan government. Perhaps they were just complaining and ventilating. But I do know many, were studying Farsi and thinking of migrating to Iran if possible.

Wow, I've never heard a Pakistani express that sentiment.

But then most of the Iranians I know would rather live in Texas!

 

[WoodrowX2]

I have to admit, I am quite shocked to hear you say that. Would you say that people like Yusuf Estes, Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik etc are not following Islam?

Perhaps I am biased as I do not see them as Missionaries as typically they address Muslim Audiences

Or in Deedats case, did

It is true they have often engaged in debates with Non-Muslims, but I see that as having been more in line with academia rather than proselytizing.

I do admit that Harun Yahya with his pamphlets could be construed as Proselytizing.

As for Zakir Naik, I am a Naik fan. But I find myself to be in a minority as many Muslims oppose him. There have been several fatwas denouncing him as being in error.

Dear Readers ! You have just learnt the Salafi Views on Dr. Zakir Naik’s fitna . Now, I would love to present the views of Deobandi Scholars on him. As salafis have called his dawah as the dawah of Shaytan, Deobandi Ulemas too confirm that Zakir Naik is “spreading mischievous things and misguiding simple Muslims to wrong path”. Let us go through the standpoints of Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband and other Deobandi Scholars:

SOURCE

However I believe it is a high honor to be denounced by the Salafi and Deobandi. to be denounced by a salfi scholar is a strong indication you are following Islam properly, in my opinion.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Wow, I've never heard a Pakistani express that sentiment.

But then most of the Iranians I know would rather live in Texas!

There is one Shi'ite Mosque in Austin I am aware of. Most there were Iranian.

I am aware of Iranians and Pakistanis that would share dinner together at Shalimar Restaurant in Austin. the Relations between Pakistani and Iranians in Austin was quite cordial.

 

[smaneck]

I am aware of Iranians and Pakistanis that would share dinner together at Shalimar Restaurant in Austin. the Relations between Pakistani and Iranians in Austin was quite cordial.

Oh, I'm not saying they don't like each other, but they belong to very different cultures. Unless we are talking about Pashtuns or something tribal, the only difference between a Pakistani and an Indian is religion.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Oh, I'm not saying they don't like each other, but they belong to very different cultures. Unless we are talking about Pashtuns or something tribal, the only difference between a Pakistani and an Indian is religion.

For some reason the Pakistanis in Austin seemed to relate more to the Iranians that the Indians Austin has a pretty good size Indian population. Most of the Pakistanis ( The ones I know) refuse to shop in the Indian stores. Yet at the same time said the Hindus and Sikhs were Monotheistic and not to be called Kafir.

 

[TG123]

Perhaps I am biased as I do not see them as Missionaries as typically they address Muslim Audiences

Or in Deedats case, did

It is true they have often engaged in debates with Non-Muslims, but I see that as having been more in line with academia rather than proselytizing.

I do admit that Harun Yahya with his pamphlets could be construed as Proselytizing.

As for Zakir Naik, I am a Naik fan. But I find myself to be in a minority as many Muslims oppose him. There have been several fatwas denouncing him as being in error.

Would a Christian evangelist in a Muslim majority country be allowed to address Christian audiences and challenge Muslim beliefs like the gentlemen above challenge Christian beliefs in their speeches? Would a Christian preacher be allowed to debate with Muslims and have people convert to Christianity on their show, like some people converted to Islam after hearing some of these men speak?

SOURCE

However I believe it is a high honor to be denounced by the Salafi and Deobandi. to be denounced by a salfi scholar is a strong indication you are following Islam properly, in my opinion.

LOL brilliant.

 

[WoodrowX2]

There is a category of hadith, namely hadith qudsi which are said to be the word of God, but not in the same sense as the Qur'an.

The Ahadith Qudsi are Allah(swt)'s words rephrased in Muhammad(saws)'s words. so are considered to be From Allaah(swt) but not his exact words.

Before I milead anyone a better explanations:

While the common factor between hadith qudsi and the Qur'an is that both contain words from Allah which have been revealed to Muhammad, the main points of difference between Qur'an and hadith qudsi are as follows:

• In the Qur'an the precise wording is from Allah, while in the hadith qudsi the wording is given by the Prophet Muhammad.
• The Qur'an has been brought to Muhammad only by the Angel Gabriel, while hadith qudsi may also have been inspired otherwise, such as e.g. in a dream.
• The Qur'an is inimitable and unique, but not so the hadith qudsi.
• The Qur'an has been transmitted by numerous persons, (tawatur) but the hadith and hadith qudsi often only by a few or even one individual. There are hadith qudsi which are sahth, but also others hasan, or even da'if, while there is no doubt at all about any aya from the Qur'an.
• Another point is that a hadith qudsi cannot be recited in prayer.

SOURCE

 

[smaneck]

Yet at the same time said the Hindus and Sikhs were Monotheistic and not to be called Kafir.

When the Arabs conquered Sindh the Brahman priests came to them and explained the Vedas were their scriptures and their religion was the oldest. The Arabs believed them and figured that if the Hindu scriptures were the oldest then they must have been written by the oldest Prophet. Therefore Adam wrote the Vedas.

 

[smaneck]

Would a Christian evangelist in a Muslim majority country be allowed to address Christian audiences and challenge Muslim beliefs like the gentlemen above challenge Christian beliefs in their speeches?

Representatives of all the religions used to debate in the Abbasid Court and later in Mughal India.

 

[TG123]

Representatives of all the religions used to debate in the Abbasid Court and later in Mughal India.

That is great. What would have happened do you think if someone converted from Islam to Christianity or another religion during such a debate?

 

[WoodrowX2]

Would a Christian evangelist in a Muslim majority country be allowed to address Christian audiences and challenge Muslim beliefs like the gentlemen above challenge Christian beliefs in their speeches? Would a Christian preacher be allowed to debate with Muslims and have people convert to Christianity on their show, like some people converted to Islam after hearing some of these men speak?

In todays world I doubt it. Not because it is forbidden by Islam but because it is forbidden by some rulers.

In the past it was common for there to be open debates with non-Muslims in Islamic Nations.

 

[WoodrowX2]

That is great. What would have happened do you think if someone converted from Islam to Christianity or another religion during such a debate?

Thinking back and scratching my head. I know Francis of Assisi was held in High esteem by the Muslims and did engage in debates with Islamic Scholars. It is probable some Muslims converted then, but I don't recall reading that Francis was harmed by any Muslims.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Salaam Alaikum.

Wa Alaikum

So are you saying that non-Muslims have the right to launch armed rebellions against Muslim rulers for their religious rights?

We do not take away the right for others to fight (but those who fight should also expect that they might not live).

If they want to fight, they can go ahead, though I'd hope they would fail in seizing the Muslim land.

But you don't seem to have a problem with non-Muslim nations being controlled by Muslims.

What non-Muslim nations are being controlled by Muslims? Muslim nations have a hard time being controlled by religious Muslims as it is since "progressive" or secularist Muslims (especially their armies) and non-Muslims are generally both against it. Non-Muslim nations generally don't care about who is a "progressive" Muslim and who is a traditional Muslim - Muslims will not be allowed to become the leader of the Western non-Muslim nations. If you recall, Obama was falsely granted the honor of being a Muslim even though it is clear that he identifies himself as a Christian and is definitely not considered our brother in faith. But they were using that as an accusation to deter people from voting for him.

Do you feel that non-Muslims have the same right to pressure Muslim nations to respect religious freedoms of non-Muslims as Muslims have the right to pressure non-Muslim nations to respect the religious freedoms of Muslims?

I feel that non-Muslims have the right to ask the authorities to abide by their own laws just as Muslims have the same right, and this includes abiding by the treaty that the Islaamic state and the non-Muslims would have agreed upon.

I thank you for your honesty. By commanding Muslims to fight and kill those who oppress Muslims but not holding the same standard for Muslims who oppress non-Muslims is I think Islam is quite hypocritical. To me, it is no different from how the US sentenced Major Hassan to death but has given merely prison sentences to US soldiers who have killed Iraqis.

1.) Well, again, I'm not sure about the oppression of non-Muslims. What I mentioned is just the general ruling (at least, the majority opinion of scholars) of an individual killing another individual. It was not regarding oppression & mass murder. And I certainly don't know about how the ruling would be different for the leader of an Islaamic state that has a treaty (based on Islaam) with its non-Muslim population. 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) asked a non-Muslim Egyptian to beat him because the Egyptian suffered an act of injustice under the rule of 'Umar (the Egyptian declined, but he did whip the one who directly harmed him).

2.) You skipped the verse I pasted (of the one making mischief in the land). Specifically, I was referring to the Muslims who make mischief in Muslim land. I don't know how that factors into this, though.

3.) While the punishment might not be the same, the sin is still grave:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the scent of Paradise though its scent is perceived from a distance of forty years." [Saheeh al-Bukhaari]

It is one of many reasons I would not join your religion, and I would hope that people come out of it.

Feeling's mutual about your religion.

For what reason do you stay? Sorry, I don't follow.

That the laws guarantee me the right to practice my religion.

What did you mean by saying if the population of a Muslim nation does not like the leadership, they can fight back? How is this about France?

Because you're trying to compare the Muslim demand in non-Muslim countries to the non-Muslim demand in Muslim countries.

Why should the Sikhs have been given a choice to accept Muslim rule over them or leave? Why could not the Muslims have left Pakistan?

The Muslims did, indeed, leave India to go to Pakistan (and many were killed). And the Hindus (and Sikhs) who didn't want to stay in Pakistan went to India to go to the Hindu-majority country. That's just how it was.

I wonder who suffered more bloodshed, Muslims at the hands of Sikhs, or Sikhs at the hands of Muslims.

God knows best.

So you would be supportive of Muslims fighting the government of a non-Muslim country in which they reside? I thought that was only allowed in Islaamic lands. Now are you saying that Muslims can fight for their religious rights even in a non-Muslim country, while Muslim countries can deny these rights to non-Muslims in theirs? I mean no offense to you personally, but I see that as a huge double standard.

1.) I did say that non-Muslims can fight against the Muslim government if they don't want to live under their leadership. Perhaps you did not read that before.

2.) I said they have two options, I did not say I would rather they do one over the other.

It would have been if the Israelites, as they were killing Amalekite babies, were telling the Amalekites not to kill theirs.

But the reason given in the Bible shows that the way the Israelites were oppressed was looked upon unfavorably. And yet the commandment to do the same (actually....to do worse, since the Amalekites didn't wipe out all of the Israelites) was supposedly given. This is hypocritical of your religion, if not the Israelites.

And again, killing of babies, or anyone for that matter, was allowed at a specific time in history by God. It is not allowed anymore.

And again, the principle is still the same. If it is hypocritical now, then it is hypocritical then. WHy should we agree to your concept of what was ok back then and what is ok now?

See above. As they were waging war against the Amalekites, the Israelites were not demanding that they show their people mercy. As Muslims restrict religious freedoms of non-Muslims in their lands, they demand that non-Muslims respect the religious freedoms of Muslims in theirs.

At no time in the OT, did the Israelites demand mercy from the Amalekites.

See above also.

I would not have condemned them, but I also would not have been demanding that my enemies respect the rights of my people while I do not respect the rights of theirs.

You seem to be missing my point. We demand that the countries rule by their own laws, regardless of the government being Muslim/non-Muslim. Who says that non-Muslims of Islaamic nations cannot demand that these Islaamic nations abide by their own laws? Certainly not me; I've said just the opposite repeatedly.

However, laws can change. After Pakistan was formed, the laws in that region towards religious freedoms of non-Muslims changed. Non-Muslim countries have the same right.

Yes, because it was under a new leadership. If the population doesn't like it, they can either stay & resist or leave.

If He ordered them to demand that the Amalekites show them mercy, the answer would have been yes.

You seem to give your religion excuses even though it is clearly a hypocritical act.

Yes. Would you?

Isn't that a case of supporting one case of oppression and yet not the another?

To answer your question, probably.

 

[light upon light]

I think it is unfair to compare post-reformation Christian civilization with pre-reformation Islam.

Christian civilizations, before the reformation, operated much the same way as Islamic civilizations operate today.

 

[smaneck]

I think it is unfair to compare post-reformation Christian civilization with pre-reformation Islam.

Christian civilizations, before the reformation, operated much the same way as Islamic civilizations operate today.

Except the Catholic Church *is* historical Christianity. Okay, there were some Orthodox, Nestorians, Coptics, etc. But in Western Europe there was only one church.