Basic questions about Islam

[juvenissun]

I know very little about Islaam. I don't even know should it spelled like Islam or Islaam. So I like to ask some very basic questions about Islam. Hope people who knows would kindly provide some answers.

Start from a question I know the most from the current news report: Why Muslims kill people with a strong justification? Does Ala tell his followers to kill this type of people and kill that type of people if they do so and so?

 

[Arthra]

It's best to let Muslims who post here respond but anyway in my view there are several factors involved... Islam shares the values of Christianity and Judaism.. Belief in one God... and that mankind should live in peace.

I think part of the problem is the disintegration of society in war torn communities... Imagine if your town or city had been at war for several years and the government was unable to halt the violence? You would likely or probably turn to your religion... but what if there were say fanatical people who were exploiting your religion to achieve their own ends?

Another aspect of this is that people can be ignorant of what their own religion teaches...or it may be because of the social breakdown there are fewer ways to study and learn impartially. So all the above is a painful process for the people who are undergoing it ... and they need our prayers and support.

 

[juvenissun]

It's best to let Muslims who post here respond but anyway in my view there are several factors involved... Islam shares the values of Christianity and Judaism.. Belief in one God... and that mankind should live in peace.

I think part of the problem is the disintegration of society in war torn communities... Imagine if your town or city had been at war for several years and the government was unable to halt the violence? You would likely or probably turn to your religion... but what if there were say fanatical people who were exploiting your religion to achieve their own ends?

Another aspect of this is that people can be ignorant of what their own religion teaches...or it may be because of the social breakdown there are fewer ways to study and learn impartially. So all the above is a painful process for the people who are undergoing it ... and they need our prayers and support.

What I want to see is not interoperation made by people. I want to see what is exactly said in Koran. I believe somewhere in Koran, it explicitly said, if people do this or that, kill them. I like to know what are the sinful nature that worth death according to Koran.

 

[smaneck]

I know very little about Islaam. I don't even know should it spelled like Islam or Islaam.

There are different forms of transliteration. Either spelling is fine.

Does Ala tell his followers to kill this type of people and kill that type of people if they do so and so?

I presume you are thinking of the verses which justify warfare. I think this is the most important one:

"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them — Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques."(Al Quran 22:40-41)

Unfortunately there are some people that will use their religion to justify anything including genocide.

 

[Masihi]

What I want to see is not interoperation made by people. I want to see what is exactly said in Koran. I believe somewhere in Koran, it explicitly said, if people do this or that, kill them. I like to know what are the sinful nature that worth death according to Koran.

Well to start, although the quran teaches its followers to kill unbelievers such as Christians (Sura 2.191), there is no need to approach the study of islam with fear because islamophobia (fear of islam) is frowned on. At first, I could not help but feel a little fear towards the religion but as a Christian, my faith no longer permits fear. I can now calmly debate muslims who care to listen and avoid the fanatics who would not care to listen anyways.
This site is extremely useful for study. It has an index that is very helpful for beginners: [Good Site]

As to your question on "sinful nature"; I just explained to someone the difference between veil-use amongst Christian females compared with niqab-use amongst muslim females.
Veils amongst Christians are used out of the woman's respect for God. For since men were created first and angels seem to feel disturbed by women praying without veil, women wear a veils.
Niqabs are full head to toe coverings amongst muslim females. They wear these to keep men from feeling tempted. Should so much as an ankle show from below the niqab, a man could be provoked and the woman could then legally be reprimanded (in some cases flogged). Looking at rape, a woman raped has no legal recourse for justice because sharia court would view her as the culprit for displaying skin and provoking the assailant. The assailant would be considered innocent.
As you can see, "sin" is not defined as Christians recognize sin. In many cases, what is considered wrong is right with them, and what is right is wrong with them.

 

[smaneck]

Well to start, although the quran teaches its followers to kill unbelievers such as Christians (Sura 2.191)

That is a complete distortion. Sura 2:190-191 sa"s the following:

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and persecution is worse than killing"

As to your question on "sinful nature"; I just explained to someone the difference between veil use amongst Christian females compared with niqab use amongst muslim females.

What does this have to do with her question as to what sins are worthy of death?

Veils amongst Christians are used out of the woman's respect for God. For since men were created first and angels seem to feel disturbed by women praying without veil, women wear a veils.

Actually Paul's words in this regard have to do with a story in the Book of Enoch wherein the nephilim or 'sons of god' in Genesis were tempted by unveiled women and came down and made love to them.

Niqabs are full head to toe coverings amongst muslim females.

Most Muslim women do not where niqab. Generally speaking a hijab or head scarf is deemed sufficient

Looking at rape, a woman raped has no legal recourse for justice because sharia court would view her as the culprit for displaying skin and provoking the assailant. The assailant would be considered innocent.

That is simply not so in most cases.

 

[juvenissun]

There are different forms of transliteration. Either spelling is fine.



I presume you are thinking of the verses which justify warfare. I think this is the most important one:

"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them — Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques."(Al Quran 22:40-41)

Unfortunately there are some people that will use their religion to justify anything including genocide.

Here we need to define what makes a "war". I think a fight among small groups, such as a few people, should not be called war and it would not be justified to kill. Also, if American invaded Iran by means of economics, it should not be called war either. Economic war is a misuse of the term.

The same way, "fight" may not mean "kill". If I offended a Muslim in a non-violent way, should it be a reason for the Muslim to kill me? These two verses are not clear about this.

I like to see verses specifically spell out the word "kill" and examine the content.

 

[juvenissun]

Well to start, although the quran teaches its followers to kill unbelievers such as Christians (Sura 2.191), there is no need to approach the study of islam with fear because islamophobia (fear of islam) is frowned on. At first, I could not help but feel a little fear towards the religion but as a Christian, my faith no longer permits fear. I can now calmly debate muslims who care to listen and avoid the fanatics who would not care to listen anyways.
This site is extremely useful for study. It has an index that is very helpful for beginners: [Good Site]

As to your question on "sinful nature"; I just explained to someone the difference between veil-use amongst Christian females compared with niqab-use amongst muslim females.
Veils amongst Christians are used out of the woman's respect for God. For since men were created first and angels seem to feel disturbed by women praying without veil, women wear a veils.
Niqabs are full head to toe coverings amongst muslim females. They wear these to keep men from feeling tempted. Should so much as an ankle show from below the niqab, a man could be provoked and the woman could then legally be reprimanded (in some cases flogged). Looking at rape, a woman raped has no legal recourse for justice because sharia court would view her as the culprit for displaying skin and provoking the assailant. The assailant would be considered innocent.
As you can see, "sin" is not defined as Christians recognize sin. In many cases, what is considered wrong is right with them, and what is right is wrong with them.

What you explained about the veil and niqab is fine. It is another issue.
What disturbs me is the Sura 2.191. Why should an unbelievers deserve a death in Islam? What is the exact wording of Sura 2.191?

If a faithful Muslim obey what Sura 2.191 said and killed a Buddhist, Is there any teaching in Islam which can be used to criminalize him?

 

[Niblo]

Hello juvenissun

The religious law of Islam is known a Sharīʿah. It is derived from two primary sources: the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the recorded words and practices of Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence include secondary sources when making their rulings; for example: the consensus of the Sahabah (the early companions of the Prophet); the individual opinions of the Sahabah; analogical deduction; preference (of one proof over another); local custom (especially in areas where there are no binding Islamic customs available); deductive reasoning; and welfare (the common good). Traditionalists, fundamentalist and modernists hold different views of Sharīʿah (as do the followers of the various schools of jurisprudence). Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharīʿah also.

In secular Muslim states (such as Turkey, Kazakhstan and Mali) religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited. In these countries (and also in the secular West) the role of Sharīʿah is limited to personal and family matters.

Other Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan and Sudan have legal systems that are strongly influenced by Sharīʿah. However, ultimate legal authority in these countries rests with the State.

The legal systems of Saudi Arabia, and some of the Gulf States, are based entirely on Sharīʿah.

There are three categories of crime in Sharīʿah: Qisas, Hudud, and Tazir.

Qisas involves personal injury, and includes murder; manslaughter; and battery.

A Qisas offence is treated as a civil rather than a criminal matter. If the accused is found guilty, the victim (or victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (which means execution in the case of murder); imprisonment; and - in some cases of intentional battery - the amputation of any limb corresponding to that lost by the victim. There may also be compensation for the victim’s loss of life, limb or injury.

The second category of crime is Hudud.

These are crimes whose penalty is set out in the Qur’an. They are considered to be crimes against Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla), and include adultery; fornication; incest; rape; sodomy and lesbianism; armed robbery; terrorism; armed violence; theft; use of intoxicants (alcohol or drug use); blasphemy; and defamation (making false accusation of any of these crimes).

Another Hudud crime is apostasy. This is an interesting inclusion, since although apostasy is mentioned some eight times in the Qur’an not once does it carry an earthly punishment. In the days of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) apostasy was invariably linked to treason, a capital offence.

Hudud is meant as a deterrent for rare cases, and not as a general punishment. The process of gaining a conviction is extremely exacting. As a minimum, two witnesses to the crime are required to corroborate the evidence. In the case of sex crimes (such as adultery) four witnesses to the very act itself are required. This makes it very hard, if not impossible, to gain a just conviction for Hudud offences (unless the offence was so obvious, or flagrant, as to make it impossible not to be convicted). Circumstantial evidence is not allowed as part of the testimony in Hudud cases.

Most Muslim countries (including Iran) do not prosecute Hudud offences (the exceptions being Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban); they usually treat the offence as a Tazir crime.

Tazir covers all other offences not mentioned above. The sentences are discretionary. Depending on the crime or circumstances, they can range from death to imprisonment to community service. Circumstantial evidence is allowed; and the punishment is meant to fit the crime. The heavy Hudud penalties of amputation and stoning are not applied in Tazir cases (although some countries do use corporal punishment).

On your question regarding Sura 2 (Al-Baqara):

These verses address a specific historical event (when the Muslims were being attacked, and when it looked as though the fighting might extend to the Sacred Mosque). They wanted to know whether or not it was permissible to fight back.

‘Fight in Allāh’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: Allāh does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them - this is what such disbelievers deserve - but if they stop, then Allāh is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to Allāh. If they cease hostilities, there can be no (further) hostility, except towards aggressors.’

(Al-Baqara: 190-193).

Comment:

‘……..but do not overstep the limits’

In this verse the Arabic command ‘la ta tadu’ is so general that commentators have agreed that it includes a prohibition against starting hostilities; against fighting non-combatants; against making a disproportionate response to aggression, and so on.

‘Kill them wherever you encounter them…’

The Muslims were concerned as to whether it was permitted to retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca when on pilgrimage. They are here given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it.

‘….and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing.’

This means: ‘Persecuting you unlawfully is worse than you killing them in the precincts in self-defence.’

I hope this helps!

 

[smaneck]

Niblo, by the way, is probably the best authority on these matters.

Here we need to define what makes a "war". I think a fight among small groups, such as a few people, should not be called war and it would not be justified to kill.

I would agree.

Also, if American invaded Iran by means of economics, it should not be called war either. Economic war is a misuse of the term.

I understand what an economic war might involve but not an economic invasion. However, it should be pointed out that the original instance in which the Qur'an authorized the use of force, was economic. After the Muslims left Mecca for Medina all the property they left there was expropriated notwithstanding the fact they had left family behind who needed to use it in many cases. That property was loaded on to a caravan to be sold in Damascus. Muhammad authorized the ambushing of that caravan so they could get their stuff back. However, during the three years when Muslims were subjected to an economic boycott, Muhammad never authorized violence.

The same way, "fight" may not mean "kill".

It depends on what word is being used. If the word is jihad that means to struggle and may well not involve violence or killing. But sometimes I've seen qatal translated as 'to fight' and it really means to kill.

If I offended a Muslim in a non-violent way, should it be a reason for the Muslim to kill me?

Absolutely not. There were a couple of poets who were killed by Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime but they were using their poetry to incite violence. Think of them like Tokyo Rose, and other radio broadcasters who worked for the Axis powers during WWII.

 

[smaneck]

What you explained about the veil and niqab is fine. It is another issue.
What disturbs me is the Sura 2.191. Why should an unbelievers deserve a death in Islam? What is the exact wording of Sura 2.191?

Again, if you try and work with Sura 2:191 in isolation without the ayah that proceeds it you will get a very distorted picture of what the Qur'an is saying. But the term translated as 'fight' in both ayahs is qatal which is to kill. In other words, kill those who are killing you.

If a faithful Muslim obey what Sura 2.191 said and killed a Buddhist, Is there any teaching in Islam which can be used to criminalize him?

The only circumstances where this would not be a crime is if the Buddhist was killing Muslims, and the only place where that is currently happening is Burma:

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

 

[juvenissun]

A related critical question:

Where would dead people go according to Islam?
Would "bad" people simply vanished after death?

 

[smaneck]

A related critical question:

Where would dead people go according to Islam?
Would "bad" people simply vanished after death?

Either to Paradise or to Jahannam. Jahannam is a direct cognate to the word Jesus used for hell, namely Gehenna.

 

[Masihi]

A related critical question:

Where would dead people go according to Islam?
Would "bad" people simply vanished after death?

2.191
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
I think we see a "moderate muslim" commenting above... in a perfect world muslims would like to see the quran followed to the letter but history and current world events show there are No limits nor overstepping of bounds when it comes to killing unbelievers.

Either to Paradise or to Jahannam. Jahannam is a direct cognate to the word Jesus used for hell, namely Gehenna.

I would like to comment on quranic paradise and the fire. They are distinct from the biblical heaven and hell.
Many would try to convince christians into believing that the quran is a continuation of the bible and that muhammad is another biblical prophet, by trying to weave quranic material in with biblical material. Together with whoever wrote the quran, the quranic itself and today's muslims try to match its material with the Bible. Try as they do, both books are two different animals. What you and i understand as faith is not the same thing in islam. What you and i understand as peace is not the same thing in islam.
Paradise in quran is described as a physically sensual place where boys and women and women-like non-humans, fulfill every basic manly sensual desire, together with food and drink. The Fire is something worse than the hell we understand. In the Fire, angels burn our skins, and skins grow back to repeat the process. There are suras that say 100% of all humans end up in the Fire, "There is not one of you but will pass over it (Hell); this is with your Lord; a Decree which must be accomplished." S 19.71

 

[smaneck]

in a perfect world muslims would like to see the quran followed to the letter but history and current world events show there are No limits nor overstepping of bounds when it comes to killing unbelievers.

Because a handful of Muslims are ignoring the Quranic injunction not to exceed the limits?

Paradise in quran is described as a physically sensual place where boys and women and women-like non-humans, fulfill every basic manly sensual desire, together with food and drink.

The Qur'an speaks of food and drink, but says nothing about sensual desires.

There are suras that say 100% of all humans end up in the Fire, "There is not one of you but will pass over it (Hell); this is with your Lord; a Decree which must be accomplished." S 19.71

Uh, no. This is a reference to the Sirat or bridge which stretches over hell across which all believers must pass before entering paradise. It is depicted as being as thin as a hair and sharp as a knife. A similar idea is found in Zoroastrianism.

 

[juvenissun]

2.191
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
I think we see a "moderate muslim" commenting above... in a perfect world muslims would like to see the quran followed to the letter but history and current world events show there are No limits nor overstepping of bounds when it comes to killing unbelievers.

I would like to comment on quranic paradise and the fire. They are distinct from the biblical heaven and hell.
Many would try to convince christians into believing that the quran is a continuation of the bible and that muhammad is another biblical prophet, by trying to weave quranic material in with biblical material. Together with whoever wrote the quran, the quranic itself and today's muslims try to match its material with the Bible. Try as they do, both books are two different animals. What you and i understand as faith is not the same thing in islam. What you and i understand as peace is not the same thing in islam.
Paradise in quran is described as a physically sensual place where boys and women and women-like non-humans, fulfill every basic manly sensual desire, together with food and drink. The Fire is something worse than the hell we understand. In the Fire, angels burn our skins, and skins grow back to repeat the process. There are suras that say 100% of all humans end up in the Fire, "There is not one of you but will pass over it (Hell); this is with your Lord; a Decree which must be accomplished." S 19.71

Here is an important question:

If bad people goes to hell or Fire, then why should anyone kill his physical body?

This could be one of the fundamental differences between Christian and Muslim. Christian leaves bad people alone because they might still have chance to become good people. Otherwise, they go to hell anyway. Why kill them prematurely?

 

[juvenissun]

2.191
"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
I think we see a "moderate muslim" commenting above... in a perfect world muslims would like to see the quran followed to the letter but history and current world events show there are No limits nor overstepping of bounds when it comes to killing unbelievers.

So if I insulted Allah (but not your), would that count as "fight with you"? So you are justified to "fight" me? Why would people interpret the word "struggle" as kill? Does the original word include the meaning of killing in it? So it is like to struggle by all means?

 

[Niblo]

This could be one of the fundamental differences between Christian and Muslim. Christian leaves bad people alone because they might still have chance to become good people. Otherwise, they go to hell anyway. Why kill them prematurely?

Ah....so this is why Christian soldiers never kill their enemies in battle; and Christian Governments never execute murders!

 

[smaneck]

If bad people goes to hell or Fire, then why should anyone kill his physical body?

Did you read the ayah I gave you at the beginning of the thread?

" And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques."(Al Quran 22:40)

This could be one of the fundamental differences between Christian and Muslim. Christian leaves bad people alone because they might still have chance to become good people. Otherwise, they go to hell anyway. Why kill them prematurely?

So the US should not have killed Bin Laden?

 

[juvenissun]

Ah....so this is why Christian soldiers never kill their enemies in battle; and Christian Governments never execute murders!

That is another issue. I am talking about basic religious doctrine, not the human action.
And I am not debating. I just want to explore the basic doctrine of Islam.

Again, if an unfaithful person is going to the hell anyway, why would Allah want to tell a Muslim to kill that bad person?
What is the difference in Islam if an unfaithful lived 30 years or 60 years on the earth?
Noticed that the unfaithful may not be a bad person who does evil things. He just does not believe in Allah.