Basic questions about Islam

[juvenissun]

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)

I don't quite understand what does this verse say. Could you explain? How is it related to my question?

 

[smaneck]

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.

So do you believe that according to Christian doctrine it was wrong of the US to kill Bin Laden. Is wrong for Christian countries to have a military or a police force capable of using deadly force?

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.

Again, they are not killing them for being bad. The Qur'an only allows them to be killed if they threaten to kill Muslims or are persecuting them, or expelling them.

I've repeated this numerous times but I don't get the idea you are really listening. You seem to think Muslims will kill someone just to send them to hell prematurely.

 

[smaneck]

I don't quite understand what does this verse say. Could you explain? How is it related to my question?

I didn't think this verse is difficult to understand. It is saying if you just let evil people persecute others as they wish then we won't have a synagogue or a church or a mosque left standing. And please note that the implication of this verse is that synagogues and churches are good things that should not be destroyed.
If you don't stop a serial killer he will keep on murdering. What would have happened if we had not stopped Nazi Germany?
Religious doctrine and human action should not be separated.

 

[Niblo]

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.

I have no wish to debate either, and so will say only once that no Muslim may kill any other person - believer or not - simply for being 'bad'. That would be murder.

A Muslim may kill another person for three reasons only: In self defence (including defence of another whose life in in peril); in time of war when under attack (and when killing is the only resort. Note that offensive warfare is not permitted in Islam); and in fulfilment of due legal process, following a just conviction for a capital offence.

That is my last word on this particular matter.

 

[com7fy8]

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

Hi, Niblo I think what you explained above is very clear . . . how the authorization of killing could be related to a certain kind of situation, and not meant as a general "kill anyone and everyone who is not your way" sort of thing.

I have read a quote which was supposedly of the Qur'an, which had the thing about cutting off heads. Would you please quote this and give your explanation, if it really is in the Qur'an?

And I understand, by the way, that there are Islamic people who consider only the Arabic Qur'an to be the real Muslim canon scripture, and that anything therefore in English is not really the Qur'an, "anyway". So, please comment, however you please

And yes I think there are plenty of "Christians" who are quite interested in using the military to kill ISIS people and other "radicals". And there is plenty of "Christian" communication which is meant to make Muslims the main "enemy" that "Americans" need to be concerned about. And this campaign of "Islamophobia" can help people to fear any and all Muslims who have no intention of killing any and all who are not Muslims; and by treating Muslims with such suspicion, this could help to alienate Muslims who were friendly so they join the radicals. So, I do understand the certain "Christian" prejudice promotion can in fact be helping ISIS to recruit. Possibly, then, the ones promoting blanket Islamophobia could be undercover radicals, operating in anonymity on the Net, since such prejudice without getting to know each individual can be helping the radicals alienate Muslims against "America".

But, also, Niblo, I understand that some number of Muslims are quite able to see through such propaganda and realize it does not represent all Christians and Americans and others not Muslims. So there are things which can not fool anyone but those capable of fooling themselves into being fooled by it

 

[Niblo]

Hi, Niblo I think what you explained above is very clear . . . how the authorization of killing could be related to a certain kind of situation, and not meant as a general "kill anyone and everyone who is not your way" sort of thing.

I have read a quote which was supposedly of the Qu'ran, which had the thing about cutting off heads. Would you please quote this and give your explanation, if it really is in the Qu'ran?

And I understand, by the way, that there are Islamic people who consider only the Arabic Qu'ran to be the real Muslim canon scripture, and that anything therefore in English is not really the Qu'ran, "anyway". So, please comment, however you please

And yes I think there are plenty of "Christians" who are quite interested in using the military to kill ISIS people and other "radicals". And there is plenty of "Christian" communication which is meant to make Muslims the main "enemy" that "Americans" need to be concerned about. And this campaign of "Islamophobia" can help people to fear any and all Muslims who have no intention of killing any and all who are not Muslims; and by treating Muslims with such suspicion, this could help to alienate Muslims who were friendly so they join the radicals. So, I do understand the certain "Christian" prejudice promotion can in fact be helping ISIS to recruit. Possibly, then, the ones promoting blanket Islamophobia could be undercover radicals, operating in anonymity on the Net, since such prejudice without getting to know each individual can be helping the radicals alienate Muslims against "America".

But, also, Niblo, I understand that some number of Muslims are quite able to see through such propaganda and realize it does not represent all Christians and Americans and others not Muslims. So there are things which can not fool anyone but those capable of fooling themselves into being fooled by it

Hi.

Please can I come back to you on this (DV). A very close friend of my wife died a few days ago, and my mind is elsewhere at the moment.

It would be helpful if you could give me the quote you mention.

Have a good day.

 

[juvenissun]

So do you believe that according to Christian doctrine it was wrong of the US to kill Bin Laden. Is wrong for Christian countries to have a military or a police force capable of using deadly force?

Again, they are not killing them for being bad. The Qur'an only allows them to be killed if they threaten to kill Muslims or are persecuting them, or expelling them.

I've repeated this numerous times but I don't get the idea you are really listening. You seem to think Muslims will kill someone just to send them to hell prematurely.

I heard you. What you are saying is a Muslim will kill in defending himself. That is fine.

So, you are suggesting that a Muslim should not kill when his life is not threatened.
Or, I think this is probably more true: A Muslim should not kill when his faith is not threatened?

Example: If I disrespect Allah, do I have to worry about my life when a faithful Muslim is on the side?

No comments on the Bin Laden case. I am talking about action at the personal level.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't think this verse is difficult to understand. It is saying if you just let evil people persecute others as they wish then we won't have a synagogue or a church or a mosque left standing. And please note that the implication of this verse is that synagogues and churches are good things that should not be destroyed.
If you don't stop a serial killer he will keep on murdering. What would have happened if we had not stopped Nazi Germany?
Religious doctrine and human action should not be separated.

OK, Thanks. No problem on this one.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no wish to debate either, and so will say only once that no Muslim may kill any other person - believer or not - simply for being 'bad'. That would be murder.

A Muslim may kill another person for three reasons only: In self defence (including defence of another whose life in in peril); in time of war when under attack (and when killing is the only resort. Note that offensive warfare is not permitted in Islam); and in fulfilment of due legal process, following a just conviction for a capital offence.

That is my last word on this particular matter.

Thanks. I agreed on what you said.
But, I think there is still something more than that. Something else might be in the Quran that you did not mention. (unfortunately I am not good enough to point them out)

 

[juvenissun]

I have also heard that if a Muslim is killed in a battle, then he would be immediately be lifted up to the Heaven or to the Paradise. AND, if they did not die in the battle, then they CAN NOT go to be with Allah.

This is said to be one of the major motivations for the suicide bomber.

Have those suicide bombers distorted the teaching of Quran? If so, what is wrong with their view?

 

[com7fy8]

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;

And, "of course", a number of Christians use "commentaries" and the recordings of certain Catholic and Protestant leaders and "early church fathers", as sources for understanding the Bible. So, this could be somehow like how Muslims have secondary writings for understanding and applying the Qur'an, I suppose.

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.

In the Jewish Torah there are cases of crime, in which a person harmed has the choice of how to deal with the one who did the harm. One example is if a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and this causes the baby to be born early. The husband has the choice about if and how the harming man is punished . . . if, I understand, there is no harm to the baby > Exodus 21:22-25.

So, Jewish law also has cases in which the harmed person decides if and how the harmer is punished. So, Muslims and Jews have similarities of law, though now it seems that Jews do not do certain Moses Law things that Muslims still do, in some way, if not exactly. Isn't some of the Sharia law based on the Law of Moses?? I understand the Islamic people consider Moses to be one of their earlier prophets.

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).

The heavy Hudud penalties of amputation and stoning are not applied in Tazir cases (although some countries do use corporal punishment).

In the Jewish Torah, blasphemy is a capital offense, by stoning.

"'"And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death."' (Leviticus 24:16)

And adultery and sodomy are capital offenses, under the Torah > Leviticus 24:10-13.

So, the Law of Moses has capital offenses which are similar to Islamic Sharia law, including stoning.

Also, by stoning > if a woman fools a man into thinking she is a virgin and he finds her out after he marries her > she gets death by stoning, according to the Torah > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

The LORD ordered a man to be stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath > Numbers 15:32-36.

According to the Jew's Torah, a stubborn and rebellious man is to be stoned to death, if he does not receive correction > Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Under the law of Moses, also . . . if a woman fools a man into thinking she is a virgin, in order to fool him into marrying her; when he finds her out after they get married, she is to be stoned to death > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

And the Jewish Torah was in effect a while before the Qur'an was written. So, stoning is not some new thing that has been done only by Muslim "radicals". The Jews have certain similar stoning-to-death laws in their Torah, though now they do not keep them, to my knowledge. Certain Jews were going to stone Jesus because they considered Him to be blaspheming > John 10:30-39. So, it is clear that, at the time of Jesus, certain Jews understood that blasphemy was a capital offense to be executed by stoning.

So, I'm just saying that stoning to death is not some new invention of "Moslem radicals".

The process of gaining a conviction is extremely exacting. As a minimum, two witnesses to the crime are required to corroborate the evidence.

Again . . . under the Law of Moses, one witness is not enough >

Numbers 35:30

Deuteronomy 17:6

Deuteronomy 19:15.

In the case of sex crimes (such as adultery) four witnesses to the very act itself are required.

Well, then, possibly your law is "softer" than that of Moses who requires only two witnesses.

Circumstantial evidence is not allowed as part of the testimony in Hudud cases.

Jesus says, "'Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.'" (John 7:24)

I suppose "circumstantial evidence" could be considered "appearance".


And we know the commandment not to bear false witness. It seems, in the United States, that ones tend to assume a single witness is trustworthy. But if God gives a command not to bear false witness, I would think this is because He knows ones are capable of bearing false witness, even under oath . . . if humans can commit murder and adultery. And, under the Torah, if one bears false witness and is found out, that person is to suffer the punishment which he or she intended to cause to the one falsely accused >

Deuteronomy 19:15-21

This penalty, if for a capital offense, would be "life for life", it says in Deuteronomy 19:21.

So, I see, under Jewish Torah complying law, if you falsely accuse someone of a capital offense, you must be executed because of your evil intention!

So, I'm saying that Moslem laws are not necessarily so different than laws of the Torah which the Jews claim as their Canon Scripture.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi, Niblo > I feel for you, for your loss. I wrote >

Hi, Niblo I think what you explained above is very clear . . . how the authorization of killing could be related to a certain kind of situation, and not meant as a general "kill anyone and everyone who is not your way" sort of thing.

I have read a quote which was supposedly of the Qur'an, which had the thing about cutting off heads. Would you please quote this and give your explanation, if it really is in the Qur'an?

And you said >

Hi.

Please can I come back to you on this (DV). A very close friend of my wife died a few days ago, and my mind is elsewhere at the moment.

It would be helpful if you could give me the quote you mention.

Have a good day.

Ok, now I hope to search on the Net to see if I can find anything like "Qur'an" and "heads" and "cut". And we will see. By the way I edited my misspelling of "Qur'an". So, now your quote of me is different than the original. Please take your time with your mourning and family . . . no hurry.

 

[com7fy8]

Hi.

Please can I come back to you on this (DV). A very close friend of my wife died a few days ago, and my mind is elsewhere at the moment.

It would be helpful if you could give me the quote you mention.

Have a good day.

Hi, Niblo Welcome back; I hope things are going well for you, however God blesses you

I have searched the Net and found some number of writings about cutting off heads.

One source says the "verse" of the Qur'an about cutting off heads is

Qur'an 8:12 which is claimed to say >

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

And one writer claims this means for battle, as a measure psychological to scare an enemy away from aggressing against Muslims who have not started the fight . . . if I understand the writer right

But, also, I notice the word choice is "disbelieve". This can mean not only one "un"-believing, but one aggressively against Qur'anic belief. So, I can see this interpretation. However, like I said earlier, I understand that there are Muslims who do not consider an English translation to be authentic scripture, that only Arabic is their divine language; and so they might not consider the English translation of the Qur'an to be accurate or acceptable, never mind divine.

And, to go with this, I understand that certain if not all Muslims consider Arabic land to be their divine land to be defended at all costs. So, this could motivate ISIS people to seek to have Arabic land where there is only Sharia law. And, since they could consider other activity on their divine land to be blasphemous, they could readily consider non-Sharia behavior to be an aggressive occupation of their divine land > and therefore to be "dis"-belief, aggressive by having what ISIS considers to be anti-Qur'anic. What I mean is I can see that they could see it that way.

And, "of course", the Jews had orders to slaughter people who kept them from having their "promised land".

And in "America" some number of people justified slaughtering tribal people, in order to take their land. They aggressed against sovereign tribal nations, in order to take their land. And I think that some number of people considering themselves to be Christians went out west into those lands which belonged to sovereign tribal nations. They did not ask the permission of the tribal peoples, in some number of cases, I think.

So, the land now occupied by "America" is in fact what was taken by force, murder, killing, and other means, not with voluntary and democratic agreement of the tribals from whom the land was taken. So, it involved coveting what land belonged to a neighbor; and the Ten Commandments clearly say we must not covet our neighbor's goods.

But ones keep justifying that "America" used slaughter even of mothers and children, in order to take the land of tribal nations who were sovereign; but I am quite sure that was not justified by Jesus and our New Covenant; our promised land and kingdom is not on this earth, but is superior to what any humans, including falsely Christian people, may seek here.

Therefore, anyone, I would say, is capable of justifying whatever we want to be true, which suits our purpose. ISIS has not started some new thing that was not in history done by certain Americans and others in past history!

Ones might argue that America needed land for people to live on, so they could survive; and so it was justified to move out the "Indians". But, then, it could also be justified that Muslims and Central Americans are fine to move into the United States, without permission, even, if that was justifiable for Europeans to do with the tribal peoples. I "think" I will trust God in His all-control to decide

 

[smaneck]

Or, I think this is probably more true: A Muslim should not kill when his faith is not threatened?

Only if his religion is being suppressed by violent means is a Muslim justified in using violence to protect his religion, or more precisely his religious community.

Example: If I disrespect Allah, do I have to worry about my life when a faithful Muslim is on the side?

You should not, which is not to say you will not. Generally speaking Muslims are more sensitive when you say or do something disrespectful of the Prophet. This has more to do with their notions of honor than anything else.

No comments on the Bin Laden case. I am talking about action at the personal level.

On a personal level no Muslim has the right kill anyone. States have the right to carry out judicial punishments which might include the death penalty. Only a Caliph can declare a jihad. That's why al-Baghdadi has been trying to claim to be the Caliph, but hardly anyone excepts that claim. There has been a widely accepted Caliph in the Islamic world since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and even his claim was precarious.

 

[com7fy8]

There has been a widely accepted Caliph in the Islamic world since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and even his claim was precarious.

I understand that there are Muslims who do not agree with each other, about who has the Caliphate authority coming from Muhammad. And so, there are fights and wars between these groups, such as Shi'atu and Sunni.

 

[smaneck]

I understand that there are Muslims who do not agree with each other, about who has the Caliphate authority coming from Muhammad. And so, there are fights and wars between these groups, such as Shi'atu and Sunni.

It would be more accurate to say there was a dispute between Shi'ites and Sunnis over this. That is no longer the case because neither Shi'ites nor Sunnis have a living Caliph. ISIL is trying to claim that role but most of the Islamic world, Shi'ite and Sunni alike reject it.

 

[juvenissun]

Only if his religion is being suppressed by violent means is a Muslim justified in using violence to protect his religion, or more precisely his religious community.

Niblo said: "They are considered to be crimes against Allāh". I agreed that com7fy8 said this is also true in Jewish laws. But this is not true any more for Christians. Even under Jewish laws, I don't think it would be applied to gentiles (people who are not Jews).

Here is another basic question: why should Muslims be hostile to non-Muslims, so that they should either be converted to Muslims or be conquered or killed? Yes, I do mean "kill". I guess not only there should be verses in Quran for that, but it could be a fundamental teaching in Islam. This attitude is not passive (defense), but is active (offense). This troubled me a lot.

 

[smaneck]

I have also heard that if a Muslim is killed in a battle, then he would be immediately be lifted up to the Heaven or to the Paradise. AND, if they did not die in the battle, then they CAN NOT go to be with Allah.

The Qur'an says, "Say not of those that have died in the path of God that they are dead, nay verily they are alive."
If one dies fighting a valid jihad (and in my opinion there are no valid jihads today) then yes, they go to paradise. But it is certainly not a prerequisite for paradise. According to the Qur'an you don't even have to be a Muslim to go to paradise.

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

Have those suicide bombers distorted the teaching of Quran? If so, what is wrong with their view?

First off, suicide is forbidden in Islam as it is in any religion. And the rules of jihad or holy war explicitly prohibit the targeting of non-combatants. There was no such thing as suicide bombings in the Islamic world prior to 1983 when a member of Hizbullah blew up the US Marine base in Lebanon. At that point Reagan pulled the Marines out. That sent the Arabs a strong message: this is how you get rid of them (Americans.)

 

[smaneck]

So, Jewish law also has cases in which the harmed person decides if and how the harmer is punished. So, Muslims and Jews have similarities of law, though now it seems that Jews do not do certain Moses Law things that Muslims still do, in some way, if not exactly. Isn't some of the Sharia law based on the Law of Moses?? I understand the Islamic people consider Moses to be one of their earlier prophets.

Yes, although it operates somewhat differently. It is not simply a matter of "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", rather there are five categories of action; required, recommended, neutral, reprehensible and forbidden. The shariah isn't just based on Qur'an but on Muhammad's own example.

So, the Law of Moses has capital offenses which are similar to Islamic Sharia law, including stoning.

Stoning is in the Bible but it is not in the Qur'an. Stoning in Islam is based on what to my mind are some very dubious ahadith. One of them states that a sura calling for stoning was in the Qur'an but a goat ate it. Yeah, right. The only crime for which stoning can possibly be applied is adultery and the crime of adultery is virtually unprovable because you need four eyewitnesses to the act of penetration, unlike other crimes that require only two witnesses. How likely is that? And if you accuse someone of adultery and can't produce the four eyewitnesses you are deemed guilty of slander which carries a penalty of 80 lashes. (ouch!) The moral of the story is, even if you saw something keep your mouth shut.

 

[LoAmmi]

So, Jewish law also has cases in which the harmed person decides if and how the harmer is punished. So, Muslims and Jews have similarities of law, though now it seems that Jews do not do certain Moses Law things that Muslims still do, in some way, if not exactly.

We no longer have courts, as we were scattered among the nations. So without courts, the parts of the Torah dealing with criminal behaviors cannot be followed because the people would need a court to try them.