Basics That Every Non-Muslim Should Know About Islam

[LivingWordUnity]

Here's a concise article about Islam that I found: Islam 101

Since Sharia Law is a big part of Islam, I think it's crucial to know about it. From the article:

d. Sharia Law

Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced “sha-r�e-uh&#8221, which translates approximately as “way” or “path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:

1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)
2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:
Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
​

As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources (see above), it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.​

 

[football5680]

I think the most misunderstood thing about Islam in the West is the doctrine of Abrogation. True Muslims understand it but the ones who want to deceive people in the West don't want other people to know about it. The Quran does have very peaceful and noble verses which nobody would object to but the majority have been abrogated and no longer apply. The peaceful verses come from the time when Muhammad was in Mecca and only had a few followers. He preached peace because he could not possibly win a fight. Once he moved to Medina, he had a large following and you begin to see the tone of the Quran change completely. The 9th chapter of the Quran is one of the last that the false prophet "revealed" and is the basis for why Islam has never ceased fighting everybody around them for 1400 years.

 

[Tallguy88]

"Jihad Watch is a blog affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Run by Catholic blogger Robert Spencer, it has been described as one of the main homes of the anti-Islamic, right-wing counterjihad movement on the internet.

According to the website, a theology of violent jihad, which denies non-Muslims and women equality, human rights, and dignity has been present throughout the history of Islam. Jihad Watch says that it is "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correct popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts."

It has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories."

Jihad Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LivingWordUnity]

TallGuy,

The so-called "academics" who criticize the JihadWatch website do so because they will only accept the politically correct Pollyanna idea of what Islam is. And, as it shows in what you say about them, they use a blatant ad hominem tactic in trying to discourage people from the website.

Definition of ad hominem:

"Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." (Source)
​

If people say, "Oh, is that so? Well I'm not going to read that article," then the ad hominem tactic of the so-called "academics" met its goal. I recommend that everyone read the article. And I challenge anyone to try to find exactly where what it says about Islam is not the truth.

Here's a sample from the article:

i. The Battle of Badr

The Battle of Badr was the first significant engagement fought by the Prophet. Upon establishing himself in Medina following the Hijra, Muhammad began a series of razzias (raids) on caravans of the Meccan Quraish tribe on the route to Syria.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 287; Narrated Kab bin Malik: The Apostle had gone out to meet the caravans of Quraish, but Allah caused them (i.e. Muslims) to meet their enemy unexpectedly (with no previous intention).Volume 5, Book 59, Number 289; Narrated Ibn Abbas: On the day of the battle of Badr, the Prophet said, “O Allah! I appeal to You (to fulfill) Your Covenant and Promise. O Allah! If Your Will is that none should worship You (then give victory to the pagans).” Then Abu Bakr took hold of him by the hand and said, “This is sufficient for you.” The Prophet came out saying, “Their multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs.” (54:45)
​

Having returned to Medina after the battle, Muhammad admonished the resident Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa to accept Islam or face a similar fate as the Quraish (3:12-13). The Qaynuqa agreed to leave Medina if they could retain their property, which Muhammad granted. Following the exile of the Bani Qaynuqa, Muhammad turned to individuals in Medina he considered to have acted treacherously. The Prophet particularly seems to have disliked the many poets who ridiculed his new religion and his claim to prophethood — a theme evident today in the violent reactions of Muslims to any perceived mockery of Islam. In taking action against his opponents, “the ideal man” set precedents for all time as to how Muslims should deal with detractors of their religion.

Sira, p367: Then he {Kab bin al-Ashraf} composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The Apostle said: “Who will rid me of Ibnul-Ashraf?” Muhammad bin Maslama, brother of the Bani Abdu’l-Ashhal, said, “I will deal with him for you, O Apostle of God, I will kill him.” He said, “Do so if you can.” “All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try” {said the Prophet to Muhammad bin Maslama}. He said, “O Apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.” He {the Prophet} answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.”Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Kab bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Kab) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Kab replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him.
​

A significant portion of the Sira is devoted to poetry composed by Muhammad’s followers and his enemies in rhetorical duels that mirrored those in the field. There seems to have been an informal competition in aggrandizing oneself, one’s tribe, and one’s God while ridiculing one’s adversary in eloquent and memorable ways. Kab bin Malik, one of the assassins of his brother, Kab bin al-Ashraf, composed the following:

Sira, p368: Kab bin Malik said: Of them Kab was left prostrate there (After his fall {the Jewish tribe of} al-Nadir were brought low). Sword in hand we cut him down By Muhammad’s order when he sent secretly by night Kab’s brother to go to Kab. He beguiled him and brought him down with guile Mahmud was trustworthy, bold.


​

 

[Targaryen]

Jihad Watch is about as credible a source on non-biased reasearch on Islam as Fixed Noise is a liberal wing of the media.

*yawn*

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I think the most misunderstood thing about Islam in the West is the doctrine of Abrogation. True Muslims understand it but the ones who want to deceive people in the West don't want other people to know about it. The Quran does have very peaceful and noble verses which nobody would object to but the majority have been abrogated and no longer apply. The peaceful verses come from the time when Muhammad was in Mecca and only had a few followers. He preached peace because he could not possibly win a fight. Once he moved to Medina, he had a large following and you begin to see the tone of the Quran change completely. The 9th chapter of the Quran is one of the last that the false prophet "revealed" and is the basis for why Islam has never ceased fighting everybody around them for 1400 years.

Good observation. Islam's beginning is the exact opposite of how Christianity began. Islam was about war and conquest from its inception. Christianity had wars but it was after it had already spread through preaching and people being impressed with how the saints lived the Christian life. Unlike Islam, Christianity didn't spread because of war. Jesus didn't have any war battles. But Muhammad had the Battle of Badr, the Battle of Uhud, the Battle of Medina, and the Conquest of Mecca. Here's how the article answers a common question that comes up about this.

b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

This question is a bit like asking, “If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?” The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.

Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah’s merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.

However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root — increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and “cultural centers,” etc. — the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.​

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I think most people probably don't know about this:

i. Taqiyya — Religious Deception

Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, reuses de guerre, i.e., systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout dar al-harb that “Islam is a religion of peace,” or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual “fanatics,” must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as “peaceful” — but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.

A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam. A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “tolerance”: try making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world. He assured me you wouldn’t live five minutes.

{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle — that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is “to remain faithful” but which in effect means “dissimulation.” It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
​

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one’s neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement — and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb — impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch’s own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception.

“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”
​

In times when the greater strength of dar al-harb necessitates that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel world must be one of deception and omission. Revealing frankly the ultimate goal of dar al-Islam to conquer and plunder dar al-harb when the latter holds the military trump cards would be strategic idiocy. Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is to read the Quran, nor do they trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Any infidel who wants to believe such fiction will happily persist in his mistake having been cited a handful of Meccan verses and told that Muhammad was a man of great piety and charity. Digging only slightly deeper is sufficient to dispel the falsehood.​

 

[Antigone]

"Jihad Watch is a blog affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Run by Catholic blogger Robert Spencer, it has been described as one of the main homes of the anti-Islamic, right-wing counterjihad movement on the internet.

According to the website, a theology of violent jihad, which denies non-Muslims and women equality, human rights, and dignity has been present throughout the history of Islam. Jihad Watch says that it is "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correct popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts."

It has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories."

Jihad Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks!

Sorry, LWU, but your source stinks and you're going to have to do better if you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

[MikeK]

JihadWatch is an evil group with a twisted agenda. It is no more honest to suggest jihadwatch as a source on Islam than it is to use a Christian white power website to learn about Christianity. The truth about Islam is ugly enough that we should not reduce ourselves to promoting such garbage. Educate yourself about jihadwatch before you post share abject garbage. We must be better than this and not let our fears enslave us and make us resort to the exact behavior that has made Muslims and Jews hate eachother for several hundred years.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle

 

[pdudgeon]

We must be better than this and not let our fears enslave us and make us resort to the exact behavior that has made Muslims and Jews hate eachother for several hundred years.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle

Christianity is the exact opposite of such behaviour, and we also know that fear is not of the Lord.

Fear will only result in acts of self-destruction and self-limitation. It is knowledge, obedience, and faith in God that frees us from the tyrany of fear.

Like the lions who were out to make a tasty meal of Daniel, the Muslims are here for a time only, but they do not control our future. Only God can do that.

 

[AMDG]

Thanks!

Sorry, LWU, but your source stinks and you're going to have to do better if you want to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Instead of just criticizing the source of the article, got anything better? And BTW, what part of what LivingWordUnity posted is not true? Was there NOT a Battle of Badr? Do the Muslims NOT practice Taqiyya and is it NOT religious deception? (Seems to me that what was stated is very much like the left's "the ends justifies the means" and we KNOW that concept isn't very Christian.) And do the Muslims NOT practice the doctrine of Aborgation? Do they NOT practice Sharia Law? Stoning and "honor killing" is NOT part of it? Is Ramadan NOT a fast? Does Zakat exist? Is the pilgrimage that each Muslim is supposed to take to Mecca called Hajj? And since the news speaks of ISIS requiring Christians to pay Dhimmni (tax for being a non-Muslim), is the article WRONG concerning what Dhimmni is?

 

[Antigone]

Instead of just criticizing the source of the article, got anything better? And BTW, what part of what LivingWordUnity posted is not true? Was there NOT a Battle of Badr? Do the Muslims NOT practice Taqiyya and is it NOT religious deception? (Seems to me that what was stated is very much like the left's "the ends justifies the means" and we KNOW that concept isn't very Christian.) And do the Muslims NOT practice the doctrine of Aborgation? Do they NOT practice Sharia Law? Stoning and "honor killing" is NOT part of it? Is Ramadan NOT a fast? Does Zakat exist? Is the pilgrimage that each Muslim is supposed to take to Mecca called Hajj? And since the news speaks of ISIS requiring Christians to pay Dhimmni (tax for being a non-Muslim), is the article WRONG concerning what Dhimmni is?

Nice try. My concerns have already been addressed by MikeK and Tallguy, which you knew, yet you went with my post. Please address what Mike and Tallguy said.

 

[AMDG]

Actually my questions still stand. They have not been answered.

 

[MikeK]

Actually my questions still stand. They have not been answered.

On display in this thread are the exact same tactics that fundamentalist Protestants use to attack the Catholic Church and that militant atheists use to attack Christianity in general. Grab the most outlandish sounding bits you can, post them removed from context, and then demand that honest people do your legwork for you. I'm not playing this juvenile game and I am not going to waste oxygen addressing statements made by hate groups. If you want to believe foul garbage spread by hateful people, that's on you, you'll find plenty of company.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Instead of just criticizing the source of the article, got anything better? And BTW, what part of what LivingWordUnity posted is not true? Was there NOT a Battle of Badr? Do the Muslims NOT practice Taqiyya and is it NOT religious deception? (Seems to me that what was stated is very much like the left's "the ends justifies the means" and we KNOW that concept isn't very Christian.) And do the Muslims NOT practice the doctrine of Aborgation? Do they NOT practice Sharia Law? Stoning and "honor killing" is NOT part of it? Is Ramadan NOT a fast? Does Zakat exist? Is the pilgrimage that each Muslim is supposed to take to Mecca called Hajj? And since the news speaks of ISIS requiring Christians to pay Dhimmni (tax for being a non-Muslim), is the article WRONG concerning what Dhimmni is?

The only thing that those who believe in political correctness can do is launch an ad hominem atttack on the author of the article. They trust in the so-called "academics" even though these same so-called experts who insist on a Pollyanna view of Islam are always taken by complete surprise whenever something like 9/11, the Boston bombing, or ISIS happens. I don't say that we shouldn't listen to their point of view. But I think that to not be overly optimistic about something that is often a lethal threat we should know what the politically incorrect have to say about it and judge what they say based on whether what they say is actually true instead of based on an attack of their personal character. If Islam is a "religion of peace" why do they have a never-ending supply of terrorists who tell people to convert to Islam or die? This isn't just in Iraq. There's also Boko Haram and other Sunni extremism in other parts all around the world. And there are Muslims who are leaving countries like America and Australia to join with ISIS. They even sometimes take their children there with them to pledge their allegiance to ISIS. We are asked to close our eyes and imagine Islam as a religion of peace, but I'm not willing to close my eyes.

 

[S.ilvio]

Islamophobic threads like this should be closed.

The horrors of ISIS in the name of Islam should always be condemned.

Just as attempts to demonise all Muslims should be equally condemned...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Islamophobic threads like this should be closed.

The horrors of ISIS in the name of Islam should always be condemned.

Just as attempts to demonise all Muslims should be equally condemned...

The article does not claim that all Muslims are terrorists. If you can find something in the article that isn't true I think that would be better than to demand that the thread be closed regardless of if it's the truth or not. And the same so-called "academics" get Catholicism wrong.

 

[Needing_Grace]

The article does not claim that all Muslims are terrorists. If you can find something in the article that isn't true I think that would be better than to close the thread regardless of if it's the truth or not.

Straw man.

That wasn't what was said. "Demonise all Muslims" was used, not "claim that all Muslims are terrorists."

 

[South Bound]

"Jihad Watch is a blog affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Run by Catholic blogger Robert Spencer, it has been described as one of the main homes of the anti-Islamic, right-wing counterjihad movement on the internet.

According to the website, a theology of violent jihad, which denies non-Muslims and women equality, human rights, and dignity has been present throughout the history of Islam. Jihad Watch says that it is "dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correct popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts."

It has been repeatedly criticised by numerous academics who believe that it promotes an Islamophobic worldview and conspiracy theories."

Jihad Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine. Let's say all that's true. The question still remains, what have they said that's wrong?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Straw man.

That wasn't what was said. "Demonise all Muslims" was used, not "claim that all Muslims are terrorists."

That's still wrong. The article acknowledges that there are many peaceful Muslims. Like I said, the ones who want to criticize the article don't want to actually read what's in it.