Considering Islam

Perseveranze said:

I don't think you have any clue about what "abrogation" means in Islam.

Click to expand...

I would've thought abrogation would have more to do with changing the Qiblih or limiting and eventually banning the use of intoxicants like alcohol.

I've never seen anyone attempt to use "abrogation" in terms of verses that are violent and others that are not violent. That's...novel.

A tiny bit of knowledge about the historical background of various surih provides a much better understanding of what is violent, what is not, and why.

Booko said:

I've never seen anyone attempt to use "abrogation" in terms of verses that are violent and others that are not violent. That's...novel.

Click to expand...

Most interpreters of Quran did that in fact. They said all the peace verses are abrogated and you are to fight polytheists till they die or believe, and as for people of the book, till they believe or pay the jaziya. It's only in recent times, that a few scholars have taken the sensible approach and looked at everything circumstantially and in light of the bigger picture it provides.

AskTheFamily said:

Most interpreters of Quran did that in fact. They said all the peace verses are abrogated and you are to fight polytheists till they die or believe, and as for people of the book, till they believe or pay the jaziya. It's only in recent times, that a few scholars have taken the sensible approach and looked at everything circumstantially and in light of the bigger picture it provides.

Click to expand...

Muslims are mainly orthodox who follow the classical scholars opinions, which all contradict your "only in recent times" approach.

1. "Pagans are to believe or die" is false, none of the four schools of thought believed this. In fact the consensus (majority view) is the contrary.

2. The Jizya, which is a form of tax, only levied upon able-young-healthy working men (unlike western taxes, it doesn't apply to women or anyone else) - happens only after you've been in a state of war. (Not to mention that; I'm pretty sure if I didn't pay my taxes in a secular country I'd be sent to jail.)

If you're not a "people of the book" then you're still taxed, but as a Mu'ahid (someone who has a covenant with Muslims) and again, it only applies, to young, healthy, working men who can afford to pay it.

As the Prophet(pbuh) said;You can read this detailed explanation; newislamicdirections(dot)com/notes/jihad_is_not_perpetual_warfare/

LoAmmi said:

What are you basing your determination on that it is of war?

Click to expand...

The answer is Jihad.Askthefamily made a thread on it.Jihad denoting offensive war to convert people to islam.

Here is the thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7650236/

Perseveranze said:

Muslims are mainly orthodox who follow the classical scholars opinions, which all contradict your "only in recent times" approach.

1. "Pagans are to believe or die" is false, none of the four schools of thought believed this. In fact the consensus (majority view) is the contrary.

Click to expand...

This is plain nonsense and you cannot back up your claims with references to the muslim school of thought.

2. The Jizya, which is a form of tax, only levied upon able-young-healthy working men (unlike western taxes, it doesn't apply to women or anyone else) - happens only after you've been in a state of war. (Not to mention that; I'm pretty sure if I didn't pay my taxes in a secular country I'd be sent to jail.)

If you're not a "people of the book" then you're still taxed, but as a Mu'ahid (someone who has a covenant with Muslims) and again, it only applies, to young, healthy, working men who can afford to pay it.

Click to expand...

Another bs with no reference.

As the Prophet(pbuh) said;

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

The Prophet said. "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)." Volume 9. Book 83. Number 49​

You can read this detailed explanation; newislamicdirections(dot)com/notes/jihad_is_not_perpetual_warfare/

Click to expand...

a Mu'ahid, if he extends stay in muslim country(Without becoming a muslim)pays a punitive tax Jizya and a source of regular income for Muslims.

Btw, Jizya is not a simple tax.As the Quran 9:29 says it is tax payed by nonmuslims(People of the book) with subjugation.

Islam is fine, but not a lot of fun. No drawings of created objects, no music (i think?), no alcohol. They have hippy-dippy sects but then why even bother.


Before you go off and join a mosque, I do suggest you read the Qu'ran. Not because its particularly violent, but just because it is exceptionally dull. There is no narrative like the OT, just the disconnected ramblings of a sensual epileptic.

fschmidt said:

My experience on this forum has convinced me that I should seriously consider Islam. If any Muslims on this forum have suggestions for me, please contact me privately. I plan to start by reading the Haleem translation of the Quran.

Click to expand...

I hope you find what you're looking for. I had my stint in Islam and ultimately did not find my way there, though I respect them highly. Learning what Muslims believe from the inside out is a rewarding experience to go through, because you will be able to see what the faith is really about, and not what the media bias induces you to believe. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

I'm personally glad to be back in Christianity, which I guarantee you is not something I ever thought I'd hear myself say I do still say some prayers in Arabic though. I've memorized so many, and they're so beautiful, it would be a waste if I never uttered them again.

fschmidt said:

My experience on this forum has convinced me that I should seriously consider Islam. If any Muslims on this forum have suggestions for me, please contact me privately. I plan to start by reading the Haleem translation of the Quran.

Click to expand...

If it makes sense to you, then follow your intuition, and make the call based on what information you have, once you feel it is sufficient to warrant a decision.

I think, in the long run, you should look into serious minded/academic prot sects like non-pcusa Presbyterians. They'll have some of the stark style/submission/bibliolatry/ direct monotheism that is attractive about islam, but with better source materials, less cultural oddities, etc.

Perseveranze said:

This is completely untrue and has been rejected by even western Academics.

Many verses were revealed during the Medina period, such as the "No Compulsion in Religion" and;

Allah says: “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah’s sight are all of His servants.” [Sûrah Âl `Imrân: 20]

Allah says: “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 99]

It is important to note that these last two verses were revealed in Madinah. This is significant, since it shows that the ruling they gave was not just contingent on the Muslims being in Mecca in a state of weakness, but is valid for all time.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion.” | IslamToday - English

​

Furthermore;

The Islamophobes claim that Muhammad only preached patience, forgiveness, and tolerance during the Meccan Period. They argue further that the “opportunistic” Muhammad opted towards militarism, violence, and war as soon as he came to power in Medina. And yet, the events surrounding this Quranic revelation (i.e. the killing/mutilating of Muhammad’s uncle, and the command for Muhammad to endure it with patience and forgiveness) occurred well into the Medinan Period. In fact, it occurred at the height of the military conflict with the Meccan pagans.

What is even more telling is the fact that once Muhammad and the early Muslims conquered Mecca, Muhammad granted the Meccans pardon and mercy. If the critics of Islam attribute Muhammad’s peaceful attitude during the early Meccan Period to his lack of power to do otherwise, then what of Muhammad’s triumphal return to Mecca whereupon he had all the power in the world to take limitless vengeance upon them? Muhammad’s tolerant nature towards his Quraysh enemies cannot be explained by the meekness of his position, because he maintained that attitude when he had the power to crush them as they had tried to do to him aforetime.

Read more here; Medinan Period

​

I don't think you have any clue about what "abrogation" means in Islam. To get an understanding of it, you should read this.

Also, the peaceful verses were not "abrogated" by the "violent" verses. If you can show me where this happened, I can happily explain it in detail to you.

It would have to be an anonymous quote otherwise revealing the author would probably destroy all credibility as it always tends to be someone controversial or without much reliability.

Click to expand...

Chapter 9 was the second to last chapter spoken by Mohammad and it is by far one of the most violent.


Islam's goal is to be supreme above all other religions.
009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Quran is vague.

Asking a woman to remove a face veil for a driver's license picture is considered opression by many Muslims.:
002.193And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

Notice what is ordained for the Jews -not the Muslims. What is mischief? I have heard an Imam say that disbelif is mischief! Anything could be considered mischief- me discussing these things on a forum.
005.032 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

It is entirely likely that the facets of "Islam" that you find attractive are in fact not necessarily Islamic at all, but rather simply characteristics of certain areas you find appealing. Islam is actually a very strong proponent of women. Women gained considerable rights and dignities under Islam that were lacking in the pre-Islamic period. The largest Islamic country in the world actually had a woman head of state. Additionally prostitution is considered unacceptable under Islam.

What you seem to be looking for are the regional ethnic characteristics that some find in Islamicly dominant regions, not the religion itself. The same characteristics can be found in non-Islamic areas as well, so perhaps you should simply relocate there, rather than adopt a religion that you wouldn't find acceptable if you studied it. Muhammad was actually something of a liberal in his day!!!

Additionally prostitution is considered unacceptable under Islam.

Click to expand...

Who needs prostitutes when you have 4 slave-wives?

Lets try this again.

Additionally prostitution is considered unacceptable under Islam.

Click to expand...

Wow! Islam deserves a Nobel peace price.

Christianmilitaryofficer said:

It is entirely likely that the facets of "Islam" that you find attractive are in fact not necessarily Islamic at all, but rather simply characteristics of certain areas you find appealing. Islam is actually a very strong proponent of women.

Click to expand...

islam subjugates women to inferior status.I don't know where you get your info on islam.

Women gained considerable rights and dignities under Islam that were lacking in the pre-Islamic period.

Click to expand...

Actually islam put severe restrictions of women.

The largest Islamic country in the world actually had a woman head of state.

Click to expand...

That is actually unislamic per islamic jurists.You are probably referring to indonesia or bangladesh.

reference: Islam Question and Answer - Is it permissible in Islamic sharee’ah for a woman to be a ruler?

Additionally prostitution is considered unacceptable under Islam.

Click to expand...

Keeping women sex slaves is a gift of Allah.Muslim women were not allowed, though.

What you seem to be looking for are the regional ethnic characteristics that some find in Islamicly dominant regions, not the religion itself. The same characteristics can be found in non-Islamic areas as well, so perhaps you should simply relocate there, rather than adopt a religion that you wouldn't find acceptable if you studied it. Muhammad was actually something of a liberal in his day!!!

Click to expand...

Hogwash.You really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Rationalt said:

islam subjugates women to inferior status.

Click to expand...

Not really, but...

I don't know where you get your info on islam.

Click to expand...

I've been involved in some sort of Middle Eastern Studies for most of my adult life. I've lived there with family, worked there, have a few graduate degrees in the subject, etc... I even studied with a Sheik at azhar for a time.

I have a lot of knowledge on the subject. We could compare CV's, and while it is possible you know more about this than I do, it is highly improbable.

Actually islam put severe restrictions of women.

Click to expand...

Not really. Islam like most religion has a spectrum of activities, but as purely religious sanction the treatment of women is no different from Christianity or Judaism.

That is actually unislamic per islamic jurists.You are probably referring to indonesia or bangladesh.

Click to expand...

Or Paistan, but I am sure my experience with the Islamic jurists who I have studied or who are personal friends who are accomplished jurists are naturally trumped by a guy on the internet. I'm also sure all of the people in Indonesia and Pakistan were simply ignorant of their faith.

Keeping women sex slaves is a gift of Allah.Muslim women were not allowed, though.

Click to expand...

Concubines were permitted, but the issue is complicated.

Hogwash.You really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Yes, my decade+ of study is naturally inferior to random internet musings. Have you actually been to the ME?

Christianmilitaryofficer said:

Not really, but...



I've been involved in some sort of Middle Eastern Studies for most of my adult life. I've lived there with family, worked there, have a few graduate degrees in the subject, etc... I even studied with a Sheik at azhar for a time.

I have a lot of knowledge on the subject. We could compare CV's, and while it is possible you know more about this than I do, it is highly improbable.



Not really. Islam like most religion has a spectrum of activities, but as purely religious sanction the treatment of women is no different from Christianity or Judaism.



Or Paistan, but I am sure my experience with the Islamic jurists who I have studied or who are personal friends who are accomplished jurists are naturally trumped by a guy on the internet. I'm also sure all of the people in Indonesia and Pakistan were simply ignorant of their faith.



Concubines were permitted, but the issue is complicated.



Yes, my decade+ of study is naturally inferior to random internet musings. Have you actually been to the ME?

Click to expand...

I am sure there are amazing loving Muslim husbands just as there are horrible Christian and Jewish husbands. The issue is what Islam condones through the Quran and sayings of Mohammad.

Gotta love that equality for women:

Muslim women are allowed to marry only Muslim men.

Many Muslim women can not travel outside their homes without the escort of a male family member.

Muslims women can not always choose what they consider modest dress - religious police decide that for her.

Muslim women can be beaten by their husbands if the husband merely thinks tthe wife is disobeying them.
004.034 Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For Allah is Most High, great.

If a woman is raped she needs to find 4 eyewitnesses to back her story otherwise if she becomes pregnant because of the rape she is at fault. and she will be whipped, hung and/or shot.

There is the issue of temporary marriages.

Equality of Islam?:

Egypt's First "Sex-Slave" Marriage

by Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
July 5, 2012

What is being dubbed as Egypt's "first sex-slave marriage" took place mere days after the Muslim Brotherhood's Muhammad Morsi was made president.

Sheikh Awn telling his concubine-bride what to say during their "nuptial vows," which included her "enslavement" to the self-proclaimed Sharia expert.

Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his "slave." Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you," and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.

Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled). The man claps for her as the video-clip ends.

The owner-husband, Abd al-Rauf Awn, then appeared on the show, identifying himself as an Islamic scholar and expert at Islamic jurisprudence who studied at Al Azhar. He gave several Islamic explanations to justify his "marriage," from Islamic prophet Muhammad's "sunna" or practice of "marrying" enslaved captive women, to Koran 4:3, which commands Muslim men to "Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess."

For all practical purposes, and to avoid euphemisms, "what your right hands possess"—also known in Arabic as a melk al-yamin—is, according to Islamic doctrine and history, simply a sex-slave Linguistic evidence further suggests that she is seen more as a possession than a human.
Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn commanded his concubine-wife, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. During the program Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first "righteous caliphs," used to strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.

Awn further explained that sex-slave marriage is ideal for today's Egyptian society. He based his position on ijtihad, a recognized form of jurisprudence, whereby a Muslim scholar comes up with a new idea—one that is still rooted in the Koran and example of Muhammad—yet one that better fits the circumstances of contemporary society.
He argued that, when it comes to marriage, "we Muslims have overly complicated things," so that men are often forced to be single throughout their prime, finally getting married between the ages of 30-40 (when they might be expected to have a sufficient income to open a household). Similarly, many Egyptian women do not want to wear the hijab in public.
The solution, according to Awn, is to reinstitute sex-slavery—allowing men to marry and copulate much earlier in life, and women who want to dress freely to do so, as technically they are sex-slaves and mandated to go about loosely attired, anyway.

The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to "repent" and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery"—to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What—because the UN said so?"

In many ways, this exchange between Awn, who advocates sex-slave marriage, and the Al Azhar professor symbolizes the clash between today's "Islamists" and "moderate Muslims." For long, Al Azhar has been primarily engaged in the delicate balancing act of affirming Islam while still advocating modernity according to Western standards, whereas the Islamists—from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Salafis—bred with contempt and disrespect for the West, are only too eager to revive distinctly Islamic practices that defy Western sensibilities.

While this may be the first sex-slave marriage to take place in Egypt's recent history, it is certainly not the first call to revive the practice. Earlier, Egyptian Sheikh Huwaini, lamenting that the "good old days" of Islam are over, declared that, in an ideal Muslim society, " when I want a sex slave [I should be able to go] to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her." Likewise, a Kuwaiti female politician advocated for reviving the institute of sex-slavery, suggesting that Muslims should bring female captives of war—specifically Russian women from the Chechnya war—and sell them to Muslim men in the markets of Kuwait.

And so the "Arab Spring" continues to blossom.

fschmidt said:

My experience on this forum has convinced me that I should seriously consider Islam. If any Muslims on this forum have suggestions for me, please contact me privately. I plan to start by reading the Haleem translation of the Quran.

Click to expand...

Hi

with all due respect, the old testament is not in force any longer since 2 millennia already, it was replaced with the New by Jesus, and this happened through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as it is written:

Matthew 27:50-56 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom(viz. the old testament was annulled i.e. all imperfect/unfavorable commandments/ordinances of the previous covenant were abolished); and the earth did quake(ie and the powers did shake - see Matthew 24:29), and the rocks rent(ie and all inner/domestic power of satan was permanently deprived - see John 12:31-32); And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake(viz. the shake of the powers), and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.",

Ephesians 2:13-17 "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one(ie all humans to abide/be in the true God), and hath broken down the middle wall of partition(ie the inner/domestic satanic power) |between us|; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, |even| the law of commandments |contained| in ordinances(ie in imperfect/unfavorable ordinances); for to make in himself of twain one new man, |so| making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ",

Colossians 2:8-15 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world(ie after the imperfect/unrighteous creeds), and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands(ie without human hands), in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried(ie buried as regards the deadly deeds) with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with |him| through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances(ie of the human/imperfect/unfavorable ordinances) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; |And| having spoiled principalities and powers(ie all unclean/unrighteous spiritual/religious systems and powers), he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

and with regard to the quran, there are many annulled commandments/ordinances of the old testament presented as perfect and righteous on the part of the prophets of quran, the quran is something as a turn(going back) to the imperfect/unrighteous creeds of which the old testament is the most typical example of such, of course the muslims can very easily to redirect their faith to God and Jesus, but such commandments/ordinances as: "kill with stones", "retaliate", "curse", etc., are not relevant before the true God, especially now in the 21st century - such ordinances are obviously inhuman

Blessings

toLiJC said:

Hi

with all due respect, the old testament is not in force any longer since 2 millennia already, it was replaced with the New by Jesus, and this happened through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as it is written:

Click to expand...

Well, certainly you can't expect someone who doesn't believe that to agree with you, right?