The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

[Surreal]

In regards to the second issue, namely that of the breaking of covenants, this is with regards to the issue of amaan (safe passage). In modern day usage, it refers to visas. Under Islamic law, if a Muslim government gives amaan (safe passage), i.e. a visa, to a Non-Muslim, allowing him to enter a Muslim land, then it is forbidden to touch even a hair on his body. Forget about hitting him; Prophet Muhammad [s] said it's not even allowed to revile him with one's words. As for killing them like Al-Qaeda kills foreign tourists, Prophet Muhammad [s] damned such people to hell, saying:

"The one who wrongfully kills a Non-Muslim under the pact (of safety) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even if its smell reached forty years of traveling distance." (Musnad Ahmad)

Similarly, under Islamic Law, if a Non-Muslim government gives amaan (safe passage), i.e. visa or even citizenship, in one of their countries--such as America--then we Muslims are religiously obligated to obey all of the conditions placed under us by this covenant. So you will see that the 9/11 hijackers got amaan (safe passage) to America, and they repaid them back by killing their people. This is utter corruption and completely forbidden in Islam. Not only can we not harm a single hair on the heads of any of them, but we must also abide by all the laws of theirs, including paying taxes and the like.

I am under the impression that these extremists do not recognize the governments of certain Muslim nations as legitimate owing to alleged Western colonialism/American influence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to share this view given:

Our leaders over us are petty tyrants who vie for nothing but worldly power and nationalistic gain . . . Not only did the colonial powers impose these boundaries upon us and put despotic leaders over our heads, but they also demolished the Caliphate.

Now my question is, if these Muslim rulers are tyrants or otherwise illegitimate, their rules and laws would also bear no legitimacy and be invalid, and they would have no right to grant foreigners safe passage. Indeed if these (illegitimate) rulers' grants of safe passage are as illegitimate as their rule, then why should extremists or any other Muslim be held to respect these illegitimate, and as such invalid, grants of safe passage?

First, I must say that the map I showed includes parts of countries that I would not consider to be necessarily included in the Pan-Islamic union. Rather, it was just to give a general idea. So please do not take the map too literally.

However based on your enumeration of alleged Russia, Chinese and Indian atrocities against Muslims and . . .

The fact that Muslims are being oppressed in so many places is the reason why a pan-Islamic Caliphate is necessary, to protect the Muslims from oppression and occupation.

It seems to me that you favor depriving Russia, India and China of Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang, respectively, and placing these lands under the rule of a pan-Islamic state.

The issue is not about depriving Non-Muslims of their land, but rather to unite our lands like we were before the colonial onslaught.

While this may not be your intent, placing Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang under the rule of a pan-Islamic state will require and render the effect of depriving other states of their territories. I don't see how Russia, India and China will see such action as anything but a challenge to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

My question is not a normative one, but rather something that should be seen in the positive scope . . . I'm not concerned with why Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang should or should not be a part of a pan-Islamic state. Rather, I would like to know how a pan-Islamic state plan on securing these territories without the use or threat of violence . . . or if this state will merely use war as an instrument for securing these territories?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.

I am under the impression that these extremists do not recognize the governments of certain Muslim nations as legitimate owing to alleged Western colonialism/American influence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to share this view given:

Everything you have said is correct so far. Here is where I differ:

Now my question is, if these Muslim rulers are tyrants or otherwise illegitimate, their rules and laws would also bear no legitimacy and be invalid, and they would have no right to grant foreigners safe passage.

This is exactly what the extremists say and where we--the mainstream and moderate Muslims--oppose them. The fact that the Islamic governments are corrupt, oppressive, etc., does not negate their ability to grant safe passage (amaan) to Non-Muslims. The orthodox Islamic jurists since the earliest times in Islamic history have written pages and pages on this topic, and what they say is that if we open the doors to such interpretations, then it will make a joke of Islamic Law, since anyone could claim that the government was illegitimate (a subjective claim and subject to the eye of the beholder) and thereby circumvent the covenants. What they said--based on what the Prophet Muhammad [s] said--is that even if a completely corrupt government is in power--heck, even if Darth Vader himself was the ruler of a Muslim country--then even still if they gave safe passage (amaan) to a Non-Muslim, then it would be binding and must be respected.

In fact, if you open up our classical texts, you will find that the early orthodox Islamic jurists even discussed the following scenario: let's say a Muslim is taken as a prisoner and taken to the Non-Muslim lands, where after a brief period of imprisonment, he is then allowed by the Non-Muslim government to live in their land. Keep in mind that he was taken their against his will, but even still, the orthodox Islamic jurists explained that this Muslim would be obligated to uphold the covenant; he could not at all harm them, nor deprive them of their wealth, etc. This is how serious the matter of covenants are; keep in mind that numerous verses in the Quran expound the importance of upholding the covenants. There is even the story of a Muslim king who gave respite to a Non-Muslim war criminal until he finished drinking the glass of water which was given to him; the Non-Muslim threw the water on the floor, and the Islamic jurists of that time ruled that the king could no longer execute him, because he was granted a covenant thereby, as he had not finished drinking the water.

So to conclude: you have properly understood the arguments of the extremists. This is exactly the sorts of logic and arguments they use to justify their crimes. Yet, it is rejected by orthodox and mainstream Islam.

Indeed if these (illegitimate) rulers' grants of safe passage are as illegitimate as their rule, then why should extremists or any other Muslim be held to respect these illegitimate, and as such invalid, grants of safe passage?

Because Islamic Law commands the Muslims to.

However based on your enumeration of alleged Russia, Chinese and Indian atrocities against Muslims and . . .

It seems to me that you favor depriving Russia, India and China of Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang, respectively, and placing these lands under the rule of a pan-Islamic state.

While this may not be your intent, placing Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang under the rule of a pan-Islamic state will require and render the effect of depriving other states of their territories. I don't see how Russia, India and China will see such action as anything but a challenge to their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

My question is not a normative one, but rather something that should be seen in the positive scope . . . I'm not concerned with why Chechnya, Kashmir and Xinjiang should or should not be a part of a pan-Islamic state. Rather, I would like to know how a pan-Islamic state plan on securing these territories without the use or threat of violence . . . or if this state will merely use war as an instrument for securing these territories?

It should be understood that under international law, every people have a right to self-determination. If, for example, Floridans did not want their state to be a part of the United States, then America would be obligated to allow Florida to become independent. This is if the majority of Floridans desire cessation. A government's legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed; as soon as they lose that, they have no right to rule.

So that is from a conceptual point of view. However, your question I think is less about that but more about the practical aspects of implementing such an ideal, correct? Well, let me give you the example of Saladin. When Saladin was alive, much of Syria/Palestine and even Jerusalem--which was Muslim land--was occupied by the Crusaders, who oppressed Muslims greatly. The Crusaders committed all sorts of atrocities against the Muslims. The first thing that Saladin's shaykh did was to unite the Muslims under a Pan-Islamic empire. Before that, the Muslim world was disunited and broken up into more than three parts. Saladin was sent to Egypt to overthrow the corrupt and illegitimate Fatimid ruler; once he did that, the Muslim world was united and ready to face the Crusaders.

Based on this analogy, you can think of the Franj (the Crusaders were French) as Russia, and the Crusader kingdoms in the holy land as Russia's occupation in Chechnya. So in order to prevent the oppression of the Muslims in the occupied region, the first step was to unite the Muslim empire. Before that was done, there was no way the Muslims could have prevailed.

Once united, the Muslims liberated Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied Muslim territory. Once the Crusaders had felt the might of the unified Islamic nation, they were convinced to come to terms of peace. Saladin's last great act was to sign a peace with the Crusaders, even allowing them to keep control of a part of Muslim land which they had occupied. Saladin didn't drive them all out of the holy land, even though from an ideological standpoint he had every right to. The reason is that even though we say we have a right to that land, we as Muslims must prefer peace over war. So if the Crusaders agree to stop oppressing Muslims in their land, then we can negotiate and even concede parts of our land to them.

To conclude, I am not saying that all of the Muslim majority land in Russia, China, or India must be necessarily ceded to the Muslims. If they allow freedom of religion to the Muslims, if they do not oppress them, if they treat them well, then we are a peaceful people who will be willing to negotiate.

Hope this sheds some light on the issue.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

GST, you there?

[gst528i]

hey buffedguy. I just got back from dallas ( another city) was gone for buisness. I am about to read your responses.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, GST.

I want to more fully address this part of your post:

Okay we all know the holy books of hindu, christian, muslim were written by "PROPHETS", " PEOPLE OF GOD", "GURUS" what ever term you use.
My point is, these books were written by humans and has been with us for ages. We all have come to the conclution that there are some parts in christian bible, hindu holy book, that has been added or removed because it wasn't the word of god.
How can muslims say with irrefutable proof that the quran was all the word of god.

Muslims take great pride in the preservation of the Quran. We believe that a religion should be judged by its holy book. One of our theological criticisms of people of other religions is that when asked a question about their religion, they oftentimes answer from their own minds, whereas Muslims answer from our religious holy book. We also believe that unlike other religions, we do not make the Quran say what we want it to say, but rather open the Quran with an empty brain and then come out with it full, instead of first coming up with doctrines and then seeking to validate them in the religious book.

One of the Quran's criticism against the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians) is that their religious scriptures have become corrupted: scribal errors and outright manipulations. According to the Quran, they did not take care to preserve their books as sent to them by God, but instead wrote them with their own hands.

Because Islam was critical of the People of the Book for their lack of carefulness with regards to preserving their holy books, it is no surprise then that Prophet Muhammad [s] and his disciples took great care to preserve the Quran, so that they would not fall into the same error that they were critical of the People of the Book for.

One of the main mechanisms that Muslims have used to protect the Quran is by producing huffaaz. Huffaaz literally translates to safe-keepers, guarders or guardians...in other words, they guard the Quran from corruption. These are men who have memorized the Quran word for word, cover to cover. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad [s], there were over 10,000 of his disciples who memorized the book cover to cover. Keep in mind that that there were over a hundred thousand in the time of the Prophet [s] who had memorized *parts* of the Quran, but there were OVER TEN THOUSAND who had memorized it in its ENTIRETY, front back and center.

They would then recite it to each other, the entire Quran over the course of Ramadan. So one Quran memorizer (haafiz) would lead the prayer and recite aloud the entire Quran, and behind him, if he ever made a mistake, then there are multiple Quran reciters standing in the front row who will correct him. In this way, it is impossible to make a mistake since it is not possible for *all* the multiple hufaaz to make the *same* mistake. In addition to this, before the prayer and after, they will recite the Quran themselves, always practicing, and some of them would read the entire Quran every three days, whilst worst case they would do it in one month time. So twelve times per year per person. And then on top of that, in each prayer, they'd read parts of the Quran in a sequential order so that they would read the whole thing.

The Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"Whoever reads the Qur’an and memorizes it, while he regards what it makes lawful as lawful and its unlawful as forbidden, God will admit him into Paradise." (Sunan at-Tirmidhi)

Not only this, but it is considered a sin to forget a part of the Quran after one has learned it, so Muslims are extra cautious to keep the memorization fresh and correct.

So with the same zeal that you see many Muslims willing to risk their lives to die for Islam, similarly there are Muslims the world over today that have the entire Quran memorized cover to cover. It is estimated that today there are over nine million Muslims who have memorized the Quran cover to cover; I am talking about nine MILLION Muslims who are living right now. That's just today! Imagine how many throughout history over the past 1400 years. The number must be astronomical. If you destroyed every single Quran on the earth, we would be able to reproduce it letter for letter, dot for dot, without error.

Think of it this way: when a video gets on youtube, it goes "viral" and then nobody can suppress the news. Even if they removed the video for fear of bad publicity, by the time it went viral, there is nothing they can do now. People would have saved it on their computers, spread the news, etc.

Similarly, the memorization of the Quran went "viral". In the time of Prophet Muhammad [s], there were thousands who had memorized the entire Quran, and then each generation it increased and multiplied triple-fold until the number became truly astronomical. Today, the Quran is the MOST MEMORIZED book in the world and history. No other book has been memorized like this.

The Prophet's command--inspired by God--to have thousands of people memorize the Quran and for them to have their kids memorize it all--was a way to mass transmit the Quran in a way that it became impossible for anyone to add any single word into the Quran. Instead of making the scribes the sole caretakers, the Prophet [s] made the entire Muslim community its caretakers, under God.

I've read a couple books on the textual criticism of the Bible, and what I learned was that scribes were able to add and omit words from the Bible since they were the only ones who had access to the manuscripts. If they accidentally made a wrong brush stroke one place, then that mistake would be repeated by the person who copied that manuscript, and he wouldn't know because he hadn't memorized the Bible himself. Few people were literate back then, and the manuscripts in the hands of an elite few.

Meanwhile, the Quran--from the very beginning--was the exact opposite. It was mass memorized by the people. When Muslims moved to a new country, they'd send a fleet of huffaaz (Quran memorizers) to teach the people there the Quran by heart. You not only have to memorize it, but you are then tested on it multiple times, and get certified as a Quran memorizer. You actually get a diploma/certificate. This is after your memorization has been rigorously tested, where you recite the Quran to multiple other Quran memorizers who catch you for errors. Any time a Quran is printed, a huge fleet of Quran memorizers will check it backwards and forward, and if a copy has a single error in it--ONE SINGLE ERROR--it is immediately burned.

There is a very famous story of a calligrapher who use to have the absolute best and most beautiful calligraphy. He was interested in learning about different religions, so he went to a group of Jews, a group of Christians, and a group of Muslims. He asked them each for their religious book. He went back home and then copied each in his beautiful and breathtaking calligraphy. But he changed seven or eight words of each book on purpose, before he went back to each group and showed them the copy he made. Both the Jews and Christians were amazed by his beautiful calligraphy and penmanship, giving him high accolades and respect, saying that it was the best they have seen. But when he gave the book to the Muslims, he came to know that they burned it and told the guy off. He asked why and they told them that it had errors in it. The man converted to Islam, saying that *this* is a book guarded.

This difference can be seen today by the fact that the King James Version of the Bible has more than twenty verses in it than the Revised Standard Version of the Bible does. The RSV Bible actually removed those verses out, for reasons including that many of the verses were later day fabrications not in earlier manuscripts. What I mean to say is that Christian scholars debate amongst themselves, saying that some verses are fabrications.

Yet not a single verse in any published Quran in the world is fabricated. You will never find a footnote in the Quran that says "this verse is questionable authenticity" or "this verse is a fabrication", etc. Never! In fact, anyone who believes such a thing about the Quran is considered by us to be a disbeliever.

Now don't get me wrong: I understand the Christian side to this. They will argue that even though there are errors--additions, omissions, forgeries, etc.--these amount to a very small percentage of the book overall and do not change the meaning of the Bible. Although I don't agree with that, I do understand their position and I do not think it is absurd. What I am saying here is not to bash Christianity but rather to highlight the excellence and purity of the Quran. You see, the entire basis of our religion is that the People of the Book corrupted their book and religion, and here is the Final Testament, purified and free from corruption.

Lastly, we believe that God Himself has promised to preserve the Quran from corruption. This is because the Quran is the Final Testament, sent to all of the worlds for the rest of time until the Day of Judgment. Hence, God has blessed the Quran by promising to protect it Himself. God says:

"We have, without any doubt, sent down the Message; and verily We will guard it from corruption." (Quran, 15:9)

"Its collection and recitation are Our affair." (Quran, 75:17)

"To you have We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God has revealed, and follow not vain desires, diverging from the Truth that has come to you." (Quran, 5:48)

The Quran is unique in that we know who exactly it was revealed to. On the other hand, with other religious books--such as the Bible--we don't know who some of the authors were. Some of the authors are anonymous or even unknown and others use pseudonyms. Some authors even use the names of disciples even though they themselves are not that person. This is true for both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. As for the Hindu Vedas, they don't know who wrote them. So I think your argument would apply, in that how could we possibly follow a book whose author we don't even know.

In these ways the Quran is unique. I am not saying that the other religious books of other religions are garbage. No, I am simply saying that the Quran has some unique honors and distinctions that they do not share. We know who it was revealed to, we know how it was preserved, it was and still is *mass* memorized, etc. Like I said, people of other religions would argue that it is not important for a religious book to be 100% accurate; minor omissions, additions, etc.--they say--will not make a major difference in what we, the readers, get from them. I understand this argument, and it is not without some truth to it. But I like putting my faith in a book that can say about itself:

"This is a Book, wherein there is no doubt." (Quran, 2:2)

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

hey buffedguy. I just got back from dallas ( another city) was gone for buisness. I am about to read your responses.

How was your trip? You were missed. My thread is about to go extinct. You're one of the last readers. haha

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

bro - when you answer evolution pm me and i would love to read you information.... God be with you Buffed

You got it, buddy. Thanks for being so forgiving of my harsh tongue in the news section.

[gst528i]

How was your trip? You were missed. My thread is about to go extinct. You're one of the last readers. haha

trip sucked. I got pulled over because my HID lights were strobing for some reason ... he said i was impersonating a police vehicle lol ..

Bastard gave me a ticket which i have to get dismissed.

And i couldnt read all about ur responses coz my brain was fried. ...

[BuffedGuy]

trip sucked. I got pulled over because my HID lights were strobing for some reason ... he said i was impersonating a police vehicle lol ..

Bastard gave me a ticket which i have to get dismissed.

When you go to the court to get your ticket dismissed, please make sure to walk in wearing a police uniform from a halloween store.

[Surreal]

This is exactly what the extremists say and where we--the mainstream and moderate Muslims--oppose them. The fact that the Islamic governments are corrupt, oppressive, etc., does not negate their ability to grant safe passage (amaan) to Non-Muslims. The orthodox Islamic jurists since the earliest times in Islamic history have written pages and pages on this topic, and what they say is that if we open the doors to such interpretations, then it will make a joke of Islamic Law, since anyone could claim that the government was illegitimate (a subjective claim and subject to the eye of the beholder) and thereby circumvent the covenants. What they said--based on what the Prophet Muhammad [s] said--is that even if a completely corrupt government is in power--heck, even if Darth Vader himself was the ruler of a Muslim country--then even still if they gave safe passage (amaan) to a Non-Muslim, then it would be binding and must be respected.

In fact, if you open up our classical texts, you will find that the early orthodox Islamic jurists even discussed the following scenario: let's say a Muslim is taken as a prisoner and taken to the Non-Muslim lands, where after a brief period of imprisonment, he is then allowed by the Non-Muslim government to live in their land. Keep in mind that he was taken their against his will, but even still, the orthodox Islamic jurists explained that this Muslim would be obligated to uphold the covenant; he could not at all harm them, nor deprive them of their wealth, etc. This is how serious the matter of covenants are; keep in mind that numerous verses in the Quran expound the importance of upholding the covenants. There is even the story of a Muslim king who gave respite to a Non-Muslim war criminal until he finished drinking the glass of water which was given to him; the Non-Muslim threw the water on the floor, and the Islamic jurists of that time ruled that the king could no longer execute him, because he was granted a covenant thereby, as he had not finished drinking the water.

So to conclude: you have properly understood the arguments of the extremists. This is exactly the sorts of logic and arguments they use to justify their crimes. Yet, it is rejected by orthodox and mainstream Islam.

If tyranny is tolerated and illegitimate laws are followed, how do the orthodox and mainstream Muslims plan on ever securing power over the tyrants and form a pan-Islamic state?

To conclude, I am not saying that all of the Muslim majority land in Russia, China, or India must be necessarily ceded to the Muslims. If they allow freedom of religion to the Muslims, if they do not oppress them, if they treat them well, then we are a peaceful people who will be willing to negotiate.

That would still require the threat of violence and a willingness to wage war if push comes to shove. I don't mean to offend you, but this pan-islamic state sounds no different from the United States or any other powerful state of the past . . . at least with regard to foreign policy.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.

In the Name of God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.

If tyranny is tolerated and illegitimate laws are followed, how do the orthodox and mainstream Muslims plan on ever securing power over the tyrants and form a pan-Islamic state?

This is where Al-Qaeda and Usama bin Ladin differ from the orthodox Muslims. Bin Ladin believes that the only way to overthrow the Saudi regime is to use violence, break laws, and wage a bloody rebellion against not only the government, but also those who work for it (such as police officers, civil servants, etc.), those who remain silent over it (such as the orthodox Islamic scholars), and anyone else whom they can justify violence against. The orthodox Muslims, however, say that--as long as the leaders do not prohibit the prayer and other religious rites--we must endure the tyranny with patience, speak the truth, and change the hearts one person at a time. We believe, as the Quran says, that God will not change the condition of a people until they first change their inner-selves. Thus, if we change our inner-selves and have faith in God, then matters will fall into place. I give the example of how Saladin overthrew the Fatimid empire, without a single shot fired.

That would still require the threat of violence and a willingness to wage war if push comes to shove. I don't mean to offend you, but this pan-islamic state sounds no different from the United States or any other powerful state of the past . . . at least with regard to foreign policy.

I have posted earlier in this thread about when a Jihad is ordained, namely when the Muslims are run out of their homes, when they are killed for their religion, and oppressed in the land. If the Muslims are forbidden from being Muslim--as was the case in Russia and still is the case in China--then Muslims are obligated to fight to remove that oppression. But if they incline towards peace, then we should incline towards peace. Peace is preferable to war. War is only tolerated when there is no other alternative to remove the oppression.

If Iraq invaded and occupied Florida--then Americans would have every right to fight back and free the Floridans from occupation. This is different than waging imperialistic and outright offensive/aggressive wars. There is a difference between trying to secure oil resources in a foreign land, to subjugate its people against their will, etc. and a grass-roots freedom fighting movement.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Surreal]

This is where Al-Qaeda and Usama bin Ladin differ from the orthodox Muslims. Bin Ladin believes that the only way to overthrow the Saudi regime is to use violence, break laws, and wage a bloody rebellion against not only the government, but also those who work for it (such as police officers, civil servants, etc.), those who remain silent over it (such as the orthodox Islamic scholars), and anyone else whom they can justify violence against. The orthodox Muslims, however, say that--as long as the leaders do not prohibit the prayer and other religious rites--we must endure the tyranny with patience, speak the truth, and change the hearts one person at a time. We believe, as the Quran says, that God will not change the condition of a people until they first change their inner-selves. Thus, if we change our inner-selves and have faith in God, then matters will fall into place. I give the example of how Saladin overthrew the Fatimid empire, without a single shot fired.

Please understand I do not mean to offend anyone by this. However as much as I hate bin Laden & co. as the next guy, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that as unlikely as it maybe for bin Laden to realize his vision of a pan-Islamic state, his militant actions and strategy seems more fruitful than the rather passive stance of the orthodox and mainstream Muslims.

Also, why do orthodox Muslim scholars remain silent over the matter?

I have posted earlier in this thread about when a Jihad is ordained, namely when the Muslims are run out of their homes, when they are killed for their religion, and oppressed in the land. If the Muslims are forbidden from being Muslim--as was the case in Russia and still is the case in China--then Muslims are obligated to fight to remove that oppression. But if they incline towards peace, then we should incline towards peace. Peace is preferable to war. War is only tolerated when there is no other alternative to remove the oppression.

Frankly, everyone seems to claim a preference for peace over war. No one will tell you that they launched a war in the name of economic gain or to rape and pillage. If you asked one of Bush and co.'s few remaining supporters, they'll happily tell you that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to preserve peace for the long term and for the good of Iraq. LOL.

When looking from the perspective of one's own side, people always tend to feel righteous and justified. Maybe I'm just fond of a subjective interpretation of right and wrong, good and bad, black and white . . . etc. However, point is: we're all the same. We all seek to protect and advance our own interests, and we justify our actions with logic and rhetoric that always makes sense from our own individual perspectives.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Surreal.

Please understand I do not mean to offend anyone by this.

You do not need to keep apologizing. You are very courteous and most welcome to ask as many questions as you want.

However as much as I hate bin Laden & co. as the next guy, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that as unlikely as it maybe for bin Laden to realize his vision of a pan-Islamic state, his militant actions and strategy seems more fruitful than the rather passive stance of the orthodox and mainstream Muslims.

What you say makes a lot of sense, if we do not factor in God Almighty into the equation. We Muslims believe that nothing happens without the Will and Blessing of God. We put our trust in God alone, not on tactics. This is a part of pure monotheism, which is the fundamental part of our creed. Sometimes the only realistic option seems to be the one that involves violating God's Laws, but the believer does not let this affect his judgment.

For example, the extremists justify suicide bombing and other such tactics, by saying that it is the only realistic option for victory. They point out that the most number of enemy soldiers have been killed by this tactic, and without it, "they are done for." Yet, we Muslims are believers, and we believe that victory comes from God alone. How then could we seek to attain victory by violating what God commands us to do? Our job is only to obey God's Laws, put in the effort, and the result is from God alone. Our actions cannot bring about anything, or take away anything, from the Will and Plan of God. Even if the entire world gathered together against us--if each and every person from all over the globe ganged up against us--they could not do anything, except with the Will and Permission of God. If God so chose to do something, nothing they could do would prevent that. The basic mistake of Al-Qaeda is that they put their trust in their intellects, instead of putting faith in God alone.

This is a matter of faith and trust in God. Having said all of that, I do not think our path is unrealistic in the least. Our methodology is to change the hearts of the people, and once enough hearts have been aligned, then the people can become a strong force.

Also, why do orthodox Muslim scholars remain silent over the matter?

This is a very complicated issue. Prophet Muhammad [s] said that there is no greater Jihad than to speak a true word in the face of the tyrant. But he [s] also advised that criticism of the government should not take the form of violent protests, etc. Rather, the person should go straight to the leader--no matter how corrupt he is--and advise him in private, and try to change the person's heart. So the orthodox Islamic scholars advise and admonish the Saudi king in private (i.e. for his corruption, extravagance, etc.), and even still many of them have been jailed.

But the issue is more complicated than that, due to the political reality on the ground. Saudi Arabia is being pushed and pulled on by all sides, and is in danger of being ripped asunder. You have the extremists on one side like Al-Qaeda who have a small but vocal and violent following in the country, demanding violent revolution and overthrow of the government. On the other hand, you have the extreme liberals who want to adopt a complete Westernization of the land of the two holy places; they are getting support and funding from the West. And then you have orthodox Islamic scholars--some very ultra-conservative, others more open-minded and wanting to improve the situation, by giving more rights to Non-Muslims, women, foreigners, etc. and who wish to see the state adopt a more moderate approach to Islamic Law, etc. Anyways, suffice to say, that Saudi Arabia is a powder-keg ready to explode...

Frankly, everyone seems to claim a preference for peace over war. No one will tell you that they launched a war in the name of economic gain or to rape and pillage. If you asked one of Bush and co.'s few remaining supporters, they'll happily tell you that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to preserve peace for the long term and for the good of Iraq. LOL.

When looking from the perspective of one's own side, people always tend to feel righteous and justified. Maybe I'm just fond of a subjective interpretation of right and wrong, good and bad, black and white . . . etc. However, point is: we're all the same. We all seek to protect and advance our own interests, and we justify our actions with logic and rhetoric that always makes sense from our own individual perspectives.

I agree with you 100%. Nonetheless, there is a difference between saying a thing and doing a thing. Nobody would deny that self-defense is a necessity for any nation-state to exist; the problem arises when people use Orwellian language to justify outright aggressive and oppressive actions.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[gst528i]

Okay so after reading and re-reading your post, my conclusion is that muslims believe in the prophet because he is believed to have been illitarate but than suddenly be able to read.
Second is that he has two tones of writing in the two books of islam.

i mean no disrespect when i say the greatest illutionists would find this easy to pull off.
Now is jesus considered moral human prophet? Is he considered son of god ? Is he more important than muhammed? as in higher in ranking ... i dont know how to explain that...
What's islam think of Nostradamus. I know islam rejects practise of astrology and physic ability.
why do muslims believe that when jesus comes, there will be no more revelations? That islam religion was the final revealtion and that the only reason for jesus to return will be to come and kill the anti-christ.

[BuffedGuy]

Okay so after reading and re-reading your post, my conclusion is that muslims believe in the prophet because he is believed to have been illitarate but than suddenly be able to read.
Second is that he has two tones of writing in the two books of islam.

Peace be unto you, GST.

I did not yet answer you why I think the Prophet Muhammad [s] is a true prophet. I was waiting for you to read my posts before replying. I was simply answering questions about the Quran...

I will reply after Thursday, God-Willing. I'm taking my licensing exam on Thursday...gotta finish another read of the material.

Now is jesus considered moral human prophet? Is he considered son of god ? Is he more important than muhammed? as in higher in ranking ... i dont know how to explain that...
What's islam think of Nostradamus. I know islam rejects practise of astrology and physic ability.

why do muslims believe that when jesus comes, there will be no more revelations? That islam religion was the final revealtion and that the only reason for jesus to return will be to come and kill the anti-christ.

Some good questions...please give me till Friday, God-Willing. Pray for me that I get a good score on this exam!

Thanks!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, GST.

While I'm studying, can you do me a favor and list all of the possible ulterior motives a person could have for pretending to be a prophet? Then, I'll address each of them and show why it could not apply to Prophet Muhammad [s]. I am not just trying to spin your wheels; I think it will be a fruitful discussion this way, God-Willing. It is very important to differentiate a true prophet from a false one, so you are asking all the right questions!

Anyone else can also participate. Just please stay respectful and courteous, God-Willing.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

This is interesting. The former spokesman for the Taliban--the one who visited the United States in 2001 to speak on behalf of the Taliban--has renounced the Taliban and is currently studying at Yale University:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/ma...l?pagewanted=1

The article is from 2006. I don't know if he is still studying there or not. I think the neo-cons might have pushed him out.

What is very interesting to me is that I remember hearing his speech at USC when he was in the USA in 2001. Interesting to hear about him eight years later! Although he is still committed to Islam, it seems that he has adopted mainstream (moderate) Islam. He even participated in a Muslim-Jew dialogue and wishes to work for reconciliation between the Muslim world and the West.

[amcon]

This is interesting. The former spokesman for the Taliban--the one who visited the United States in 2001 to speak on behalf of the Taliban--has renounced the Taliban and is currently studying at Yale University:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/ma...l?pagewanted=1

The article is from 2006. I don't know if he is still studying there or not. I think the neo-cons might have pushed him out.

What is very interesting to me is that I remember hearing his speech at USC when he was in the USA in 2001. Interesting to hear about him eight years later! Although he is still committed to Islam, it seems that he has adopted mainstream (moderate) Islam. He even participated in a Muslim-Jew dialogue and wishes to work for reconciliation between the Muslim world and the West.

the lacawanna 6 were saying the same thing ... and were found to be plotting, and intergrating into USA's socieity.

how would we know if he was not planing the same?

[BuffedGuy]

the lacawanna 6 were saying the same thing ... and were found to be plotting, and intergrating into USA's socieity.

This is smudging of the facts. The Lackawanna Six were not sent to America in order to integrate or become a sleeper cell. There is no evidence at all that they were planning attacks against America or Americans. Rather, they had gone to Afghanistan in order to fight against the Russians in Chechnya.

how would we know if he was not planing the same?

Taliban and Al-Qaeda were two different groups, although perhaps now they have fused together due to the war on Afghanistan. The Taliban were simply extreme conservatives, whereas Al-Qaeda was--and always has been--terrorists. There is a difference. The point is: the spokesman for the Taliban--Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi--was never a terrorist.

Having said all that, Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi has already been screened and thoroughly vetted by multiple intelligence agencies, including Homeland Security. He was cleared.

Worst case, one can give a lie detector test, which perhaps Homeland Security already gave him.

[D7M]

Taliban and Al-Qaeda were two different groups, although perhaps now they have fused together due to the war on Afghanistan. The Taliban were simply extreme conservatives, whereas Al-Qaeda was--and always has been--terrorists. There is a difference. The point is: the spokesman for the Taliban--Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi--was never a terrorist.

Having said all that, Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi has already been screened and thoroughly vetted by multiple intelligence agencies, including Homeland Security. He was cleared.

Worst case, one can give a lie detector test, which perhaps Homeland Security already gave him.

The Taliban are simply "extreme conservatives"....really, buffed, really?

That's all they are?

So you're saying that their actions and beliefs are indicative of all "conservative" Muslims?

[BuffedGuy]

The Taliban are simply "extreme conservatives"....really, buffed, really?

That's all they are?

So you're saying that their actions and beliefs are indicative of all "conservative" Muslims?

Peace be unto you, Derek.

A little steamed up today, aren't we?

Bro, I used the term "extreme" right before the term "conservative." Said another way, they are "conservative extremists." Is that better?

Prophet Muhammad [s] warned:

“Religion is easy, and no one overburdens himself in his religion but he will be unable to continue in that way. So do not be extremists!” (Sahih al-Bukhari, #39)

“Those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed, those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed, those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed!” (Sahih Muslim, #2670)

“The best of your religion is that which is easiest, the best of your religion is that which is easiest.” (Musnad Ahmad, 3/479).

“This religion is very profound so approach it in a gentle manner and do not make yourself (or others) hate the worship of God because the traveller who does not let his mount rest will not reach his destination and his mount will not be able to keep going.” (Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi 3/19)

“Make things easy (for people) and do not make things difficult (on them); give glad tidings (to people) and do not put people off (with strict extremism).”

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[spywizard]

what's up with this?? just way too many questions about accuracy or rather in accuracies..

Koran means recitation. It is written in the order that the revelations were received. It was dictated by Mohammad, who was illiterate, to scribes. There are many different versions of the Koran. There are 114 sura, or chapters. Mohammad was forty years old when he received his first revelation. Whenever he went into a trance, scribes would write down what he said. The Koran was compiled after his death. It often seems unordered and disjointed.
As a mixture of Arabian paganism, Zoroastrianism, Jewish Mysticism, and Apocryphal Christian writings, the Koran contradicts itself several times. For instance, it says that Moses was at the time of Noah. It says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron. Aaron did have a sister named Mary, or Miriam, but she was not the mother of Jesus. Descriptions are contradictory in how Mohammed was called to be a prophet. It says that Mohammed was called by God, that he was called by the Holy Spirit, that he was called by angels, and that Gabriel called him. In some places Muslims are called to love ‘people of the book’, Christians and Jews, and in other places called to kill them.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, SpyWizard.

Can you please be clear on what you are asking? Are you asking how accurate the two paragraphs you quoted are?

[D7M]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

A little steamed up today, aren't we?

Bro, I used the term "extreme" right before the term "conservative." Said another way, they are "conservative extremists." Is that better?

Prophet Muhammad [s] warned:

“Religion is easy, and no one overburdens himself in his religion but he will be unable to continue in that way. So do not be extremists!” (Sahih al-Bukhari, #39)

“Those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed, those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed, those who go to extremes (in religion) are doomed!” (Sahih Muslim, #2670)

“The best of your religion is that which is easiest, the best of your religion is that which is easiest.” (Musnad Ahmad, 3/479).

“This religion is very profound so approach it in a gentle manner and do not make yourself (or others) hate the worship of God because the traveller who does not let his mount rest will not reach his destination and his mount will not be able to keep going.” (Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi 3/19)

“Make things easy (for people) and do not make things difficult (on them); give glad tidings (to people) and do not put people off (with strict extremism).”

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Eh, not steamed, maybe just frustrated (my girl has been out of town for a week now...)

Saying now "conservative extremists" is tautological.

And then the quotes from the Hadith are interesting, but you didn't make the connection (your posts are becoming shorter...you must be busy with studies, huh?)

Anyway, you never answered my question. So I'll rephrase it: what differentiates a Muslim "conservative" from "conservative extremist" from a "terrorist"?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Eh, not steamed, maybe just frustrated (my girl has been out of town for a week now...)

Aww, that's sweet.

Saying now "conservative extremists" is tautological.

Well, yes it is, but that was my point. When I used the term "conservative extremist" or "extreme conservative", I did not mean that this is not something very bad. Rather, our religion teaches us that extremism is a very dangerous thing which leads to a person's doom. Hence, the fact that I chose such a word to describe them shows that I mean to condemn them severely for this. All this to reply to your post which said "That's all they are?" What I meant was that I am not trying to downplay their extremism, which I find odious.

And then the quotes from the Hadith are interesting, but you didn't make the connection

The connection was to show how truly odious extremism is to my religion and myself.

Anyway, you never answered my question. So I'll rephrase it: what differentiates a Muslim "conservative" from "conservative extremist" from a "terrorist"?

Conservative extremists are like the Taliban who espouse an extremely strict, rigid, and incorrect interpretation of the religion. So they do not allow their women to be educated, they beat men with sticks if they do not grow their beards out, they stone adulterers who do not wish to be stoned, etc.

Terrorists are people who blow up things and kill non-combatants. Al-Qaeda is the archetypal terrorist group. They strap bombs on themselves, go into buildings, and kablow! A terrorist can be a conservative extremist, but this is NOT always the case--and in fact, it is less and less the case. The 9/11 hijackers did not have beards, they drank alcohol, went to strip clubs, etc.

As for the term "conservative", that is a really hard word to pin down. I would consider myself a conservative overall, but again, it's a subjective term.

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Koran means recitation.

Yes. Al-Quran means The Recitation. It is because we recite it daily in our prayers.

It is written in the order that the revelations were received.

No. The Quran has thirty chapters (Surahs). They are NOT in the order of revelation. Neither are they in a thematic order. Rather, they are in a special divinely ordained order.

It was dictated by Mohammad, who was illiterate,

We believe that the Quran was revealed unto Prophet Muhammad [s] through the Arch-Angel Gabriel [as].

to scribes.

Yes, after Prophet Muhammad [s] received the revelation, he [s] dictated it to scribes. In addition to this, the Muslims were instructed to memorize the Quran en masse, to prevent its corruption or any alteration over time. I have a post on this topic earlier in this thread, in a reply to GST.

There are many different versions of the Koran.

When the Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad [s], the Arabs had different dialects of Arabic. It was much like how if you travel throughout Great Britain, people have different dialects. Similarly, Arabs back then (and even today) had many different dialects. Because of this, Prophet Muhammad [s] requested the Arch-Angel Gabriel [as] to reveal the Quran in seven different Ahroof, each in a different dialect. The difference between the seven is not in meaning, just in dialect.

Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"Gabriel recited the Quran to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol.6, Book 61, #513)

These seven different ahroof all came from Arch-Angel Gabriel [as] and are thus divinely infallible.

There are 114 sura, or chapters.

Yes.

Mohammad was forty years old when he received his first revelation.

Yes.

The Koran was compiled after his death.

The Quran was compiled during the time of Prophet Muhammad [s] and immediately upon his death, his disciples created an official manuscript. However, the primary means of preventing the Quran's corruption was the mass memorization of the text, which was done by tens of thousands of Muslims. Please see my earlier post on this issue, God-Willing.

It often seems unordered and disjointed.

Yes, that is because it is.

Like I said earlier, the Quran is neither in the order of revelation nor in a thematic order. However, those who wish to study the Quran in either the order of revelation or in thematic order can do that.

The Quran is believed to be in a divine order, which seals the Quran's perfection in the Arabic language. Therefore, if someone is reading the Quran for literary wonder, then it is to be read in the current order. But if one wants to read it in thematic order, then that can also be arranged in what are called Tafseers (commentaries) of the Quran.

Critics of Islam say that the Quran is not ordered thematically. But we reply simply: sure, but you can (and we have) ordered the Quran thematically, which can be used in Quran study, but during Quranic prayer, we use the religious order which we believe has Unseen divine purpose behind it.

As a mixture of Arabian paganism,

Nope.

Zoroastrianism,

Nope.

Jewish Mysticism,

Nope.

and Apocryphal Christian writings,

Nope.

Having said that, there *are* most definitely similarities between Islam and Judaism/Christianity, which is not strange at all, since we believe Islam is the successor religion to these two. In the same way that Christianity supersedes Judaism, so too do we believe Islam supersedes Christianity.

We believe in all of the Prophets, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad (peace be upon them all). In total, we believe that there were 124,000 prophets sent to all the peoples and nations of the world, each calling to the same message: absolute monotheism, namely: There is no deity worthy of worship except God.

I will reply to the rest of your post after I take a shower and go for a run, God-Willing. (Yes, I first shower and then run. Don't ask!)

[amcon]

what's up with this?? just way too many questions about accuracy or rather in accuracies..

Koran means recitation. It is written in the order that the revelations were received. It was dictated by Mohammad, who was illiterate, to scribes. There are many different versions of the Koran. There are 114 sura, or chapters. Mohammad was forty years old when he received his first revelation. Whenever he went into a trance, scribes would write down what he said. The Koran was compiled after his death. It often seems unordered and disjointed.
As a mixture of Arabian paganism, Zoroastrianism, Jewish Mysticism, and Apocryphal Christian writings, the Koran contradicts itself several times. For instance, it says that Moses was at the time of Noah. It says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron. Aaron did have a sister named Mary, or Miriam, but she was not the mother of Jesus. Descriptions are contradictory in how Mohammed was called to be a prophet. It says that Mohammed was called by God, that he was called by the Holy Spirit, that he was called by angels, and that Gabriel called him. In some places Muslims are called to love ‘people of the book’, Christians and Jews, and in other places called to kill them.

spy i am very impressed!!! good post

[amcon]

This is smudging of the facts. The Lackawanna Six were not sent to America in order to integrate or become a sleeper cell. There is no evidence at all that they were planning attacks against America or Americans. Rather, they had gone to Afghanistan in order to fight against the Russians in Chechnya.

no no no i knew the lackawana 6 very well, very well - i frequented their store and the street they lived on... i called the local fbi when 9-11 went down because of the celebration that they were having on the street that they owned in the gheto... they owned most if not all the houses on the street... the day before all muslim stores were closed in the rochester, syracuse and buffalo area. THEY WERE A SLEEPER CELL!!! THEIR IS NO QUESTIONING THAT!!! NONE

I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN SEVERAL MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLES WITH MULTIPLE DRIVER LICENCES ... I HAVE SEEN THEM DEPLOYED, AND THEN TALKED TO THEM OVER THE PHONE AS THEY STILL RAN AND OWNED STORES IN THE ABOVE AREAS... SOME WERE EVEN IN THE STATES (SUPOSADLY) MOST WOULD WIND UP IN CANADA AND HAVE FAMILY OR FRIENDS DRIVE UP AND HAND OVER THE "OTHER" ID'S...

it happend numerous times... their were even local doctors that had bank accounts closed and conficated due to the lacawana 6... several local yamen business men were also detained and money taken from them... some of these guys had millions taken and confiscated ... others were arrested and detained due to hundreds of thousands of US dollars being sent back home -

any ways they were sleeper cells - and their are many more

Taliban and Al-Qaeda were two different groups, although perhaps now they have fused together due to the war on Afghanistan. The Taliban were simply extreme conservatives, whereas Al-Qaeda was--and always has been--terrorists. There is a difference. The point is: the spokesman for the Taliban--Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi--was never a terrorist.

Having said all that, Sayid Rahmatullah Hashemi has already been screened and thoroughly vetted by multiple intelligence agencies, including Homeland Security. He was cleared.

Worst case, one can give a lie detector test, which perhaps Homeland Security already gave him.

understood for the second part... i do wish him peace in this country

[amcon]

buffed good stuff... on creation vrs evolution

i think you will like it... it is from a christian prospective

and it is two hours long ... let me know you thoughts if you do find time to watch

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, SpyWizard.

I will now reply to the rest of your post, God-Willing.

the Koran contradicts itself several times. For instance, it says that Moses was at the time of Noah.

I was scratching my head for a good five minutes after I read this. I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about, so I began searching Islamophobic websites to figure out what the basis of this was, since you did not quote any verses to help me out. In any case, I finally found where you got this from: the vitriolically anti-Islamic website (BibleProbe.com) says:

Sura 7:136, 7:59 say Noah's flood took place in Moses' day. Did anyone tell Moses that?

http://bibleprobe.com/archive/messages/21.html

When I looked into the Quran at those two verses, I literally laughed out loud. I mean, when you actually read the verses in the Quran, let's just say it really destroys the credibility of this anti-Islamic website.

So here is the verse in question (7:136):

We punished the people of Pharaoh with years of droughts and shortness of crops; that they might receive admonition. But when good times came, they said, 'This is due to us.' And when gripped by calamity, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Moses and those with him. Behold! Surely their evil fortune is only from God, but most of them know not.

They said to Moses: 'Whatever sign you may bring us to charm us with--we will not believe in you!' So We sent plagues on them: Wholesale death, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood: a succession of clear signs. But they were steeped in arrogance--a people given to sin.

Every time the penalty fell on them, they said: 'O Moses! On your behalf call on your Lord in virtue of his promise to you: If you will remove the penalty from us, we verily will trust you and will let the Children of Israel go with you.'

But every time We removed the penalty from them according to a fixed term which they had to fulfill,--Behold! they broke their word! So We exacted retribution from them: We drowned them in the sea, because they rejected Our Signs and failed to take warning from them.

And We made a people--considered weak and of no account--inheritors of lands in both east and west--lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel and We annihilated all that Pharaoh and his folk had done and that they had contrived. We took the Children of Israel with safety across the sea.

(Quran, 7:130-138)

The bolded part above is verse 7:136, which the anti-Islamic website is claiming is the Great Flood which wiped out the People of Noah. Yet, it is abundantly clear that this verse is not at all talking about the Great Flood, but it is talking about when God parted the seas for Moses [as] and his people--and then drowned Pharaoh and his people in it!

So what inconsistency are we talking about!? It is perfectly consistent, and a very beautiful passage.

As for the second verse which the website quoted, namely verse 7:59, it reads as follows:

"We sent Noah to his people. He said: 'O my people, worship God. You have no other god but Him. I fear for you the punishment of a dreadful day.'" (Quran, 7:59)

Exactly what inconsistency is there?

It says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron. Aaron did have a sister named Mary, or Miriam, but she was not the mother of Jesus.

The verse in question is:

"At length she brought the babe to her people, carrying him in her arms. They said: 'O Mary! Truly an amazing thing have you brought! O sister of Aaron! Your father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!'" (Quran, 19:27-28)

Throughout the Quran, the prophets are referred to as brothers of one another. Prophet Muhammad [s] said for instance that he is the brother of Moses [as]. When the Jews would do a fast in honor of Prophet Moses [as] on the day when his people escaped from the Pharaoh, Prophet Muhammad [s] commanded the Muslims to also fast on this day, saying: "I have more right to my brother Moses."

Does anyone interpret this to mean that Prophet Muhammad [s] thought he was the blood brother of Moses [as]? No, he meant brother in faith, which is a superior form of brotherhood.

One of the Prophet's wives was a Jewish convert to Islam named Saffiyah. The other co-wives got a bit jealous of her and quipped "We are dearer to the Prophet than you. We are not only his wives, but also his cousins." By this, they meant that they belonged to the same Arab tribe as the Prophet [s]. Saffiyah was saddened by this quip; when the Prophet [s] saw her sad, he [s] asked her what the matter was. She told him, and he consoled her by saying:

"Should they do it again, you can tell them: how can you be in a better position than mine when Muhammad is my husband, Aaron is my father, and Moses is my uncle?"

Now obviously Prophet Muhammad [s] knew that Saffiyah was not the blood daughter of Aaron [as], but rather he [s] simply meant that she was descended from him.

Throughout the Quran, you will find such references. It is a bit disingenuous then to turn up a nose at Mary [as] being called the "sister of Aaron." It should be noted that the phrase "sister of Aaron" is used for Mary [as] as opposed to "daughter of Aaron" to denote their parity, such as how Prophet Muhammad [s] was called the "brother of Moses" and not the "son of Moses."

Perhaps to seal the argument is the fact that the Prophet Muhammad [s] himself explained this verse in the Quran (Quran 19:27-28). The Prophet's disciple narrates:

"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: 'You read 'O sister of Aaron' in the Quran, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus.' When I came back to God's Messenger, I asked him about that, whereupon he said: 'The people (of ancient times) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.'" (Sahih Muslim, 5326)

Therefore, the accusation that the Prophet [s] was not cognizant of the fact that Aaron [as] lived long before Mary [as] cannot be true at all.

One last thing: our Christian cousins oftentimes throw stones from their glass house. If they were but to open their own Bible, they would find such sort of references. For example, Elizabeth was called the daughter of Aaron, even though she was not a literal daughter of Aaron:

"In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." [Luke 1:5, RSV]

Jesus [as] was addressed as the Son of David in the Bible:

"And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!'" [Matthew 21:9 RSV]

"But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, 'Hosanna to the Son of David!' they were indignant." [Matthew 21:15 RSV]

Should we Muslims now dance and point, saying mockingly: "Look, your Bible doesn't even know that David lived hundreds of years before Jesus!" Of course not. That would be childish.

Descriptions are contradictory in how Mohammed was called to be a prophet. It says that Mohammed was called by God, that he was called by the Holy Spirit, that he was called by angels, and that Gabriel called him.

Nothing is contradictory here. Rather, we believe that Prophet Muhammad [s] spoke to the Arch-Angel Gabriel, other angels, as well as directly to God Himself. What is the contradiction here?

In some places Muslims are called to love ‘people of the book’, Christians and Jews, and in other places called to kill them.

Nowhere in the Quran are Muslims told to kill the People of the Book. For that matter, I do not believe there is any verse in the Quran that says to love them either. Rather, the Quran says to treat the People of the Book with kindness, mercy, and courteousness. It says to treat them with graciousness, except those from amongst them who are oppressors, transgressors, and who do great harm to the Muslims.

Even when the early Muslims found themselves fighting the Christian Byzantine empire, the Second Caliph of the Muslims did not pray for the utter destruction of all Christians. Rather, he prayed:

“Oh God, deal with the disbelievers from the People of the Book that hinder others from Your religion and that fight Your righteous servants.” (Asbāb al-Thabāt ‘alá al-Dīn)

So we are instructed in the Quran to be kind and courteous to the People of the Book, except those of them who fight us, kill our women and children, and drive us out of our homes. This is not inconsistent at all; rather, it is complete and very consistent. For example, during the Crusades, when Saladin [r] liberated Jerusalem, he did not expel all of the Christians. Rather, he let them stay in safety unharmed and protected, only ordering the Crusaders (armed soldiers who had committed grave atrocities) to leave. (And even then he escorted them to safety.)

Hope that clarifies.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

Conservative extremists are like the Taliban who espouse an extremely strict, rigid, and incorrect interpretation of the religion. So they do not allow their women to be educated, they beat men with sticks if they do not grow their beards out, they stone adulterers who do not wish to be stoned, etc.

So, I won't ask about the penalty of stoning for adultery, as I'm of the opinion that is more of an interpretation of the Hadith.....am I correct on this?

But I was of the opinion that the Koran does specify whipping (100 lashes?) as punishment for adultery. Is this correct? And if so, is this what a "conservative" Muslim would hold?

Oh, and the part in bold was confusing. It implies that the transgressor *wishes* to be stoned before the punishment will be executed.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

So, I won't ask about the penalty of stoning for adultery, as I'm of the opinion that is more of an interpretation of the Hadith.....am I correct on this?

But I was of the opinion that the Koran does specify whipping (100 lashes?) as punishment for adultery. Is this correct? And if so, is this what a "conservative" Muslim would hold?

Oh, and the part in bold was confusing. It implies that the transgressor *wishes* to be stoned before the punishment will be executed.

Please read this post here:

The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

After you've read that, let me know if anything is left unanswered, God-Willing. Feel free to ask follow-up questions or even re-ask the above questions, but first read that post, as I think it will help clear up the matter.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

bro - when you answer evolution pm me and i would love to read you information.... God be with you Buffed

OK, now to answer the question about the Islamic belief towards evolution.

The Quran is much different than the Bible in style. The Quran very rarely goes into details and rarely even uses names. For example, the name of "Muhammad" is used less than ten times in the entire Quran. (I think the exact number is six times.) Only one of the Prophet's disciples is taken by name, none of the Prophet's wives or family are taken by name...only the past prophets and Mary [as] are taken by name.

I remember when I read the Bible, there were some pages that were full of lineages. What I mean to say is, the Bible has a great deal of detail and specifics in it. The Quran does not. You would never find a list of lineages in the Quran. Even when the stories of the prophets are narrated, it is without the details that are mentioned in the Bible. The Quran considers such details--for better or for worse--to be irrelevant. The Quran is meant only as a book of spiritual guidance and so generally will only deal with what is absolutely necessary, without going into such details as lineages. (On the other hand, to be fair--having the details such as in the Bible has its benefits too.)

OK, so what the heck does this have anything to do with evolution? Well, when it comes to the creation of the heavens and the earth--and all that is in it--the Quran does not go into as many details as the Bible does. As such, with regards to evolution of the plants and animals, the Quran is silent. In other words, a Muslim is free to believe in evolution or disbelieve in it. His decision to do so then is based not on religious conviction but rather upon scientific knowledge.

The *only* issue on which Islam does have a say in is that humans are not animals. We believe that this belief, i.e. that humans are just animals, is a very dangerous one. As Muslims, we MUST believe that God Almighty created Adam (the first human) with His Two Hands in the Heavens, and breathed His Spirit into Adam. Furthermore, humankind was given Free Will, one of only two of God's creation with that ability.

So to summarize, Muslims may (if they want) believe that the plants and animals all came about due to evolution. There is nothing in Islam's textual sources that say how old the earth is, the order of the creation, etc. Those details are simply not in the Quran, and so Muslims simply have less to tie them down from a theological perspective.

In regards to Neanderthals and other pre-homo sapiens, the early Islamic scholars of the classical era had already postulated that humanoid creatures must have walked the earth before humans were created. The reason is that when God Almighty said He would create Adam, the Angels questioned Him, asking Him why He would create a species that would spread mischief and bloodshed throughout the earth.

This is a theological issue, because the angels do not have the imagination like we do and therefore they could not imagine something that did not actually happen before. So this led the Islamic scholars to postulate that there must have been other species on earth that ruled the earth before but who were destroyed by God Almighty for their disobedience. Some scholars postulated that the demons (the only other species that has Free Will, from whom Satan is a part of) must have ruled the earth, whereas others said that there must have been pre-human humanoids.

The only issue I can think of that the Islamic belief would have to be reconciled with modern science is the issue of DNA. Why do humans have similar DNA to animals if they all did not come from a common ancestor? The only response I can come up with is that it was God Himself Who caused the animals and plants to evolve (if they did evolve), and thus the DNA code is His to begin with, so what would stop Him from using the same (or similar) DNA in the human? In other words, God could have effectuated the code through evolution, or He could simply have said "Be!" and it was. This is similar to the creation of Jesus [as]. Male humans need an X and Y chromosome. Jesus [as] obviously could not have had a Y chromosome given to him by a father (since Mother Mary [as] was a virgin), so God could simply have said "Be!" and it (the Y chromosome necessary) was. So the Y chromosome could have come through evolution and sexual intercourse, or it could simply have come through God saying "Be!" and it was. Either way, the Y chromosome would be similar. If a scientist took a cell of Jesus [as] and found a Y chromosome, it would be the same whether it had come through a father or simply when God said "Be!" Similarly, human DNA would be the same had it come through the process of evolution or if God just said "Be!" and it was.

It could be that a species had evolved to a pretty close approximation of humans and attained the capacity of Free Will, after which they were destroyed due to disobeying God, and then God created what was one degree better than them. If that was the case, then there is no reason that the DNA wouldn't be very similar, if just one degree better and more advanced.

One last note: although I say it is ok to believe in evolution, Muslims MUST believe that God created evolution, and that God dictates every single event in that evolution. So all the point mutations are done by God Himself. It is chance only in the sense that flipping a coin is chance.

To summarize: Muslims are free to believe in evolution with regards to the plants and animals...everything other than human beings. We can even believe that after Prophet Adam [as] was created, then humans evolved after that, which would explain away any possible vestigial organs. (And in fact that *is* a part of our belief.) We are allowed to believe in Neanderthals and all those pre-human species. We simply must believe that God Almighty created Adam with His Two Hands in the Heavens.

I discourage Muslims from getting involved in debates on evolution. Generally speaking, Muslims are told not to speculate on the Unseen knowledge, which is with God alone. There was a dispute amongst Islamic scholars on the issue of which language humans will speak in Paradise, some saying Arabic whilst others saying Aramaic. Shaykh al-Islam--the highest ranking scholar--finally said let's stop talking about something which we can only conjecture upon, for our religion is not based upon conjecture but upon certainty. We know for certain that we will die and be held in the Court of the Lord, so let us prepare for that Day, instead of wasting time on conjecturing on the past.

Feel free to ask follow-up questions.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[D7M]

The reason is that when God Almighty said He would create Adam, the Angels questioned Him, asking Him why He would create a species that would spread mischief and bloodshed throughout the earth.

This is a theological issue, because the angels do not have the imagination like we do and therefore they could not imagine something that did not actually happen before. So this led the Islamic scholars to postulate that there must have been other species on earth that ruled the earth before but who were destroyed by God Almighty for their disobedience. Some scholars postulated that the demons (the only other species that has Free Will, from whom Satan is a part of) must have ruled the earth, whereas others said that there must have been pre-human humanoids.

Good post, buffed.

The questioning of the Angles towards the creation of man was also a part of the early Christian Fathers as well.

When you say the Angels don't "have imaginations like us" what does that mean?

What is basic Islamic Angelology?

[BuffedGuy]

Good post, buffed.

The questioning of the Angles towards the creation of man was also a part of the early Christian Fathers as well.

When you say the Angels don't "have imaginations like us" what does that mean?

What is basic Islamic Angelology?

Thanks, Derek.

Basically, we believe that Angels are made out of light, are part of the Unseen world, and have immense power. They are one of God's Most Exalted creation, although a pious human being is considered higher than them in rank and honor. Angels do not have free will, and just do as they are commanded by God Almighty. They are--so to speak--like robots. They do not have imagination nor creative genius like humans do. They only know what they are tasked to do. For example, Prophet Adam [as] learned the name of all things (i.e. humans excel in language), which amazed the angels.

Is that the same as the Christian belief? Also, can you tell me about the early Christian Fathers debate about the Angels and the creation of humankind...maybe in your thread or this one?

[D7M]

Thanks, Derek.

Basically, we believe that Angels are made out of light, are part of the Unseen world, and have immense power. They are one of God's Most Exalted creation, although a pious human being is considered higher than them in rank and honor. Angels do not have free will, and just do as they are commanded by God Almighty. They are--so to speak--like robots. They do not have imagination nor creative genius like humans do. They only know what they are tasked to do. For example, Prophet Adam [as] was taught the name of all things (i.e. humans excel in language), which amazed the angels.

Is that the same as the Christian belief? Also, can you tell me about the early Christian Fathers debate about the Angels and the creation of humankind...maybe in your thread or this one?

So Demons have free will, but angels do not? How does that work?

Traditional Christian belief is that the demons were originally Angels that fell. But if this isn't the Islamic belief, then how did the demons originate? Certainly one can't say that God created them....

When you say "pure light" is this metaphorically saying "pure intelligence" insofar as they do not have discursive knowledge (like us) but rather an intuitive or infused knowledge? That is closer to what I would believe, in the sense that if there is a certain hierarchy of being where God is at the top (since He is Being Itself), Angels would be below him, then man, animals, plant life, etc.

But I don't want to distract from your thread...so, bump my thread and I'll, hopefully, shed some light on the early Christian Fathers and Angels for you...

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

See, NOW we're having a juicy conversation!

So Demons have free will, but angels do not? How does that work?

First, I must say that "demons" is a pretty loose translation I used. The proper term is "jinn". In the English rendering that comes out to "genie", but then you guys think of like Aladin and his lamp and other silly stuff, haha. We believe that Satan is a Jinn, and Jinns (which is sometimes translated as demons) are made out of smokeless fire. So the two--angels and jinns--are distinct creations, one made out of light and the other made out of smokeless fire.

Traditional Christian belief is that the demons were originally Angels that fell. But if this isn't the Islamic belief,

No, we don't believe this. We believe that they are two distinct creatures. However, we believe that The Satan (Iblis in Arabic) was--before the creation of humankind--a very pious servant of God. He was so pious that he was elevated to the rank of angels. So he was not an angel literally, but elevated to their rank in honor, i.e. honorary angel. However, then God created human out of dust and clay, declaring humankind to be superior to both angels and jinn; because of this, The Satan became jealous and filled with envy, which caused his fall from God's Grace and Good Pleasure.

then how did the demons originate? Certainly one can't say that God created them....

The Jinns (demons) are given free will, just like human beings. Some of the Jinns are submitters to God (Muslims), whereas others are transgressing disbelievers, who are the Shayateen (i.e. little Satans, the descendants of The Satan).

When you say "pure light" is this metaphorically saying "pure intelligence" insofar as they do not have discursive knowledge (like us) but rather an intuitive or infused knowledge?

It is *not* metaphorically speaking. It means they are literally made out of light.

However, you are 100% correct to say that humans--unlike angels--have the ability to attain discursive knowledge. Angels, on the other hand, are limited to immediate knowledge.

That is closer to what I would believe, in the sense that if there is a certain hierarchy of being where God is at the top (since He is Being Itself), Angels would be below him, then man, animals, plant life, etc.

We believe that God is above all of course, and no comparison between God and His Creation. (Which you also believe.)

Yes, we do believe that the Angels are at the top, although pious human beings are above the Angels. That is one of the reasons we believe that Free Will was given in the first place, because a person who attains a state of purity on his own free will is superior to the one who is simply programmed to do that. For example, a husband who gets a gift for his wife on his own initiative gets more brownie points than a husband whose wife drags him into a store and forces him to buy a gift.

Therefore, although Angels are generally above humans, the extremely pious human beings are above the Angels.

And yes, of course animals and plants would be below human beings, although we believe that some human beings--the disbelieving transgressors--can become lower than the animals in rank. The Quran says:

"Have you seen him who takes his own evil desire for his god? ...They are like cattle. Nay, they are worse than that!" (Quran, 25:43-44)

So basically, free will allows mobility in rank. It can enable you to reach a status higher than the angels, or it could plummet you to a status worse than even the dung worm (a worm which pushes through its own feces) or dung beetle. I say dung worm because Prophet Muhammad [s] said that the racists--who boast in their tribes and nations (i.e. white supremacist, Arab supremacist, black supremacist, etc.)--are worse than dung beetles or worms that push through feces. Prophet Muhammad [s] said: "If they do not give this up, God will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through feces." (Abu Dawood)

Similarly, Prophet Muhammad [s] said about the racists:

"In the sight of God, they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, God has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Barbarous Ignorance, with its boasting of ancestral glories. Man is but a God-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust!" (Mishkat al-Masabith)

So yes, generally speaking, it is Angels on top, then humans, then animals. However, humans can--due to their actions--go either way.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

^^^^ One more point to add: although there is some debate in Islamic circles about this, it is generally accepted that the greatest of the creation is the Throne of God. So that would be above the angels and even the pious humans (including the prophets).

[BuffedGuy]

This is the Muslim prayer that we read for penitence for our sins:

O God, You are my Lord! None has the right to be worshiped but You! You created me, and I am Your slave. I am faithful to my covenant and promise to You, to the best of my ability. I seek refuge with You from all the evil I have done. I acknowledge before you all the blessings You have bestowed upon me, and I confess to You all my sins. So I beg You to forgive my sins, for nobody can forgive sins except You.

[Dinosaur]

it is always delighting to read ur thread so keep it coming.
as for derek's question i think surat Al-jinn the 72nd verse (surah) in Quran it has some good explanation of al-jinn (spirits) maybe that would be helpfull to find out some extra stuff.

may god {allah} [s.w.t] give you more knowledge and guide you to the traight path.