The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

***RAGE*** · 01-25-2009, 11:58 PM

untill tomorrow have a great night

***RAGE*** · 01-26-2009, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Kale

Not so !!! Your responses are prompting buffguy to justify his positions and I am all for that.

thank you I will continue to give real life experience and see what he has to say...

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 01:10 AM

This is not true I have had conducted several interview with terrorists and I explained before most of the terrorists or selfmade terrorists do this because they need money, some were retarted and I am not being mean, several of the terrorist we have interview have had family member kidnapped and forced into committing these crimes. So to me this blow that out of the water...

What you are talking about is the foot-soldiers. I'm not disagreeing with you that the terrorists would use such tactics to recruit people to do their bidding. The terrorist masterminds will use whatever they can to achieve their goals. But the question is: what causes them to hire people to do such things? We're not talking about the foot-soldiers. We're talking about Shredder and Krang, i.e. the bosses who order such things. They have clearly explained what causes them to wage war against the West.

It's very simple logic: if America didn't have such a foreign policy, the terrorist masterminds wouldn't have such a grudge against them that they would dedicate their lives to destroying America, and as a consequence, they wouldn't hire someone to do their bidding.

I have seen first hand that terrorist like Hamas using human shields.

How exactly have you seen this? You were stationed in Iraq, not Palestine.

I see the same thing in Gaza where Isreal being blamed for kill citizens in schools.

There is no point in debating with you. For you, Israel and America are always the good guys and the Muslims are the bad guys.

Hamas is hiding in the schools, hospitals, and ect. and conducting their attacks agains Isreal, so when they fight back and hit the schools

What you can't seem to understand is the fact that Hamas says the same thing when they launch rockets into Israel. They say that every Israeli citizen is a part of the Israeli military reserve force, and they are armed settlers who have guns and other military equipment.

Do you see what kind of imaginary world you live in where every single time YOU want to attack any building, you can justify it by claiming "oh there must have been rocket-launchers in that building." Maybe the Muslim extremists can claim that there were rocket-launchers inside the World Trade Center, and that's why they hit it. Anyone can claim anything and thereby insulate themselves from any blame. You are destroying international law with such games.

The Israeli and jingoist attitude is: "wherever my missile lands, there MUST be Hamas rocket-launchers there."

But we know that these are just lies and excuses, just like America invaded Iraq by claiming that there were WMDs there. What happened to that lie? Where are the WMDs? So this claim that Israel attacks hospitals because there are rocket-launchers in those hospitals is the same sort of lie. And even if there are rocket-launchers in a hospital, what kind of dirty people attack a hospital?

small children are killed dont get me wrong it is very sad (I see that poor child and all his body parts almost everyday

Please, this looks really fake when you say this.

but just like in Iraq the terrorists use there own people to include kids to commit their act.

And you do realize that the Iraqi people see you as an occupier and oppressor over them? It's not a much better position.

(I would like to take the time and say Isreal has enough fire power to wipe gaza off the map at anytime but they dont.

How kind of Israel! Instead they just create 8 million refugees.

If you want to wipe out a country you sit back and let the boomber take care of it, but that is not what Isreal is doing

You obviously haven't seen the news.

We could have and did win the war in the air and could have just kept kill from above, but that not what we did we sent in ground forces. Now why did we do that so we would not kill all of them.

If I come up to you and cripple your limbs, gouge your eyes, and cut your tongue off...then I say to you: "you should thank me that at least I did not kill you--see how generous I am!" Don't you think you would feel that this is absurd?

First, America starved Iraq with their crippling and inhumane sanctions that killed over half a million Iraqi children, according to the British Medical Society. And that was just from a few years...I don't have the updated number of deaths caused by American actions. When 2,000 people died in the World Trade Center, there was rage in the eyes of most Americans. Many of them--probably people like you--said "let's just bomb the hell out of them". This was the reaction over 2,000 deaths. Now imagine the deaths of HALF A MILLION CHILDREN, all thanks to America.

I will make this my last point tonight we went in and put a lot of damage in Iraq but now we are spending 11bill a month to rebuild this country

Oh thank you so much! The likeness of this is me crippling you and then saying "hey, I'll pay for your wheelchair; look how great I am!"

and we are paying contractors to teach and advise the rebuilding of the country so you can say what you want about what is going on over there but you do not have a clue..

I very much know this. And you probably don't have a clue how the contractors are vultures who flock to get contracts to benefit from the plight of the Iraqis. This was the idea wasn't it? Destroy the country and then get paid millions to rebuild it as America wishes? We read:

There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13185

Ok one more even though american are putting the money to make Iraq a better place they are still trying to kill us.

If you still can't understand why Iraqis will always hate you, then I'm afraid you are lost. You were part of a military force from a country that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, your military bombed the country to pieces, and your troops invaded the land and occupied it. Hmmm, I wonder why they hate you and why they are trying to kill you? If anyone has a reason to kill you, I think that would be it.

-Saladin.

***RAGE*** · 01-26-2009, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

What you are talking about is the foot-soldiers. I'm not disagreeing with you that the terrorists would use such tactics to recruit people to do their bidding. The terrorist masterminds will use whatever they can to achieve their goals. But the question is: what causes them to hire people to do such things? We're not talking about the foot-soldiers. We're talking about Shredder and Krang, i.e. the bosses who order such things. They have clearly explained what causes them to wage war against the West. dude this tell me that you have not clue on what is going on over there and not clue on war...it is about money and control over people. you are trying to justify what you are saying and digging a hole you will not be able to get out of. you have great support when talking aobut religion but when it comes to war you have not clue

It's very simple logic: if America didn't have such a foreign policy, the terrorist masterminds wouldn't have such a grudge against them that they would dedicate their lives to destroying America, and as a consequence, they wouldn't hire someone to do their bidding.you call your self an American but you do not have any view that support what you clam, foreign policy are dictated by what is happening at the time did we invade them until 911 no except the first gulf war and that is because they invaded Kuwait. where they did not just take the country but raped there children and took their money..

How exactly have you seen this? You were stationed in Iraq, not Palestine.

this is true but you keep putting palestine and iraq in the same situation

You are extremely biased and bigoted if you keep defending Israel. There is no point in debating with you. because you are lossing For you, Israel and America are always the good guys and the Muslims are the bad guys.this is not true at all I feel for both. I feel for anyone that is at war..

What you can't seem to understand is the fact that Hamas says the same thing when they launch rockets into Israel. They say that every Israeli citizen is a part of the Israeli military reserve force, and they are armed settlers who have guns and other military equipment. they have to because where their country is located

Do you see what kind of imaginary world you live in where every single time YOU want to attack any building, you can justify it by claiming "oh there must have been rocket-launchers in that building." Maybe the Muslim extremists can claim that there were rocket-launchers inside the World Trade Center, come on dude you are reaching on that one lets get back into the real worldand that's why they hit it. Anyone can claim anything and thereby insulate themselves from any blame. You are destroying international law with such games.please explain what you know about internation law I would love to hear it

The Israeli and jingoist attitude is: "wherever my missile lands, there MUST be Hamas rocket-launchers there."how else is shotting at them from that direction they have equipment to tell where the rocket are launched from come dude you should know this

But we know that these are just lies and excuses, just like America invaded Iraq by claiming that there were WMDs there. Yet again you just know what you read and hear on the news it takes two hours to drive to Iran the ground war took much longer then that. I would be easy to get the shit out of the country or bury it in the desret, which go to show you know nothing What happened to that lie? Where are the WMDs? So this claim that Israel attacks hospitals because there are rocket-launchers in those hospitals is the same sort of lie. And you know this how are you there do you have the intell reports, NO YOU DO NOT AND YOU ARE NOT THERE And even if there are rocket-launchers in a hospital, what kind of dirty people attack a hospital? the ones that are protecting their people, you attact me in a church i will attack back dont care if we are in a church

Please, this looks really fake when you say this.

I dont lie I lived it not just writing about it on a steroid site

And you do realize that the Iraqi people see you as an occupier and oppressor over them? It's not a much better position. yet again you are wrong they see me as someone willing to risk my life to train them and give them the tools to protect themselves after we have left. yet again goes to show you dont know what you are talking abuot.

How kind of Israel! Instead they just create 8 million refugees.

did they and how do you know this

You obviously haven't seen the news.
I dont have to watch the news I have seen this stuff first hand unlike you who read and then talk about it on the web

If I come up to you and cripple your limbs, gouge your eyes, and cut your tongue off...then I say to you: "you should thank me that at least I did not kill you--see how generous I am!" Don't you think you would feel that this is absurd? because this is happening, come on dude you yet again do not know what you are talking about yes some are getting injuried in war. but then that is war not a web site sitting in your house talking about it on the web...

First, America starved Iraq with their crippling and inhumane sanctions that killed over half a million Iraqi children, according to the British Medical Society. And that was just from a few years...I don't have the updated number of deaths caused by American actions. When 2,000 people died in the World Trade Center, there was rage in the eyes of most Americans. Many of them--probably people like you--said "let's just bomb the hell out of them". you dont know me I am just a guy on the web This was the reaction over 2,000 deaths. Now imagine the deaths of HALF A MILLION CHILDREN, all thanks to America.you are showing your true colors

Oh thank you so much! The likeness of this is me crippling you and then saying "hey, I'll pay for your wheelchair; look how great I am!"covered

I very much know this. And you probably don't have a clue how the contractors are vultures who flock to get contracts to benefit from the plight of the Iraqis. you know nothing, contractors have die in iraq it is not about the money it is about helping the people and rebuilding what we have broken or saved as i see it This was the idea wasn't it? Destroy the country and then get paid millions to rebuild it as America wishes? We read:

There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.yes but who is payiing the bill America yet again you know nothing

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13185

If you still can't understand why Iraqis will always hate you, they dont they thanked me every day for giving them the skills to take care of themselves and I am getting tired of saying this you have no cluethen I'm afraid you are lost. No I know where I am at all times You were part of a military force from a country that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, your military bombed the country to pieces, and your troops invaded the land and occupied it. like I said they dont hate us yes some do but most wanted out of what they hadHmmm, I wonder why they hate you and why they are trying to kill you? If anyone has a reason to kill you, I think that would be it.yet again you have no clue and it is showing more and more you type..........

-Saladin.

in bold

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 01:43 AM

Prone2Rage, let's end this please. Debating politics is going to derail this thread. Let's keep this thread about religion. I am prone to rage myself when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue...let's just move away from this topic. Everyone knows where we stand. It's not like any of us is going to change our views on the topic. I apologize again for my harshness. I am having a hard time controlling my words, and so I kindly ask you to help me by not discussing political topics in this particular thread. If you have a question about the Islamic religion itself, please ask away.

Peace be unto you.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 01:44 AM

Argh, you already replied...OK one second, let me take a look...

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 01:49 AM

Alright, you know what, I'll let you have the last word. If I reply, it will just go on endlessly.

Take care.

***RAGE*** · 01-26-2009, 01:49 AM

It is up to you if you dont respond I will leave it at that

PS you cant not have my name and if you did not know that was a joke you can be prone to rage 2

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 03:24 PM

Peace be unto you, Ernst.

Apologies for the delay in responding.

Originally Posted by ErnstHatAngst;43***45

What exactly is the Kabba, and what is it's significance in Islam?

The Ka'abah is called "The House of God", or simply as "The House" for short. It is a cube shaped building located in the city of Mecca. Actually, the proper spelling is Makkah (alternately called "Bakkah"). The Ka'abah (The House) is said to be the first house of worship, created by Prophet Adam and reconstructed by Prophet Abraham and his son Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon them all). [I will clarify a bit on this point later.]

The House was created as a place for all of mankind to gather to worship God alone. All of mankind is enjoined to make a religious pilgrimage to The House (the Ka'abah) to worship God, united as one.

The Quran says:

"Behold, the first House (of worship) ever established for mankind was indeed the one at Bakkah: it is full of blessing and a center of guidance for all the world. In it, there are clear signs and the station of Abraham; whoever enters it, becomes secure. Pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to God by all who make their way to it." (Quran, 3:96-97)

"Behold! We gave to Abraham the site of The House, commanding him: 'Associate not anything in worship to Me; And sanctify My House For those who compass it round, Or stand up, Or bow, or prostrate themselves. And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to you on foot and mounted on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways." (Quran, 22:26-27)

“And remember when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, saying: ‘Our Lord! Accept this service from us. Verily, You are the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.'” (Quran, 2:127)

We Muslims believe that the Holy Pilgrimage to the House in Bakkah is mentioned in the Bible:

"Blessed is the man whose strength is in You, Whose heart is set on pilgrimage; as they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a spring..." [Psalm 84:5-6, NKJV]

We believe that the spring mentioned here is the spring of Zam-Zam, which is right next to The House (i.e. the Ka'abah). Let me explain...

Sarah, Abraham's wife, grew jealous of Hagar and her son Ishmael, so she told Abraham to abandon them. Abraham protested, but God told Abraham to do what Sarah said. So Abraham left Hagar and her infant son Ishmael in the desert.

Hagar became desperate looking for water for her infant Ishmael...She went from mountain top to mountain top looking for water, and invoking the Name of God all the way. God answered her prayer and dispatched His Arch-Angel Gabriel who touched the ground, from which sprung forth a spring that gushed forth creating so much water that Hagar had to say "Zam-zam!" which means "stop flowing!" from which comes the name of the spring.

Later on, Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt The House of God next to this spot. There is some debate in Islamic circles about whether Prophet Adam or Prophet Abraham constructed the House of God first. Some say that Prophet Adam built it first, and Abraham reconstructed it after it had been destroyed in the Great Flood that wiped out the people of Noah [as]. Others say that Abraham was the first to construct it, and that Prophet Adam had nothing to do with it. There is a verse in the Quran that says it was the first house of worship, so this gives credence to the first view (that Adam created it), but the opposing side counters this by saying that the Quran says it was the first house of worship created for all of mankind; this means prior to this there was no universal house of God for all of mankind, just individual temples.

In any case, Ishmael and his descendants (the Arabs) worshiped God in The House. After the death of Prophet Ishmael and after many years, the Arabs started introducing elements of paganism into their religion. They moved away from the monotheism of Abraham and eventually adopted full-fledged polytheism. However, throughout the ages there were always a small minority of Arabs who followed monotheism on the model of Abraham, but they became fewer and fewer. When the last of them died, God sent Prophet Muhammad [s] to revive the faith.

The Arabs of Makkah opposed Prophet Muhammad's message of a return to monotheism. They fought him tooth and nail, until he was forced to flee for his life. He found refuge in a neighboring city, called Yathrib (later renamed as "Madeenah" which means "The City" and is a short for "The Prophet's City"). The polytheists of Makkah tried to destroy the city of Madeenah, but after many long years, God granted victory to Prophet Muhammad [s], who would soon march onto Makkah in a bloodless conquest, in which no single weapon was fired. Prophet Muhammad [s] entered the Ka'abah (The House) triumphant and destroyed all the pagan idols inside of it, purified it, and returned it to its former state as the House of God alone.

So to sum it up: the Ka'abah is considered by us to be the sacred house where all of mankind must gather to worship God alone. It is unique compared to other mosques in that all of mankind must descend upon it. It should be noted that so many millions of people visit the Ka'abah that there is not nearly enough room inside the Ka'abah, so the surrounding areas have been converted to a mosque that encases it, a mosque in a mosque, so to speak.

Hope this answers your question.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 04:26 PM

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

I was reminded of the fact that I didn't answer this question of yours:

Originally Posted by Amcon

wasnt the kissing and circling the metor a pagan ritual? the pilgrimage to mecca (even his last pilgrimage) why did Muhammad perform the pagan customs of the kissing and touching the metor?

Muslims circle the House of God (the Ka'abah). Read the above post of mine for details on this.

As for the Black Stone--which is what you are referring to--it came from the heavens. Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

“The Black Stone came down from Paradise.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)

“When the Black Stone came down from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black.” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi)

We believe that God sent the stone from the heavens to inform Abraham and Ishmael where to construct the House of God. The two prophets made the Black Stone one of the corners of The House.

As I mentioned in the above post, the descendants of Ishmael worshiped God alone, until they started to mix in paganism with monotheism. Over time, the false gods of the people of Noah [as] were worshiped alongside God, and then idols were placed inside The House of God.

See the above post of mine to see how Prophet Muhammad [s] then purified The House to return it to its former state as a place of worship for God alone, on the model of Abraham [as].

Critics of Islam tell us that the Ka'abah was a place for pagan worship, and that the pagans used to circulate it, etc., as if this is a proof against Islam. We already know this! Our Prophet is the one who purified the Ka'abah. Yes, the pagans worshiped in the Ka'abah, but they worshiped idols in it. Yes, they circulated it, but they did so naked and doing all sorts of pagan types of worship. Prophet Muhammad [s] brought an end to this, and returned it to what Abraham and Ishmael (peace be upon them both) constructed it for. We believe that the Black Stone is mentioned in the Bible itself:

"The stone, which the builders rejected, has become the chief corner stone." (Psalms 118:22)

And:

"Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures, 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes.''" (Matthew, 21:42)

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-26-2009, 09:29 PM

Peace be unto you, GST528i.

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

Originally Posted by gst528i

So would you think muslims marry non muslims and try to get them to convert?

Well, the examples I know of involved Muslims that were not very practicing so they would date Non-Muslims. Then they would be getting pressure from their parents to marry, so they suddenly had to try to convert their significant other, since their parents would not accept their marriage to a Non-Muslim, which would be a violation of Islamic Law (with the exception of women from the People of the Book for men).

I guess it's a case of applying some of the Islamic Laws, and not others. They violate the Islamic Law by dating Non-Muslims, and then later expect that person to convert to Islam. It's really inappropriate.

So since i said no i will not, i find out that she met some guy and is getting him to convert and marry him within a time period of 4-5 months of meeting him while she was with me for 2-3 years.

It seems that your ex did not learn the lesson.

She should simply have repented to God, and then gotten marriage to a Muslim man without dating him first, and with the permission and guidance of her parents.

So to answer your question: I do not condone your ex's behavior. From an Islamic perspective, it is incorrect. An Islamic preacher (daiee) that I knew said that dating a woman to marry her is like robbing a bank and then donating the money to build a mosque.

Plus, just from a common sense standpoint, one should not get involved with another person thinking that the other person will change, or with the intention of changing that person. Marry a person for what they are now, not what image you think you might make them into later.

What I say is that a person should convert to Islam not for marriage purposes, but for salvation. By placing a Non-Muslim in such a position, i.e. convert or else I can't marry you, there is a high chance of muddling someone's intentions. That person might convert to Islam only to marry, instead of for attaining salvation for his soul. The Quran says "let there be no compulsion in religion", and this sort of falls under that.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**quarry206** · 01-27-2009, 03:27 AM

why Does some Islamic government laws stop female and males from playing or even watching sports together???

article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

I was just wondering why this was such a big deal..

**gst528i** · 01-27-2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, GST528i.

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

Well, the examples I know of involved Muslims that were not very practicing so they would date Non-Muslims. Then they would be getting pressure from their parents to marry, so they suddenly had to try to convert their significant other, since their parents would not accept their marriage to a Non-Muslim, which would be a violation of Islamic Law (with the exception of women from the People of the Book for men).

I guess it's a case of applying some of the Islamic Laws, and not others. They violate the Islamic Law by dating Non-Muslims, and then later expect that person to convert to Islam. It's really inappropriate.

It seems that your ex did not learn the lesson.

She should simply have repented to God, and then gotten marriage to a Muslim man without dating him first, and with the permission and guidance of her parents.

So to answer your question: I do not condone your ex's behavior. From an Islamic perspective, it is incorrect. An Islamic preacher (daiee) that I knew said that dating a woman to marry her is like robbing a bank and then donating the money to build a mosque.

Plus, just from a common sense standpoint, one should not get involved with another person thinking that the other person will change, or with the intention of changing that person. Marry a person for what they are now, not what image you think you might make them into later.

What I say is that a person should convert to Islam not for marriage purposes, but for salvation. By placing a Non-Muslim in such a position, i.e. convert or else I can't marry you, there is a high chance of muddling someone's intentions. That person might convert to Islam only to marry, instead of for attaining salvation for his soul. The Quran says "let there be no compulsion in religion", and this sort of falls under that.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

That's my sentiment. That's is the reason i was unwilling to spend life with her, and am thanking god everyday that i didn;t make a stupid mistake.
Because if you think about it, anyone who would convert just to marry this girl ( She is extermely beautiful.) is not converting to islam for the correct reason.
Plus he has to have pretty weak beliefs to abandon them for the first girl he could get even if she was a 10/10.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-27-2009, 02:50 PM

Peace be unto you, Quarry.

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

Originally Posted by quarry206

why Does some Islamic government laws stop female and males from playing or even watching sports together???

article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

I was just wondering why this was such a big deal..

Playing sports is not forbidden in Islam. In fact, it is something that is good if it strengthens the body and keeps a person fit. Prophet Muhammad [s] was himself a wrestler, and he [s] also used to race. He [s] encouraged archery. Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad [s] warned against obesity, saying that it is the link to a great many diseases.

Sports are perfectly OK and even good (for both men and women), so long as a person does not get so obsessed with them that it distracts from prayer and worship. This is because God said:

“And I created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me.” (Quran, 51:26)

Therefore, if this is the purpose of our existence, we should not do anything that takes away from that.

The problem, however, is with regards to mixed gender (co-ed) sports. This is forbidden in Islam. Islam enjoins strict gender segregation. This is based on our belief that this is closer to purity, and it is the pinnacle of chastity. Men and women are not supposed to interact unless it is necessary. So girls should go to all-girls schools and boys to all-boys schools. In Pakistan, for example, the buses are segregated: women sit in the front half of the bus, and men in the back half. Men and women have separate lines at banks, and in fact there is an unwritten rule that if there is no separate line for women, then women can just skip to the front of the line. The gyms have separate facilities for men and women. At the gym I used to go to, the swimming pool used to alternate every other day between men and women.

As for the reasons for this, this goes back to the same explanation I gave for why women cover. (I just answered the question a few posts up.) The pagan religions used to be extremely lax with regard to women covering up and inter-gender mixing. The monotheistic Abrahamic faiths came to change this. That is why in traditional Judaism--from which both Christianity and Islam come from--such gender segregation was practiced:

Traditional Jewish synagogues are sex segregated. Sex education in public schools is often sex segregated. Private schools are sometimes entirely sex segregated or contain an entirely sex segregated student body. Some trains have, apart from mixed-sex cars, also cars for women only.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...er-segregation

This was also the case in early Christianity. We Muslims believe that the gender mixing which has become prevalent today is a modern day blasphemy and heresy, a return to the ways of paganism. We believe that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share a common ancestry in monotheism and modesty.

A recent Gallup Poll showed that the vast majority of Muslim women wanted to follow Islam and its traditional values. They do not at all want to adopt the feminism of the West. Yes, they do have grievances against the way things are in the Muslim world today, but these are almost always things that have to do with tribal culture and backwardness, rather than with religion.

Contrary to what the Westerners would believe, the Muslim women of the world are not yearning to break free from their hijabs (headscarves) and veils. Rather, more and more women are donning the hijab (headscarf) every year, to the point where it has become a statement of identity and even revolution. I've heard it from multiple Muslim women who wear the hijab in the West, that people come up to them and say they feel sorry for them that they were forced to wear the hijab (headscarf). This is always a good joke for us Muslims, because it is well-known that most Muslim women don the hijab (headscarf) against their parents' wishes. The younger generation has turned more religious than their more cultural (as opposed to religious) parental generation.

Muslim women *do* want many things to change in the Muslim world, but they want it done based on their own terms, not Western imperial and colonial feminism shoved down their throats. More importantly, most Muslim women are concerned with more fundamental issues, such as having starving children who cannot afford to go to school. So these colonial feminists--if they really wanted to help the people of the Muslim world--they would abandon their polemical stance against our religion and way of life. Help by giving food, water, health care, etc--not worrying about such peripheral and trivial issues such as if a woman is covered or not.

Anyways, it seems like I've gone off on a spiteful diatribe and off tangent, so let me go back to your question: Men and women aren't even allowed to shake hands, because that would be touching. Well, there is an exception and concession made for old women; so a man can shake hands with an old woman (post-menopausal) but not a young woman. Based on this, sports that would involve contact would definitely be off-limits.

As for women watching men play sports, there is nothing wrong with that, and I do not know why they forbade that. However, men are not allowed to watch women play sports. Women are allowed to play sports, even without their headscarves and covering, but only amongst themselves, without any men in the room. For example, ice rinks in parts of the Muslim world will give separate days for women, and then women can skate without wearing any extra covering, i.e. without the headscarf, overcoat, etc...they can even wear shorts (as long as they go up to the knees). But again, that is only if they are alone without men in the room.

One last point: the article was about Iran, which is Shi'ite. I consider Shi'ism to be a separate religion from mine. Please see some of my earlier posts on this issue.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-27-2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by gst528i

That's my sentiment. That's is the reason i was unwilling to spend life with her, and am thanking god everyday that i didn;t make a stupid mistake.
Because if you think about it, anyone who would convert just to marry this girl ( She is extermely beautiful.) is not converting to islam for the correct reason.
Plus he has to have pretty weak beliefs to abandon them for the first girl he could get even if she was a 10/10.

I agree with you 100%. I think you made the right decision.

I feel for you: I've also had to abandon an extremely beautiful girl instead of compromising my beliefs. It's a very tough thing to do.

**Voland** · 01-27-2009, 03:33 PM

I think muslims have an issue with tatts, is that true? why?
Today i've met this arab girl (i think) and prolly she is somehow muslim (she had that hand necklace). Are tatts an issue for muslims? Mine reflect my spiritual, ethnical and phylosophical beliefs.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-27-2009, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Voland

I think muslims have an issue with tatts, is that true? why?
Today i've met this arab girl (i think) and prolly she is somehow muslim (she had that hand necklace). Are tatts an issue for muslims? Mine reflect my spiritual, ethnical and phylosophical beliefs.

Peace be unto you, Voland.

I answered the question here:

The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by NightWolf

Something in that direction

Anyway what i wanted to say to you was
that i saw that you sometimes said that the
extremeists are only 5% of the muslim world.

I have to to disagre very much here,
I live in Europe and i see things and acts
that you who live in the US do not see.

In my area where i live the muslims are VERY
hostile against the way we chose to live here.
The majority of them are wahabias.

If its only 5% that are hostile then i want to know
where the remaining 90% is hiding, Im not saying
every muslim in sweden are extremeists and hostile
but they do seem to be more of them then the
other part.

Here is the video for the pictures i posted:

http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM

Peace be unto you, NightWolf.

Your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence/experience. I have cold hard statistical facts from Gallup Poll which polled the one billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority were shown to be moderate, peace-loving people. Only a very small percentage were extremists, and interestingly enough, a smaller percentage of Muslims polled agreed to killing civilians as compared to Americans.

Just to give you an example: in Pakistan, which Americans consider the hotbed of terrorism, they conducted a poll and asked Pakistanis: if Al-Qaeda was on the ballot, would you vote for them? Less than one percent said yes. They asked about if the Taliban were on the ballot, and only 3% said yes. (This includes the NWFP, which is the tribal area bordering Afghanistan!) The overwhelming majority condemned the 9/11 attacks, and believe killing civilians is not permissible.

So we can either take your opinion or the opinion of Gallup Poll.

I want to warn you that you are doing a similar thing to what Stormfront-type white racists do. They will argue that the majority of the black men they know are criminals, thugs, and hoodlums...and they will even try to show us proof of that by talking about how many blacks are in jail, or images of black criminals, etc. It's a really similar mentality between the white racists and Islamophobes. The white racists will talk about how blacks "just like to kill each other all the time" and are "prone to violence", bringing up the matter of black-on-black violence. And we hear the Islamophobes saying the same thing about Middle Easterners and Muslims: "Oh they just love killing each other, and they love violence." Indeed, bigots of all colors are united in their methodology.

And before you say "there is a difference between a religion and race", then think about how the Stormfront-type white racists have a similar attitude towards Jews. Yet none of us tolerates bigotry against Jews. If someone were to do that, he would be ostracized. Then why is it fair game against Muslims?

Be cautious of bigotry. It clouds a person's mind.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 03:13 PM

I strongly urge people to buy this book here, written by Gallup Poll:

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, by John Esposito

Beyond the hype. Hear it from the source.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 03:14 PM

Whoops, double post!

**NightWolf** · 01-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, NightWolf.

Your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence/experience. I have cold hard statistical facts from Gallup Poll which polled the one billion Muslims in the world. The vast majority were shown to be moderate, peace-loving people. Only a very small percentage were extremists, and interestingly enough, a smaller percentage of Muslims polled agreed to killing civilians as compared to Americans.

Just to give you an example: in Pakistan, which Americans consider the hotbed of terrorism, they conducted a poll and asked Pakistanis: if Al-Qaeda was on the ballot, would you vote for them? Less than one percent said yes. They asked about if the Taliban were on the ballot, and only 3% said yes. (This includes the NWFP, which is the tribal area!) The overwhelming majority condemned the 9/11 attacks, and believe killing civilians is not permissible.

So we can either take your opinion or the opinion of Gallup Poll.

I want to warn you that you are doing a similar thing to what Stormfront-type white racists do. They will argue that the majority of the black men they know are criminals, thugs, and hoodlums...and they will even try to show us proof of that by talking about how many blacks are in jail, or images of black criminals, etc. It's a really similar mentality between the white racists and Islamophobes. The white racists will talk about how blacks "just like to kill each other all the time" and are "prone to violence", bringing up the matter of black-on-black violence. And we hear the Islamophobes saying the same thing about Middle Easterners and Muslims: "Oh they just love killing each other, and they love violence." Indeed, bigots of all colors are united in their methodology.

And before you say "there is a difference between a religion and race", then think about how the Stormfront-type white racists have a similar attitude towards Jews. Yet none of us tolerates bigotry against Jews. If someone were to do that, he would be ostracized. Then why is it fair game against Muslims?

Be cautious of bigotry. It clouds a person's mind.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

Dude that Galluop poll means nothing to me,
the site it self seems to be ultra left and liberial minded.
I told you how it is where i live, if you want to belive in
that or not i really dont care.

You talk about "Islamophobes" and white rasicts,
but what do you call your islamic brothers in the video
i posted? Are they Christianphobes? or rasicts?

40% of the muslims in the UK wants sharia laws!
32% of the british muslims says western society
is decadent and immoral and that muslims should
seek to bring it to an end! The soruce is also
in the video, do watch it.

So dont twist my words, i never said ALL muslims,
Are extremeist or radicals, i said its way more
then the 5% that you claim.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 04:01 PM

Peace be unto you, NightWolf.

Originally Posted by NightWolf

Dude that Galluop poll means nothing to me,
the site it self seems to be ultra left and liberial minded.

The site I linked to is www.Amazon.com. It just sells books. You really think it's an ultra-left and liberal minded site?

If you are talking about Gallup Poll, then it is known as the most reliable polling service in the world. As for your claim that it is ultra-liberal, I highly doubt this. But anyways, do you only take facts from ultra-conservative bigots? No wonder you think the way you do.

You talk about "Islamophobes" and white rasicts,
but what do you call your islamic brothers in the video
i posted? Are they Christianphobes? or rasicts?

There are most definitely bigots within our own Muslim ranks, and I am the first to say this! Most of the extremist fringe are very much infected with bigotry.

40% of the muslims in the UK wants sharia laws!

There are a few ways I can respond to this:

1) I want Shari'ah (Islamic Law). What's your point? Why the exclamation mark?

2) Oftentimes, the best way to refute those afflicted with bigotry is to reverse their arguments against them. This exposes their bigotry, because they then retreat from their position. You say 40% of Muslims want Islamic Law. Gallup Poll says that 46% of Americans want the Bible as law. (Gallup site) As for Jews, 38% of them want a Halakhic state. (Halakha is the Jewish Law; it's a Hebrew term like Shari'ah is an Arabic one.) This is according to the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Ar...t+-+06-Aug.htm

So why is it that Muslims are demonized for wanting Islamic Law, when a similar percentage of Jews and Christians want to rule by Halakha and Biblical Law respectively? I'll tell you why: bigotry.

32% of the british muslims says western society
is decadent and immoral and that muslims should
seek to bring it to an end![/B]

Once again, to refute this, I will reverse the tables. When Americans were asked what they like about Muslims, a majority said "NOTHING." Again, this is from Gallup. Can you imagine what percentage would have said that the Muslim world is "barbaric" if that was an option? I bet you that if you put an option "we should nuke Mecca to teach them a lesson", a lot of Americans would vote for that option.

On the other hand, when Gallup Poll asked Muslims what they liked about America, a negligible number selected "nothing", whereas a majority found something good to say about America and even said that the Muslim world can learn something from them.

See how easy it is to demonize the other side? You are the type of person who flocks to the people who hate-monger against Muslims, so why is it you have a grudge against those Muslims who hate-monger against Christians or the West? Bigots--even from the opposite side--are the same in methodology.

So dont twist my words, i never said ALL muslims,
Are extremeist or radicals, i said its way more
then the 5% that you claim.

Again, I'm basing what I say off of the Gallup Poll, which is the most comprehensive to date. It stated that 93% of Muslims are moderates. 7% are politically radicalized, and only a small percentage of those 7% supported terrorism. I already showed you that in Pakistan, only 1% would vote for Al-Qaeda and 3% for Taliban.

Forgive my harsh language, but I really have not lost hope for you. I think that if you can just pull that wool off of your eyes--that bigotry which clouds your corneas--you will be able to have a lighter heart. I am not denying that there are bigots in the ranks of the Muslims; I debate with them all the time! My point is that you two groups have a lot in common!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**gst528i** · 01-28-2009, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, NightWolf.

There are a few ways I can respond to this:

1) I want Shari'ah (Islamic Law). What's your point? Why the exclamation mark?

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

I'm sorry i have to ask you the same question why????I would leave a country for applying those laws. They were actually trying to do that from the country i was born in. ( kenya).
I can give you many reasons why i wouldnt want it, but this alone would be big enough to leave a country with those laws :

unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Fornication:

The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

Do you have anyidea how many times i would have to be whipped!!!!!!!!

i would be DEAD

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by gst528i

I'm sorry i have to ask you the same question why????I would leave a country for applying those laws. They were actually trying to do that from the country i was born in. ( kenya).
I can give you many reasons why i wouldnt want it, but this alone would be big enough to leave a country with those laws :

unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Fornication:

The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

Do you have anyidea how many times i would have to be whipped!!!!!!!!

i would be DEAD

Peace be unto you, GST.

For Shari'ah (Islamic Law) to be successful, it must be applied in a First World country, not a poverty stricken country where poverty, ignorance, and illiteracy are rampant. The problem with the Taliban was that they were barely literate, and thus did not honor the scholastic Islamic tradition. I've met some of the Taliban-type people in Pakistan; they weren't Taliban literally but from the same group where the Taliban came from. And I will tell you that I knew more about Islam than they did, and I consider myself a layperson. I am in no position to be an Islamic jurist, so if they are inferior in knowledge to me, then they are even less so! The truth is--the more you study Islamic Law--the more you realize how dynamic and tolerant it can be. This is the same with Jewish Halakha, I do believe--or at least from what I know of it.

The Taliban could not grasp the dynamic nature of the Law, and thereby went against it and into extremism. I believe the same is the case in parts of Africa, like from where you came from.

In regards to the law against fornication, you would not be effected at all. The Islamic punishments (hadood) are only applicable to Muslims. Non-Muslims are allowed their own courts, laws, judges, etc. This is why in Saudi Arabia you will find there are American compounds in which anything goes: girls wear skirts, party, etc. It's a mini-America inside the ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia. (I have grievances against Saudi Arabia but that is another topic altogether.)

Islamic Law basically says that you Non-Muslims can live in whatever way pleases you: our deen (religion, belief system, ideologies, etc.) to us, and your deen to you. Unlike American law in which all groups follow one law, Islamic Law says that each minority group can rule according to its own laws, as it sees fit. Therefore, you would not at all be flogged for fornication, and have no fear of that.

This, by the way, is a concept that the Taliban and others like them can't seem to grasp, mostly because they don't know, since they haven't received an adequate training in Islamic jurisprudence to begin with.

In regards to Muslims being flogged for fornication or stoned for adultery, then this is also an area that requires clarification. I wrote this on another forum, so I'm just going to copy/paste it here. It's about the punishment for adultery...but all of this applies to the punishment for fornication as well:

The legal punishment for adultery is indeed death by stoning, in accordance to the Quran and the Bible:

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Some people are so galvanized by this that they fail to read on: the truth of the matter is, the Islamic punishment for adultery is very rarely meted out by a Shariah government. It is only to be administered in the following situations:

1) A person confesses to adultery and seeks the punishment for himself.
2) A person commits sexual acts in public or boasts openly about his sin (i.e. adultery) in public.

If the adulterer fulfills the following conditions, then he CANNOT be punished by law:

1) He/she does not confess to the sin.
2) He/she did not perform the sexual act in public but rather he/she did it in private, and he/she did not boast about it publicly. (A sexual act is considered done in public if it is done in front of four witnesses. If it is less than that, then it is considered a private act, and not to be punished.)

This would include the vast majority of adulterers. Such people would not be punished by the law, and instead they are simply advised to ask God for repentance. There is a special Prayer of Repentance that they should pray.

Therefore, there are only two situations in which the death penalty is enacted, and this is (1) self-confession, and (2) public sex or boasting publicly about it.

The vast majority of cases in which the death penalty is enacted is the first case (i.e. self-confession). In the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (s), there is not a single case of adultery being punished except in which the adulterers themselves begged the Prophet (s) for the punishment to be meted out against themselves.

These adulterers who begged the Prophet (s) for punishment were strong believers who felt remorse for what they had done, and wanted expiation for their sins. The Prophet (s) said:

“Give allegiance to me that you will...not steal, not commit fornication, not kill your children (etc)...Whoever among you fulfills this, his reward will be with God. Whoever commits any of these sins will be punished in this world and that will be an expiation for him. Whoever commits any of these sins but God conceals it, then it will be for God to decide: if He wills, He will forgive him, and if He wills, He will punish him.”

Therefore, these adulterers sought the punishment as expiation for their sins so that they would not be punished on the Day of Judgment for that. However, it should be noted that the adulterer has the option of concealing his sin, and in fact, the Qadi (Islamic judge) should constantly advise him to do that.

The general principle in Islam is to avert punishment as much as possible. This of course negates the idea of Westerners that Muslims are blood-thirsty people who seek to chop hands and stone people at whim. Indeed, Prophet Muhammad (s) said:

“Keep the Muslims away from punishments as much as possible. If there is any way out for an offender to escape punishment, acquit him. It is better for a judge to make an error in acquittal than in conviction.”

If we look at the Prophetic Sayings on this matter, we see that the Prophet (s) tried to avert punishment as much as he could, even ignoring the request of those who sought to confess their sin of fornication/adultery.

A man once came upto the Prophet (s) to confess his sin of Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse). We read:

A man from amongst the people came to the Messenger of Allah while he was sitting in the mosque, and addressed him, saying “O Messenger of God! I have committed Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse).” The Messenger of God turned his face away from him [and ignored him]. The man came to that side to which the Messenger of God had turned his face, and said [again]: “O Messenger of God! I have committed Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse).” The Messenger of God turned his face to the other side, and the man came to that side. When he confessed four times, the Messenger of God called him and said “Are you insane?” He said: “No, O Messenger of God!” The Messenger of God said: “Are you married?” He said: “Yes, O Messenger of God!” The Messenger of God said (to the people): “Take him away and stone him to death.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 6439)

In another instance, also narrated in the Prophetic Sayings, another man confesses to Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse), but the Prophet (s) dismisses him by saying:

“Probably you have only kissed (the woman), or touched, or looked at her.”

This was the Prophet's attempt to avert the punishment on adultery (which is only to be meted out for the actual sex act itself). The Prophet (s) was trying to give this adulterer an "out", a way to take back his confession. But the man would not relent, and insisted that he be punished, and so the punishment was meted out on him.

Hence, even though Islam allows a person to confess his sin in order to be punished, the Qadi (judge) is advised to counsel the man to rescind his confession and think twice before he does that. The adulterer must confess four times before it is finally accepted of him, and each time the person confesses, the Qadi (judge) should ask questions such as "are you sure?" or "perhaps you are mistaken", etc.

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

"The punishment of adultery is proven if the perpetrator him/herself confesses to be guilty of the crime. He/she must be sane, adult/mature (baligh) and must confess four separate times in four separate sessions that the crime was committed. The judge will try to wave away the punishment as much as possible by saying to the confessor that 'you may have only touched or kissed' and other such statements...[but if the adulterer confesses] without leaving any doubt or ambiguity, the punishment will be enforced...

"If the confessor takes back his words before the punishment is enforced or during the punishment, he/she will be released and set free. (See: al-Ikhtiyar li ta’lil al-Mukhtar, 2/311-316)"

Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says:

"One should remember that it is not necessary in order for one’s sin to be forgiven that he/she receives the legal punishment (hadd) for the sin committed. The reason being is that one is not obliged to confess that he/she committed adultery; hence one may keep the sin hidden and not inform the Islamic judge about it."

It should be noted that Islam differs with Christianity in one major way: in Islam we are not encouraged to confess our sins or reveal them publicly. In Islam, we are to confess our sins only to Allah and Allah alone. This goes for *all* sins. (In the case of adultery, the *only* reason you confess it to a judge is so that he can enforce the punishment upon you.) A Muslim should hide his sins and not boast them, because the worst person is the one who publicly boasts about his sins, as is common in today's society. Openly admitting to sins only leads to corruption in society. For example, some Muslims in this thread have openly admitted to drink alcohol. But this is two wrongs they did: the first is drinking alcohol, but the second is admitting it publicly. Other Muslims will read these posts and think to themselves "hey, that person is doing it too, so it can't be that bad." (The said Muslims need not have lied but instead they should have remained silent.)

In a society in which sins are openly discussed (and even boasted about), these sins become common place and accepted as the norm. For example, in today's society, so many people admit to illegal sexual intercourse that it isn't even taboo any more, but rather a person who does that doesn't feel bad at all since everyone is doing it.

Furthermore, Islam came to criticize the priests of Christianity who the Quran says took the place of God. Indeed, the priests become very influential and rich based on people confessing their sins to them, even accepting money to expiate sins. Islam discouraged this and called this religious exploitation. And what Islam especially decries are intermediaries to God: the Prayer of Repentance is accepted directly by God, and there is no need for an intermediary on earth to accept it or reject it. That is for God and God alone to accept.

The confession of an adulterer is only necessary so that the punishment can be meted out, not because it is a good thing to confess sins to people. (In fact, we should hide our sins, and reveal them only to God.) But in this case, the adulterer confesses to a judge only because no entity except the State can enforce punishments on citizens. A person may not even enforce the penalty on himself, let alone on others. (Therefore, the practice of "honor killings" and other such things are not permitted, considered outlawed vigilante justice, and indeed they are remnants of Jahili [barbarous Pre-Islamic] society.)

This leads to the second condition in which adultery is punished by law, which is when the sex act is done in public (defined by at least four or more witnesses) or the person publicly boasts about his sin (to at least four witnesses). This is based on the Quranic verse that actually comes right after the verse you (GST) quoted:

"And those who accuse honorable women [of fornication/adultery], and produce not four witnesses--flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their testimony ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors...Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men are liars in the sight of God." (Quran, 24:4-13)

As for the first case--in which the sex act is done in public--this is of course punishable by death. Adultery is considered sinful, but doing that in public is considered an abomination. Such people must be put to death so that such evil does not become widespread in society. For example, in today's society, we have the open evils of pornography, in which men and women commit illegal sexual intercourse in public. This destroys society and is an abomination. In the modern context, it is *these* people who would be punished with death by the Shariah (i.e. public fornicators), not those who commit adultery in their own homes under cover of darkness. Those who commit adultery may only be doing so out of weakness of the flesh--and are thus simply advised to repent--but those who flaunt it are the very tools of Satan and they have the desire to spread filth and corruption everywhere.

Prophet Muhammad (s) said:

“All of my Ummah (people) will be forgiven except those who sin openly. It is a part of sinning openly when a man does something at night, then the following morning when God has concealed his sin, he says, ‘O So and so, I did such and such last night,’ when all night his Lord has concealed him and the next morning he uncovers what God had concealed.”

The last condition is that of the person who publicly flaunts his indiscretion and boasts about his adultery. The legal requirement for punishing this is when he boasts about it to four people or more. He will, however, be asked to repent from that and cease from doing that. If he agrees, then such a person will be forgiven and let go.

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen says:

"There is a third kind of immoral, rebellious, promiscuous person, who speaks in a boastful manner about Zinnah (fornication/adultery) and tells people that he travelled to such and such a place and committed immoral acts of Zinnah (illegal sexual intercourse) with a number of women, and so on, and he shows off about that. Such people should be asked to repent, and if they do not they should be executed." (Sharh Riyaad al-Saaliheen, 1/116)

Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid says:

"Speaking about your sin and flaunting it openly in front of your friends is Haram (forbidden), and is a major sin. It is one of the ways of spreading immorality among the Muslims, encouraging evil and tempting others to do similar things. It also means that one does not take sin seriously and regards it as insignificant, and that the sinner is damaging his own reputation and exposing his honour to the slander of others."

This is classified along with the former condition (i.e. public sex act) since they fulfill the same thing. However, people who commit the public sex act are punished swiftly, whereas those who simply boast about their sin are advised to repent and take back their four confessions (i.e. boasting is likened to a confession). If they are obstinate in boasting about it, then they are to be punished.

There *is* one other scenario in which adultery would be punishable by death, and this is if a man/woman accuses his/her spouse of adultery. In this case, he/she must take four sacred oaths against his/her spouse accusing him/her of adultery. If, however, the accused spouse says that this is a lie (and if he/she takes five sacred oaths that it is a lie), then the case is thrown out and no punishment is meted out (unless it was a public sex act in which case the above ruling for public sex acts would be enacted).

If a man/woman rightfully accuses his/her spouse of adultery but his/her spouse lies in court about it, then the accuser can file for divorce and his/her only recourse is to seek his/her spouse's punishment in the Next Life on the Day of Judgment. God is Most Just!

As for the spouse that is accused, he/she must take five sacred oaths to testify to their innocence. If he/she is lying, then the Curse of God is upon him/her and he/she will be severely punished in the Next Life. Therefore, while there is no heavenly punishment for hiding your sin, there *is* a punishment for lying about it if your spouse accuses you of adultery. The reason for this is that a spouse has a right to "vengeance" just as do victims of other crimes (i.e. the relatives of a murdered man have the right to seek the death sentence for the murderer).

So in the majority of cases, the legal requirements for punishment are not fulfilled (i.e. self-confession or public sex/boasting), and therefore he is not punished and instead left to ask for forgiveness on his own.

From this, we see that Islam does not seek to punish people but rather it seeks simply to keep the moral fabric of society together by preventing public obscenity. Such societies in which sexual lewdness is publicly advocated earn the Wrath of God, and it was for this reason that the People of Sodom were uprooted and destroyed. We seek refuge from God from that.

The truth is that the punishment for adultery is only a symbolic punishment that would rarely be administered. It is a law of deterrence. If that law was in effect in society, then no person in his right mind would commit sexual acts in public nor would he boast about it (and even if he did that, he would repent and be let go). This is one of the things that Western people do not understand about Islamic Law. They see these laws as simply barbaric and blood-thirsty measures to be administered at whim, as if people are punished for the slightest infraction. But rather, the truth of the matter is that they are laws of deterrence only, and these punishments are almost NEVER administered in a properly functioning Islamic state. Not only this, but these laws are VERY effective in preventing crime.

I close with the words of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari who says:

"There are detailed and stringent conditions for the legal punishment of fornication and adultery to be enforced upon an individual. If these conditions are not met, the punishment will not be enforced.

"One should always keep in mind the objective and spirit of Shariah (Islamic Law) concerning the various legal punishments. The idea is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished.

"An example of this which comes to mind is that we see speed cameras being placed on many roads and streets (especially here in the UK!) in order to deter people from speeding in their vehicles. The idea behind these speed cameras is not to catch people speeding, rather to prevent people from speeding and causing accidents. If the aim was to catch people speeding, there would be no warning signs indicating that a camera is present. However, we see that whenever a speed camera is placed, many warnings are given that “beware this road has a speed camera”. Many of the times, the camera is not even in operation, hence, the idea is to stop people speeding rather than catch and punish them.

"The same is with the various legal punishments prescribed by Shariah (Islamic Law), in that they are prescribed to prevent people from committing unlawful actions and corrupting the society, yet the rules and conditions for a legal punishment to be enforced are so stringent that very rarely would an individual be punished. The legal punishment is considered a deterrent, but if an individual did involve him/herself in some unlawful activity, the objective now is not to get the individual punished rather to save him/her from the punishment."

Hope that sheds some light on the matter.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**NightWolf** · 01-28-2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

There are most definitely bigots within our own Muslim ranks, and I am the first to say this! Most of the extremist fringe are very much infected with bigotry..

Oh so the muslims are only "bigots" when they want
to behead and kill all europeans and americans, i guess
only the white man can be racist

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

There are a few ways I can respond to this

1) I want Shari'ah (Islamic Law). What's your point? Why the exclamation mark?

2) Oftentimes, the best way to refute those afflicted with bigotry is to reverse their arguments against them. This exposes their bigotry, because they then retreat from their position. You say 40% of Muslims want Islamic Law. Gallup Poll says that 46% of Americans want the Bible as law. (Gallup site) As for Jews, 38% of them want a Halakhic state. (Halakha is the Jewish Law; it's a Hebrew term like Shari'ah is an Arabic one.) This is according to the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Ar...t+-+06-Aug.htm

So why is it that Muslims are demonized for wanting Islamic Law, when a similar percentage of Jews and Christians want to rule by Halakha and Biblical Law respectively? I'll tell you why: bigotry.

ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS??? the muslims come
to a foreign country (UK mostly christian) and over 40% of them demands
Islamic law, you see nothing wrong in this??
Are you sure you are not a islamic radical??

So according to your poll over 46% of americans
wants the bible as law, why is this strange?
the US is after all a christian country,
how can you even compare the 2 things??

Oh and im suprised that the jews want to live by
Halakha in israel

Go live your Sharia laws (islamic law) as much
as you want in the islamic world but dont try
to enforce it on other non islamic countrys!

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Once again, to refute this, I will reverse the tables. When Americans were asked what they like about Muslims, a majority said "NOTHING." Again, this is from Gallup. Can you imagine what percentage would have said that the Muslim world is "barbaric" if that was an option? I bet you that if you put an option "we should nuke Mecca to teach them a lesson", a lot of Americans would vote for that option.

Once again you are deribetly missing the point,
The americans that voted they like nothing about
muslims do not move and live in muslim countrys,
were as these islamic radicals that hates and wants
to end the western life chose to live there by there
own desesion, why go somewhere were you dont like
how they live? you think christians can just go to
saudi arabia and demand they change there way of life?
Point is, either they like it or they go back to where
ever they came from.

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

You are the type of person who flocks to the people who hate-monger against Muslims, so why is it you have a grudge against those Muslims who hate-monger against Christians or the West? Bigots--even from the opposite side--are the same in methodology..

Oh im sorry if i dont like someone (extremists) who wants
to kill me and my family. be careful buffguy,
you radical side is starting to show more and more.

And if you call me a bigot one more time you will
get some name calling back in my response.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 07:40 PM

Peace be unto you, NightWolf.

Originally Posted by NightWolf

Oh so the muslims are only "bigots" when they want to behead and kill all europeans and americans, i guess
only the white man can be racist

When have I said any of that? I hold both groups to the same exact standard, and my criticism of you is that you don't.

I do not know where you got anything different from my reply. If you need clarification, please ask.

ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS??? the muslims come
to a foreign country (UK mostly christian) and over 40% of them demands
Islamic law, you see nothing wrong in this??

Who is demanding anything? They were asked in a poll if they would want Shari'ah law in the West, and they said yes. It is only with regards to themselves--mostly family law and such--not imposed on others. In other words, they simply want the freedom to follow family law in accordance to their own beliefs. You see, the Islamic Law allows Non-Muslim minorities to rule according to their own laws, so that is what the Muslims were talking about when they said they want Shari'ah law.

Are you sure you are not a islamic radical??

McCarthyism.

So according to your poll over 46% of americans
wants the bible as law, why is this strange?
the US is after all a christian country,
how can you even compare the 2 things??

You have a misunderstanding, but I guess you do not wish to understand. When Muslims call towards the freedom to live by Shari'ah in the West, they are not saying that Non-Muslims should live under Islamic Law or the Islamic punishments. Rather, they are simply asking for some freedom and lenience with regard to themselves. For example, in India Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy, whereas Christians are not. This is because India allows Muslims to use family law in accordance to Islam, and Christians according to Christianity.

Go live your Sharia laws (islamic law) as much
as you want in the islamic world but dont try
to enforce it on other non islamic countrys![/B]

See above.

I just want to clarify something: I am not actively calling for Shari'ah law in America, and I discourage Muslims from doing that. However, if I was given the option, I would say yes. But I also understand that the American laws are not designed in that way, and that's ok. The American law system has many great things about it, and I am not complaining. We have a lot of religious freedoms, so we cannot complain. So I say: yes, if given the option, I would opt for Shari'ah, but it is not a very realistic option so I don't see any reason to waste brain cells over this imaginary debate.

My own preacher (daiee)--whose video I posted in this thread--actually made a speech where he told Muslims to stop calling towards Shari'ah in the West, because Non-Muslims don't understand what we mean by that; also, it is a peripheral issue. If we can live here with freedom of religion, then we should be pleased. This is how I feel. So what I say to you: yes, some Muslims do call towards Shari'ah, but what they mean by that is not what you think they mean. Nonetheless, I still think they should not do it.

[B]Once again you are deribetly missing the point,
The americans that voted they like nothing about
muslims do not move and live in muslim countrys,
were as these islamic radicals that hates and wants
to end the western life chose to live there by there
own desesion, why go somewhere were you dont like
how they live?

The disgruntled Muslims in the West are usually not immigrants. Rather they are born and raised in the West. So the idea that they first migrated by their own decision and then hated it is simply false. Almost all radicals are born Americans and very young in age. The older generation, i.e. the immigrants, are much more moderate, and are happy to be in the country. The radicals blame their parents for migrating here, and believe that hijrah (emigration) is mandatory on them, and many of them do eventually leave.

This argument of yours--that they first move here and then hate on the country--is simply not correct. I spend a lot of time debating with radicals, and I know how they think. Very few of them migrated here. Rather, their parents moved here for education purposes, and then they (the children) themselves lived spoiled lives, did not appreciate what they had, and then became radicalized when they saw the humiliation of the Muslim world at the hands of the colonial West.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Muslims in America--young and old--are not extremists or radicals. They want to live in peace and cooperation with the United States. I posted an article in this thread about this topic. The Christian Post writes wrote this article based on the Pew Research Center's poll:

The study found that not only are Muslim Americans largely similar to the rest of the country in terms of income, education level, and economic satisfaction, they also share common values and attitudes and, in general, subscribe to a “decidedly” American worldview.

The majority of Muslim Americans have a generally positive view of society and believe in the American dream. A full 71 percent said they believe that if a person works hard they can be successful in the United States.

Moreover, despite the fact 65 percent of Muslims in the country are first-generation Americans they believe that Muslims living in the United States should try and adopt American customs instead of trying to remain distinct from society...Furthermore, U.S. Muslims, for the most part, reject Islamic extremism.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society...-23/index.html

you think christians can just go to
saudi arabia and demand they change there way of life?

I believe that any Muslim country should allow Christians to live in Muslim lands as they wish, under their own Christian laws, courts, judges, etc. In this regard, we Muslims have a long way to go, and there are people working on it trying to change the status quo, and I hope to dedicate my life to this as well, God-Willing. Unfortunately, no government on earth properly administers Shari'ah, and the couple that claim to do so, well let's just say they do a halfhearted and garbage job of it. You have to understand that when the Western nations destroyed our Caliphate and colonized the Ottoman Empire, we lost everything, and had to start from scratch. The intellectual seat of Islamic scholarship, Al-Azhar University (which is in Egypt), is under a secular regime right now which heavily persecutes practicing Muslims. Without Al-Azhar, Muslims have been left directionless. To get back on track will take awhile. It is a difficult task and will take time. For a couple hundred years, Americans were sicking attack dogs and fire-houses on blacks and the like. It took a long time to get where they are. It will also take a long time for the Muslim world to recover from its destruction following colonization.

So to answer your question: I think that yes the Christians should be able to have their own way of life preserved in Muslim lands, and this is something that we Muslims must work towards as we have lagged far behind in this aspect.

Point is, either they like it or they go back to where
ever they came from.

Most of us were born in America. So where are you telling us to go back to?

Oh im sorry if i dont like someone (extremists) who wants
to kill me and my family.

And I assure you that most Muslims do not want to kill you and your family.

It is as imaginary a thought as the Nazi's idea that Jews wanted to take over the world.

What I will say, however, is that I agree there are extremists amongst our ranks, and I oppose them. This is not just a token statement I am making; rather, I spend a lot of my time and energies refuting them. They are scum. It is true that many of them do many nefarious things like taking benefits from the government (i.e. welfare) and then meanwhile plan their "jihad" against the government. This is completely forbidden under Islamic Law, and rejected by the vast majority of Muslims.

My *only* problem with you is that you are trying to demonize the Muslim community in generality. You say "sure, not *all* Muslims are like that"...I am telling you that MOST Muslims are not, and you need to recognize that.

Furthermore, to get a balanced picture, you need to dole out blame appropriately. You cannot place the blame all on the Muslims. You are complaining that Muslims are CALLING towards destroying the UK. Well, the UK not only called to destroying Iraq, but it DID destroy it. You complain about the Muslims who move to the UK LEGALLY and then complain when they are there. What about the British troops who enter Muslim lands ILLEGALLY without any VISA or permission of the people, and who greet the Muslims with their guns? How many years did it take the UK to come back to Iraq? Didn't we just dump the British? Was it not just yesteryear when we freed ourselves from the shackles of British colonialism? Why in the world are they back?

Muslims come legally and complain with their mouths, whereas Non-Muslims come illegally and kill with their guns. So why the double-standard? Some Westerners are so angry at the Muslims whose only crime was to complain with their tongues and chant radical slogans of death and destruction...well, can you then imagine the anger in Muslim eyes when the Westerners actually come into Muslim lands and ACTUALLY spread death and destruction, instead of just saying it? You're so angry at Muslim immigration to Europe...can you imagine how angry the Muslims are when the British don't just immigrate but conquer?

We need to realize that there is extremism, bigotry, and war-mongering prevalent in the Western nations as well, which fuels the extremists within the Muslim ranks. Each side is feeding off the other's fury. If the West would just stop conquering Muslim lands, there would be almost no Muslim radicals at all.

What we need to do is reach across the aisle--the moderates on both sides--and work towards peace, reconciliation, and mutual understanding. This means rejecting the extremists on both sides, who are actually so similar that they don't realize it. And as for us Americans, we need to return to the American spirit that our founding fathers built this nation upon. They had a great dream, and unfortunately war-mongerers have destroyed it. A lot of Muslim radicals--and even some regular average Muslims--feel that there is nothing good about America, and they feel this way because of all the war-mongering. I say: the war-mongerers do not represent the American spirit; they are un-American. True America is not about waging endless wars overseas. No. It's about living in peace and harmony, without entangling alli-ances (don't know why this word is starred out?), trading with everyone, and exchanging ideas and good will with the peoples of the world. I believe that we need to work to achieve that objective. There is much work that needs to be done on both sides: the American side and the Muslim side. I'm both American and Muslim, so I hope to work towards both, God-Willing.

Peace be unto you. May God unite our hearts upon the truth and Straight Path.

**NightWolf** · 01-28-2009, 08:01 PM

Ok im very tired right now cause its late here,
but i will reply to your post tomorrow.

Good night

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by NightWolf

Ok im very tired right now cause its late here,
but i will reply to your post tomorrow.

Good night

Good night. May God expand and soften your heart. And mine.

**gst528i** · 01-28-2009, 09:00 PM

So your saying no non-muslim has been convicted using those laws? Cause i can prove other wise

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by gst528i

So your saying no non-muslim has been convicted using those laws? Cause i can prove other wise

No, I did not say that. Rather, I said that according to Islamic Law, this is incorrect, even though some of the illiterate groups (like the Taliban) do that. They do not have the proper Islamic training, so they think they are doing something according to scripture, when in fact they are not.

**gst528i** · 01-28-2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

No, I did not say that. Rather, I said that according to Islamic Law, this is incorrect, even though some of the illiterate groups (like the Taliban) do that. They do not have the proper Islamic training, so they think they are doing something according to scripture, when in fact they are not.

so you can imagine the uneasiness of the west being asked to look in to these laws.
If the muslims can't get it right, how is a country that is not islamic based get it right.
We can;t even get our regular laws to work the way they are suppose to lol...

And i just have to ask. What does islam say to adapting to time? By this i mean, islamic laws adapting as time changes and we go forward, in a sense as humans evolve do these laws become "for the lack of better word less barbaric".
I am not saying islam has the only barbaric laws, since the bible has them too, but don't you think christianity which is dominant in the west has evolved to not take exact punishments in the bible, but adapt them as we evolve.
Where as the muslim world is stuck rigid and unwilling to change or adapt to punishments and other things proposed in the holy book.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-28-2009, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by gst528i

so you can imagine the uneasiness of the west being asked to look in to these laws.
If the muslims can't get it right, how is a country that is not islamic based get it right.
We can;t even get our regular laws to work the way they are suppose to lol...

Like I said, I think it is not feasible, and I agree with you that it is not a realistic request, nor is it something that Muslims should worry themselves about. Most of them who call for it are just talking about family laws, such as laws pertaining to divorce, inheritance, etc., and not criminal offenses.

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

**BuffedGuy** · 01-29-2009, 04:34 PM

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

You posted in regard to the Curse of Ham; I'm cross-posting here.

Originally Posted by Amcon

o ya - it actually was a curse handed down to one of noah's son...

Muslims do not believe in the Curse of Ham. As the story goes, Noah was drunk and naked in his tent, when his son Ham stepped in and saw him. Because of this, Noah passed a curse on his descendants.

Muslims reject this story. Remember: although we believe in the Bible as revealed to the Prophets, we also say that over the course of time there has been a lot that has been added to and committed from the Bible. As such, Muslims are instructed not to read the Bible, except to use it as a proof with the People of the Book. We believe that it is impossible to know for sure which elements of the Bible have remained intact and which are later day corruptions.

That is why we believe that God revealed the Quran (the Final Testament) to Prophet Muhammad [s], which clears up any doubts and confusion. In other words, it sets the record straight. In regards to the prophets, we believe that the People of the Book have exaggerated with some of the prophets (i.e. Jesus) whereas they have denigrated others (such as Noah).

We believe that God commissioned the best of the humans to be his prophets and messengers. Prophet Noah [as] is mentioned in the Quran, but there is no mention of the story of him being drunk. Rather, the prophets of God are considered free of Major Sins. We believe that if normal Muslims--like myself--steer clear of the Major Sins, then how could Prophet Noah [as] approach them? Yes, the prophets can commit mistakes and minor sins, and this is a reflection of them being human; only God is perfect. However, the prophets did not persist in sin; rather, even when they committed minor sins, they hastened to seek forgiveness from their Lord Most High.

In other words, we do not believe it is possible that Prophet Noah [as] got drunk in his tent, and we believe it degrades him to say that his son saw him naked in such a state. We also believe it does not befit the mercy and justice of one of God's prophets to curse a man's progeny, for what fault did the progeny have in the affair? No soul bears the burden of another. This is one of the reasons that Muslims also reject the idea that childbirth was a punishment on all women for the sin of Eve. How could one soul bear the burden of another? We similarly reject the idea that humanity was cast out of Paradise due to the actions of Adam or Eve. (We also reject the idea that it was Eve's fault and not Adam's.) In fact, we reject the entire concept of Original Sin, since it is not part of God's Justice to mete out punishment to other than the offender. (This is also one of the reasons why terrorism is wrong--since terrorists go after other than the offenders.) Sin is not inherited; it is earned by one's own willful actions.

Historically, the Curse of Ham has been used to justify racism; the early Jews used to justify their enslavement of the Canaanites. And Christians throughout history--up until this century--have used it as a proof to justify enslavement of blacks.

To turn around and use this against Arabs is another evidence that Islamophobia is the new bigotry of our times. If it is racist to use against blacks, it is equally racist to use against Arabs. Rather, let us stay away from racism altogether. All humans are created equal and only differ based on their righteousness and good character, as mentioned in the Quran.

The Christian Church itself has taken a strong against the Curse of the Ham (not 100% sure about this, but that is what I remember reading). Therefore, I do not think what I am saying goes against what Christians believe on the matter (but I will have to double-check). Neither Islam nor modern day Christianity believe that the Curse of Ham applies to any race or group of peoples, since that would not be proper.

Hope this clears up the matter.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-29-2009, 05:22 PM

Muslims Shelter Jews During Nazi Holocaust

The Paris Mosque protected Jewish children from the Nazis. The mosque itself was built by the French government in appreciation of the 500,000 Muslims who had fought for France during World War One, with 100,000 losing their lives in the trenches. It is estimated that the mosque helped to save over 1,700 Jewish children, by providing them with shelter, transit, and Muslim names. Below is a copy of a pamphlet that circulated among Algerian Muslims in Paris at the onset of the Nazis’ campaign against the Jews in France:

"Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The old, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our own children. The one who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune--or sorrow--lasts. Oh, man of my country, your heart is generous." (The Mosque that Sheltered Jews)

Meanwhile, in the country of Morocco, King Muhammad V opposed the Vichy puppet government and the Nazi effort in North Africa. He supported Jews during the war years, saving them extermination at the hands of the Nazis. According to an Israeli website:

Muhammad V protected Moroccan Jews from the Vichy occupation

Heads of the Jewish community in Morocco have initiated a move calling for Muhammad V of Marocco, who was king during World War II, to be the first Arab admitted to Yad Vashem's Righteous Among the Nations for his efforts of saving the Jews of his country.

http://www.isracast.com/article.aspx?id=108

And in Algeria:

An exhibition on Albanian Muslims who sheltered Jews during World War II opened in the mixed Jewish-Arab town of Ramle on Tuesday to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day. For the first time, in an attempt to reach out to Muslims, Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust memorial, has hosted a standing exhibition in Hebrew and Arabic...

Yad Vashem has also honoured 63 Muslim Albanians for sheltering Jews during World War Two. They are among 22,000 people that the museum recognizes as "Righteous Among the Nations" — non-Jews who defied their communities and governments to save Jews from death at the hands of Nazis. The exhibition will run for three months in Ramle.

http://www.islamtoday.com/showmenews...ub_cat_id=2102

Source: Diaa Hadid, "Israel's Holocaust museum reaches out to Muslims" Associated Press January 28, 2009

Albania is one of the only Muslim countries in Europe:

Albanian Muslims Who Sheltered Jews Honored at Program

...

At the start of the war, the Jewish population of Albania numbered about 200. As persecution increased, Jews from other European countries sought refuge in Albania. By war's end, there were some 2,000 Jews living there, making it the only nation in Europe where the Jewish population increased during those years.

That phenomenon was largely due to the concept of Besa, a code of honor that guides Albanians. Besa means to keep the promise, to keep one's word and includes a moral imperative to offer one's home to protect and shelter any guest in need...

Representing the rescued, Dr. Anna Kohen was born in the city of Vlorë in southern Albania. After Hitler invaded Albania and the hunt for Jews began, her parents fled to the mountains and hid in a small Muslim village.

"Everyone in the village knew we were Jews," she said, "but no one betrayed us. What I remember is what my parents told me: They were very nice to us, they fed us, they saved us.

"I would not be here speaking to you today if not for the courage and generosity of my fellow Albanians," she said. "I am honored to celebrate a people's humanity and compassion during the horror of the Holocaust. Regardless of race or religion, they restored hope in our souls."

..."In most European countries, when non-Jews helped Jews, they were hiding them," explained Dr. Paldiel. "In Albania, in most cases, there was no need to completely hide Jews. In the villages and neighborhoods, they were known. But because of Besa, the code of honor, they were not betrayed.

"They were hosted - not hidden," he emphasized. "That's a significant difference."

Dr. Paldiel called Besa a singular and unique code of honor which doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.

"When an Albanian gives his word of honor to do something," he said, "he is committed to do it."

...The Righteous Among the Nations program is a designation bestowed upon a non-Jew who risked his or her life, freedom and safety in order to rescue one or several Jews from the threat of death or deportation to death camps.

Since 1963, nearly 22,000 men and women from many countries and all walks of life have been so honored.

In 1990, the first Albanian received the Righteous Among the Nations award. In 1991, when the Communist regime was overturned there, more stories came to light.

"So far," Dr. Paldiel advised, "we've been able to honor 65 more Albanians as Righteous Among the Nations. But that's only a fraction. More needs to be done.

"We can learn from them," he said. "Albanians can serve as role models for all people of the world."

..."I thanked my Muslim hosts on behalf of the Jewish people for what they had done during World War II."

...Sazan Hoxha is photographed holding a picture of his father, Nuro, who sheltered four Jewish families.

"I remember my father's words to those he took in," Sazan told the photographer. "Now we are one family. You won't suffer any evil. My sons and I will defend you against peril at the cost of our lives."

"Our parents were devout Muslims and believed, as we do, that 'every knock on the door is a blessing from God,'" said brothers Hamid and Xhema Veseli. "We never took any money from our Jewish guests. All persons are from God. Besa exists in every Albanian soul."

"Our home is first God's house, second our guest's house, and third our family's house," explained Drita Veseli. "The Koran teaches us that all people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, are under one God."

http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/p...tered.4808.htm

And the same is the case with the Muslims in Kosovo. The Muslims in Kosovo sheltered Jews during the horrible Holocaust.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-29-2009, 09:41 PM

Peace be unto you, Fallen.

You posted this in another thread. I am cross-posting here.

Originally Posted by Fallen

The problem/controversy existed before the cartoon was made. The cartoon just brought the issue to the forefront.

The issue/controversy is the perception that Muslim extremists are a threat to western life. This fear was confirmed by the burning down of embassies, callings for beheading, threats to kidnap, glorifying the London bombings etc. All over a cartoon. Most people find this behavior unreasonable and the gap widens.

Not that this is right but, it is what it is.

Before I begin, I am going to tell you what I--as well as many senior Islamic preachers--think the proper way would have been for the Muslims to have reacted to the cartoons: quite simply, we should have just ignored them. All we did was publicize the cartoons; as they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity. We did the same thing with the movie "The Siege"; we boycotted it and protested against it, which just generated more attention towards it. The Siege was actually a very boring movie that would simply have flopped. Instead, we did a great advertising job for it.

There is actually an email that circulates amongst some Muslims entitled "anti-Islamic websites to stay away from"...I am pretty sure that the email was started by the founders of those websites themselves. But unfortunately, some Muslims continue to forward that email, giving free advertising to those sites, and giving it to the exact audience that the websites were made for!

Furthermore, just from a religious perspective, Muslims should react in the Prophetic Way. The Prophet's wife narrated:

A group of the Jews asked permission to visit the Prophet; they said, "Death be upon you!" I (Aisha) replied: "The death and the curse of God be upon you!" The Prophet said, "O Aisha! God is kind and lenient and likes that one should be kind and lenient in all matters." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol.9, Book 84, #61)

(Note: please keep in mind that it says "a group of the Jews" and does not mean to imply all Jews are evil. I've already dedicated a post on the Islamic view towards Jews.)

And you are correct in saying that we just "proved" the allegation true. I remember once when we were young, I called my little sister a cry baby, and then she started crying saying "no I'm not!" So it's a lot like that, lol.

Having said all that, I must protest against the way the Islamophobes interpret the cartoon riots. Yes, it was completely wrong. But no, it does not prove what the Islamophobes seek to establish, namely that the Muslims are an inherently violent people. Intellectual and academic people would never reach such a conclusion.

To give some perspective, I will give the example of blacks who have rioted numerous times. In fact, if you visit Stormfront and other white supremacist websites, you will see numerous posts/threads about how blacks are an inherently violent race who love to riot. I will quote directly from the Stormfront website:

Fact is, the blacks are waiting for any little excuse to riot, pillage and destroy. They dont care what the reason is, for any reason will suffice. And the population density of the blacks in a certain area is directly proportionate to the level of carnage.

The LA riots and Cincinatti are examples on a macrocosmic scale. There are everyday examples of blacks acting out on a smaller scale for no particular reason other than they are bored and belligerant. Just read the paper for examples

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9379

They also claim the same thing that the Islamophobes do, namely that this minority group seeks to overthrow their "magnanimous host" population:

these riots ARE uprisings. Negroes hate us, they hate us to the bone, and they chafe under White rule.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9379

Substitute the word "Muslims" for "blacks" and you will have word for word what the Islamophobes say! Watch:

Fact is, the muslims are waiting for any little excuse to riot, pillage and destroy. They dont care what the reason is, for any reason will suffice. And the population density of the muslims in a certain area is directly proportionate to the level of carnage.

The cartoon riots are examples on a macrocosmic scale. There are everyday examples of muslims acting out on a smaller scale for no particular reason other than they are bored and belligerant. Just read the paper for examples

these riots ARE uprisings. Muslims hate us, they hate us to the bone, and they chafe under Western/"infidel"/Christian rule.

Doesn't all of that sound *exactly* like what the Islamophobes say about us Muslims? Word for word! (I just substituted the word "muslim" for "black".)

The Black Sentinel wrote an article refuting the claim that blacks are inherently violent and prone to rioting:

Is The Riot A Black Characteristic

After reading a few Blogs this morning one struck me with talk of rioting and if Barack Obama doesn’t win blacks will undoubtedly start rioting in the streets. Now I personally don’t feel that this is anywhere near correct. Also, there have been fingers pointed at the Kenyan riots as showing rioting just may be a characteristic related only to blacks. Blacks albeit will lash out when the stress of life’s circumstances are too much to bear and things explode like a powder keg in a Bar B Q pit. The talk of blacks and our supposedly rioting as some sort of black trait or some kind of example of the lawless nature of blacks...

Black riots got a running start in the 60’s and have been on the radar ever since...Blacks started off destroying the white owned businesses but then degraded into destroying their own homes, stores and general community.

http://theblacksentinel.wordpress.co...haracteristic/

The fact that such articles exist show that blacks have been accused of the same thing as Middle Easterners are being accused of today. Logically speaking, it makes no sense why Muslims would burn random shops to the ground during the cartoon riots. But this is just like the blacks during the riots burned down their own black businesses and community buildings.

Those who study riots know that the actual incident which sparks the riot is not actually what is the cause of the riot. Oftentimes, blacks would riot over seemingly minor violations; the scale of the damage they caused didn't match up at all with the initial infraction. But the truth is that it was simply a case of the straw that broke the camel's back. If you leave a gas stove on for many days, and then someone walks in and lights a match, the whole building will come down in flames. The match just SPARKED it, but it was the gas building up over so many days that CAUSED the blast.

The Muslim community was tired of Western domination in the Muslim world. Remember how angry Americans were after 9/11, in which 2,000 people died. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died as a direct result of American and Western neo-imperialism. I am not talking about the past; I am talking about in the present. Muslims are tired of the Western domination and the numerous infractions against the Muslim world's sovereignty. As the radical Usama Bin Ladin himself said, if we stacked up the skulls of the dead Muslims, they would be taller than the World Trade Center.

And then after all of that, there was the cartoon. It was simply the last straw; it broke the camel's back. It was perceived as a grave insult, like putting salt in the wound. Many Muslims said: 'we have endured your colonialism for so long, and now you do THIS to us on top of that.' And then, as all riots go, things just went out of control. It was like a brush-fire.

The problem was that the Islamic preachers did not call for restraint, and when they did, it was too late. The Islamic preachers did not advocate the burning of embassies and all that stuff, but they *did* give fiery speeches against Western imperialism and in defense of the Prophet [s]. They didn't realize that this was giving the looting masses a green-light to go crazy. And most people had such rage in their eyes that they didn't even realize that they were misdirecting their anger; for example, the Danish government had nothing to do with any of this! It was just some random white guy being stupid.

But imagine if in the 1960s, some white newspaper published a cartoon with blacks shown as monkeys. Would you be surprised if that led to a full scale riot? It's just a cartoon after all. But it is enough to spark the flame. But today, it is much less likely that the blacks would react in this way. The more empowered and integrated a community is, the less likely it is to revolt. The cartoons depicted Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, which is the stereotype Muslims have on their heads. Blacks were monkeys; Muslims are terrorists. Imagine if they drew MLK as a monkey; well, they portrayed our leader--whom we revere more than the blacks revere MLK--as a terrorist. Instead of just focusing on the wrong actions of the Muslims during the cartoon riots, the intelligent Westerners should say to themselves: "Hey, these Muslims are pretty darn angry; let me investigate what is upsetting them so much."

Most people on this site did not even know *why* Muslims are angry in general, and probably most still don't have a good idea of it. The fact that you don't know speaks volumes. Asking a Muslim today "why are you so angry against the West" is like asking a black person in the 1950s "why are you so upset at the government?" The answer should be so incredibly obvious that there shouldn't be any reason to ask!

The Muslims have every right to be angry. You would be too if someone did to your country what is being done to Muslim countries. And don't just think it's Iraq or Afghanistan...no, if that's all you know about, then you only know the tip of the iceberg. The way the West has treated the Muslim world in the last hundred years is horrible. Most Non-Muslims don't understand how far the rabbit hole goes. I've posted on Iraq before, which should give you an example of exactly how far it goes back. This is not something that just started with George Bush. It goes much further back than that. And that's just Iraq; the way the West destroyed the Islamic world by cutting it up into pieces--and then putting Vichy governments over our heads--is the real root of Muslim anger. This is exactly what the Allied powers wanted to have happen: they calculated that this is the best way to keep the Muslim world in check.

Furthermore, one can see the difference between the way the American Muslims reacted, and the way the European Muslims reacted. The American Muslims are generally more well-off, and many of them are professionals: doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. On the other hand, the European Muslims are not as well off, at least in many parts such as pockets of the UK and France. The stereotype that blacks and Mexicans have in America is what the Muslims have in those parts: there is ghettoization of Muslim communities, economic despair, lack of jobs, a reliance on welfare, etc. What I am saying is that if Muslims were inherently violent, we would have seen the same reaction amongst the American Muslims, but we didn't. There was no rioting by American Muslims; sure, there might have been a handful of overzealous protesters, but nothing got violent in the US. The point is: the matter might have more to do with the economic and socio-political status of a minority group--and the frustrations they feel because of that--than the religion of the group. That is why you will find that even in the Muslim world, the better off parts did not react in the same way that impoverished and economically frustrated parts did.

So to conclude: yes, the actions of the Muslims were wrong, just like the actions of the blacks during the riots were wrong. But it is wrong to demonize a minority population. Intelligent people investigate to see what are the roots of the anger that boils over from time to time.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-30-2009, 03:20 AM

Anyone seen Oz or the first season of Sleeper Cell? Both are HBO tv shows about Muslims. Well, Oz is about a jail, but it does a pretty good job of covering Muslims. As for Sleeper Cell, it's about Muslims. I think that it is worth watching these two shows, since they do a decent job of giving a realistic picture of Muslims.

Sleeper Cell was pretty much spot-on, and shows how radical Muslims think, and also does give some portrayal of moderate Muslims (such as the main actor). The first season does a really good job, although I wasn't a fan of the way they did season two.

As for Oz, at the very beginning, they show Kareem Saeed as a bit too holier than thou, but he chills out later on and I think they did a good job of depicting what we call "Prislam", i.e. Islam in prison. (Although their Arabic pronunciation is hilarious, and the way they pray is totally off...but nonetheless, the rest is pretty accurate, by and large.)

I'm surprised that HBO does these kind of shows, because the "mainstream" tv channels in America never ever try to depict Muslims as protagonists; they only talk about Muslims in the third person. But yeah, I'm seriously impressed with HBO.

GST, I am going to answer your second question (the one about whether or not Muslims can modernize their religion) tomorrow, God-Willing.

**quarry206** · 01-30-2009, 08:03 AM

I have noticed alot of the debating is over whos "laws" each group want to fallow..

no matter what group you poll you will always get a high number of people saying they want to live by their religions laws.christians would say bible needs to be law. muslims would say the quran shoulw be law.

But how many people would truely be able to live by those standards.. probably a low percentage, but i do believe it would be on both sides.. Humans as a general statement are weak minded. and if you as a person don't take responsiblity to learn and educate yourself then you will fall inline with whatever extreme we are with. either christian or muslim.

As christians, you can not forget the dark dark days the christian faith has had in its past. the wars, murders, lying, steal and cheating it has had. It is easy to point the finger at muslims because to the rest of the world it might seem "weird". but burning a woman alive because a woman could swim and the church says that makes her a witch? come on though it wasn't recent, Christians have had their dark days.during the middle ages Martin Luther lead a charge to kill jews. killing 150,000 of them, which percentage wise is about equal to hitler.. and he made everybody believe it was "for god" ..

and i do realize there are holes in my logic that you can rip apart.. but look at the big picture. though muslim extremist are making muslims look horrible.. that doesn't mean all muslims are suicide bombers. that is dumb and far from the truth.

i defend buffedguy on this thread because i feel he is trying to educate people on believes and concepts.. you can't rightfully ask him to defend groups of people his is not. he can only spread knowledge from what he knows, and try to tell you the mind set other people might or might not be in.. Buffedguy is only one man, he is very out spoken about alot of things.

I only ask that we keep an open mind and heart on this forum, because tho i am not muslim i think that he has taught everybody alot on here.. so to rip back and forth on small things is a waste of time.

**FallenWyvern** · 01-30-2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by quarry206

I only ask that we keep an open mind and heart on this forum, because tho i am not muslim i think that he has taught everybody alot on here.. so to rip back and forth on small things is a waste of time.

I agree, but it isn't a waste of time.

***D7M*** · 01-30-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

You posted in regard to the Curse of Ham; I'm cross-posting here.

Muslims do not believe in the Curse of Ham. As the story goes, Noah was drunk and naked in his tent, when his son Ham stepped in and saw him. Because of this, Noah passed a curse on his descendants.

Muslims reject this story. Remember: although we believe in the Bible as revealed to the Prophets, we also say that over the course of time there has been a lot that has been added to and committed from the Bible. As such, Muslims are instructed not to read the Bible, except to use it as a proof with the People of the Book. We believe that it is impossible to know for sure which elements of the Bible have remained intact and which are later day corruptions.

That is why we believe that God revealed the Quran (the Final Testament) to Prophet Muhammad [s], which clears up any doubts and confusion. In other words, it sets the record straight. In regards to the prophets, we believe that the People of the Book have exaggerated with some of the prophets (i.e. Jesus) whereas they have denigrated others (such as Noah).

We believe that God commissioned the best of the humans to be his prophets and messengers. Prophet Noah [as] is mentioned in the Quran, but there is no mention of the story of him being drunk. Rather, the prophets of God are considered free of Major Sins. We believe that if normal Muslims--like myself--steer clear of the Major Sins, then how could Prophet Noah [as] approach them? Yes, the prophets can commit mistakes and minor sins, and this is a reflection of them being human; only God is perfect. However, the prophets did not persist in sin; rather, even when they committed minor sins, they hastened to seek forgiveness from their Lord Most High.

In other words, we do not believe it is possible that Prophet Noah [as] got drunk in his tent, and we believe it degrades him to say that his son saw him naked in such a state. We also believe it does not befit the mercy and justice of one of God's prophets to curse a man's progeny, for what fault did the progeny have in the affair? No soul bears the burden of another. This is one of the reasons that Muslims also reject the idea that childbirth was a punishment on all women for the sin of Eve. How could one soul bear the burden of another? We similarly reject the idea that humanity was cast out of Paradise due to the actions of Adam or Eve. (We also reject the idea that it was Eve's fault and not Adam's.) In fact, we reject the entire concept of Original Sin, since it is not part of God's Justice to mete out punishment to other than the offender. (This is also one of the reasons why terrorism is wrong--since terrorists go after other than the offenders.) Sin is not inherited; it is earned by one's own willful actions.

Historically, the Curse of Ham has been used to justify racism; the early Jews used to justify their enslavement of the Canaanites. And Christians throughout history--up until this century--have used it as a proof to justify enslavement of blacks.

To turn around and use this against Arabs is another evidence that Islamophobia is the new bigotry of our times. If it is racist to use against blacks, it is equally racist to use against Arabs. Rather, let us stay away from racism altogether. All humans are created equal and only differ based on their righteousness and good character, as mentioned in the Quran.

The Christian Church itself has taken a strong against the Curse of the Ham (not 100% sure about this, but that is what I remember reading). Therefore, I do not think what I am saying goes against what Christians believe on the matter (but I will have to double-check). Neither Islam nor modern day Christianity believe that the Curse of Ham applies to any race or group of peoples, since that would not be proper.

Hope this clears up the matter.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

My post only concerns what is in bold in your quote.

For as much as you talk about Islamaphobes, you seem to be something of a Christian-phobe. Or at least mis-read history to make some weak case against Christianity. Maybe in an attempt to degrade it in comparison to Islam? I don't know.

Yes, its true some early Christian writers thought this way (Origen and St. Jerome come to mind), but this was never held as authoritative Christian doctrine. This is the same type of argumentation you have been facing in this whole thread, namely, someone taking one thing a Muslim said, generalizing it, and saying, see this is what all Muslims believe.

In terms of Christians using the curse of Noah to justify black enslavement, when did this happen? The Europeans who began the practice of black slavery in America were not Christians, but Deists. Thomas Jefferson was known for cutting out all the miracles of Christ in the NT because it was contrary to science.

Anyway, as you know from other posts, I'm not defending Christianity per se, but just pointing out historical facts, as well as a certain trend in all your posts.

**BuffedGuy** · 01-30-2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by derek7m

My post only concerns what is in bold in your quote.

For as much as you talk about Islamaphobes, you seem to be something of a Christian-phobe. Or at least mis-read history to make some weak case against Christianity. Maybe in an attempt to degrade it in comparison to Islam? I don't know.

Yes, its true some early Christian writers thought this way (Origen and St. Jerome come to mind), but this was never held as authoritative Christian doctrine. This is the same type of argumentation you have been facing in this whole thread, namely, someone taking one thing a Muslim said, generalizing it, and saying, see this is what all Muslims believe.

In terms of Christians using the curse of Noah to justify black enslavement, when did this happen? The Europeans who began the practice of black slavery in America were not Christians, but Deists. Thomas Jefferson was known for cutting out all the miracles of Christ in the NT because it was contrary to science.

Anyway, as you know from other posts, I'm not defending Christianity per se, but just pointing out historical facts, as well as a certain trend in all your posts.

Peace be unto you, Derek.

Thank you for correcting me in this matter. I am not an expert on Christianity at all. My intention was not at all to bash Christianity. Rather, Amcon was using the Curse of Ham to degrade Middle Easterners, so I was trying to show him that using it against Arabs is as racist as using it against blacks, and how the Church opposes such a belief. My understanding was that the Curse of Ham was not a part of the early church's belief, then it was later added to it, and recently (in the last century) it was purged. If this is not correct, then forgive me for speaking out of ignorance on the matter.

My only point was that it is wrong to use it against Arabs, and that the contemporary church rejects using it against a specific ethnicity, and that it would be racist to claim this. (Am I correct in saying this?) The only reason why I was mentioning the past was *not* to condemn Christianity or the Christians, but rather to show how odious it is to use the belief, i.e. the Curse of Ham, against a specific ethnic group. I was showing that such people enslaved blacks using the belief, and thus, we should not adopt such a belief. It was *not* intended as a jab at Christianity.

As for where I got what I said from, there seem to be many websites that say what I said:

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery is based on Genesis 9:25-27. According to the Bible, the worldwide flood had concluded and there were only 8 humans alive on earth: Noah, his wife, their six sons and daughters in law. Noah's son Ham had seen "the nakedness of his father." So, Noah laid a curse -- not on Ham, who was guilty of some type of indiscretion. The sin was transferred to Noah's grandson Canaan.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

Nonetheless, that might be bogus; I've seen tons of wrong stuff being written about Islam on such websites, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was wrong about Christianity as well. If you say it is not true, then I will take your word for it. It's not even central to my argument. My point--like I said--was that Amcon shouldn't use this belief to justify racism against Arabs. Regardless, it cannot be used as an attack on Christianity, since the church is adamantly opposed to it. Furthermore, the Islamic world was no saint when it came to slavery throughout history, so how could I use this as a point to bash Christianity with? The truth is that people of all religions pervert the scripture to justify their desires. I was merely trying to show Amcon that it is not a belief to be used against Arabs.

Hope that clarifies the matter. Forgive me for not being clear, or any offense taken.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.