The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

[gst528i]

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]

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]

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

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

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]

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]

Peace be unto you, Fallen.

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

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.

[D7M]

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]

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.

[BuffedGuy]

Ron Paul responded to my email. Looks generic though, lol. Here it is:

Dear [snipped]:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your kind and supportive words. It is reassuring and encouraging to hear from those, such as yourself, who understand the issues and the positive impact of a pro-freedom philosophy.

Such active citizen participation, as the founders well understood, is absolutely vital to our form of government and to the preservation of the liberty they entrusted to us.

As I serve in the 111th Congress, rest assured that I shall continue to take very seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution of limited federal powers and work to make ours the freest, and hence most prosperous and tranquil society in the history of mankind.

Thank you again for taking the time to communicate your thoughts. I always appreciate hearing from those to whom power is vested by our Constitution, "the People of the United States."

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, GST.

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

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.

I believe that there is a difference between a religion adapting for the times and outright revisionism. Yes, I believe that Islam and Islamic Law intrinsically have the capability of being applied to numerous different times, places, cultures, etc. There is a level of dynamic versatility that is inherently present in Islam. For example, Islamic Law tries to accommodate different cultures, instead of imposing one culture upon all. As such, I think this is something that is inbuilt with Islam.

However, what we Muslims are wary of is blatant revisionism. We believe that Christians have indeed been guilty of this; conversely, they may think we are stuck in the past. Nonetheless, we Muslims do not think it makes sense to neutralize the Word of God by creating complicated "explanations". In fact, one of the Quran's main criticisms against the Christians (i.e. the People of the Book) is that they change the book of God to conform to their whims and desires. God says in the Quran:

"And those who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant from them, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them...And soon will God inform them of their handiwork. O People of the Book! Now has come to your Our messenger, revealing to you much of what you used to hide in the Book and passing over much. There has come to you from God a Light and Clear Book from God, wherewith God guides all who seek His Good Pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leads them out of darknesses, by His Will, unto the Light--guides them to a path that is straight." (Quran, 5:14-16)

God warns:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from God,' to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (Quran, 2:79)

The Quran even says that the Jews and Christians worshiped their rabbis and priests:

"They have taken as lords beside God their rabbis and their monks." (Quran, 9:31)

When a Christian said "but we don't worship our rabbis and priests", then Prophet Muhammad [s] answered by saying that the rabbis and priests would turn what God had forbidden in the Book and make it permissible, and also make what was permissible into what is forbidden.

Not only do orthodox Muslims criticize Jews and Christians for this, but we also criticize certain heretical sects of Islam for doing this. We call them the People of Evil Innovation (Ahl al-Bidah). The methodology of the People of Evil Innovation is to first come up with their beliefs from their own desires, and then they will after that read the Quran in order to "generate proofs" to back up their preconceived notions. On the other hand, the methodology of the People of the Prophetic Way is to FIRST read the Quran, and THEN make up their beliefs based on that reading. Instead of superimposing our beliefs on God's Word, we impose God's Words on us.

In fact, there was more than once that God revealed a verse in the Quran that differed from what Prophet Muhammad [s] wanted. When God revealed one such verse, Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"I wanted one thing but God wanted another, and what God wanted is (always) best." (At-Tafsir al-Kabir)

Actually one of the distinguishing features of the Muslim is the fact that a Muslim submits himself in full to God. In fact, the Arabic word "Muslim" translates to "submitter." We are merely slaves to God, and we obey His Will, without question or argumentation. The Quran describes the Muslim as one who says:

"We hear, and we obey." (Quran, 2:285)

And the Quran says:

"The believers' reply, when they are summoned to God and His Messenger so that he can judge between them, is to say, 'We hear and we obey!' They are ones who are successful. (Quran, 24:51)

And God says further:

"When God and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about following it or not. Anyone who disobeys God and His Messenger is clearly misguided." (Quran, 33:36)

We believe that judging by God's Laws is mandatory:

"If any do fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are transgressors." (Quran, 5:47)

The Quran describes itself in numerous places as Al-Furqan, which means "The Criterion (between right and wrong)", or "that which distinguishes between right and wrong." So as a Muslim, our Criterion is the Quran, not our own whims and desires. God says:

"Then do you see such a person as takes as his god his own vain desires?(Quran, 45:23)

God says of the Quran:

"Thus We have revealed it to be a Judgment of authority...Were you to follow their desires after the Knowledge which has reached you, you would find neither protector nor defender against God." (Quran, 13:37)

"Have you seen him who takes his desires for his god?" (Quran, 25:43)

"If the Truth had been in accordance to their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! No, We have sent them their scriptures, but they turn away from their admonition." (Quran, 23:71)

We Muslims believe it is Major Disbelief in God to call the punishments prescribed by God to be barbaric. Whoever seeks to replace them with his own punishments has put himself over God, and thus committed polytheism. How can a person believe that God's Punishment is barbaric? Such a person cannot truly believe in God. He might say it from his tongue that he does, but his heart is full of doubt, and that's why he has to "clean up" God's Words.

You are correct in saying that Jews and Christians have "modernized" their religion, but I think that "modernizing" is just a euphemism for "revisionism." I believe that they have invented their own religion. Having said that, there are Orthodox Jews and maybe a few branches of Christianity who refuse to use revisionism, and this must be mentioned. I respect them a lot, in the sense that at least they stick to their guns. They believe in their beliefs; their beliefs are more than hobbies or past-times.

However, one thing that is unique about Islam is that although Judaism and Christianity have entire sects/branches that have adopted revisionism as a modus operandi, i.e. Reform Judaism (and even Conservative Judaism) and many strains of Christianity, you will not find a similar branch of Islam. This may be in fact what vexes many of you, i.e. our refusal to create a revisionist sect that "modernizes" the religion. In fact, some people have tried their best to create such sects, but all Praise is due to God, they have never met with success. The orthodox Muslims have always been able to intellectually "contain" them, and "own their...butts" in debates. The Muslim masses never accepted them, and they are doomed to utter obscurity.

I think that if you are going to follow a religion, follow it wholesale. It doesn't make sense to follow half of it and reject half of it. In fact, God says:

"Do you, then, believe in one part of the Book and reject the other!?" (Quran, 2:85)

God warns against those who take certain "open to interpretation" verses to supersede and nullify the clear and decisive verses:

"He it is Who sent down to you the Book: In it are verses that are decisive and fundamental; they are the foundation of the Book. Other verses are open to interpretation. But those in whose hearts is deviation follow the part thereof that is open to interpretation, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it their own interpretation. But no one knows its interpretation except God. And those who are firmly grounded in Knowledge, say 'We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord', and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." (Quran, 3:7)

As for the punishments legislated in the Quran, I do not think they are barbaric. I believe that they are a mercy on the people. By having such harsh punishments, they serve as strong deterrents, which keep people away from sinning, which benefits none other than their own souls. It is like a parent who threatens his kid with a severe punishment if he does drugs. The punishment is actually a mercy for the child, but the child cannot grasp that yet.

Furthermore, there are a lot of misconceptions about Islamic Punishments (Hadood) to begin with. For example, I clarified about the fornication/adultery punishment, and there are similar clarifications that must be made about other Islamic punishments.

Also, I find the Western punishment of prison to be troubling. A man goes to jail, and if he's not criminal already, he'll *turn* criminal in jail, just to survive. Throwing a criminal with a bunch of other criminals is not the best way to rehabilitate a person. Whilst in jail, he will probably commit even more sins, again just to survive. He might get raped, or he might sodomize someone else. He will be persuaded to do drugs and other things. So in the end, throwing him in jail is just hurting his soul and position in the hereafter. You throw him in jail for one sin, and he commits one hundred more whilst in jail! And he comes out with a PhD in crime.

Instead, a swift punishment will maximize the person's chance of rehabilitation. He will want to change himself immediately; meanwhile, if he was thrown in jail, that motivation to change will wane or even die out over time.

Furthermore, we believe that punishment in this worldly life benefits a person's state in the next life. As such, it is a mercy, since it alleviates the person from eternal punishment, which is worse.

Lastly, even if I did believe that such-and-such punishment was barbaric, I would say:

"I wanted one thing but God wanted another, and what God wanted is (always) best." (At-Tafsir al-Kabir)

In other words, even if Satan whispered to me that such-and-such is barbaric about Islam, I would tell myself that I am wrong and that it is just the whispering of Satan. Then I would submit myself to God and His Will, without question. I hear and I obey. If you watched the two videos I linked to (the one with the Australian "bloke"), you will see that the Islamic attitude is: how can I have an opinion on a matter when the Lord of the Universe has spoken?

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.