The jury rests...
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
She lives in LA apparently, so i wouldn't be too concerned.
He believed in god for sure. He didn't identify as a christian though, not in adulthood. Another major difference. Here we are dictating that Hitler was Christian despite he himself not believing that to be the case. On the flip side were are claiming Isis are not Islamic despite their very vocal clains to the contrary.
All the quotes I mentioned were made by an adult Hitler.
Certainly I am not doing that. Hitler considered himself Christian, so we should consider him Christian. IS considers himself Muslim, so we should consider them Muslim. It is as simple as that.
She seems to have a few of these videos floating around. Seems to be particularly anti-Muhammad with some justification.
What is the official stance of Islam towards non-Muslims? I see quotes from Quran floating about that non-believers should be respected and allowed to live their lives peacefully, but then why does ISIS's version of Islam asks non Muslims to pay a tax just to be allowed to live and work. Many Mughal rulers in India did the same I think.
Depends on what you mean by official.
The religious texts. I am guessing that is where the justification to differentiate between followers and non-followers comes from.
The Official Stance of Islam towards Non-Muslims is simple let them live their life, treat them with love and affection and respect them, you can invite people to join Islam but you can't force them, and only those who are against Islam and want to kill muslims should be opposed and even then you can't harm the children, the women and the older people.
It's not really up for debate within Muslim scholar circles, more for laymen like you and I. To try and so casually say it's x y or z is stupid, as our understanding is so primitive and limited, and we pull out 1 verse here or there and try and base our point around that. Having a greater and lesser Jihad (in my earlier point) is unanimously decided upon by the scholars and the evidence is pretty easy to find for that (in case you wanted to bring that up). Furthermore, the concept of lesser jihad has certain stipulations that have to be adhered to for one to take up arms, and even before it comes to that stage, there are other avenues that should be pursued first, for example, by speaking out with the tongue, by speaking out using your wealth, or simply by speaking out with one's heart (i.e. knowing this is wrong etc).
Essentially, this is why you can't really make any real valid point by posting a Wiki link, which can be edited on a whim and contains many factual errors and misrepresentations and claim it as substantiated fact.
Since we are talking abiut Islam, what is your stance towards Arab everyone?
@Akash - the story of Asma bint Marwan is a fabrication. It is a chain narrated by Muhammad bin al Hajjaj, who was a renowned liar and fabricator of hadith. It's why that story isn't included in Sahih Bukhaari. Ibn Maeen, another collector of hadith, called al Hajjaj 'an evil liar, and someone who is untrustworthy'.
The hadith are stories that are collated only if their validity, and reliability can be verified, and there are some more verifiable than others (found in Sahih Bukhaari, and Sahih Muslim). Others have weak narrations, and others are clear fabrications.
The hadith are stories that are collated only if their validity, and reliability can be verified, and there are some more verifiable than others (found in Sahih Bukhaari, and Sahih Muslim). Others have weak narrations, and others are clear fabrications.
It has Jihad Al-Nikah ffs.
I don't think muslims in the thread are defending themselves. They don't need to. They aren't accused of anything, nor are most muslims around the world. That said, speaking as a western tweep, I have very much appreciated the contributions of muslims in this thread to helping me understand the conflicting interpretations of the Koran.
I'm used to socio-political debate, comfortable with the ideas of class and economic interests. I'm less knowledgeable about religious conflict and the role of faith. I actually think that the fact it's being debated here in a football forum between people of multiple religions and none is very useful. It brings the conversation back to basics as people try to simplify and explain, and are doing so mostly without resorting to such a level of over-simplification or condescension that it becomes pointless to read.
i am originally from Pakistan, but i live in Saudia Arabia, I would like to clearify people those who think the ISIS and AL-Qaida and whatever groups there are leading the banner for their Islamic Laws and murder innocent people, the Islamic world loathes them far more than the West would. Firstly they have killed millions of people in the name of Islam in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, and it is actually due to them that simple people like us have to endure so much.
Islam doesn't represent killings or suicide bombing. The basic principle we are taught as kids is, Allah has given us life and he will take it whenever he pleases, so killing urself through suicide bombing means you are actually opposing the natural course of your death, and lastly it is mentioned in the Quran anybody who kills a single human being, it actually means he has killed the whole mankind.
Islam doesn't represent killings or suicide bombing. The basic principle we are taught as kids is, Allah has given us life and he will take it whenever he pleases, so killing urself through suicide bombing means you are actually opposing the natural course of your death, and lastly it is mentioned in the Quran anybody who kills a single human being, it actually means he has killed the whole mankind.
I just googled what that isIt has Jihad Al-Nikah ffs.
Fair enough. Is there any source for why he's considered unreliable considering he lived well over a thousand years ago? Looks like a massive piece of work if his wiki is anything to go by though.
ة
You can't blame Islam for her niece's idiot father, women has the right to choose who to marry and a Muslim man should always treat his wife the right way and be good with her, also Islam allows women to work and gave them many many rights so the reason she's basing her fight against Islam on is wrong.
You can't blame Islam for her niece's idiot father, women has the right to choose who to marry and a Muslim man should always treat his wife the right way and be good with her, also Islam allows women to work and gave them many many rights so the reason she's basing her fight against Islam on is wrong.
Suicide is haram as you say, didn't of bringing this up even.
I'm not blaming ...she is.
And from what I can see, she's far more qualified than you.
Is he the one that Muhammas SAWS called a liar? @LeChuck
Why is that? So the Islamophobic woman isn't biased but because I'm a muslim I'm biased?
I am not a very Islamic person tbf, i will try to make Jihad clear for people without going into kinds of Jihad and making it more complicated, the basic point from it stems from was, when Islam was growing at the beginning and there were invitations sent to people in that kingdom time, Kings and Kingdoms used to rebel Islamic teachings and fought War so Jihad was done against only those and even at that time children, the women and elder people and all those who would want no harm or pardon would be forgiven and allowed to live their life as they pleases.
Now moving on in a wider concept in todays world Jihad would be against somebody hell bent on fighting against muslims and defaming Islam and its Prophets.
Now moving on in a wider concept in todays world Jihad would be against somebody hell bent on fighting against muslims and defaming Islam and its Prophets.
I'm not sure on that, but all the muhaddith have claimed he's a liar, and his isnad isn't reliable.
Which wiki? Are you confusing him with Muslim al Hajjaj? They are two different people.
The guy I'm talking about, his full name is Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaaj al-Lakhami Abu Ibraaheem al-Waasiti and doesn't have a Wiki page (I just checked).
I think it's that last bit that most irreligious westerners struggle with. Defamation triggering explanation or argument is the kind of thing we can handle. Seeing fighting appearing alongside defamation is harder.
Suicide is haram as you say, didn't of bringing this up even.
Suicide is haram....but what about suicide bombing???????
Please clarify.
Here's a link of some of women rights in Islam. @Fearless
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2510
And by the way my mom is a working muslim woman.
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2510
And by the way my mom is a working muslim woman.
Thanks.
Every type of suicide is Haram for a Muslim whether its hanging himself, or jumping of the cliff, or suicide bombing all of them is Haram.
Our belief is, our life is given to us by Allah, the main purpose is to test us, some people are tested by giving all the wealth and others by given nothing, the purpose is to see with all the material possessions and those with nothing, will the person still remember his Allah and pray to him five times a day.
and as i explained above its Haram because we believe Allah has given us this life and when its our time he wil take it, everyone born in this life, there is a time period he will be in this world which is set by Allah, but people who take their life willingly disrupt their natural flow and time period set by Allah, And lastly all those who commit suicide of any sort will never enter heaven.
Wouldn't disagree with that.
Why so many suicide bombers if Islam prohibits suicide?
Foreign and Defense Policy, Terrorism
Image Credit: reportedly killed 19 people at a market in northeastern Nigeria in the latest suicide bombing there, just the latest outrage in the Boko Haram campaign of terror. Meanwhile, over the last month, there have been suicide bombings in Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Chechnya, and Libya.
And yet, even as the frequency and lethality of suicide attacks continues to escalate, many Muslim advocacy organizations, politicians, and academics continue to repeat the mantra that suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam because Islam prohibits suicide. If this is true, then why is it so many self-identifying religious Muslims strap on bomb vests in order to murder as many as possible?
Muslims believe the Koran is the unadulterated word of God, passed to the Prophet Muhammad through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). Many who embrace more violent interpretations of the Koran embrace the concept of abrogation. In short, while the Old and New Testaments are organized generally in chronological order, the Koran is organized not by order of revelation but rather by size of chapter, from longest to shortest. To date myself as a child of the 1970s and ‘80s, to read the Koran straight through, cover to cover, is akin to picking up a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book but reading it straight through. There is a whole science of Islamic theology dedicated to establishing the chronological order of the revelations. Context is important, because at the beginning of his life, Muhammad and his followers were living as a minority in Mecca. Not coincidentally, many of the revelations Muhammad received preached tolerance and compromise, useful traits for someone living amongst a stronger, better-armed majority.
However, as Muhammad gained followers, he grew stronger. After he migrated to Medina, the Muslims were the strongest local community. During this period, many of the revelations discuss governance more and emphasize tolerance and compromise less.
While Islam does prohibit suicide, the devil is in the details. “Al Baqara” [The Cow] is the second chapter of the Koran, but theologians believe it was revealed to Muhammad after he migrated to Medina. Verse 154 of al-Baqara reads:
And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.
Hence, a suicide bomber may appear clearly dead to any onlooker, but technically speaking, he did not commit suicide if he was transferred living to Paradise. Now, this isn’t simply theoretical. Less than two months after 9/11 Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood acolyte who serves as Al-Jazeera’s religion specialist and was once welcomed in European countries as a moderate, spoke about why no one should use the term suicide bombing. “This is an unjust and misleading name because these are heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide under any circumstances,” he said.
The ability to go directly to Paradise without all the usual formalities is an important recruiting tool for radicals who convince recruits that dying in the way of God is a far better fate than suffering the trials and tribulations of an ordinary death. My former graduate school colleague Leor Halevi, now a professor at Vanderbilt University, wrote a brilliant essay for The New York Times several years back, which examines the theology of death in Islam. Halevi wrote:
…What happens to the vast majority of Muslims, those who do not die as martyrs? According to Islamic doctrine, between the moment of death and the burial ceremony, the spirit of a deceased Muslim takes a quick journey to Heaven and Hell, where it beholds visions of the bliss and torture awaiting humanity at the end of days…. Before earth is piled upon the freshly dug grave, an unusual reunion takes place: The spirit returns to dwell within the body.
In the grave, the deceased Muslim – this composite of spirit and corpse – encounters two terrifying angels, Munkar and Nakir, recognized by their bluish faces, their huge teeth and their wild hair. These angels carry out a trial to probe the soundness of a Muslim’s faith. If the dead Muslim answers their questions convincingly and if he has no sin on record, then the grave is transformed into a luxurious space that makes bearable the long wait until the final judgment. But if a Muslim’s faith is imperfect or if he has sinned during life… then the grave is transformed into an oppressive, constricting space. The earth begins to weigh down heavily upon the sentient corpse, until the rib cage collapses; worms begin to nibble away at the flesh, causing horrible pain.
Of course, should a moderate or mainstream cleric counsel a youth worried about sins on his record, they might simply encourage them to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (or–if Shi‘ite–a pilgrimage to other prominent shrines) in order to wipe their slate clean. But the nature of radical recruitment is that they insist there is only one path available, the one that leads to suicide bombing.
The point of this is not to disparage Islam: never forget that the majority of victims of radical Islam are moderate Muslims, not Christians or Jews. But to dismiss the religious context of suicide bombing as having nothing to do with Islam is like a doctor who stubbornly rules out an ailment without ever examining the patient. The simple fact is one which moderate Muslims fully understand: to counter the scourge of Islamic terrorism takes a victory in the battle of interpretation, not denial rooted in political correctness, defensiveness, or a desire not to offend.
Foreign and Defense Policy, Terrorism
Image Credit: reportedly killed 19 people at a market in northeastern Nigeria in the latest suicide bombing there, just the latest outrage in the Boko Haram campaign of terror. Meanwhile, over the last month, there have been suicide bombings in Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Chechnya, and Libya.
And yet, even as the frequency and lethality of suicide attacks continues to escalate, many Muslim advocacy organizations, politicians, and academics continue to repeat the mantra that suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam because Islam prohibits suicide. If this is true, then why is it so many self-identifying religious Muslims strap on bomb vests in order to murder as many as possible?
Muslims believe the Koran is the unadulterated word of God, passed to the Prophet Muhammad through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). Many who embrace more violent interpretations of the Koran embrace the concept of abrogation. In short, while the Old and New Testaments are organized generally in chronological order, the Koran is organized not by order of revelation but rather by size of chapter, from longest to shortest. To date myself as a child of the 1970s and ‘80s, to read the Koran straight through, cover to cover, is akin to picking up a “Choose Your Own Adventure” book but reading it straight through. There is a whole science of Islamic theology dedicated to establishing the chronological order of the revelations. Context is important, because at the beginning of his life, Muhammad and his followers were living as a minority in Mecca. Not coincidentally, many of the revelations Muhammad received preached tolerance and compromise, useful traits for someone living amongst a stronger, better-armed majority.
However, as Muhammad gained followers, he grew stronger. After he migrated to Medina, the Muslims were the strongest local community. During this period, many of the revelations discuss governance more and emphasize tolerance and compromise less.
While Islam does prohibit suicide, the devil is in the details. “Al Baqara” [The Cow] is the second chapter of the Koran, but theologians believe it was revealed to Muhammad after he migrated to Medina. Verse 154 of al-Baqara reads:
And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.
Hence, a suicide bomber may appear clearly dead to any onlooker, but technically speaking, he did not commit suicide if he was transferred living to Paradise. Now, this isn’t simply theoretical. Less than two months after 9/11 Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood acolyte who serves as Al-Jazeera’s religion specialist and was once welcomed in European countries as a moderate, spoke about why no one should use the term suicide bombing. “This is an unjust and misleading name because these are heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide under any circumstances,” he said.
The ability to go directly to Paradise without all the usual formalities is an important recruiting tool for radicals who convince recruits that dying in the way of God is a far better fate than suffering the trials and tribulations of an ordinary death. My former graduate school colleague Leor Halevi, now a professor at Vanderbilt University, wrote a brilliant essay for The New York Times several years back, which examines the theology of death in Islam. Halevi wrote:
…What happens to the vast majority of Muslims, those who do not die as martyrs? According to Islamic doctrine, between the moment of death and the burial ceremony, the spirit of a deceased Muslim takes a quick journey to Heaven and Hell, where it beholds visions of the bliss and torture awaiting humanity at the end of days…. Before earth is piled upon the freshly dug grave, an unusual reunion takes place: The spirit returns to dwell within the body.
In the grave, the deceased Muslim – this composite of spirit and corpse – encounters two terrifying angels, Munkar and Nakir, recognized by their bluish faces, their huge teeth and their wild hair. These angels carry out a trial to probe the soundness of a Muslim’s faith. If the dead Muslim answers their questions convincingly and if he has no sin on record, then the grave is transformed into a luxurious space that makes bearable the long wait until the final judgment. But if a Muslim’s faith is imperfect or if he has sinned during life… then the grave is transformed into an oppressive, constricting space. The earth begins to weigh down heavily upon the sentient corpse, until the rib cage collapses; worms begin to nibble away at the flesh, causing horrible pain.
Of course, should a moderate or mainstream cleric counsel a youth worried about sins on his record, they might simply encourage them to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (or–if Shi‘ite–a pilgrimage to other prominent shrines) in order to wipe their slate clean. But the nature of radical recruitment is that they insist there is only one path available, the one that leads to suicide bombing.
The point of this is not to disparage Islam: never forget that the majority of victims of radical Islam are moderate Muslims, not Christians or Jews. But to dismiss the religious context of suicide bombing as having nothing to do with Islam is like a doctor who stubbornly rules out an ailment without ever examining the patient. The simple fact is one which moderate Muslims fully understand: to counter the scourge of Islamic terrorism takes a victory in the battle of interpretation, not denial rooted in political correctness, defensiveness, or a desire not to offend.
People.
True, i have been taught all my life to always respect and love all prophets which includes Jesus, Moses and all before and after them. I don't understand whats the point and why people have to resort to defamation of anybody's religion or their Prophets etc.
I'm confused? Can you clarify the name. Is it Bin or ibn?
Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaaj al-Lakhami Abu Ibraaheem al-Waasiti
Or
Muhammad bin al-Hajjaj
Muhammad bin al Hajjaj is his short name, and literally means Muhammad son of the Hajjaj.
Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaaj al-Lakhami Abu Ibraaheem al-Waasiti is his full name and literally means Muhammad son of the Hajjaj, the Lakhaami, father of Ibrahim the Waasiti.
The second one contains a grammatical error which I've bolded (I had copy pasted his name from a website, so it wasn't me typing that mistake).
Both ibn and bin mean 'son of'.
However, if we are going to refer to people as 'son of' without the first name, we always should use Ibn and not bin. This is why when people say 'bin Laden', they are grammatically incorrect, it should be 'Ibn Laden'. But if you are going to use his full name it should be Osama bin Laden. You can also use Osama ibn Laden, but bin is used when the full name is used.
bin/ibn isn't really a name, just means son of. The female version is bint. So Asma bint Marwan translates as Asma daughter of Marwan.