Islam - What's your view on it?

[GBO Possum]

You hear about all the violent acts inspired by Islam, because it makes a great story at the moment and plays into the prevailing moral panic. But there are plenty of atrocities being carried out by people from other religions, or people who are acting for non-religions reasons.

So is there a vast left wing conspiracy to not report on suicide bombings by atheists?

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

So is there a vast left wing conspiracy to not report on suicide bombings by atheists?

Mostly because there isn't a belief that ties atheists together other than the lack of belief in a deity.

 

[ECGadget]

So what's all this I quoted before that claims Islamic states place Shariah Law above all else?


UDHR - an international document that states basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

I'm not sure how a Muslim country mixes their own traditions into Shariah Law or rewrites any law, if they reject anything that disrupts Shariah Law to begin with. Gender equality,since that's a topic you commented on, is not allowed according to Shariah Law.

Quoting the Hadith above doesn't really help as the Hadith is regarded to as a collection of thoughts & teachings by Muhammed long after he died. In Islam, the Qur'an takes place above it because Muslims believe it was revealed to Muhammed through God himself.

We are regarding sharia as a single fixed entity, of which there are constant discussions about it dealing with any issues that have arisen or potential issues that are arising. Shariah law may have a basis in every country it is practised in, but the overall law of the country (state laws as it were) will be somewhat different country to country.
It's often said that under Sharia law women are graded as second class citizens, and of course this is a hot topic and rightly so. However, that being said this is where things get very interesting with regards to Islam and women.
Of course, we look at how women are treated by Muslims in countries all over the world, including places like the UK and the USA and we are rightfully appalled. The law seems not to protect them and that is a great misdeed in itself. But how much of that is truly under 'Shariah Law', how much is under 'State Law' and how much is influenced by cultures. If a Muslim community comes over and says forced marriage is part of Islam (i.e. part of the Shariah laws) does that make it so? Course not.

But with regards to gender equality, let me put this forward. We fight for equality of the sexes, right? So why is it that men and women compete in different classes at places like the Olympics? Surely they should then compete and be expected to compete equally. That doesn't make sense though. Because physically and mentally men and women are different. They are not equal in that regard, and that is what Shariah law (or at least Islam in itself) takes into account. Equity, not equality. Two words that are pretty much interchangable for the most part, and equity is very much part of Islam. I am not talking about things like the fact that there are Muslim communities where girls are forced into marriage, women cannot drive or leave the house, cannot work etc etc. Of course this is where total and uncompromised equality does come in but in Islam itself there are NO laws that prevent girls from not getting married, or women leaving the house, getting a job, making a living etc etc. Women have a lot more in Islam than both the Western countries deem it to be, AND on top of that Muslim Women themselves have been supressed by their families, husbands or communities. This without a doubt needs to change.

An example of this the fact (and I actually only learnt this a few months ago) is that before marriage a women is allowed to ask her fiancee for any conditions on her marriage (and I mean anything, from money to the right to specific amounts of inheritant or whatever). This is IN Islam but very often missed by many people. Muslims here in Britain, especially young scholars are working very hard to get these voices and these rights heard, to make sure that all these laws that are forgotten, bent or just brushed under the carpet are shown the light. And these laws do need to be shown the light. This is something we all fight for right? Equality of the sexes? Nowhere in Islam does it say that women should earn less than men if they work. That is unfair. Nowhere does it say that a lady should be locked up. That is unfair. It doesn't say a women does not have the same weighting in court as men, as two of your points that were underlined:

'-Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman,
-A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.'

In fact, it is the testimony of four witnesses, regardless of gender. And that is for adultery, not rape. For rape there are other avenues, including the physical evidence (literally could be the women on its own which is what happened during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and indeed the sucessors that were democratically voted after him.)

On top of that, the second one again is untrue, as it says that in an Islamic court the testimony of ONE woman is enough to counter the testimony of even TEN men, if that woman can be deemed trustworthy or truthful. So once again, this is a misinterpretation of the rule of itself. In practise? Yes okay, they probably are not practised exactly as they once were or should be, fair enough. Or maybe they are and we just never hear the full story here, who knows? But that is what many Muslim scholars, especially those in the west (and a number in the east) are fighting for now.


Lastly, quoting the Hadith that I did has all the relevance. They were not made up after Muhammad died, they were formed whilst he lived and compiled after he died. In Islam, the Hadith is the guide that allows a better understanding of the Qur'an. I know this, because I have had 17 years or so studying it.

And just as an afterthought:
The basis of Shariah (as set out in the 12th Century approximately):
- Protection of life
- Protection of religious liberty
- Protection of intellect
- Protection of lineage
- Protection of property

 

[A2K78]

I'll reiterate myself, the problem isn't Islam which drive groups like ISIL or Al Qaeda to engage in acts of terrorism but rather the foreign policy itself. What foreign policy? I'm talking about the boneheaded foreign policy adopted by the west ever since the end of WWII e.g. supporting gulf autocrats not mention blindly supporting Israel.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

@ECGadget, @Johnnypenso - this might help:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...uslim-extremists-how-far-will-they-go/6968034

 

[LeMansAid]

Circumcision (if that is what they are referring to) for women has been encouraged (and is practised in many places) but is not something that Islam says you have to do at all. I think even for men it is not a compulsory thing but it is more pushed for with men whilst with women it is not at all.

I don't know if you're doing it consciously, sub-consciously, or un-consciously, but the sum results appear to me as words promoting misdirection.

Female circumcision is - "encouraged", but you don't "have to do", but also is "pushed........ not at all". That's very confusing.

"Encouraged" on it's own is dangerous enough, with all the possible permut(il)ations. Is there actually anything in the Qur'an that suggests female circumcision? Is it a purely cultural thing that has permeated the religion?

To be honest, it's got me a bit worked up - because I like you a lot, and am distressed at the idea of there being a muted acceptance of such barbarity in someone that is about as good as it gets in being a rational and decent human amidst Islam and it's surrounding cultures.

 

[McLaren]

We are regarding sharia as a single fixed entity, of which there are constant discussions about it dealing with any issues that have arisen or potential issues that are arising. Shariah law may have a basis in every country it is practised in, but the overall law of the country (state laws as it were) will be somewhat different country to country.
It's often said that under Sharia law women are graded as second class citizens, and of course this is a hot topic and rightly so. However, that being said this is where things get very interesting with regards to Islam and women.
Of course, we look at how women are treated by Muslims in countries all over the world, including places like the UK and the USA and we are rightfully appalled. The law seems not to protect them and that is a great misdeed in itself. But how much of that is truly under 'Shariah Law', how much is under 'State Law' and how much is influenced by cultures. If a Muslim community comes over and says forced marriage is part of Islam (i.e. part of the Shariah laws) does that make it so? Course not.

The Qur'an quotes it so because Muhammed himself did it.

Vol 7, Book 16, #18
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Vol 7, Book 62, #64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

But with regards to gender equality, let me put this forward. We fight for equality of the sexes, right? So why is it that men and women compete in different classes at places like the Olympics? Surely they should then compete and be expected to compete equally. That doesn't make sense though. Because physically and mentally men and women are different. They are not equal in that regard, and that is what Shariah law (or at least Islam in itself) takes into account. Equity, not equality. Two words that are pretty much interchangable for the most part, and equity is very much part of Islam.

Women & men not being allowed to compete against each other in sport is a valid comparison to the equality of men & women in Islam?

I am not talking about things like the fact that there are Muslim communities where girls are forced into marriage, women cannot drive or leave the house, cannot work etc etc. Of course this is where total and uncompromised equality does come in but in Islam itself there are NO laws that prevent girls from not getting married, or women leaving the house, getting a job, making a living etc etc. Women have a lot more in Islam than both the Western countries deem it to be, AND on top of that Muslim Women themselves have been supressed by their families, husbands or communities. This without a doubt needs to change.

You're right, there are no laws like that. Now explain laws like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/0...reedoms-to-bush-brother-before-arrest-at.html

She settled into a booth with a male colleague and opened her laptop. Moments later, she was arrested.

"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked, 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," Yara recalled.

The men were from Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a 10,000-strong police force charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayer times.

Yara said they grabbed her mobile phone and pushed her into a taxi bound for Riyadh's main prison. There she was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint confessions of guilt.

A woman can leave the house, get a job, make a living. But, if she dares dress differently or sit with a man she's not married to, that's a sin. Tell me again how Islam defines equality this way.

An example of this the fact (and I actually only learnt this a few months ago) is that before marriage a women is allowed to ask her fiancee for any conditions on her marriage (and I mean anything, from money to the right to specific amounts of inheritant or whatever). This is IN Islam but very often missed by many people. Muslims here in Britain, especially young scholars are working very hard to get these voices and these rights heard, to make sure that all these laws that are forgotten, bent or just brushed under the carpet are shown the light. And these laws do need to be shown the light. This is something we all fight for right? Equality of the sexes?

That does not excuse the rest of how the Qur'an defines marriage, though.

Nowhere in Islam does it say that women should earn less than men if they work. That is unfair.

It does however, say women are less intelligent among other things.

Nowhere does it say that a lady should be locked up. That is unfair.

Depends on her husband according to the Qur'an.

Vol 7, Book 62, #123
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "It is not lawful for a lady to fast (Nawafil) without the permission of her husband when he is at home; and she should not allow anyone to enter his house except with his permission; and if she spends of his wealth (on charitable purposes) without being ordered by him, he will get half of the reward."

It doesn't say a women does not have the same weighting in court as men, as two of your points that were underlined:

'-Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman,
-A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.'

Vol 1, Book 6, #301
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

In fact, it is the testimony of four witnesses, regardless of gender. And that is for adultery, not rape. For rape there are other avenues, including the physical evidence (literally could be the women on its own which is what happened during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and indeed the sucessors that were democratically voted after him.)

Likely because adultery is considered a death sentence. Then again, there have been cases of rape that ended in death as well.

On top of that, the second one again is untrue, as it says that in an Islamic court the testimony of ONE woman is enough to counter the testimony of even TEN men, if that woman can be deemed trustworthy or truthful. So once again, this is a misinterpretation of the rule of itself. In practise? Yes okay, they probably are not practised exactly as they once were or should be, fair enough. Or maybe they are and we just never hear the full story here, who knows? But that is what many Muslim scholars, especially those in the west (and a number in the east) are fighting for now.

As above, I'm merely quoting the holy scripture that says otherwise in Islam.

Lastly, quoting the Hadith that I did has all the relevance. They were not made up after Muhammad died, they were formed whilst he lived and compiled after he died. In Islam, the Hadith is the guide that allows a better understanding of the Qur'an. I know this, because I have had 17 years or so studying it.

They were not made up after he died, but they were written down generations afterwards. We've all played the telephone game when we were little; pretty easy for Muhammed's verbal teachings to become altered in such a long time span.

And just as an afterthought:
The basis of Shariah (as set out in the 12th Century approximately):
- Protection of life
- Protection of religious liberty
- Protection of intellect
- Protection of lineage
- Protection of property

That's nice when you sum it up like that. Doesn't negate what's actually been written down in their religious texture, though as to achieve all of that. Once more:

....These so called rights and freedoms which they call for all people to enjoy regardless of religion make the monotheist and the polytheist equally entitled to these rights and freedoms, so the slave of Allaah and the slave of the Shaytaan are placed on the same level, and every worshipper of rocks, idols or people is given the complete right and freedom to enjoy his kufr and heresy. This is contrary to the laws of Allaah in this world and the Hereafter. [Quotes Qur'an 68:35-36, Qur'an 38:28, & Qur'an 32:18]

It is a call to abolish the ruling on apostasy, and to openly flaunt the principles of kufr and heresy. It is a call to open the door to everyone who wants to criticize Islam or the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and to have the freedom to criticize and express oneself with no restrictions.

These are corrupt principles. Even if they suit their lives, values and religion, they do not suit us and they are contrary to our pure sharee’ah, which brought rulings that are suited to individuals and societies, and establish noble morals, and protect minds, honour, physical well being and wealth, and show people the religion which Allaah loves and is pleased with....

Also, in 1981 the Iranian representative to the United Nations declared that "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which could not be implemented by Muslims."[5] Due to this unavoidable conflict between Islamic and Western notions of human rights, in 1990, the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) who represent all 57 Muslim majority nations, created the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, using Islamic scripture as its sole source.[6] This declaration has been severely criticized by many, including; the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC) for its incompatibility with human rights, women's rights, religious freedom and freedom of expression, by "imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."[7] Furthermore, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ):

1) It gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;
2) It introduces, in the name of the defence of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women;
3) It reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standard in effect in a number of Muslim countries;
4) It confirms under cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

 

[ECGadget]

I don't know if you're doing it consciously, sub-consciously, or un-consciously, but the sum results appear to me as words promoting misdirection.

Female circumcision is - "encouraged", but you don't "have to do", but also is "pushed........ not at all". That's very confusing.

"Encouraged" on it's own is dangerous enough, with all the possible permut(il)ations. Is there actually anything in the Qur'an that suggests female circumcision? Is it a purely cultural thing that has permeated the religion?

To be honest, it's got me a bit worked up - because I like you a lot, and am distressed at the idea of there being a muted acceptance of such barbarity in someone that is about as good as it gets in being a rational and decent human amidst Islam and it's surrounding cultures.

Sorry, I should have tried to be more clear! So in the Qur'an there is nothing about circumcision for either sex. That being said the Hadith say that for a male the standard circumcision is recommended as a matter of cleanliness (or at least to help it along). With females however, there is no such high recommendation, but it is permitted. Now as I understand it, the World Health Organisation splits female circumcision into 4 categories. Of those four types, only type one is permissible in Islam, which is very similar to the male circumcision. Any more than that is forbidden, and as you say is barbaric. I believe according to what is allowed, if a girl was to be circumcised it must be only of this type and cannot harm her, or prevent any pleasure (which is actually protected in Islam).

In conclusion: males are encouraged to be circumcised. Female circumcision is permitted (not encouraged as I first believed, forgive me) but only to the absolute minimal degree of a small amount of skin being removed from the prepuce, no more.
Removal of anything other than that is against the rules of Islam.
Does that clear things up?

 

[LeMansAid]

Does that clear things up?

Pretty much, thank you.

Though I have no idea why there would be any directive at all (like stating that it's "allowed"), and most of what I find when searching "benefits of female circumcision" talks about alleviating "discomfort" (read - arousal). It's easy to be suspicious - there seems to be quite the blurred line between the religion and culture, and women often get a rough deal in that reality.

 

[Imari]

So is there a vast left wing conspiracy to not report on suicide bombings by atheists?

Hardly. It's just the media being the media. It's self-perpetuating, and requires no conspiracy at all. Why you'd assume it was due to some political agenda is beyond me.

We're all well aware that a lot of the media spends more time on what their targets want to hear. It turns out that Islamic terrorism really tweaks a lot of viewers/readers knobs at the moment, it's very popular content. People want to know about this stuff. And so the media reports on it. A lot.

This is how moral panic happens.

The public gets the idea that something is a threat to society, and the media is happy to take that and run with it. After all, the point of commercialised media is to give the public the information that they want, not the information that they need. They sell them what they'll pay for, not what they need to know. Which means that a lot of media ends up reinforcing people's fears instead of pointing out that actually those fears are kind of dumb.

Nobody likes it when someone points out that their fears are kind of dumb.

Similar events by non-islamics still get reported on, because any terrorist-type attack is news. But the don't get the same coverage.

For example, six shootings in less than a week, but the police are kind of OK with it because it's due to known criminals:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-02/two-men-questioned-following-shooting-in-melbourne/6903960

However the shooting of a police officer in NSW by a radicalised teenager was endlessly scrutinised and stayed in the media for weeks:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-03/nsw-police-headquarters-gunman-was-radicalised-youth/6825028

Islamic terrorism makes great news, because people think it's a threat. Other terrorism or killings do not, even though they may be a significantly bigger threat.

 

[ECGadget]

The Qur'an quotes it so because Muhammed himself did it.

What are you on about? You just twisted the meaning of that Hadith. "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." <- Meaning what? That the Qur'an said that Aisha is to be married to Muhammad? That's not what that means. There is a break in the phrase. The Qur'an states all Muslims are brothers (and sisters), and this Hadith is highlighting the difference between a blood brother and a brother like what we now say 'bro' when greeting people. Because marriage to a neice is forbidden, but if the Qur'an says all Muslims are brothers, then every daughter would be a neice. So this Hadith clarifies this point by saying that despite being classed as brothers, the daughter of his best friend was still lawful in marriage because it was not a blood relationship in that way. Right, that is that out the way.

Next up, you mentioned the ages of six for marriage and nine for consummation. You're very right in saying that these are very young ages. This is a topic I cannot explain too much, because I'll be quite frank, I do not know too much about it. What I do know though is
1) That Hadith, despite being in Sahih Bukhari, is regarded as authentic but weak in some senses. I've covered that before though.
2) The marriage in itself was not arranged. It was consented by her, and she wanted this. She was also beyond the age of puberty (which changes with time of course, I shall not contest that because we've had that discussion too with @Imari I believe.
3) The age that is actually stated (6 and 9) is contested due to a number of other bits and bobs of evidence that seem to show an older age, up to the age of 19 actually. Of course, if it was anything over the age of 16 then we'd be pretty happy with it in our culture.
4) This marriage in itself was unique, because Aisha is regarded as one of the most important women in Islam, alongside the likes of Mary, mother of Jesus. But it was not forced, nor was it rape or whatever people want to make of it, but there are people who know far more about this and have a solid answer that I cannot provide for you.

In Islam, two people can marry as long as they are over the age of puberty and both parties consent. That is the SINGLE condition of marriage in Islam. The girl is free to say no, the boy is free to say no. And they are free to find their own partners. Simple as. But they have to fully understand what they are doing.

Also, it is funny you mentioned that because I believe there was a King in Europe who consumated a marriage with a girl age 11 but nobody calls that rape either, because even that marriage I believe was with consent and the girl was mature. You're taking rules of today and applying it to history, where rules and even people were different, and then twisting it to prove a misinformed point, just like the first Hadith of Bukhari that you quoted. But there is some additional info in the spoiler tags if you wish to read regarding the ages.

Spoiler

1. While listing names of Muslims during the first days of Islam, Aisha’s name, together with her older sister Asma, are listed immediately after the names of the Sabiqun al-Awwalun (the first ones) like Uthman ibn Affan, Zubayr ibn Awwam, Abdurrahman ibn Awf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Talha ibn Ubaydullah, Abu Ubayda ibn Jarrah, Arqam ibn Abi al-Arqam and Uthman ibn Maz’un. Being the 18th person to accept Islam, Aisha’s name precedes the names of Umayr ibn Abi Waqqas, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Salit ibn Amr, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Jahsh, Abu Hudayfa, Suhayb ibn Sinan, Ammar ibn Yasir, Umar ibn Khattab, Hamza ibn Abdilmuttalib, Habbab ibn Aratt, Said ibn Zayd and Fatima bint Khattab [9]. This means she was living then and was mature enough to make such a choice and exercise her will. In addition, the information in reports that “she was a small girl then” shows that her name was mentioned in a conscious way [10].

This date refers to the early days of Islam. For it is known that Aisha’s sister Asma, who was born in 595, was 15 when she became a Muslim [11]. This indicates the year 610, when the Prophet started to receive the revelation and this then shows that Aisha was at least 5, 6 or 7 that day and that she was at least 17 or 18 when she married the Prophet in Medina.

2. In regard to days in Mecca, Aisha said, “I was a girl playing games when the verse, ‘Indeed, the Last Hour is their appointed time [for their complete recompense], and the Last Hour will be more grievous and more bitter’ [12] was revealed to God’s Messenger [13].” This information opens other doors for us regarding her age.

The verse under consideration is the 46th verse of Surah Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Quran, which explains the miracle of the split moon [the splitting of the moon is one of the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad]. Revealed as a whole, this surah came while the Prophet was in Ibn Arqam’s home in the fourth (614) [14] or eighth (618) or ninth (619) [15] year of his mission, according to differing reports. Looking especially at necessity, some scholars focused on the date being 614; when this date is taken, Aisha either had not been born or had just been born. While when this date is taken it appears that she must have been born at least eight or nine years earlier, the situation does not change much when 618 or 619 are taken. In that situation she would have only been 4 or 5 years old, neither an age at which she would be in a position to understand this event and relate it years later. According to the second possibility, she was probably born when Muhammad’s prophethood had just begun [16].

Another matter worth mentioning here is that while describing that day, Aisha stated, “I was a girl playing games." The word she used to describe herself, jariya, is used to describe the passage into puberty. Ibn Yara, an Arab poet, describes this passage as follows: “When a girl becomes 8 years old, she is not a ‘jariya.’ She is a bridal candidate that I can marry to Utba or Muawiya.”” Some scholars say that it is used for girls who are older than 11.

If we look at the issue taking 614 as the year that Surah Qamar was revealed, Aisha would have been born at least eight years before the prophetic mission, or in 606. If we accept 618, then the year of birth would have been 610; this event alone makes it impossible for her to have been 9 when she married.

When this information is combined with her name being on the list of the first Muslims, we get the result that Aisha’s date of birth was probably 606. Consequently, she would have been at least 17 when she married.

3. Of course, Aisha’s memories of Mecca are not limited to this. In addition to this, the following memories confirm this matter:

a) Her saying that she had seen two people begging who had remained from the Year of the Elephant (the year in which Yemeni King Abraha sent an army of elephants to Mecca in order to destroy the Kaaba; the elephants were pelted with pebbles dropped on them by birds), which occurred 40 years before the prophetic mission and is accepted as a milestone for determining history, and her handing down this information with her sister Asma only [17].

b) Her describing in detail that during difficult times in Mecca, God’s Messenger had come to their house morning and evening and that her father, Abu Bakr, who could not endure this hardship, attempted to migrate to Abyssinia [18].

c) Her stating that first it was mandatory to offer two cycles of obligatory prayer and that later it was changed to four cycles for residents, but that during military campaigns two cycles were performed [19].

d) In reports about the early days, there being statements like, “We heard that Isaf and Naila had committed a crime at the Kaaba and for this reason God turned them into stone as a man and woman from the Jurhum tribe [20].”

4. Being betrothed before the engagement: Another factor that supports the above view is that at the time when the Prophet’s marriage was a topic of discussion, Aisha was engaged to Mut’im ibn Adiyy’s son Jubayr. The suggestion for the Prophet to marry Aisha came from Hawla bint Hakim, the wife of Uthman ibn Maz’un, someone not from the family. Both situations show that she had come to the age of marriage and was known as a young marriageable girl.

As is known, this betrothal was broken by the Ibn Adiyy family due to the possible religious conversion of their son to Islam, and it was only after this that Aisha’s engagement to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, took place [21]. Consequently, the marriage agreement was either made before the prophetic mission or when the call to Islam was being made openly (three years after the Prophet began receiving revelation). If it was made before the mission, together with the idea that Aisha was 9 years old when she married being shaken from its foundation, it implies that Aisha was born even earlier than has been thought. For this reason, some say that she was a 13- or 14-year-old girl then [22].

As for the link you posted. Guess what? Religious police are part of state law. You don't see them in Abu Dhabi, or Dubai, or even Singapore. So, can I explain that? No, because Islam does not state that religious police have the right to do anything they do. State law may, but again, that is different to Islam.

Now I know that you're going to continue arguing your point, and I respect your arguments. But you cannot continue to just pull up any random bit of information of the web that helps prove your point, because you need to understand a full context and rulings around anything. There is a reason that every religion has those scholars who push the boundaries of religious knowledge. These are the people who try to understand, make sense of the thousands and thousands of Hadith, work out which are authentic, which are strong, weak, or false (because like you said it is pretty easy for the verbal teachings to be altered over time, and some are fabricated or altered).

I am not going to comment on the UDHR or the Cairo equivalent, because I firmly believe in the words of the UDHR and in my opinion, and indeed the opinion of many many scholars that the UDHR is perfectly compatible with Islam, until you start twisting its own laws. People do it all the time. Maybe the middle eastern countries did that and decided, 'yup this is not Islamic at all.' or maybe they didn't think that. We don't really know.

 

[McLaren]

All anyone has to do is read the Quran to understand how much violence and oppression the Prophet allowed. Acting like it means something entirely different or it was a different age isn't going to change how plain as day what's said in it. Everything above are marked passages directly from it. I lol at Aisha being a highly held figure despite the fact what is documented of her time.

All of this with you admitting you're not going to responsd to the original point; Muslim countries don't believe in equal rights because it intefers with Sharai Law.

 

[Carlos]

I pulled everything directly from the Quran. All I see are excuses from misunderstanding to well, this guy did it & no one got mad.

All anyone has to do is read the Quran to understand how much violence and oppression the Prohpet allowed.

All of this with you admitting you're not going to responsd to the original point; Muslim countries don't believe in equal rights because it intefers with Sharai Law.

Islam is above humanity and state law. In black and white: Islam has no place in any country other than the ones in full control of Muslims. On the other side, how many Muslims are really that extreme? The Muslims I know are not and so many are not in our western word. So what is the problem?

 

[McLaren]

Islam is above humanity and state law. In black and white: Islam has no place in any country other than the ones in full control of Muslims. On the other side, how many Muslims are really that extreme? The Muslims I know are not and so many are not in our western word. So what is the problem?

The fact that everyone else in the world finds it weird how strict and controlling the religion is over people?

This isn't about extremists. This is what their religion asks of them and denies them basic rights as a human.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The fact that everyone else in the world finds it weird how strict and controlling the religion is over people?

This isn't about extremists. This is what their religion asks of them and denies them basic rights as a human.

Rubbish. A) You can follow the majority of religious texts back that far and B) Many many observers of many religions (Islam included) don't follow it to a fundamental extent.

 

[Carlos]

The fact that everyone else in the world finds it weird how strict and controlling the religion is over people?

This isn't about extremists. This is what their religion asks of them and denies them basic rights as a human.

Your (and mine) view on basic rights are totally different than theirs. They'll never agree.. It's like an American telling me having a gun is a basic right to defend himself. I'll never agree. If you want to believe in something that is, in our view, not in line with humanity... Not my problem. It becomes a problem when they enforce it on our way of life. It becomes very Hitler-like to say Islam is bad "because". That's your opinion, it might be supported by millions and the Muslims might be minority, but I do my best to treat every Muslim with much respect. The only thing a Muslim has to do is have respect for us, our way of life. Those are the Muslims I want to live with, otherwise there is some place in the east more suitable for their (in western eyes) inhumane views.

 

[ECGadget]

I am sorry @McLaren but you don't know anything about Islam if that is what you think. But that's okay. You can believe what you believe and I will show the world what a Muslim is to very best of my ability, every second of every day. I will extend every single right to every single person, animal and object on Earth. You don't believe a word I say, so I will show you. Muslims around the world who are constantly learning will show you the rights extended. The rights of everyone, whether a Muslim or not, whether a boy or a girl. Even the rights of the environment. Why? Because I may not be the perfect Muslim, but I know how to try to be one. And that is exactly what I shall do, today, tomorrow and until the day I die.

 

[McLaren]

Your (and mine) view on basic rights are totally different than theirs. They'll never agree.. It's like an American telling me having a gun is a basic right to defend himself. I'll never agree. If you want to believe in something that is, in our view, not in line with humanity... Not my problem. It becomes a problem when they enforce it on our way of life. It becomes very Hitler-like to say Islam is bad "because". That's your opinion, it might be supported by millions and the Muslims might be minority, but I do my best to treat every Muslim with much respect. The only thing a Muslim has to do is have respect for us, our way of life. Those are the Muslims I want to live with, otherwise there is some place in the east more suitable for their (in western eyes) inhumane views.

Bollocks. I'll treat any Muslim with respect that treats me with respect. The religion is the issue, not the people.

Understand this is Islam countries that don't agree with the rest of the world. Everyone else can put aside their religious beliefs to accept all man is equal...except the Muslim ones. Ironic the religion of peace dejects such a notion.

I am sorry @McLaren but you don't know anything about Islam if that is what you think. But that's okay. You can believe what you believe and I will show the world what a Muslim is to very best of my ability, every second of every day. I will extend every single right to every single person, animal and object on Earth. You don't believe a word I say, so I will show you. Muslims around the world who are constantly learning will show you the rights extended. The rights of everyone, whether a Muslim or not, whether a boy or a girl. Even the rights of the environment. Why? Because I may not be the perfect Muslim, but I know how to try to be one. And that is exactly what I shall do, today, tomorrow and until the day I die.

And I'm sorry you bought in to a fantasy like every other religious nut.

You'll never be able to explain why Muslim countries rejected an idea that all people are equal and instead, created their own declaration, when the explanation is given by them themselves; Shariah Law & the UDHR can not coexist.

....These so called rights and freedoms which they call for all people to enjoy regardless of religion make the monotheist and the polytheist equally entitled to these rights and freedoms, so the slave of Allaah and the slave of the Shaytaan are placed on the same level, and every worshipper of rocks, idols or people is given the complete right and freedom to enjoy his kufr and heresy. This is contrary to the laws of Allaah in this world and the Hereafter. [Quotes Qur'an 68:35-36, Qur'an 38:28, & Qur'an 32:18]

It's plain as day. Non-believers are entitled to the same freedom to his "kufr and heresy" and that's not permitted. This is the reason Muslim countries rejected the declaration.

Religion altogether can go the way of the dinosaurs if we live in such a different age from when they all started.

 

[Imari]

And I'm sorry you bought in to a fantasy like every other religious nut.

Wow. So classy.

Come on, man. The dude has taken significant time to respond to your points, and has been pretty clear that whatever you find in his religious texts that not necessarily the way he himself would behave. Labelling him as a religious nut just seems dismissive and petty.

 

[ECGadget]

Wow. So classy.

Come on, man. The dude has taken significant time to respond to your points, and has been pretty clear that whatever you find in his religious texts that not necessarily the way he himself would behave. Labelling him as a religious nut just seems dismissive and petty.

Thank you, mate. But it's okay if I am labelled a 'religious nut'. If that means I fight for peace and love between the religions by dispelling myths and misconceptions about a religion I know well, and working hard towards peace, then just call me the nutty Muslim, and I will happily take it. But I really appreciate the support there, guv!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Bollocks. I'll treat any Muslim with respect that treats me with respect. The religion is the issue, not the people.

The former isn't enacted without the latter... I think it's that misconception that's leading you to be so confused on the matter.

And I'm sorry you bought in to a fantasy like every other religious nut.

Oh, okay. Wow.

 

[GBO Possum]

In response to my facetious comment about "conspiracy"

"So is there a vast left wing conspiracy to not report on suicide bombings by atheists?"

I got the response below followed by a whole lot of stuff that did not have relevance to the specific act of suicide bombing.

Hardly. It's just the media being the media. It's self-perpetuating, and requires no conspiracy at all. Why you'd assume it was due to some political agenda is beyond me.

I don't really think there is a political conspiracy. That was a little joke. As was my reference to atheist suicide bombers. Another part of the same joke. AFAIK, there have never been atheist suicide bombers. Maybe because we think there is a much greater chance of being inundated with virgins while we are still alive. (Another joke).

My point is that Islam seems to have an almost complete ownership of suicide bombing. As such, my further point is that there is something peculiar about Islam in that it singularly, or almost singularly, inspires this behavior. This is a point of major differentiation between Islam and other belief systems and those who choose not to have a belief system.

Yes, I realize that the risk of me being taken out by some suicide bomber is very low. That's not the point. However, if I am blown up by a bomber, we can all pretty much reliably guess that the perpetrator was a follower of Islam. I can't recall any non-Islamic suicide bombers being reported.

 

[Imari]

I don't really think there is a political conspiracy. That was a little joke. As was my reference to atheist suicide bombers. Another part of the same joke. AFAIK, there have never been atheist suicide bombers. Maybe because we think there is a much greater chance of being inundated with virgins while we are still alive. (Another joke).

Poe's Law, man. This is why smilies were invented.

Maybe I got suckered, but for the lack of any evidence to the contrary I just assume that people are serious. I've seen way, way wackier things here than the suggestion of a political conspiracy to undermine Muslims.

Maybe it was obviously a joke in your head, but I'm on the other side of the internet. That place that's full of crazy people, who would cover themselves in tin foil because the new CIA tech can extrapolate your thoughts by monitoring the vibrations of the hair follicles on your body. GTP is not immune.

My point is that Islam seems to have an almost complete ownership of suicide bombing. As such, my further point is that there is something peculiar about Islam in that it singularly, or almost singularly, inspires this behavior. This is a point of major differentiation between Islam and other belief systems and those who choose not to have a belief system.

Yes, I realize that the risk of me being taken out by some suicide bomber is very low. That's not the point. However, if I am blown up by a bomber, we can all pretty much reliably guess that the perpetrator was a follower of Islam. I can't recall any non-Islamic suicide bombers being reported.

I'm guessing you mean recently, because there's plenty of examples in history of this tactic being used, mostly by the military. Apparently the Tamil Tigers were fans of the technique as well.

Of late, it's certainly true that the vast majority of suicide bombers are Islamic. It could be something about Islam, or it could be purely that it's now recognised as the way that Islamic terrorists go about their business, and so that's what wanna-be Islamic terrorists do. A sort of chicken and egg thing, if you will. They had success with suicide bombs, and so they keep using suicide bombs.

Probably a bit of both. It suits their aims (which are not necessarily Islamic aims, just the aims of a group of people who happen to be Islamic), and it's historically worked for them.

I suspect no one else does it because mostly it's a pretty awful way of killing people. It's good at generating fear, but short on generating results outside of some very specific situations. Most groups actually have specific targets that they're aiming for, and bombs are notoriously bad at being specific (Hey, look! Humour!).

 

[TenEightyOne]

All anyone has to do is read the Quran to understand how much violence and oppression the Prophet allowed. Acting like it means something entirely different or it was a different age isn't going to change how plain as day what's said in it. Everything above are marked passages directly from it. I lol at Aisha being a highly held figure despite the fact what is documented of her time.

All of this with you admitting you're not going to responsd to the original point; Muslim countries don't believe in equal rights because it intefers with Sharai Law.

You still seem to be blindly wielding a broad brush.

 

[Touring Mars]

I dug out my copy of 'Understanding Islam' in recent days, gifted to me by a student I supervised many years ago. To this day, I remember feeling slightly offended by the 'gift', considering it as a bit of an insult that I should require it. Anyway, I read it and I was deeply unimpressed - and I still am, but not especially by anything specifically to do with Islam - but I felt the same basic uneasiness with Islam as I have with any religions, such as with the pseudoscientific claptrap that seeks to 'prove the truth' of Islam (which bears an uncanny and unpleasant resemblence to modern-day US creationism) but particularly when it comes to what the religion has to say about those who are not part of the fold...

While the book does attempt to set the record straight on a number of important issues - such as respect for others, equal rights for women etc., it does also make quite clear something that @McLaren is alluding to, which is that a fundamental tenet of Islam (as well as other religions) is that if you are not a believer, then you are going to hell. For me, that's not a detail, a triviality or a nuance that might make you one kind of Muslim or another - it's a defining aspect, a primary consideration... it's kind of a big deal... and, I strongly suspect that it is a big reason why there is such bitter divisions within Islam (and other religions too of course), and also why so many people who are not part of that religion feel threatened by the violent minority who take that aspect of the religion and extend the logic to outright intolerance and hatred.

Such an aspect of any religion calls into serious question whether or not there truly is at the core of the religion a deep and in any way meaningful respect for others - I understand that most Muslims are good people who do respect others because they (quite rightly) don't subscribe to or embody this particular aspect of the religion in their day to day lives, but there is a rapidly growing number of people who do - especially among young people, and it is a major problem that the religion itself seeks to denegrate those who are not a part of it and, in turn, influences the attitudes of impressionable people in a very negative way. Of course this can be counteracted by the wise words of respected scholars and practitioners of the religion - but this is set against the unfiltered world of modern-day mass communication and social media - the result of which is a cancer of hate and violence that is spreading fast, and more significantly, translating into a growing number of very real and very serious threats.

I do feel sorry for those Muslims who are struggling to defend their religion in the wake of so many horrific atrocities committed in the name of Islam and the rapidly growing culture of radicalisation, extremism and intolerance, but I am not ashamed to admit to being considerably more sorry for those who are paying the price for such intolerance - innocent people who should still be alive today if not for the fact that their murderers valued their own beliefs and their religion over the value of human life. I have a picture of a couple of friends in a nightclub in London in 2005... a few months later, the girl in that picture was blown to bits by an Islamist murderer on the Piccadilly Line of the London Underground. Perhaps somewhat unfairly, I recalled the girl who handed me that book called 'Understanding Islam' and the bit about non-believers going to hell, and how that attitude might have played a part in the murder of that girl I once met, and I wonder if I really am missing something or whether or not I understand Islam well enough.

 

[LeMansAid]

While the book does attempt to set the record straight on a number of important issues - such as respect for others, equal rights for women etc., it does also make quite clear something that @McLaren is alluding to, which is that a fundamental tenet of Islam (as well as other religions) is that if you are not a believer, then you are going to hell. For me, that's not a detail, a triviality or a nuance that might make you one kind of Muslim or another - it's a defining aspect, a primary consideration... it's kind of a big deal... and, I strongly suspect that it is a big reason why there is such bitter divisions within Islam (and other religions too of course), and also why so many people who are not part of that religion feel threatened by the violent minority who take that aspect of the religion and extend the logic to outright intolerance and hatred.

Hmmm, I think the opposite. That they should focus even more on Hell, and forget about trying to be vigilantes.

Go and live life, devotees of Islam, our punishment is already booked.

 

[ECGadget]

I dug out my copy of 'Understanding Islam' in recent days, gifted to me by a student I supervised many years ago. To this day, I remember feeling slightly offended by the 'gift', considering it as a bit of an insult that I should require it. Anyway, I read it and I was deeply unimpressed - and I still am, but not especially by anything specifically to do with Islam - but I felt the same basic uneasiness with Islam as I have with any religions, such as with the pseudoscientific claptrap that seeks to 'prove the truth' of Islam (which bears an uncanny and unpleasant resemblence to modern-day US creationism) but particularly when it comes to what the religion has to say about those who are not part of the fold...

While the book does attempt to set the record straight on a number of important issues - such as respect for others, equal rights for women etc., it does also make quite clear something that @McLaren is alluding to, which is that a fundamental tenet of Islam (as well as other religions) is that if you are not a believer, then you are going to hell. For me, that's not a detail, a triviality or a nuance that might make you one kind of Muslim or another - it's a defining aspect, a primary consideration... it's kind of a big deal... and, I strongly suspect that it is a big reason why there is such bitter divisions within Islam (and other religions too of course), and also why so many people who are not part of that religion feel threatened by the violent minority who take that aspect of the religion and extend the logic to outright intolerance and hatred.

Such an aspect of any religion calls into serious question whether or not there truly is at the core of the religion a deep and in any way meaningful respect for others - I understand that most Muslims are good people who do respect others because they (quite rightly) don't subscribe to or embody this particular aspect of the religion in their day to day lives, but there is a rapidly growing number of people who do - especially among young people, and it is a major problem that the religion itself seeks to denegrate those who are not a part of it and, in turn, influences the attitudes of impressionable people in a very negative way. Of course this can be counteracted by the wise words of respected scholars and practitioners of the religion - but this is set against the unfiltered world of modern-day mass communication and social media - the result of which is a cancer of hate and violence that is spreading fast, and more significantly, translating into a growing number of very real and very serious threats.

I do feel sorry for those Muslims who are struggling to defend their religion in the wake of so many horrific atrocities committed in the name of Islam and the rapidly growing culture of radicalisation and extremism, but I am not ashamed to admit to being considerably more sorry for those who are paying the price for such intolerance - innocent people who should still be alive today if not for the fact that their murderers valued their own beliefs and their religion over the value of innocent human life. I have a picture of a couple of friends in a nightclub in London in 2005... a few months later, the girl in that picture was blown to bits by an Islamist murderer on the Piccadilly Line of the London Underground. Perhaps somewhat unfairly, I recalled the girl who handed me that book called 'Understanding Islam' and the bit about non-believers going to hell, and how that attitude might have played a part in the murder of that girl I once met, and I wonder if I really am missing something or whether or not I understand Islam well enough.

Actually, that was a pretty cool post to read there. You are right in saying that in the basis of it, Islam says a disbeliever will go to hell. However, and this is where we do get the problem of the intolerance etc, Islam has an underlying aspect of respecting everyone within it, regardless of religion, sex, culture, colour, status or whatever. At the end of the day, and this is something Imams are trying to get out themselves, whilst in Islam GOD says the disbelievers will go to hell, no Muslim has the right to judge anyone else, Muslim or not, on what they do or do not do. It is even said that there are people who say they are Muslim but that is just a label they put upon themselves, because in their heart they are far from Islam. Similarly, it is also said that every single person will be judged on the final day based on thier actions and deeds. This actually played into a lecture I heard from a Shaykh who was posed the question on an inter-faith programme about Nelson Mandela. I believe the question and answer went something like this (maybe slight paraphrasing here and there):

"In light of the recent death of Nelson Mandela, according to Islam will he go to heaven or hell?"
"If I may, I'd like to answer this question not just from an Islamic perspective but from one of Christianity and Judaism? (he then took the permission of the two respective religious leaders there) Nelson Mandela was a great man who did great things. As a Muslim I do not know what will happen to me on the day of judgement. So, how can I even dare to pass a judgement upon another man who could be far greater than I will ever be?"

In short, even though in Islam it is believed that in basic terms 'Muslims go to heaven, everyone else goes to hell', this may not be the case at all. Yes we hope we go to heaven, personally I hope we all go to heaven (I mean, if people have to be punished in hell for a while for justice then that is that but I am no God so it is not my place to decide that justice) and indeed that makes me recall an incident in the Hadith.

The companions of the Prophet believed that if the Prophet was to say amen to a prayer they made, it would happen exactly as they wished so they used to pray as close as they could, hoping to catch an amen. One companion was doing this, and he asked God to make heaven only for him and the Prophet (of course not understanding too well). The Prophet heard this but did not say amen; instead he started to smile in amusement at the wish. He then said to the companion (paraphrasing as I do not know the exact words)
"Don't you know heaven is a vast place, bigger than anything else? Make du'a (the prayer) not just for yourself and myself, but for all your brothers and sisters, for the whole ummah (remember at this time the Ummah was regarded as the Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zorastrians of Madinah), and for every single human being forever."
It is then said that the companion made that particular prayer and the Prophet said amen to that.

Now to me, that shows that just because the punishment has been set for non Muslims and the reward has been set for Muslims does not mean it is set just like that. So as such, whilst I believe that in the general terms it is true that a non Muslim is condemned to hell for eternity (as the Qur'an), I also firmly believe that God is the most merciful and for whatever bad people do they will be justly dealt the right punishment, but I will see all of you guys in heaven someday. And I, though being far from a perfect Muslim, will ask God every single day for that very thing, moreso than anything else I want.

And like @LeMansAid just said, if the punishment of a non Muslim is already written and nothing will change that, then why do people go and blow up others in the name of Islam? "To you is your religion (beliefs) and to me is mine". That is a verse from the Qur'an that was revealed for the very understanding of letting people believe what they believe. Terrorism? Not in my name. I'd want all you guys in heaven with me (we can enjoy some good wine!) rather than any of those guys.

 

[Furinkazen]

I suppose a lot of the problem is the contradictory nature of things. Bit of internet surfing reveals these passages:



Quran 3:32 – “Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad); but if they turn away, then indeed, Allah does not love the disbelievers.”
Quran 48:29 – “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful amongst themselves.”
Quran 5:33 – “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

Extreme right? ISIS probably follow these but then in the same book:


Qur’an 2:257: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

Or being selective:

“Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks.” (Sounds like giving a license to kill but then...)

“At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly. Therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom.” (No mention of killing here, passage mentioned in above link)



And then actively prohibiting murder:
"You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - (wa la taqtulu an-nafsa allaty HARRAMA allahu) except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped." [Quran 17:33]

And another couple quotes:




I could go on for a lot of time with further research, but lets just also remember Muslim doesn't equal = killer psychopath and killer psychopath doesn't = muslim.

 

[GBO Possum]

This presenter makes many good observations, in my opinion.

It may also give offense to some.

 

[Imari]

This presenter makes many good observations, in my opinion.

It may also give offense to some.

Well, he got twenty seconds in before busting out "there's no such thing as moderate Islam".

I was gonna let him finish, but I've already used up my quota of ignorant BS for the day.