A Muslim perspective: s/o do you teach your children that your faith is the only one

[Lovedtodeath]

I would prefer that a Muslim would answer the questions concerning their beliefs and interpetations...

[Hapax Legomena]

I would prefer that a Muslim would answer the questions concerning their beliefs and interpetations...

 

Terrific. My post meets your criteria. I am more interested in the truth than the demographic of the person who posts it.

[Lovedtodeath]

So... you used to be a Muslim?

[Hapax Legomena]

So... you used to be a Muslim?

 

No, I have never been a Muslim, and I didn't interpret the verses.

[bigdogs29906]

Thank you so much for taking the time to post this! I truly enjoyed reading it.

[helena]

Wow, this and the other posts are REALLY fascinating! So in a nutshell, because they were oppressed in the past, the Malaysians do not permit prosyletizing in order to protect a person's choice of religion? Am I close? So it is their own brand of "freedom of religion"? I admit that I do not understand about half of what you are talking about in regards to Islam (OK maybe more than half) but it is definitely eye-opening!

 

i wouldn't necessarily go that far in defending the malaysian governments motivations. i.e. i don't think its so much a 'positive' approach, with concern of religious freedom in mind, as it is fear that communal violence could erupt again, combined with them being used to the form of islam they are used to, and wanting to maintain the status quo in that regard. so they let the various ethnic communities practice their religion, build their temples, churches and so on - and with the muslim community, they want to make sure that the islam that is practiced stays how it has been for centuries, relatively liberal and maybe more importantly, friendly to the state.

 

again, i wouldn't suggest going with an intent to do missionary work - but on the other hand, i also dont think you experience any problem whatsoever, in terms of being a christian, and representing your faith by example to those you interact with.

[Heather in Neverland]

i wouldn't necessarily go that far in defending the malaysian governments motivations. i.e. i don't think its so much a 'positive' approach, with concern of religious freedom in mind, as it is fear that communal violence could erupt again, combined with them being used to the form of islam they are used to, and wanting to maintain the status quo in that regard. so they let the various ethnic communities practice their religion, build their temples, churches and so on - and with the muslim community, they want to make sure that the islam that is practiced stays how it has been for centuries, relatively liberal and maybe more importantly, friendly to the state.

 

again, i wouldn't suggest going with an intent to do missionary work - but on the other hand, i also dont think you experience any problem whatsoever, in terms of being a christian, and representing your faith by example to those you interact with.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I am going there to be a principal in an international school that happens to be a christian school and, interestingly, there are muslim children that attend the school. :confused: I am not sure what's up with that but I guess I will find out soon enough!

[helena]

Interesting conversation, but if I may ask I would like to see the explanation that was asked for about the Koranic injunction against being friends with Christians. I believe the Sura that the LadyAberlin was referring to was Sura 5:51

 

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

 

As far as the issue of the Trinity the following Suras make a case that would seem to be in opposition to what has been discussed as far as perceiving Christians and Jews as infidels.

 

Sura 5:72 They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

 

 

Sura 5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word

(of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

 

 

Sura 5:74 Would they not repent to GOD, and ask His forgiveness? GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

 

Sura 5:75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make. His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

 

 

Sura 5:76 Say, "Would you worship beside GOD powerless idols who can neither harm you, nor benefit you? GOD is Hearer, Omniscient."

 

These are just some of the Suras that are used by those who have issues with Islam and I would be interested in hearing a Moslem perspective on what they mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whereas on the above, I am not agreeing or disagreeing and am simply looking for your perspective and views as to the meanings of the Suras, on this point I will disagree. I would ask how one would interpret Sura 9:29

 

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

 

and the fact that Christians were taxed for their religious beliefs. Is this not a form of oppression? This Jizya tax lasted until 1855, in the Ottoman Empire, and required non-Moslems to pay a special tax. One need not go into the means by which this was collected and the penalties for failure to pay.

 

This is a superb discussion and this board is one of those few places where it can be held without acrimony. I look forward to your answers.

 

Sincerely pqr

 

First, in regards to surah 5:51, i reiterate what a previous poster had written, that the english translation is simply wrong - that the word

Awilya does not mean friends, rather 'protector, guardian and so on...

 

Next, it is important to realize, that various ayat as well as entire surah in the Quran, are in relation to specific events. So for instance, while the overall tone of the Quran is brotherhood of man, that each nation has had a Prophet, and so on- there are also contextual passages, during times of war - usually with pagans, but also occasionally with tribes who may have been people of the book, but were often in military alliance with the pagans- where verses were revealed, warning Muslims not to take alliances with this group or that. Similarly, in the midst of a war, other verses instructing how to wage the battle against that group were revealed. One has to understand the context in which the instructions were presented, as well as in which certain battles were fought.

This is important, because, someone may look to a battle with a group of Christians or Jews, and assume that such a battle signified a larger battle with that religion in and of itself. However, history shows, that while the early Muslim community was at war with some groups who were Christian, whether tribes, or states, they were simultaneously at peace, and in good relations with Ethiopia, who were also Christian. Likewise, one can look at examples of battles with Jewish tribes in Arabia, but during the same period, can also see that the Muslims helped the Jews in Palestine, pushing for the Christian religious leaders to an agreement whereby the Jews would be allowed back into the city.

 

In specific response to Surah 9:29 it is important to also look at surah 9:28

And to understand that again, this all happens during a time of war, and ever shifting alliances

 

28. O you who believe (in God's Oneness and in His Messenger! Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters) disbelievers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Mecca) after this year, and if you fear poverty, God will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

[/i][/i]

29. Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

In short, that the pagans who ruled Mecca, whom the Muslims had finally defeated after years of being persecuted by them, would no longer be allowed in the Holy Precinct. That those who were against the Muslims who had not yet been defeated, should continue to be fought against - and in areas that were coming under Muslim control - those who had been fighting against the Muslims who also happened to be people of the book, would be required to pay a tax. In the last regard, it is important to point out that Muslims also had to pay a tax to the state, and also serve in the military etc - while the none Muslims were not required to do military service, and their tax covered the same types of things a normal tax would afford a citizen of normal times - police protection, building of roads, infrastructure, national defense etc.

 

The point is, none of this happened in a bubble. Initially, the Muslim community was completely pacifist, but were being assaulted, slaughtered, tortured, raped etc by the pagan rulers of Mecca. And in the broader sense - it was an era of expansion, and conquest by many world powers, and in that context, Muslims went from winning defensive battles, to turning the tide and conquering new lands. Within a relatively short period (25 years) Muslims went from a very small group of believers, to being a political, spiritual force to be reckoned with across a large section of Africa, Asia and the Middle East (as well as parts of Europe). Looking to periods of war to understand how a religion plays out in regards to inter-religious relations, only brings one part of the picture. It is important to also look at times of harmony, such as Muslim Spain, when the dialogue and interaction of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, was a golden age for that country, and a lasting benefit for the development of European civilization as well as Islam.

[Amy in TX]

Can I first just say thank you to Helena for her excellent post, and thanks to everyone for this very civil discussion!

 

I'm a Muslim, and I'd like to address the question about fighting unbelievers.

 

To understand what the Quran teaches about any topic (in this case warfare), you must look at all the verses dealing with that topic, not just one.

 

The first thing to understand about the Quran's teachings on warfare, is that Muslims are forbidden to start a war:

 

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (2:190)

 

Muslims are allowed to fight wars if they are attacked. The verse cited by Hapax Legomena (9:29) refers to the fighting Muhammad (pbuh) and his community were experiencing with the local pagan Arabs, who had begun the war. This verse might be categorized under rules of engagement.

 

Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the other side sues for peace:

 

"...but if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (2:193)

 

As to the commentaries Hapax cited, I have two suggestions. First, read that person's commentary on all these related verses before judging what they have to say about 9:29 alone.

 

Second, remember that commentaries are not the same as scriptures. They may or may not be helpful guides to the believer. You can find a commentary to support any view you want, I'm afraid, in any long-established religion. There are certainly Muslim commentators who don't take the view that these (appear to) espouse.

 

I've read some Christian writings that I've found highly offensive. However, my knowledge of the Bible's teachings, and the many fine Christians in my life, remind me not to judge by that type of opinion.

 

Peace to you,

Amy :o)

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Can I first just say thank you to Helena for her excellent post, and thanks to everyone for this very civil discussion!

 

I'm a Muslim, and I'd like to address the question about fighting unbelievers.

 

To understand what the Quran teaches about any topic (in this case warfare), you must look at all the verses dealing with that topic, not just one.

 

The first thing to understand about the Quran's teachings on warfare, is that Muslims are forbidden to start a war:

 

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (2:190)

 

Muslims are allowed to fight wars if they are attacked. The verse cited by Hapax Legomena (9:29) refers to the fighting Muhammad (pbuh) and his community were experiencing with the local pagan Arabs, who had begun the war. This verse might be categorized under rules of engagement.

 

Muslims are commanded to cease fighting if the other side sues for peace:

 

"...but if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (2:193)

 

As to the commentaries Hapax cited, I have two suggestions. First, read that person's commentary on all these related verses before judging what they have to say about 9:29 alone.

 

Second, remember that commentaries are not the same as scriptures. They may or may not be helpful guides to the believer. You can find a commentary to support any view you want, I'm afraid, in any long-established religion. There are certainly Muslim commentators who don't take the view that these (appear to) espouse.

 

I've read some Christian writings that I've found highly offensive. However, my knowledge of the Bible's teachings, and the many fine Christians in my life, remind me not to judge by that type of opinion.

 

Peace to you,

Amy :o)

So, what you're saying, is your scripture is just like the christian scripture, in that anything can be taken out of context and twisted to meet a certain end, but true understanding can only come from the entire book?

[unsinkable]

Jcodevilla,

 

The simple answer is that Muslims do not perceive Jews and Christians to be infidels. The term infidel actually has its roots in Christendom - based on the latin 'infidelis', meaning 'unfaithful' and used by European Christians to describe Muslims - especially during the Crusades. Later, this also came to denote any non-Christian or "unbeliever."

 

The rough equivalent in Islam, would be the arabic word "Kafir" - meaning "rejecter of faith" - which was specifically used against the Pagan Arabs who were waging war against the early Muslim community. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc are considered Al-Kitab, or "People of the Book" and in relation to that, are afforded protection within Muslim society and are NOT considered to be unbelievers (i.e. it is against the law under Sharia, to call People of The Book a Kafir, or oppress them for their religious beliefs).

 

Where the disparity lies in modern times, with fanatical interpretations of Islam - is that in the legacy of colonialism, and, sometimes continued imperialism - there are those who out of ignorance and anger, wrongly assume ALL westerners to have abandoned their Christianity, and thus make statements out of anger, in regards to westerners being "al-Kafirun." This view is not supported by scholars or valid religious leaders in any of the major schools of law within Islam - and is a simpletons reaction against a perceived "other" (a type of view that an uneducated minority in every culture, and country will tend to display, despite their religious books or leaders tell them to the contrary)

As to references on Jesus in Islam - there are many Hadith Books with sections regarding this - but it may be abit hard for you to track down and even more cumbersome to search through all of them. A couple of great books in english regarding Jesus from a Muslim perspective, are "The Muslim Jesus - sayings and stories in Islamic literature" and Jesus in the Quran and Shi'ite Narrations - both of which can be found on Amazon.com

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

So it is the ignorant, angry, uneducated simpletons who perceive Christians as rejectors of faith?

[Alessandra]

To OP (Helena)

I am so glad you posted. I grew up with a lot of Muslim friends, so I was aware of this in a way, but not with all the detail that you posted -- so many thanks!

 

A quick (don't mean to hijack the thread) question - when my dc studied Judaism/Christianity/Islam, we all watched the video, A History of God, based on the Karen Armstrong book. If you are familiar with the film, I would love to hear your reaction/opinions. I though it presented the three "religions of the Book" very well, but of course, I am not expert enough to see any big flaws.

[pqr]

First, in regards to surah 5:51, i reiterate what a previous poster had written, that the english translation is simply wrong - that the word

Awilya does not mean friends, rather 'protector, guardian and so on...

 

 

Thank you.

 

I searched and found a translation closer to what you reference. It is:

 

 

O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

 

I would then ask if this sura is behind the desire, of some, to see Shar'ia Law in Western democracies?

 

Discussion on the web seems to state that Moslems should not fall under the "patronage" of Christians or Jews. Living in Europe, or the States, puts one under a system of law/constitution/suzerainty etc that was directly influenced by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Is this sura the root of the argument that living in these nations is an affront to the Koran and that it must be changed?

 

 

9:28. O you who believe (in God's Oneness and in His Messenger! Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters) disbelievers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Mecca) after this year, and if you fear poverty, God will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, God is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

 

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

In short, that the pagans who ruled Mecca, whom the Muslims had finally defeated after years of being persecuted by them, would no longer be allowed in the Holy Precinct.

 

That those who were against the Muslims who had not yet been defeated, should continue to be fought against - and in areas that were coming under Muslim control - those who had been fighting against the Muslims who also happened to be people of the book, would be required to pay a tax. In the last regard, it is important to point out that Muslims also had to pay a tax to the state, and also serve in the military etc - while the none Muslims were not required to do military service, and their tax covered the same types of things a normal tax would afford a citizen of normal times - police protection, building of roads, infrastructure, national defense etc.

 

I am sorry but this answer does seem a little disingenuous. It is not only Pagans who are not allowed into Mecca, but also Christians and Jews as well.

 

It is my understanding that Christians and Jews paid all the taxes that Moslems paid as well as the Jizyah. Further this tax had to be paid in person, in public and often in a humiliating manner. It was relatively common for the subject to be struck on the head or neck as he paid this tax as a means to demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

 

Christians and Jews were frequently not afforded police protection and could not testify against a Moslem in a court of law, nor hold public office, so arguing that the taxes were for these services is a stretch.

 

Up until the 1940s Yemeni Jews were required to clean public latrines as a sign of their inferiority (they were expelled en masse in 1950), so they obviously were not afforded the same rights as their Moslem compatriots. I do ,however, understand that the Jizyah was outlawed in Yemen in the 19th Century.

 

You are correct that Christians did not serve in the military which is one reason why Christian families, in the Balkans, had to give up their young sons for forcible conversion to Islam. These boys then became members of the elite Janissaries.

 

Some quick questions as to the suras.

 

Sura 9:28 uses the line

 

disbelievers in the Oneness of God

 

Is this a reference to the Trinity?

 

Sura 9:29 states

 

nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger

 

Does this refer to the eating of pork and drinking of wine?

 

Sura 9:29 further states

 

pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

 

Does this mean that those paying the tax had to acknowledge the superiority of Islam or simply acknowledge that they had been defeated in battle?

 

 

Again I thank you for your answers and am genuinely interested in this discussion. Please do not take the questions as an assault on Islam but rather genuine questions to an individual who has displayed a willingness to answer questions.

 

One final question; is there an online version of the Koran that you would suggest?

[Amy in TX]

From MeanestMomInMidwest:

 

"So, what you're saying, is your scripture is just like the christian scripture, in that anything can be taken out of context and twisted to meet a certain end, but true understanding can only come from the entire book?"

 

Yes, I'd say that's a fair statement. :001_smile:

[Ummto4]

Thanks to Helena who takes the time to explain about Islamic belief.

 

I too am a Muslim. An Indonesian Muslim. Just want to add that in Indonesia, Catholic and other Christian do call God Allah. I know firsthand because I was at Catholic school when I was little and God is referred as Allah, or Tuhan (God in Indonesian), or Bapa (Father).

 

I'd also like to comment about shariah law. There are so many misconception of shariah law, even among Muslim. It is interesting that one imaam in New York stated that if you want to see the implementation of the bulk of shariah ... you should look at the US. As much as people think that shariah law is all about chopping thief's hand, stoning the adulterers and killing the murderers, the bulk of it is about justice and prosperity for all. Therefore, all muslim countries, or even countries which declare themselves as Islamic countries (even the ones who implement stoning, etc) are still nowhere close to the US in implementing shariah.

[helena]

Thank you.

 

I searched and found a translation closer to what you reference. It is:

 

 

O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

 

I would then ask if this sura is behind the desire, of some, to see Shar'ia Law in Western democracies?

 

Discussion on the web seems to state that Moslems should not fall under the "patronage" of Christians or Jews. Living in Europe, or the States, puts one under a system of law/constitution/suzerainty etc that was directly influenced by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Is this sura the root of the argument that living in these nations is an affront to the Koran and that it must be changed?

 

 

 

I am sorry but this answer does seem a little disingenuous. It is not only Pagans who are not allowed into Mecca, but also Christians and Jews as well.

 

It is my understanding that Christians and Jews paid all the taxes that Moslems paid as well as the Jizyah. Further this tax had to be paid in person, in public and often in a humiliating manner. It was relatively common for the subject to be struck on the head or neck as he paid this tax as a means to demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

 

Christians and Jews were frequently not afforded police protection and could not testify against a Moslem in a court of law, nor hold public office, so arguing that the taxes were for these services is a stretch.

 

Up until the 1940s Yemeni Jews were required to clean public latrines as a sign of their inferiority (they were expelled en masse in 1950), so they obviously were not afforded the same rights as their Moslem compatriots. I do ,however, understand that the Jizyah was outlawed in Yemen in the 19th Century.

 

You are correct that Christians did not serve in the military which is one reason why Christian families, in the Balkans, had to give up their young sons for forcible conversion to Islam. These boys then became members of the elite Janissaries.

 

Some quick questions as to the suras.

 

Sura 9:28 uses the line

 

disbelievers in the Oneness of God

 

Is this a reference to the Trinity?

 

Sura 9:29 states

 

nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger

 

Does this refer to the eating of pork and drinking of wine?

 

Sura 9:29 further states

 

pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

 

Does this mean that those paying the tax had to acknowledge the superiority of Islam or simply acknowledge that they had been defeated in battle?

 

 

Again I thank you for your answers and am genuinely interested in this discussion. Please do not take the questions as an assault on Islam but rather genuine questions to an individual who has displayed a willingness to answer questions.

 

One final question; is there an online version of the Koran that you would suggest?

 

just a quick response as I am out the door to work.

 

I want to point out that my answers are in relation to the time period of the Prophet and shortly thereafter, in terms of application of Quranic instructions being carried out properly and with respect to other religions. Certainly, over the history of Islam, as with the history of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on - there are countless examples of people using religion as a tool to maintain power over others, and oppress people. In this regard, there is no denying that over the centuries, you can find some Muslim rulers having absolute tolerance for Christians and Jews (as well, as in certain points in time, for Hindu's and Buddhists) whilst in other times, other rulers, and governments have been overtly oppressive. I'm not trying to paint a Utopian picture, that humans are capable of living up to God's commands in perfection (whether in Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion), and that is why most religions tend to await an end times redeemer of some sort.

 

I'll go into more details later, but wanted to at least clear that up before I head out the door.

[helena]

Hey one of my stars is gone, has anyone seen it???:lol:

I've told my hubby he is free to answer questions on this thread, I have moved on to AuntieM's mexican appetizer question:)

 

PQR it looks like he already started an answer to your question, I'm sure he'll write more later!

 

Thank you all for being so gracious.

[Lovedtodeath]

I am sure it is not you that lost a star on the thread, Helena.

[Dirtroad]

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Truth About Islam: The Noble Qur'An's Teachings in Light of the Holy Bible by Anees Zaka and Diane Coleman

Muslim and Christian Beliefs-A Comparison by Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka

Cry of the Heart and Quest of the Mind by Anees Zaka & Diane Coleman and Diane Langberg

Islam and the Bible by David Goldman

 

Unveiling Islam by Ergun Mehmet & Emir Fethi Caner

 

**all the authors are from different countries/backgrounds and are former muslims (and not all are christians today)... in case someone wants to read other sides

[helena]

Thank you.

 

I searched and found a translation closer to what you reference. It is:

 

 

O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

 

I would then ask if this sura is behind the desire, of some, to see Shar'ia Law in Western democracies?

 

Discussion on the web seems to state that Moslems should not fall under the "patronage" of Christians or Jews. Living in Europe, or the States, puts one under a system of law/constitution/suzerainty etc that was directly influenced by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Is this sura the root of the argument that living in these nations is an affront to the Koran and that it must be changed?

 

 

 

I am sorry but this answer does seem a little disingenuous. It is not only Pagans who are not allowed into Mecca, but also Christians and Jews as well.

 

It is my understanding that Christians and Jews paid all the taxes that Moslems paid as well as the Jizyah. Further this tax had to be paid in person, in public and often in a humiliating manner. It was relatively common for the subject to be struck on the head or neck as he paid this tax as a means to demonstrate the superiority of Islam.

 

Christians and Jews were frequently not afforded police protection and could not testify against a Moslem in a court of law, nor hold public office, so arguing that the taxes were for these services is a stretch.

 

Up until the 1940s Yemeni Jews were required to clean public latrines as a sign of their inferiority (they were expelled en masse in 1950), so they obviously were not afforded the same rights as their Moslem compatriots. I do ,however, understand that the Jizyah was outlawed in Yemen in the 19th Century.

 

You are correct that Christians did not serve in the military which is one reason why Christian families, in the Balkans, had to give up their young sons for forcible conversion to Islam. These boys then became members of the elite Janissaries.

 

Some quick questions as to the suras.

 

Sura 9:28 uses the line

 

disbelievers in the Oneness of God

 

Is this a reference to the Trinity?

 

Sura 9:29 states

 

nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger

 

Does this refer to the eating of pork and drinking of wine?

 

Sura 9:29 further states

 

pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

 

Does this mean that those paying the tax had to acknowledge the superiority of Islam or simply acknowledge that they had been defeated in battle?

 

 

Again I thank you for your answers and am genuinely interested in this discussion. Please do not take the questions as an assault on Islam but rather genuine questions to an individual who has displayed a willingness to answer questions.

 

One final question; is there an online version of the Koran that you would suggest?

 

the online translation you had found for that ayat was actually better than the one i had cut and pasted for you, which stated wrongly "oh you who believe in God's Oneness and his Messenger" when the closer translation

is as your quote stated "Those Who Believe." Likewise, where it had said

""(polytheists, pagans, idolaters) disbelievers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad are Najasun (impure)" again, looking at the arabic, the closer translation would be "The Pagans are unclean," with nothing beyond that, and going straight from there to "after this year of theirs, let them not approach the Sacred Mosque". This is actually a good example, of the danger of translation. Especially when grabbing something off the internet (which I did quickly to avoid typing:) )

 

Very often, translators will try to push one agenda or another in their translation. Out of ease of reading, I usually use a Yusuf Ali translation, but

if looking for the meaning of a particular verse, will turn to the Arabic to see what something actually says. I know this can be a difficult process for those without any knowledge of Arabic, but unfortunately, without doing so, this current problem can always arise, with so many translations out there, and even the good ones being correct in many areas, but then wrong in others...

 

as far as being disingenuous - there was no such intent. During the time of the Prophet, Mecca was primarily inhabited by Pagans, the Muslims having fled the city, and taken up residence in Medina. Upon their return to Mecca, and AFTER the later revelation in regards to the remaining Pagans, they were ultimately banned from the precinct of the Sacred Mosque. This in time grew to include the whole Haram. But again, at that point in time - and what this ayat is in regards to, is indeed the Pagans. Christians were not traditionally residents of Mecca (even before these events) but there still were cases of Christians coming into Mecca after the Pagans were expelled. However, over time, it clearly became the practice for the entire Haram to be only for Muslims. At face value, for someone who perceives this as being banned from an entire country, or even a normal city - I could see how this would seem strange. But one has to realize, that even as Muslims, when we enter the Haram for Hajj, we have to be in a ritual state of purity. That at no time, is anyone allowed to shed blood in the Haram, one cannot hunt, and so on. One actually has to view the entire area more as temple grounds so to speak - from which one needs to know the rules in order to follow them properly in such a sacred place. That said - there could be arguments made, and there have been from within the Muslim world, that if a Christian or Jew wanted to visit the Kaba, in regards to it having been built by Abraham, and were to undertake the right rituals of Purity, that it could be allowed. Of course, with centuries of crusades, followed by further centuries of colonialism, that view is not a popular one - and I guess, one would have to question if a Christian or Jew really would feel the need to come worship at Mecca (since they are not instructed to do so in their faith). The point is - it was the pagans who were expelled, not Christians or Jews. Their not being allowed to enter has more to do with the area being sacred to Muslims, and an understanding that developed after the pagans were told to leave. Likewise, the center of the Islamic world quickly moved to Syria and Iraq, and clearly, the Christians were never expelled from those countries, and in fact, many Christians held high positions within the Islamic realm for centuries.

 

in regards to the Jizyah (or tax). From Yusuf Ali's commentary

Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi'i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. (9.29)

 

Again, not here to argue that this was always applied fairly throughout the ages. Just to clarify that in that time, it was normal for any victorious party, who would in turn become the new state, to tax the conquered population, and make them accept their laws etc. Looking at the bad examples within Islam, is similar to us Muslims looking at The Crusades,

or The Reconquista of Spain, with the subsequent inquisition, and expulsion of Jews and Muslims etc, as examples of true Christianity which they are not. Are there theological differences between Christians and Muslims? Clearly. My goal is not to convince Christians or Jews to leave their traditions for Islam - rather, to put these issues where they should have been for the last 2000 years, which is in the realm of theological discussion. And in that regard, looking at the similarities, and high points of cooperation between cultures, and religions, is the better place to start than trying to search out the negative occurrences over the centuries in either religion, when they are not rooted in the actual teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad (sal), but rather the flaws of man.

 

Not saying your questions were in that direction, because they were all valid questions towards getting a clearer understanding of what I'm sure must be a very misunderstood faith to a lot of westerners. Just making that point to set at least what I see would be an ideal tone for future discussion should anyone else want to chime in.

[Asma_08]

..

Edited April 21, 2009 by Asma_08

[helena]

Thank you.

 

One final question; is there an online version of the Koran that you would suggest?

 

I just did a search for one, and found one that lets you chose from any of the prominent english translations, as well as transliteration, and original arabic.

 

its http://www.tanzil.info

[Spy Car]

During the time of the Prophet, Mecca was primarily inhabited by Pagans, the Muslims having fled the city, and taken up residence in Medina. Upon their return to Mecca, and AFTER the later revelation in regards to the remaining Pagans, they were ultimately banned from the precinct of the Sacred Mosque.

 

Just as a side note to those not familiar with the history, the "pagans" in Makkah (Mecca) prior to Muhammad's return from Madinah (after a military victory) were dominated by his own tribe, the Quraysh.

 

His was a "family fight" quite literally. Muhammad's nephew Ali was on his side, but he essentially was fighting the rest of his family and tribe, who had a vested interest in keeping Makkah and the area surrounding the kabah a "pagan appropriated" pilgrimage site.

 

The shrine which Muslims believe was built by Abraham, had been for some time, prior to the Muslim conquest, been (from a Muslim perspective) desecrated with the addition of idols in contravention of the original monothestic intention. But the Quraysh tribe made a lot of money off idolatry and "pagan pilgrimage" so there was a war over Muhammad's demands to de-paganize the shrine. And Muhammad and his Muslims won. The Quraysh then decided "paganism" might not be the way the wind was blowing, and converted in mass to Islam.

 

Pilgrimage continued, but the idols were smashed, and the kabah restored to a shrine to the One God. But it interesting that the original pagan enemy was Muhammad's own tribe.

 

The point is - it was the pagans who were expelled, not Christians or Jews. Their not being allowed to enter has more to do with the area being sacred to Muslims, and an understanding that developed after the pagans were told to leave.

 

But isn't it so that after problems with several Jewish tribes in Madinah during the battles with the Quraysh, and then more Jewish tribes in surrounding areas during the continuing Muslim conquests, that Jews were driven out (and forbidden from living) in the are we might roughly call the Hijaz? Which isn't to say this exiling didn't take place for strategic/military reasons as much (or more) than religious reasons, but if memory serves Jews have long been banished from western Arabia (not including Yemen).

 

Just making that point to set at least what I see would be an ideal tone for future discussion should anyone else want to chime in.

 

I commend you on the great (and fair-minded) posts!

 

Bill

Edited April 21, 2009 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

I just did a search for one, and found one that lets you chose from any of the prominent english translations, as well as transliteration, and original arabic.

 

its http://www.tanzil.info

 

What a fantastic link!

 

Thank you so much!!!

 

I'm especially happy about all the recitations (in addition to the Arabic and translations) including my personal favorite reciter Shaykh Mahmoud Khalil al-Hussary. There is something I find completely sublime about listening to a great recitation of the Qur'an. Off to listen.

 

Shukran!

 

Bill

[helena]

Just as a side note to those not familiar with the history, the "pagans" in Makkah (Mecca) prior to Muhammad's return from Madinah (after a military victory) were dominated by his own tribe, the Quraysh.

 

His was a "family fight" quite literally. Muhammad's nephew Ali was on his side, but he essentially was fighting the rest of his family and tribe, who had a vested interest in keeping Makkah and the area surrounding the kabah a "pagan appropriated" pilgrimage site.

 

The shrine which Muslims believe was built by Abraham, had been for some time, prior to the Muslim conquest, been (from a Muslim perspective) desecrated with the addition of idols in contravention of the original monothestic intention. But the Quraysh tribe made a lot of money off idolatry and "pagan pilgrimage" so there was a war over Muhammad's demands to de-paganize the shrine. And Muhammad and his Muslims won. The Quraysh then decided "paganism" might not be the way the wind was blowing, and converted in mass to Islam.

 

Pilgrimage continued, but the idols were smashed, and the kabah restored to a shrine to the One God. But it interesting that the original pagan enemy was Muhammad's own tribe.

 

 

 

But isn't it so that after problems with several Jewish tribes in Madinah during the battles with the Quraysh, and then more Jewish tribes in surrounding areas during the continuing Muslim conquests, that Jews were driven out (and forbidden from living) in the are we might roughly call the Hijaz? Which isn't to say this exiling didn't take place for strategic/military reasons as much (or more) than religious reasons, but if memory serves Jews have long been banished from western Arabia (not including Yemen).

 

 

 

I commend you on the great (and fair-minded) posts!

 

Bill

 

yes - agreed. my point was merely that the quranic ayat in question was in regards to the pagans of mecca, and not the jews and christians. clearly, there is no denying, that as time passed, jews and christians were driven out of the hijaz during the early years of islam. sort of the tragic consequence of the open warfare of the period, as the original intent, judging by the medina community, was of the different faiths co-existing.

 

and not to always be giving a clarification - but also important to point out, we are talking about a pretty wide open and generally desolate region - where these were also tribal affiliations - so when there was trouble politically with say a jewish tribe, and that tribe left after being banished, it didn't take many such occurrences before an entire religious group was no longer in the region and with the knowledge that they were no longer welcome in the region. I'm stating this, to make clear for some other readers, we are not talking a door to door ethnic cleansing program - that rather, it was a time lots of political intrigue - various tribes making alliances with the pagans, religious issues taking a back seat to power, status and position in regards to such alliances - seeing people of the book uniting in some cases with pagans (desiring to maintain the old status quo against this new group 'the Muslims'). from a historical perspective alone, a really fascinating period.

 

also, I think another factor that can't be forgotten in this regard, is the actual conversions that took place, from pagans, jews and christians, to the new faith that was sweeping the region. clearly many of examples of this historically as well.

 

For those interested in some of this history and its relation to Jerusalem, I highly recommend the historical novel

The Rock: A tale of Seventh Century Jerusalem by Kanan Makiya.

Edited April 21, 2009 by helena

[Laurie4b]

I appreciate your sharing your point of view with respect to your religion. It's always helpful to hear from people who actually practice the religion.

 

However, now I'd like to speak for my religious practice. It is not correct to say that the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. The word "trinity" is not in the Bible; the concept of the Trinity most certainly is: that is that while it is clearly taught that God is one, God the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are all directly said to be God. The term trinity is used to refer to 3 persons within one God. I do not want to get into a theological debate on the boards, so you can PM me if you want to know more about this. Every Christian that I know (see distinction below) would bristle at the notion that the Trinity is not in the Bible.

 

Likewise, the poster who said Constantine was responsible for the declaration of the Trinity was incorrect. The church has decided within itself what was orthodox and what was heresy--it was not decided by the government. I think it is appropriate that any faith body describe what it is they do and don't believe.

 

There is a difference in the way people use the term Christian. The Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Pentecostal churches use the term differently that the LDS or JW's use it. For the 4 branches I mention, the historic definition of orthodoxy does encompass the belief in the Trinity and the official teachings of those churches is that belief in God the Father, Son, and Spirit is a core part of the belief of those who join and label themselves Christian . My understanding is that LDS view and JW view is not belief in a God with a triune nature, but they do label themselves as Christian. This can be confusing to people outside of any of those faiths.

 

I find it fascinating how similar the Muslim faith (as I have read about it) and the LDS faith are in telling how their faith group got started. The parallels I've read about are: prophet in the wilderness, angel appears, acceptance to some degree of Jewish/historic Christian teachings but belief in their imperfection, new scriptures. Someone from either of those faiths can correct me if I'm wrong or add to that.

[Susan in IL]

Thank you all for the most interesting thread I have ever read on any message board. I have learned so much.

 

:)

[Heather in Neverland]

Thank you all for the most interesting thread I have ever read on any message board. I have learned so much.

 

:)

 

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

yes - agreed. my point was merely that the quranic ayat in question was in regards to the pagans of mecca, and not the jews and christians. clearly, there is no denying, that as time passed, jews and christians were driven out of the hijaz during the early years of islam. sort of the tragic consequence of the open warfare of the period, as the original intent, judging by the medina community, was of the different faiths co-existing.

 

and not to always be giving a clarification - but also important to point out, we are talking about a pretty wide open and generally desolate region - where these were also tribal affiliations - so when there was trouble politically with say a jewish tribe, and that tribe left after being banished, it didn't take many such occurrences before an entire religious group was no longer in the region and with the knowledge that they were no longer welcome in the region. I'm stating this, to make clear for some other readers, we are not talking a door to door ethnic cleansing program - that rather, it was a time lots of political intrigue - various tribes making alliances with the pagans, religious issues taking a back seat to power, status and position in regards to such alliances - seeing people of the book uniting in some cases with pagans (desiring to maintain the old status quo against this new group 'the Muslims'). from a historical perspective alone, a really fascinating period.

 

Agreed on all points. And especially on the relevance of the sura you quoted. As I may not have made sufficiently clear, the unrelated expulsion of Jewish tribes was an outgrowth of individual tribal conflicts with individual tribe (Jewish) which became more generalized over time.

 

Again for our readers who might not be familiar with Islamic history of this period, when Muhammad was under threat of being killed in Makkah by members of his (pagan) tribe (in his early days as a prophet) he fled to Madinah, which was a substantially Jewish city.

 

He found sanctuary there, and the Muslims found themselves amid fellow believes in the One God. The early Muslims even prayed in the direction of Jerusalem as (in part) a showing of solidarity with the Jews of Madinah. So it would be wrong to suggest Islam began (or became) an inherently anti-Jewish movement. That is simply not the case.

 

Unfortunately all faiths have some followers who look to the good, try to find context, approach others with peace and respect, and others who don't. And the incidents with the Jewish tribes during Muhammad's time is too often exploited by extremist elements. It's a shame (and Helena/Helena's husband I know you feel the same way).

 

Peace to you :001_smile:

 

For those interested in some of this history and its relation to Jerusalem, I highly recommend the historical novel

The Rock: A tale of Seventh Century Jerusalem by Kanan Makiya.

 

I don't know this work. I'll look for it.

 

Bill

[Peri]

Thank you for the very informative and thoughtful post. I enjoyed reading it and learning more. I would like to ask a question that I hope will be taken as just that - a question, not an accusation.

 

You stated :In particular, the abject falsehood being propagated, that Muslims somehow worship a different God in 'Allah', than that of the God worshiped by Jews and Christians.

 

If all three groups worship the same God, then why do Muslims perceive Jews and Christians to be infidels? I don't mean that in any pointed way. I'd really like to understand what is the critical part in worshipping the same God that moves you from the infidel category to the faithful.

 

Also, I have never heard that Muslims were awaiting a Messiah and certainly not in the form of Jesus. I am intrigued. Can you direct me to any resource where I can learn more about this?

 

I have to quickly share that I am so excited about this post. We had a guest speaker at our church just a couple of weeks ago. He was from Syria and worked for the Crescent Project. He shared stories about the people he knew and how beneath all the differences we see, we're all God's creations - looking for hope, love, answers to life's big questions, etc. He then challenged us to go out a invite Muslims to our homes, playgroups, whatever, just to get to know them. Hopefully, if more people are willing to take the time to learn more about people than what we see on CNN we can break thru the animosity that seems to be growing.

(sadly, that animosity seems to be growing between all sorts of different groups. Boo.)

 

The word Kufar or infidel is a VERY harsh word in the muslim faith and needs to be used very carefuly. Kufar is one who rejects faith. The quran speaks of the people of the book ... jews and christians ... and it speaks of Kufar. The two are seperate and not the same. We definately believe that Jeasus was born of a virgin. Not only do we believe it, but a whole chapter in the Quran is about her ... Surat Myriam, Myriam is Arabic for Mary. We also do very much believe that Jeasus will return.

[Storm Bay]

However, now I'd like to speak for my religious practice. It is not correct to say that the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. The word "trinity" is not in the Bible; the concept of the Trinity most certainly is: .

 

 

I'm neither LDS nor JW, and disagree with this. Not to start a debate, but there are Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God, but not God the son. This is FYI, and I've sent you a PM longer than this one (plus, I'm starting a board break as soon as I finish posting this, but I'll check my PM box in case you reply.) A

[Peri]

Thank you.

 

I searched and found a translation closer to what you reference. It is:

 

 

O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

 

I would then ask if this sura is behind the desire, of some, to see Shar'ia Law in Western democracies?

 

Discussion on the web seems to state that Moslems should not fall under the "patronage" of Christians or Jews. Living in Europe, or the States, puts one under a system of law/constitution/suzerainty etc that was directly influenced by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Is this sura the root of the argument that living in these nations is an affront to the Koran and that it must be changed?

 

 

 

 

If that were the case then the muslims who were seeking protection from the pagan arabs that sought to kill them would not have done so with a Christian King in Ethiopia. And they were sent to Ethiopia to seek protection by Muhammad (saws) himself.

[Peri]

 

I'd also like to comment about shariah law. There are so many misconception of shariah law, even among Muslim. It is interesting that one imaam in New York stated that if you want to see the implementation of the bulk of shariah ... you should look at the US. As much as people think that shariah law is all about chopping thief's hand, stoning the adulterers and killing the murderers, the bulk of it is about justice and prosperity for all. Therefore, all muslim countries, or even countries which declare themselves as Islamic countries (even the ones who implement stoning, etc) are still nowhere close to the US in implementing shariah.

 

Yeah we say this all the time.

[Peri]

I just did a search for one, and found one that lets you chose from any of the prominent english translations, as well as transliteration, and original arabic.

 

its www.tanzil.info

 

Thank you Helena. I've been trying to find something like this!

[Osmosis Mom]

Thank you Helena. I've been trying to find something like this!

 

We use http://www.quranexplorer.com and like that one a lot.

Just FYI.

[Peri]

We use www.quranexplorer.com and like that one a lot.

Just FYI.

 

Jazakullah khair to the both of you!

[Hapax Legomena]

I'd also like to comment about shariah law. There are so many misconception of shariah law, even among Muslim. It is interesting that one imaam in New York stated that if you want to see the implementation of the bulk of shariah ... you should look at the US. As much as people think that shariah law is all about chopping thief's hand, stoning the adulterers and killing the murderers, the bulk of it is about justice and prosperity for all. Therefore, all muslim countries, or even countries which declare themselves as Islamic countries (even the ones who implement stoning, etc) are still nowhere close to the US in implementing shariah.

 

This statement overlooks an important point. It is not merely the similarities that enable a person to determine whether two things are alike. The dissimilarities also play a part. In this case the differences between sharia law and the law in the US are great. There is no allowance for chopping off body parts in US law. I could continue, but I'll just leave it at that.

 

In addition, the point was made earlier that the essence of the major faiths is the same. This point also overlooks the dissimilarities. Christianity hangs on one important truth: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul said that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our faith is in vain, empty, worthless. Muslims deny that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again. For that reason there is no point in trying to discuss how similar they are in an effort to get along. We should be able to live peacefully together even though we disagree. There is no need for me to hear you say that my faith is beautiful or that it helps me to get closer to God. In the same way, I don't need to tell you that your faith is wonderful. In order for me to do that, I need to deny the essence of my own faith. Jesus Himself stated that He is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through Him.

 

Muslims disagree with the Prophet Jesus on that point. On the other hand, they point to things Mohammad taught. Many of those things are not consistent with the Bible. The followers of Islam have every right to believe what they wish. We live in the United States and allow that kind of thing here. It is still a shame in light of all of the rhetoric about Islam being welcoming to Christians, two of the great Islamic nations still maintain the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Further, worldwide from Somalia to the Sudan to India and to the Philippines, Muslims continue to burn down houses and butcher Christians even as their helpless babies watch. Apparently, the only Muslims who understand what the Koran really teaches live in Texas and California.

 

I realize that you are saying that Islam is not really like what I just described. However, I don't see any language in this thread indicating that Muslims are at all concerned about these atrocities. If these things are so wrong, why not speak out?? Where is the outrage? There isn’t any.

 

On this day, people around the world are thinking about the holocaust. Some continue to deny that it ever occurred. If we continue to harden our hearts to the plight of innocent, hurting people around the world our faith is nothing but a pastime.

 

Search for Mehdi Dibaj on the Internet, or Bahram Deghani Tafti, Reverend Sayyah, Haik Hovsepian Her, Mohammed Bagher Yusefi, Ghorban Dordi Tourani, Taeos Michaelian or Hossein Soodmand. These men did not have the benefit of the nifty redefining of 7th century language.

 

Their only crime is that they loved.Jesus.to.death…...their own death.

 

Hebrews 11:37-39

[Peri]

Muslims disagree with the Prophet Jesus on that point. On the other hand, they point to things Mohammad taught. Many of those things are not consistent with the Bible. The followers of Islam have every right to believe what they wish. We live in the United States and allow that kind of thing here. It is still a shame in light of all of the rhetoric about Islam being welcoming to Christians, two of the great Islamic nations still maintain the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Further, worldwide from Somalia to the Sudan to India and to the Philippines, Muslims continue to burn down houses and butcher Christians even as their helpless babies watch. Apparently, the only Muslims who understand what the Koran really teaches live in Texas and California.

 

I realize that you are saying that Islam is not really like what I just described. However, I don't see any language in this thread indicating that Muslims are at all concerned about these atrocities. If these things are so wrong, why not speak out?? Where is the outrage? There isn’t any.

 

On this day, people around the world are thinking about the holocaust. Some continue to deny that it ever occurred. If we continue to harden our hearts to the plight of innocent, hurting people around the world our faith is nothing but a pastime.

 

Search for Mehdi Dibaj on the Internet, or Bahram Deghani Tafti, Reverend Sayyah, Haik Hovsepian Her, Mohammed Bagher Yusefi, Ghorban Dordi Tourani, Taeos Michaelian or Hossein Soodmand. These men did not have the benefit of the nifty redefining of 7th century language.

 

Their only crime is that they loved.Jesus.to.death…...their own death.

 

Hebrews 11:37-39

 

But you see we do object to the atoricities that are occuring in the middle east. We object so much that we have decided to leave our land, families, heritage, many other things so that we can come here and give our children the chance and knowledge of living a better life.

 

Furthermore, and i don't mean to point fingers, but chritianity and judaism also preformed many atrocities and people believed that it was all done in the name of religion. all those atrocities occured because the common people were not allowed to be educated and not because the religion itself is wrong. It is the same thing all over the place.

 

To me, education should be mandatory to everyone. Its no lie when they say that knowledge is power. No one should give that power to anyone else.

[heart'sjoy]

OP:"Lastly, as to Muslims not expecting a Messiah, this again, is false. Not only do we await a Messiah, we expect it in the form of Jesus whom we believe

will come in conjunction with the Mahdi (as). And to add further clarification, should there be any doubt about inherent similarities between our faiths

- we as Muslims also believe in the Immaculate conception of Jesus - and that he was invested with the Ruh (or Spirit of Allah)."

 

Just seeking to understand. Tell me more what "Messiah" would mean here. For example, what role does a "Messiah" play in Islam?

 

Is there a need that a "Messiah" would fill in Islam?

 

I'm not even sure I'm phrasing these questions well.

 

These discussions truly are a unique opportunity to hear how everyone thinks.

 

Many Thanks

[FloridaLisa]

Likewise - it is clearly stated in the Quran that there is No compulsion in religion (There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing - Qur'an 2:256)

 

 

Very, very interesting thread. I do have a follow-question. Having just taught AP US Government and Politics this year, does any Muslim nation* currently have freedom of religion protections? If so, what form does it take (statutory, constitutional, other?)

 

Thanks!

Lisa

 

*And let's define Muslim nation loosely -- perhaps any country that has a clear majority of Islamic citizens. Thanks!

[Lovedtodeath]

I have a stupid question. When is it appropriate to use the term Muslim vs. using the term Islamic?

[Peri]

I have a stupid question. When is it appropriate to use the term Muslim vs. using the term Islamic?

 

Islam is the name of the religion and muslim is the name for the person who follows the Islamic faith.

 

I edited to add that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I would rather you ask a question than walk away from me thinking something that is wrong.

[helena]

This statement overlooks an important point. It is not merely the similarities that enable a person to determine whether two things are alike. The dissimilarities also play a part. In this case the differences between sharia law and the law in the US are great. There is no allowance for chopping off body parts in US law. I could continue, but I'll just leave it at that.

 

In addition, the point was made earlier that the essence of the major faiths is the same. This point also overlooks the dissimilarities. Christianity hangs on one important truth: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul said that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our faith is in vain, empty, worthless. Muslims deny that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again. For that reason there is no point in trying to discuss how similar they are in an effort to get along. We should be able to live peacefully together even though we disagree. There is no need for me to hear you say that my faith is beautiful or that it helps me to get closer to God. In the same way, I don't need to tell you that your faith is wonderful. In order for me to do that, I need to deny the essence of my own faith. Jesus Himself stated that He is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through Him.

 

Muslims disagree with the Prophet Jesus on that point. On the other hand, they point to things Mohammad taught. Many of those things are not consistent with the Bible. The followers of Islam have every right to believe what they wish. We live in the United States and allow that kind of thing here. It is still a shame in light of all of the rhetoric about Islam being welcoming to Christians, two of the great Islamic nations still maintain the death penalty for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Further, worldwide from Somalia to the Sudan to India and to the Philippines, Muslims continue to burn down houses and butcher Christians even as their helpless babies watch. Apparently, the only Muslims who understand what the Koran really teaches live in Texas and California.

 

I realize that you are saying that Islam is not really like what I just described. However, I don't see any language in this thread indicating that Muslims are at all concerned about these atrocities. If these things are so wrong, why not speak out?? Where is the outrage? There isn’t any.

 

On this day, people around the world are thinking about the holocaust. Some continue to deny that it ever occurred. If we continue to harden our hearts to the plight of innocent, hurting people around the world our faith is nothing but a pastime.

 

Search for Mehdi Dibaj on the Internet, or Bahram Deghani Tafti, Reverend Sayyah, Haik Hovsepian Her, Mohammed Bagher Yusefi, Ghorban Dordi Tourani, Taeos Michaelian or Hossein Soodmand. These men did not have the benefit of the nifty redefining of 7th century language.

 

Their only crime is that they loved.Jesus.to.death…...their own death.

 

Hebrews 11:37-39

 

 

 

Well, i suppose it would depend on which point in history we are talking about with regards to US law not having allowances for chopping off body parts. This was a regular punishment for runaway slaves for a large portion of this countries existence in many states. Likewise, if we are judging religions in a derogatory manner based off of their use of corporal and or capital punishment, lets not forget that under the rule of the Church in Europe, amputation was also a regular practice, as was torture, burning at the stake and so on. Arguments that are usually used in the west, by atheists and secular humanists, as reasons to reject Christianity. Arguments that I don't think are valid (even as a non-christian), since they don't speak to the essence of what Christianity is or isn't. And by extension, arguments that are not legitimate coming from Christianity towards Islam (since one can look to similar events in each others history, as well as in contemporary times - thus negating that as a point of refutation, and bringing us back to theological principles as the basis of argument).

 

The point is, one can always point to abuses by the 'other' as justification for NOT building bridges, for isolationism and so on. Clearly, there are those in the Muslim world who could look to the brutality of the Crusades, the centuries of colonialism against the Muslim world in Asia, Africa, and Middle East; the forced expulsion of Spain's majority Muslim population - or in more recent times, the genocide committed by professed Christians against Muslims in Bosnia, the invasion of Iraq and so on, as reasons to shut the door on the west - to say 'to your way and to us ours'. And of course, some fanatics take that course. But the majority of people understand these actions are not those of Christianity (nor the citizens of the West), but of men using religion as a tool to achieve worldly aims. And in line with that, our scholars are spending much of their time engaging with scholars from other religions, attending conferences to help build bridges between east and west, writing papers, and so on.

 

Are there examples of brutality from some in the Muslim world ? Certainly. Are those examples present in the Christian world, as well as from the Hindu and Buddhist sphere (see Sri Lanka right now)? Absolutely. Playing on people's emotionalism doesn't serve the Truth (whether that Truth is ultimately contained in Christianity, Islam, or elsewhere). The purpose of this thread - in light of this board being made up primarily of people concerned with education, expanding their children's horizon's and preparing them for an ever changing and complex world - was to shed some light, from a Muslim perspective, on the nature of our faith, to those of other faiths, in order to all benefit and grow from the experience. Inflammatory posts, no matter how couched in niceties, whilst simultaneously alleging that what we are speaking of is 'rhetoric' - as well as others posting links to notoriously anti-islamic books from pseudo scholars (people with no grounding in Islamic theology, or middle eastern studies, but rather, well documented agenda's in regards to promoting political or religious viewpoints that define themselves as 'anti-islam') does nothing to help further either the purpose of this thread, or of the larger need for the religious communities (in an ever shrinking world), to know and understand each other. If the path to God is narrow as some are suggesting, and there is no need for such dialogue, I have to wonder what their purpose is to post here, other than to either disrupt such positive dialogue or to push forward agenda without actually seeking communication. And should anyone wonder, I am not referring to the many great and challenging questions that people have raised. I am talking about those who utilize sensationalism, over reason. And that, to me at least, seems out of place on a forum of educators.

[Ummto4]

Very, very interesting thread. I do have a follow-question. Having just taught AP US Government and Politics this year, does any Muslim nation* currently have freedom of religion protections? If so, what form does it take (statutory, constitutional, other?)

 

Thanks!

Lisa

 

*And let's define Muslim nation loosely -- perhaps any country that has a clear majority of Islamic citizens. Thanks!

 

I can only speak for Indonesia which is actually the biggest muslim country. It's not an Islamic country, though. Our constitution said that every Indonesian citizen has a right to choose any religion or spiritualism. Basically Indonesian can choose either of these five religions (Islam, Catholic, all form of Christianity, Budhism and Hinduism) or spiritualism (ranging from traditional animism/ancestral belief to Taoism). There is no provision for atheism. If you are an atheist, you still have to profess to be either of those religion or spiritualism, at least for your ID card and other formalities. In Indonesia, religion is a biggie. You have to declare your belief when you apply a job, register to school, etc.

[sgilli3]

Well, i suppose it would depend on which point in history we are talking about with regards to US law not having allowances for chopping off body parts. This was a regular punishment for runaway slaves for a large portion of this countries existence in many states. Likewise, if we are judging religions in a derogatory manner based off of their use of corporal and or capital punishment, lets not forget that under the rule of the Church in Europe, amputation was also a regular practice, as was torture, burning at the stake and so on. Arguments that are usually used in the west, by atheists and secular humanists, as reasons to reject Christianity. Arguments that I don't think are valid (even as a non-christian), since they don't speak to the essence of what Christianity is or isn't. And by extension, arguments that are not legitimate coming from Christianity towards Islam (since one can look to similar events in each others history, as well as in contemporary times - thus negating that as a point of refutation, and bringing us back to theological principles as the basis of argument).

 

The point is, one can always point to abuses by the 'other' as justification for NOT building bridges, for isolationism and so on. Clearly, there are those in the Muslim world who could look to the brutality of the Crusades, the centuries of colonialism against the Muslim world in Asia, Africa, and Middle East; the forced expulsion of Spain's majority Muslim population - or in more recent times, the genocide committed by professed Christians against Muslims in Bosnia, the invasion of Iraq and so on, as reasons to shut the door on the west - to say 'to your way and to us ours'. And of course, some fanatics take that course. But the majority of people understand these actions are not those of Christianity (nor the citizens of the West), but of men using religion as a tool to achieve worldly aims. And in line with that, our scholars are spending much of their time engaging with scholars from other religions, attending conferences to help build bridges between east and west, writing papers, and so on.

 

Are there examples of brutality from some in the Muslim world ? Certainly. Are those examples present in the Christian world, as well as from the Hindu and Buddhist sphere (see Sri Lanka right now)? Absolutely. Playing on people's emotionalism doesn't serve the Truth (whether that Truth is ultimately contained in Christianity, Islam, or elsewhere). The purpose of this thread - in light of this board being made up primarily of people concerned with education, expanding their children's horizon's and preparing them for an ever changing and complex world - was to shed some light, from a Muslim perspective, on the nature of our faith, to those of other faiths, in order to all benefit and grow from the experience. Inflammatory posts, no matter how couched in niceties, whilst simultaneously alleging that what we are speaking of is 'rhetoric' - as well as others posting links to notoriously anti-islamic books from pseudo scholars (people with no grounding in Islamic theology, or middle eastern studies, but rather, well documented agenda's in regards to promoting political or religious viewpoints that define themselves as 'anti-islam') does nothing to help further either the purpose of this thread, or of the larger need for the religious communities (in an ever shrinking world), to know and understand each other. If the path to God is narrow as some are suggesting, and there is no need for such dialogue, I have to wonder what their purpose is to post here, other than to either disrupt such positive dialogue or to push forward agenda without actually seeking communication. And should anyone wonder, I am not referring to the many great and challenging questions that people have raised. I am talking about those who utilize sensationalism, over reason. And that, to me at least, seems out of place on a forum of educators.

 

What a brilliant post again.

Thank you Helena.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

What a brilliant post again.

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

What a brilliant post again.

Thank you Helena.

 

I could not agree more.

 

Bill

[Amy in TX]

the post with the list of unscholarly, agenda-driven websites, and you beat me to it--well done! :001_smile:

 

To the poster who asked why she hasn't seen more expressions of Muslim outrage against the injustices in the Muslim world, I must gently ask: where are you looking?

 

If you are looking for protesters in countries with totalitarian governments, many of them are in jail. Many of them have emigrated to places like the US, where they can speak their minds without living in fear. Some of them continue, at great personal risk, to publicly protest. (Google Afghan women protest or Iranian women protest for a few examples.) Many are too busy trying to feed their families for another day to think about marching.

 

If you are looking for Muslims in America to publicly denounce "Islamic" terrorism, you must have missed the full-page ad in the New York Times by major Islamic organizations in North America after 9/11. You must also have missed the countless appearances on TV news and talk shows and articles in newspapers and magazines by American Muslim scholars explaining the basic teachings of Islam. (Just search on Google or YouTube or major news outlets' websites.) I don't know what city you are in, but the Islamic Society of Greater Houston created a team of speakers after 9/11 to visit local churches and other organizations to talk about Islam's teachings. I was one of them.

 

If the Muslims you know personally aren't denouncing terrorism in everyday conversation, I'm sorry. Sometimes I feel like people expect us to wear "I am not a terrorist" signs around our necks.

 

Honestly, I just get so tired of that "Where is the outrage?" line. I believe it's just something people say because they've heard it so many times, without even having *looked for* the "outrage." It's all around you.

 

I'm sorry (said without sarcasm this time)! I'm afraid my tone has become confrontational. I'll wish everyone peace and thanks again for the good dialogue.

 

Amy

[Ummto4]

I just want to respond to the allegation that Islamic sharia is barbaric.

 

First of all, as I said before, that the bulk of sharia is not about chopping hand, stoning adulterers, etc. Sharia is not jurisprudence per se. It is more of guidance (principles) from God so that the muslim life is in line with what God has prescribed.

 

Shariah encompasses:

- the ritual worship, including: ritual purification, prayers, fasts, charities and pilgrimage.

- transaction and contracts, including: financial contracts, endowment, marriage, divorce, childcare, inheritance, food and drink, punishment, war and peace, judicial matters.

- moral and manners.

- beliefs.

 

- punishments.

 

 

The main source of sharia is Quran and prophetic tradition (sunnah), which is then expanded by consensus between scholars. In later years , when contemporary issues arise, Islamic scholars formulates more detailed laws, but all laws should emanate from the principle of Quran, prophetic tradition and previous scholar's consensus.

 

So you see, the bulk of shariah is not on chopping the hand of a thief, stoning adulteres, etc. In fact, many English and US laws are influenced and in line with Islamic tradition, for example: the school and educational certification system is influenced by Islamic madrasa system, trust is influenced by the concept of waqf (trust), judicial system, welfare system, and many more. That's why I said before that if you want to see the bulk of shariah in action, you should see US :001_smile:.

 

As for the notorious law regarding chopping thief's hands, etc ... what is often missing when discussing this is the acknowledgment that in order for those to be implemented, high-standard of proof is required. As a result, the execution of these punishments happen very rarely.

 

In fact, in order to convict somebody for adultery, either the adulterer must confess 4x, or there should be four people of good character witnessing the adultery itself. At the time of the prophet, there were only two instances of this happening and in both instance, the stoning was carried out because of voluntary confession which, according to prophetic tradition, was at first ignored by the prophet. Only after the insistence of the adulterers who feared God's wrath that the stoning were performed.

 

The extensive proving is also required for amputation:

- There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.

- The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.

-The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam (prohibited), and not owned by the thief's family.

- Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).

- There must be reliable witnesses.

 

Hope this clears the misunderstanding of what Islamic sharia is about.

Edited April 22, 2009 by mom2moon2

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Helena/Helena's husband (and others)

 

Wow. Talk about grace under pressure. You have graciously answered posts that seemed to be baiting and, well, nothing other than inflamatory attempts to discredit Islam. I have no idea why some are so intent on discrediting your chosen religion. Perhaps it is indicative of some sort of fear. Whatever -- I don't think posts like that aimed at christiantity would be tolerated.

 

So, thank you for not taking the bait. That alone speaks highly of you, and by association, your dedication to your religion. Thank you for taking the time to explain your religion for those (me included) on these boards who have been following this conversation in order to become better educated about the nature of different religions.

 

This thread has prompted many conversations between my husband and myself (we have different religious/political views), and we have subsequently agreed to do a comparative religion study. We have both agreed to read several books, and to discuss them. I know you haven't read every book about Islam in the entire world, but am wondering if you could give me a thumbs up or thumbs down on these titles I have chosen. I'm looking for something objective. I know this first one has been used as a college text.

 

World Religions Today, by John Espostio

Islam, A Short History, by Karen Armstrong

What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, by John Esposito

 

Thank you again for your many insightful posts, and I hope knowing that you've prompted at least one family to educate themselves makes all the nonsense (to put it lightly) you've put up with in this thread worth it.

 

-M