quote:Originally posted by concernedforwomen: Dept, It does seem unjust to kill someone for leaving Islam.
it is and its wrong, read thispart:
The penalty of apostasy in the light of the true practice of the Messenger. in the site Dalia has posted.
I have said a few times, Islam cannot be forced onto anyone, no one can be forced to stay Muslim.
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about marriage between cousins? Is it allowed? Long long time ago this was a normal not just between muslims but also between christians for keeping the money in the family and many other reasons. But now? They still are doing that and my question is:Is it allowed?Can they really do that?
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you think that is a bit crazy.In 21. century marry your cousin? Not just a crazy but insane.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine that.My cousin is just my cousin no less no more. That's it.My family my blood.We used to play as a kids.We just can't marry no one from our own family.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marcella: What about marriage between cousins? Is it allowed? Long long time ago this was a normal not just between muslims but also between christians for keeping the money in the family and many other reasons. But now? They still are doing that and my question is:Is it allowed?Can they really do that?
as long as it was allowed and not only muslims who used to marry their cousins but christians as well, then what's wrong with doing it still ?
Posts: 1201 | From: Egypt | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not religius but still this doesn't make sense to me. I didn't say I will or I would do that but I can uderstand that i was before like that not now.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me like if you can marry your cousin that you can marry every one from your family. I know it's not like that but cousins.
Mr.Egypt:As I said before it was a normal but this is 21 century.We don't marry our cousins
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
if you believe in God and want really to obey him because he created all the human being including you and gave them all the food and the plants and provide them with all means of life.
then I think you have to think of that.
I'm muslim. i believe in God and the word of God ( Quran). I worship God by the way he said about it in Quran and sunnah( the word of prophet muhammed). I knew that one day when i die i will be asked about my deeds and mistakes. I believe as in Quran that There will be a paradise and hell.
you may notice that Quran is stable without and change because none could change the word of God. and this is a way to those people who want to be happy in life and death life.
Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will start read Quran very soon in my language.I hope he will give me answers for all my questions... But somethings I already knew.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: I see that most non-muslims want to ask about islam. so i opened this thread to answer all the questions that you are asking. the questions i dont know its answer i will ask a sientist in islamic sciences in it and i will give you the answers.
Credentials please! Cough them up!
Posts: 1765 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: I see that most non-muslims want to ask about islam. so i opened this thread to answer all the questions that you are asking. the questions i dont know its answer i will ask a sientist in islamic sciences in it and i will give you the answers.
Credentials please! Cough them up!
the evidences?? you want the evidences?? the verses i mean?? or you prefer without evidences??
Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marcella post what you dont understand and dont accept here. and in shaa allah, muslim people will reply to you. best luck.
Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by islamonfocus.com: I see that most non-muslims want to ask about islam. so i opened this thread to answer all the questions that you are asking. the questions i dont know its answer i will ask a sientist in islamic sciences in it and i will give you the answers.
Credentials please! Cough them up!
And you,my friend,nobody is asking you for advices.You don't have to reply if you don't want to.Just don't read it.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marcella: Mr.Egypt:As I said before it was a normal but this is 21 century.We don't marry our cousins
are you christian Marcella ?
Not really.I'm not religius. But in my profile you will see why I'm here. I mean I think this is the rihgt place.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i read that you are ^Trying to find right way..^
then the right way is to be found by god Support.
then go and read the Quran ( the word of God).
Quran is never been changed from 1400 years and every second people are reciting it. they keep it in their hearts.
Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcella: [QB] Seems to me like if you can marry your cousin then you can marry every one from your family.
And I don't think you would marry to your sister/ brother. So what's making different?That she/he is one of your parent brothers/sisters child. But it is still your very close family with the same blood.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same like they can marry more than one wife but just between Mormons and it's ILLEGAL,anyway.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's not illegal, Marcella. You think so, but check the official websites of your country, and you will see it's not. I too thought it was illegal, but I discovered it wasn't. But of course nobody would think of marrying his/her cousin, because we're not doing that anymore in our societies, but also because it increases the risks of genetical diseases.
Posts: 531 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I know that it was legal long time ago I agree,but now it's not like that,is it?If I will marry my cousin the people they will look at me like I'm insane.Because this is insane. I'm not saying I want or I will do it,but I will look at them same,they're insane.
Yes you right nobody will think about marrying her/his cousin but muslims.
That's I don't understand.
Posts: 979 | From: Another world | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assalam Alaikum, Please be so kind and explain me what kind of differents are between below means in ISLAM?Also I would like to know where I can see most of them - in which part of Arabic countries? 1) salafi -- about this one, totaly I dont know 2) wahhabi --- most of them are living in Saudi Arabia 3) sunni -- in my opinion, everywhere - but specially where???? 4) shia - most of them are living in Iran I will be waiting for your answer, Salam, Salima
Posts: 66 | From: Poland - Warsaw | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by queensali: Assalam Alaikum, Please be so kind and explain me what kind of differents are between below means in ISLAM?Also I would like to know where I can see most of them - in which part of Arabic countries? 1) salafi -- about this one, totaly I dont know 2) wahhabi --- most of them are living in Saudi Arabia 3) sunni -- in my opinion, everywhere - but specially where???? 4) shia - most of them are living in Iran I will be waiting for your answer, Salam, Salima
alslamo alikom, .
The Right group is The salafi because they are pure. every one by default is salafi( if Not mention it).
The salafy means related to salaf ( the fellows of prophet muhammed)
Salafy attitude is that people carry our prophet muhammed orders and advices according to what the fellows of prophet muhammed understand.
Because we didnt see prophet muhammed and we have to understand his orders through those people who applly the islam instruction as Prophet explained in a good understanding state
simply Salafy said that islam is An order of Allah and an order of the prophet muhammed without modification or alteration.
The other groups are makeing some modificatio or alteration in some orders and some people are using their minds in in Gods order. Salafy believe that God order isnot to be discussed. and is to be carried our with out alteration.
So i advie you to 4get all the other misleading group that use minds. God completed the islam well withhis clear instrcution and we dont have to use our mind in the orders. but we can use ur mind in understanding the God description that is mentioned in Quran or sunnah, and God creatures to know his great ability.
some of the other groups are right but not 100% right. and some of them are totally wrong.
In Egypt, I think there are lots of groups but slafy is common . and there are other groups which are not 100 % right. By the way, I'm salafi Posts: 33 | From: cairo | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by queensali: Assalam Alaikum, Please be so kind and explain me what kind of differents are between below means in ISLAM?Also I would like to know where I can see most of them - in which part of Arabic countries? 1) salafi -- about this one, totaly I dont know 2) wahhabi --- most of them are living in Saudi Arabia 3) sunni -- in my opinion, everywhere - but specially where???? 4) shia - most of them are living in Iran I will be waiting for your answer, Salam, Salima
yo dont need to study all these groups.if you have time to learn all the groups, no problem Just adhere to the right group and the right way. I'm muslim by default salafy you read this link for more information about salafy http://www.qss.org/articles/salafi/text.html
Good luck n nice day
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marcella: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcella: [QB] Seems to me like if you can marry your cousin then you can marry every one from your family.
And I don't think you would marry to your sister/ brother. So what's making different?That she/he is one of your parent brothers/sisters child. But it is still your very close family with the same blood.
you cousin isnot the same blood as you. you cousin is half from your uncle and half from the wie of your uncle. the blood of the wife of ur uncle is different from your family so it's legal to marry ur cousin
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
sura[12:20] They sold him for a cheap price - a few dirhams - for they did not have any need for him. ---------------------------------------- ---- dirhams did not excist at Josef time !! First 1300 years afther, ofcourse the Qur'an has ben updatet do your research
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The place of tolerance in Islam on reading the Qur'an – and misreading it.
The terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon have focused public attention on the state of Muslim theology. For most Americans, the utter indifference to the value of human life and the unmitigated hostility to the United States shown by some Muslims came as a great shock. Others were confirmed in their belief that we face a great struggle between civilizations. Islamic values, they say, are fundamentally at odds with Western liberal values. The terrorist attacks are symptomatic of a clash between Judeo-Christian civilization, with its values of individual freedom, pluralism, and secularism, and an amoral, un-Westernized, so-called "authentic Islam." Indeed, Islamic civilization is associated with the ideas of collective rights, individual duties, legalism, despotism, and intolerance that we associated with our former civilizational rival, the Soviet bloc. We seem to project onto the other everything we like to think that we are not. This intellectual trap is easy to fall into when we deal with the theology of Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, and the Jihad organizations. The theologically-based attitudes of these Muslim puritans are fundamentally at odds not only with a Western way of life, but also with the very idea of an international society or the notion of universal human values. They display an intolerant exclusiveness, and a belligerent sense of supremacy vis-à-vis the other. According to their theologies, Islam is the only way of life, and must be pursued regardless of its impact on the rights and well-being of others. The straight path (al-sirat al-mustaqim) is fixed, they say, by a system of Divine laws (shari-ah) that trump any moral considerations or ethical values that are not fully codified in the law. God is manifested through a set of determinate legal commands that specify the right way to act in virtually all circumstances. The sole purpose of human life on earth is to realize the Divine manifestation by dutifully and faithfully implementing God's law. Morality itself begins and ends in the mechanics and technicalities of Islamic law (though different schools of Islamic law understand the content of those laws differently).
A life devoted to compliance with this legal code is considered inherently superior to all others, and the followers of any other way are considered either infidels (kuffar), hypocrites (munafiqun), or iniquitous (fasiqun). Anchored in the security and assuredness of a determinable law, it becomes fairly easy to differentiate between the rightly-guided and the misguided. The rightly-guided obey the law; the misguided either deny, attempt to dilute, or argue about the law. Naturally, the rightly-guided are superior because they have God on their side. The Muslim puritans imagine that God's perfection and immutability are fully attainable on earth-as if God's perfection had been deposited in the Divine law, and, by giving effect to this law, we could create a social order that mirrors Divine Truth. By attaching themselves to the Supreme Being, puritan groups are able to claim a self-righteous perfectionism that easily slips into a pretense of supremacy.
Extremism in Islamic History
Perhaps all firmly held systems of belief, especially those founded on religious conviction, are in some way supremacist: believers are understood to have some special virtue that distinguishes them from adherents of other faiths. But the supremacist creed of the puritan groups is distinctive and uniquely dangerous. The supremacist thinking of Muslim puritans has a powerful nationalist component, which is strongly oriented towards cultural and political dominance. These groups are not satisfied with living according to their own dictates, but are actively dissatisfied with all alternative ways of life. They do not merely seek self-empowerment, but aggressively seek to disempower, dominate, or destroy others. The crux of the matter is that all lives lived outside the law are considered an offense against God that must be actively resisted and fought.
The existence of Muslim puritanism is hardly surprising. Most religious systems have suffered at one time or another from absolutist extremism, and Islam is no exception. Within the first century of Islam, religious extremists known as the Khawarij (literally, the secessionists) slaughtered a large number of Muslims and non-Muslims, and were even responsible for the assassination of the Prophet's cousin and companion, the Caliph Ali b. Abi Talib. The descendants of the Khawarij exist today in Oman and Algeria, but after centuries of bloodshed, they became moderates if not pacifists. Similarly, the Qaramites and Assassins, for whom terror became a raison d'etre, earned unmitigated infamy in the writings of Muslim historians, theologians, and jurists. Again, after centuries of bloodshed, these two groups learned moderation, and they continue to exist in small numbers in North Africa and Iraq. The essential lesson taught by Islamic history is that extremist groups are ejected from the mainstream of Islam; they are marginalized, and eventually treated as heretical aberrations to the Islamic message.
But Islam is now living through a major shift, unlike any it has experienced in the past. The Islamic civilization has crumbled, and the traditional institutions that once sustained and propagated Islamic orthodoxy-and marginalized Islamic extremism-have been dismantled. Traditionally, Islamic epistemology tolerated and even celebrated divergent opinions and schools of thought. The guardians of the Islamic tradition were the jurists (fuqaha), whose legitimacy rested largely on their semi-independence from a decentralized political system, and their dual function of representing the interests of the state to the laity and the interests of the laity to the state.
But in Muslim countries today, the state has grown extremely powerful and meddlesome, and is centralized in ways that were inconceivable two centuries ago. In the vast majority of Muslim countries, the state now controls the private religious endowments (awqaf ) that once sustained the juristic class. Moreover, the state has co-opted the clergy, and transformed them into its salaried employees. This transformation has reduced the clergy's legitimacy, and produced a profound vacuum in religious authority. Hence, there is a state of virtual anarchy in modern Islam: it is not clear who speaks with authority on religious issues. Such a state of virtual religious anarchy is perhaps not problematic in secular societies where religion is essentially reduced to a private matter. But where religion remains central to the dynamics of public legitimacy and cultural meaning, the question of who represents the voice of God is of central significance.
Puritanism and Modern Islam
It would be wrong to say that fanatic supremacist groups such as the al-Qa'ida or al-Jihad organizations now fill the vacuum of authority in contemporary Islam. Though they are obviously able to commit highly visible acts of violence that command the public stage, fanatic groups remain sociologically and intellectually marginal in Islam. Still, they are extreme manifestations of more prevalent intellectual and theological currents in modern Islam. Fanatic groups derive their theological premises from the intolerant puritanism of the Wahhabi and Salafi creeds. Wahhabism was founded by the eighteenth-century evangelist Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula. 'Abd al-Wahhab sought to rid Islam of the corruptions that he believed had crept into the religion. He advocated a strict literalism in which the text became the sole source of legitimate authority, and displayed an extreme hostility to intellectualism, mysticism, and any sectarian divisions within Islam. According to the Wahhabi creed, it was imperative to return to a presumed pristine, simple, straightforward Islam, which could be entirely reclaimed by literal implementation of the commands of the Prophet, and by strict adherence to correct ritual practice. Importantly, Wahhabism rejected any attempt to interpret the divine law historically or contextually, with attendant possibilities of reinterpretation under changed circumstances. It treated the vast majority of Islamic history as a corruption of the true and authentic Islam. Furthermore, Wahhabism narrowly defined orthodoxy, and was extremely intolerant of any creed that contradicted its own.
In the late eighteenth century, the Al Sa'ud family united with the Wahhabi movement and rebelled against Ottoman rule in Arabia. The rebellions were very bloody because the Wahhabis indiscriminately slaughtered and terrorized Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Interestingly, mainstream jurists writing at the time, such as the Hanafi Ibn 'Abidin and the Maliki al-Sawi, branded the Wahhabis the modern day Khawarij of Islam, and condemned their fanaticism and intolerance.1 In 1818, Egyptian forces under the leadership of Muhammad Ali defeated this rebellion, and Wahhabism seemed destined to become another fringe historical experience with no lasting impact on Islamic theology. But the Wahhabi creed was resuscitated in the early twentieth century under the leadership of 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Sa'ud, who allied himself with Wahhabi militant rebels known as the Ikhwan, in the beginnings of what would become Saudi Arabia. Even with the formation of the Saudi state, Wahhabism remained a creed of limited influence until the mid-1970s when the sharp rise in oil prices, together with aggressive Saudi proselytizing, dramatically contributed to its wide dissemination in the Muslim world.
Wahhabism did not propagate itself as one school of thought or a particular orientation within Islam. Rather, it asserted itself as the orthodox "straight path" of Islam. By claiming literal fidelity to the Islamic text, it was able to make a credible claim to authenticity at a time when Islamic identity was contested. Moreover, the proponents of Wahhabism refused to be labeled or categorized as the followers of any particular figure including 'Abd al-Wahhab himself. Its proponents insisted that they were simply abiding by the dictates of al-salaf al-salih (the rightly-guided predecessors, namely the Prophet and his companions), and in doing so, Wahhabis were able to appropriate the symbolisms and categories of Salafism.
Ironically, Salafism was founded in the early twentieth century by al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, and Rashid Rida as a liberal theological orientation. To respond to the demands of modernity, they argued, Muslims needed to return to the original sources of the Qur'an and Sunnah (tradition of the Prophet), and engage in de novo interpretations of the text. By the 1970s, however, Wahhabism had succeeded in transforming Salafism from a liberal modernist orientation to a literalist, puritan, and conservative theology. The sharp rise in oil prices in 1975 enabled Saudi Arabia, the main proponent of Wahhabism, to disseminate the Wahhabi creed under a Salafi guise, which purported to revert back to the authentic fundamentals of religion uncorrupted by the accretions of historical practice. In reality, however, Saudi Arabia projected its own fairly conservative cultural practices onto the textual sources of Islam and went on to proselytize these projections as the embodiment of Islamic orthodoxy.
Despite its intolerance and rigidity, however, Wahhabism itself does not bear primary responsibility for the existence of terrorist groups in Islam today. To be sure, Wahhabism and its militant offshoots share both attitudinal and ideological orientations. Both insist on a normative particularism that is fundamentally text-centered; both reject the notion of universal human values; and both deal with the other, however defined, in a functionalist and even opportunistic fashion. But Wahhabism is distinctively inward-looking-although focused on power, it primarily asserts power over other Muslims. This is consistent with its obsession with orthodoxy and correct ritualistic practice. Militant puritan groups, however, are both introverted and extroverted-they attempt to assert power against both Muslims and non-Muslims. As populist movements, they are a reaction to the disempowerment most Muslims have suffered in the modern age at the hands of harshly despotic governments, and at the hands of interventionist foreign powers. These groups compensate for extreme feelings of disempowerment by extreme and vulgar claims to power. Fueled by supremacist and puritan theological creeds, their symbolic acts of power become uncompromisingly fanatic and violent.
The Theology of Intolerance
Islamic puritans, whether of the Wahhabi or more militant varieties, offer a set of textual references in support of their exclusionary and intolerant theological orientation. For instance, they frequently cite the Qur'anic verse that states: "O' you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. They are allies of each other, and he amongst you who becomes their ally is one of them. Verily, God does not guide the unjust." Wahhabi and militant puritanism read this and similar Qur'anic verses literally and ahistorically, and therefore reach highly exclusionary conclusions. For example, while Muslims may elicit the support or aid of non-Muslims over particular issues when the self-interests of Muslims so require, they may not befriend or share the normative values of non-Muslims. This orientation often demands the performance of symbolic acts, which aim to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims-for instance, dressing in a particular way or marking non-Muslims with distinctive symbols.
Islamic puritanism also often invokes the Qur'anic verse asserting that, "whomsoever follows a religion other than Islam this will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." This verse is invoked in arguing that the theology and rituals of Islam are the exclusive path to salvation. Moreover, a mere testament of faith or a general act of submission to God is insufficient to attain salvation in the Hereafter; rather, a person must comply with the particulars of the Divine law in order to qualify as a "true" believer. The puritan trend is thus uncompromising in its rejection of all forms of belief and ritual that do not qualify as the "true" religion of God.
As to the principles that should guide the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, the puritan trend cites the Qur'anic verse commanding Muslims to fight the unbelievers, "until there is no more tumult or oppression, and until faith and all judgment belongs to God." Moreover, justifying an essentially supremacist view towards non-Muslims, proponents of puritanism often quote the following Qur'anic injunction: "Fight those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God or the Hereafter, who do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden, and who do not acknowledge the religion of truth-fight them until they pay the poll tax (jizyah) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."
Relying on such textual evidence, Muslim puritans assert that Muslims are the inheritors of an objectively ascertainable and realizable Divine Truth; while Jews and Christians may be tolerated, they cannot be befriended. Ultimately, however, they must be subdued and forced to acknowledge Muslim supremacy by paying a poll tax. The puritan doctrine is not necessarily or entirely dismissive of the rights of non-Muslims, and it does not necessarily lead to the persecution of Jews and Christians. But it does assert a hierarchy of importance, and the commitment to toleration is correspondingly fragile and contingent. So it is conducive to an arrogance that can easily descend into a lack of respect or concern for the well-being or dignity of non-Muslims. When this arrogant orientation is coupled with textual sources that exhort Muslims to fight against unbelievers (kuffar), it can produce a radical belligerency.
The Place of Tolerance in Islam
The puritans construct their exclusionary and intolerant theology by reading Qur'anic verses in isolation, as if the meaning of the verses were transparent-as if moral ideas and historical context were irrelevant to their interpretation. In fact, however, it is impossible to analyze these and other verses except in light of the overall moral thrust of the Qur'anic message. The Qur'an itself refers to general moral imperatives such as mercy, justice, kindness, or goodness. The Qur'an does not clearly define any of these categories, but presumes a certain amount of moral probity on part of the reader. For instance, the Qur'an persistently commands Muslims to enjoin the good. The word used for "the good" is ma'ruf, which means that which is commonly known to be good. Goodness, in the Qur'anic discourse, is part of what one may call a lived reality-it is the product of human experience and constructed normative understandings. Similarly, the Qur'anic term for kindness is ihsan, which literally means to beautify and improve upon. But beautification or improving upon can have meaning only in the context of a certain sociological understanding and practice.
In a further example, as to justice, the Qur'an states: "O you who believe, stand firmly for justice, as witnesses for God, even if it means testifying against yourselves, or your parents, or you kin, and whether it is against the rich or poor, for God prevails upon all. Follow not the lusts of your hearts, lest you swerve, and if you distort justice or decline to do justice, verily God knows what you do."6 The idea that Muslims must stand up for justice even against their own self-interests is predicated on the notion that human beings are capable of achieving a high level of moral agency. As agents, Muslims are expected to achieve a level of moral conscientiousness, which they will bring to their relationship with God. In regards to every ethical obligation, the Qur'anic text assumes that readers will bring a pre-existing, innate moral sense to the text. Hence, the text will morally enrich the reader, but only if the reader will morally enrich the text. The meaning of the religious text is not fixed simply by the literal meaning of its words, but depends, too, on the moral construction given to it by the reader. So if the reader approaches the text without moral commitments, it will almost inevitably yield nothing but discrete, legalistic, technical insights. Similarly, it is imperative to analyze the historical circumstances in which specific Qur'anic ethical norms were negotiated. Many of the institutions referenced in the Qur'an-such as the poll tax or the formation of alliances with non-Muslims-can be understood only if the reader is aware of the historical practices surrounding the revelation of the text. By emptying the Qur'an both of its historical and moral context, the puritan trend ends up transforming the text into a long list of morally non-committal legal commands. The Qur'anic discourse, for instance, can readily support an ethic of diversity and tolerance. The Qur'an not only expects, but even accepts the reality of difference and diversity within human society: "O humankind, God has created you from male and female and made you into diverse nations and tribes so that you may come to know each other. Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous."7 Elsewhere, the Qur'an asserts that diversity is part of the Divine intent and purpose in creation: "If thy Lord had willed, He would have made humankind into a single nation, but they will not cease to be diverse… And, for this God created them [humankind]."
The classical commentators on the Qur'an did not fully explore the implications of this sanctioning of diversity, or the role of peaceful conflict resolution in perpetuating the type of social interaction that would result in people "knowing each other." Nor does the Qur'an provide specific rules or instructions about how "diverse nations and tribes" are to acquire such knowledge. In fact, the existence of diversity as a primary purpose of creation, as suggested by the verse above, remained underdeveloped in Islamic theology. Pre-modern Muslim scholars did not have a strong incentive to explore the meaning and implications of the Qur'anic endorsement of diversity and cross-cultural intercourse. This is partly because of the political dominance and superiority of the Islamic Civilization, which left Muslim scholars with a sense of self-sufficient confidence. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the Islamic civilization was pluralistic and unusually tolerant of various social and religious denominations. Working out the implications of a commitment to human diversity and mutual knowledge under contemporary conditions requires moral reflection and attention to historical circumstance: precisely what is missing from puritan theology and doctrine.
Other than a general endorsement of human diversity, the Qur'an also accepted the more specific notion of a plurality of religious beliefs and laws. Although the Qur'an clearly claims that Islam is the Divine Truth, and demands belief in Muhammad as the final messenger in a long line of Abrahamic prophets, it does not completely exclude the possibility that there might be other paths to salvation. The Qur'an insists on God's unfettered discretion to accept in His mercy whomever He wishes. In a rather remarkable set of passages that, again, have not been adequately theorized by Muslim theologians, the Qur'an recognizes the legitimate multiplicity of religious convictions and laws. In one such passage, for example, the Qur'an asserts: "To each of you God has prescribed a Law and a Way. If God would have willed, He would have made you a single people. But God's purpose is to test you in what he has given each of you, so strive in the pursuit of virtue, and know that you will all return to God [in the Hereafter], and He will resolve all the matters in which you disagree."9 On this and other occasions the Qur'an goes on to state that it is possible for non-Muslims to attain the blessing of salvation: "Those who believe, those who follow Jewish scriptures, the Christians, the Sabians, and any who believe in God and the Final Day, and do good, all shall have their reward with their Lord and they will not come to fear or grief."10 Significantly, this passage occurs in the same chapter that instructs Muslims not to take the Jews and Christians as allies. How can these different verses be reconciled?
If we read the text with moral and historical guidance, we can see the different passages as part of a complex and layered discourse about reciprocity and its implications in the historical situation in Mohammed's Medina. In part, the chapter exhorts Muslims to support the newly established Muslim community in Medina. But its point is not to issue a blanket condemnation against Jews and Christians (who "shall have their reward with their Lord"). Instead, it accepts the distinctiveness of the Jewish and Christian communities and their laws, while also insisting that Muslims are entitled to the same treatment as those other communities. Thus it sets out an expectation of reciprocity for Muslims: while calling upon Muslims to support the Prophet of Islam against his Jewish and Christian detractors, it also recognizes the moral worth and rights of the non-Muslim "other."
The challenge most often invoked against an argument for tolerance in Islam is the issue of jihad. Jihad, especially as portrayed in the Western media, is often associated with the idea of a holy war that is propagated in the name of God against the unbelievers. Therefore, jihad is often equated with the most vulgar images of religious intolerance.
At the most rudimentary level, the Qur'an itself is explicit in prohibiting any form of coerced conversions to Islam. It contends that truth and falsity are clear and distinct, and so whomever wishes to believe may do so, but no duress is permitted in religion: "There is no compulsion in matter of faith."11 Of course, this response is incomplete-even if forced conversions to Islam are prohibited, aggressive warfare to spread Islamic power over non-believers might still be allowed. Does the Qur'an condone such expansionist wars?
Interestingly, Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. "Jihad" simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause, and according to the Prophet of Islam, the highest form of jihad is the struggle waged to cleanse oneself from the vices of the heart. Holy war (in Arabic al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur'anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology, war is never holy; it is either justified or not, and if it is justified, those killed in battle are considered martyrs. The Qur'anic text does not recognize the idea of unlimited warfare, and does not consider the simple fact of the belligerent's Muslim identity to be sufficient to establish the justness of his cause. In other words, the Qur'an entertains the possibility that the Muslim combatant might be the unjust party in a conflict. Moreover, while the Qur'an emphasizes that Muslims may fight those who fight them, it also insists that Muslims may not transgress.12 Transgression is an ambiguous term, but on several occasions the Qur'an intimates that in order not to transgress, Muslims must be constrained by a requirement of proportionality, even when the cause is just. For instance, it states, "Mandated is the law of equality, so that who transgresses against you, respond in kind, and fear God, and know that God is with those who exercise restraint."13
Despite the prohibition against transgression and the condemnation of unlimited warfare, many classical jurists adopted an imperialist orientation, which divided the world into the abode of Islam and the abode of war, and supported expansionist wars against unbelievers. But this view was not unanimous. Classical Muslim jurists debated whether unbelief is a sufficient justification for warfare, with a sizeable number of classical jurists arguing that non-Muslims may not be fought unless they pose a physical threat to Muslims. If non-Muslims seek peace, Muslims should make an effort to achieve such a peace. This discourse was partly inspired by the Qur'anic injunctions concerning peace. The Qur'an asserts that God does not prohibit Muslims from making peace with those who do not fight Muslims, but God does prohibit Muslims from making peace with those who have expelled Muslims from their homes and continue to persecute them.14 Elsewhere, the Qur'an pronounces a stronger mandate in favor of peace in stating: "If your enemy inclines towards peace, then you should seek peace and trust in God."15 Moreover, the Qur'an instructs Muslims not to haughtily turn away unbelievers who seek to make peace with Muslims, and reminds Muslims that, "If God would have willed, He would have given the unbelievers power over you [Muslims], and they would have fought you [Muslims]. Therefore, if they [the unbelievers] withdraw from you and refuse to fight you, and instead send you guarantees of peace, know that God has not given you a license [to fight them]."16 These discussions of peace would not make sense if Muslims were in a permanent state of war with non-believers, and if non-believers were a permanent enemy and always a legitimate target.
The other major issue on the point of tolerance in Islam is that of the poll tax (jizyah) imposed on the People of Book (Christians and Jews) who live in Muslim territory. When the Qur'an was revealed, it was common inside and outside of Arabia to levy poll taxes against alien groups. Building upon the historical practice, classical Muslim jurists argued that the poll tax is money collected by the Islamic polity from non-Muslims in return for the protection of the Muslim state. If the Muslim state was incapable of extending such protection to non-Muslims, it was not supposed to levy a poll tax. In fact, 'Umar (r. 13-23/634-644), the second Rightly-Guided Caliph and close companion of the Prophet, returned the poll tax to an Arab Christian tribe that he was incapable of protecting from Byzantine aggression.
Aside from the juristic theory justifying the poll tax, the Qur'an does not, however, pronounce an absolute and unwavering rule in favor of such an institution. Once more, attention to historical circumstance is essential. The Qur'an endorsed a poll tax as a response to particular groups in Arabia who were persistently hostile to the early Muslims. Importantly, the Prophet did not collect a poll tax from every non-Muslim tribe that submitted to Muslim sovereignty, and in fact, in the case of a large number of non-Muslim but non-hostile tribes, he paid them a periodic sum of money or goods. These tribes were known as "those whose hearts have been reconciled." Furthermore, 'Umar entered into a peace settlement with Arab Christian tribes pursuant to which these tribes were obligated to pay the Islamic annual tax known as the zakah (almsgiving), and not the poll tax. Reportedly, although they refused to convert to Islam, the Christian tribes contended that paying the jizyah (poll tax) was degrading, and instead, asked to pay the zakah, and 'Umar accommodated their request.17 In short, there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice, but a functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Only an entirely ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a Divinely-sanctioned program of subordinating the non-believer.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, the Qur'an, or any text, speaks through its reader. This ability of human beings to interpret texts is both a blessing and a burden. It is a blessing because it provides us with the flexibility to adapt texts to changing circumstances. It is a burden because the reader must take responsibility for the normative values he or she brings to the text. Any text, including those that are Islamic, provides possibilities for meaning, not inevitabilities. And those possibilities are exploited, developed and ultimately determined by the reader's efforts—good faith efforts, we hope—at making sense of the text's complexities. Consequently, the meaning of the text is often only as moral as its reader. If the reader is intolerant, hateful, or oppressive, so will be the interpretation of the text.
It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities. Islamic civilization produced a moral and humanistic tradition that preserved Greek philosophy, and generated much science, art, and socially benevolent thought. Unfortunately, however, the modern puritans are dissipating and wasting this inspiring moral tradition. They are increasingly shutting off the possibilities for a tolerant interpretation of the Islamic tradition.
If we assess the moral trajectory of a civilization in light of its past record, then we have ample reason to be optimistic about the future. But the burden and blessing of sustaining that moral trajectory—of accentuating the Qur'anic message of tolerance and openness to the other—falls squarely on the shoulders of contemporary Muslim interpreters of the tradition.
posted
I dont think that the 11th september attacks are by muslims. Islam totally prohibit killing innocent people. i think there are lots of hiden truth in that. not sure.
I'm salafy. adhering to the prophet muhammed instruction. these forgiving instructions not forcing anyone to do any thing. and this is what Prophet muhammed asks muslims to do.
some people didnt understand lots of verses in Quran and Sunnah. salafy muslims arent completely respeonsible to this misunderstranding.
so it's a must to understand the quran verses as the prophet muhammed peace be upon him did. and this is the salafy attitude
muslims blieve in the bible ( the original book) and all the prophets including jesus.
the basic differnce between islam and the current christianity is the characters of God
the characters of God are the same in Quran and the orioginal bible. As bible has been edited. and lots of information is hiden. so you cant take your information about God from the bible.
No one could change a letter in Quran because god protect it. so the true characters of God are present in Quran.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article submitted by Dalia who clearly is not a muslim is deeply flawed, for a start of it was not Abdual wahab, it was his son mohammed, so clearly the person who wrote this article is missing very basic facts, if he researched properly he would know that the salaf refers to the early follwers of Mohammed PBUH, and they adhere to the quran and sunnah in its purest form.Which the article seems to have a problem with muslims adhereing to islam in its purest form the Author of the article has some oddity of a wish that muslims should accept that god manifests himself in all religions and islam is not entirely got the monolopy on the truth about god, well im pleased to say yes we do have the monopoly on the truth about god, and we wont accept other religions as possibly correct either.
Salafism by the way has nothing to do with what bin laden is upon either, another thing the term wahhabi is a insult used to belittle those who ascribe themselfs to sallfiyah , not only is it used as a insult it is one of the names of Allah, Al wahab, so to use it as a nickname and a insult is indeed a insult to Allah, and Allah certainly did tell us not to call each other by nicknames, being as she is a non muslim, perhaps she could be let off for posting that, but now she is aware hopefully she will stop posting insults to muslims on the board.
Sunni is the term used for those who follow the sunnah, however most sects of islam claim to follow the sunnah, infact very few do, sufism, deobandis, khawrij ect to name but claim they are Ahlus sunnah, but we can easily disprove that.
Which is why ascribing yourself to the salaf has no blame to it, according even to Ibn Tarmiyyah a great scholor in Islam.
The shia have many sects even within themselves, but they do naughty dispicable things like cursing the prophets wife Aisha , and other things, anyone wishs to know more you can ask and inshallah will provide information for those interested.
If ever you wish to know about islam ask in the very least someone who profess's to be a muslim.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This man is out of the fold of Islam, by the way who is he ? no ones even ever heard of him he is a nobody, he is not even a scholor nor even a shiek, he is someone who wishs to express direct Kufr , he is a man would like to see muslim women marrying non muslim men , he argues against almost every single thing in the book of Allah.
His ignorance pours out in his article that you posted, as I pointed out before, and he seeks to make some kind of link between salaffiiyah and terrorism, completely untrue and very verifiable.
I like this part in his about me section,
As the most critical and powerful voice against puritan and Wahhabi Islam today, he regularly appears on national and international television and radio including CNN, NBC, PBS, NPR
Clearly he has a problem with islam in its purest form he seeks to corrupt it (how futile) he regualarly appears on fox and cnn, best place for rubbish like him I would say. Trained in american universitys, claimed he went to Egypt and kuwait though he has not stated where he attended there, And he has the gall to call himself a shiekh and a scholor, ho hum.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beba: This man is out of the fold of Islam, by the way who is he ? ... And he has the gall to call himself a shiekh and a scholor, ...
And you have the gall to declare who is a Muslim and who is not, without even knowing who the person is you are talking about !!!
Posts: 4576 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only had to read the article to know this person is no scholor , they cannot even get a basic fact right, basic fundemantals of Islam are VOID from this person, however if one makes further inspection a muslim who understand his religion will know what a disgusting insult this man is to islam and muslims. he has totally exited the fold of Islam completely.
Him and his little site even have problem with muslims worshipping Allah alone with out any partners, they constantly mock the sunnah of the prophet PBUH and this guy needs physchotherapy, he sounds like he has one big axe to grind with Islam, he is doing everything he can to do the opposite of what Islam says, he enjoys rebelling, The one who propergates worshipping others besides Allah, the one who seeks to destroy Islam in its purest form as was conveyed via Allah to the prophet PBUH has EXITED from the fold of Islam.
I read more about him, the more you read the more you see how vile he is, and an insult to muslims who practice Islam, his main aim is to fight those who seek to practice in its purest form, and he asscoiates islam in its purest form with terroism, over and over again he states this in his site.
Wahhabi: A follower of the strict teachings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Adherents, who object to the terms Wahhabism and Wahhabi, say they observe the "one true Islam." They are hostile to the intercession of saints, visiting tombs of saints, Sufism, Shiite Muslims and rational methods of deducing law. The creed dominates in Saudi Arabia.
Do you see the malice in this person ? they insist on the term wahabi, even though it would of been explained to them why you shouldnt use that as a insult, AND do you see they object to muslims opposing the intercession of saint and they cloak it but they object to muslims opposing grave worship aswell.
these are matters of shirk, the one who propergates this is comminting a major sin, its the one sin you wont get forgiven for.
Look at this ridiculous claim here aswell, all aimed at making people believe muslims hate dogs and women ! Religious traditions hold that if a dog--or woman--passes in front of you as you prepare to pray, it pollutes your purity and negates your prayer
totally untrue !
And just read this, in the sites own words, this is what they seek to oppress and change:
Wahhabism's founder, 18th century evangelist Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, was alarmed by what he viewed as corruptions to the faith. He advocated a strict, back-to-basics approach to keep Islam as pure as the day it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad and practiced by his early companions nearly 1,400 years ago.
You tell me, anyone , what is the problem with ahdereing to the teachings of our prophet PBUH as he practised them and the companions ?
Anyone with a brain and a love for Allah and the messenger PBUH will see through this charde of weak , transparent lies, and reject this man who has the cheek to call himself a scholor and trying to destroy islam.
and in this is actually a good lesson, becarefull who you take your Islam from, ppl claim to be scholors but they in reality are frauds .
Posts: 49 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am not going to get into a long discussion on this matter with you as it is clear where you are coming from in your arguments and I can guess what your response will be. Although you don't appear to be a scholar yourself, it is obvious that you are passionate about the path you have chosen in Islam, but could I just remind you of a couple of hadith:
1732. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "When a person calls his brother (in Islam) a disbeliever, one of them will certainly deserve the title. If the addressee is so as he has asserted, the disbelief of the man is confirmed, but if it is untrue, then it will revert to him.'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
1733. Abu Dharr (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "If somebody accuses another of disbelief or calls him the enemy of Allah, such an accusation will revert to him (the accuser) if the accused is innocent.'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
May Allah guide us all the the truth and protect us all from falling out of the fold of Islam.
Posts: 4576 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wa alykum as salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatu
I understand your point, however it has been clearly proven that this person is uttering statments of complete and utter Kufr, his site even embraces shirk as I have proven, I have not called him a kaffir, I said he has left the fold of Islam with his statments, and he is uttering disbelief.
When somebody insists on transgressing as he is doing, and takes the title of islamic scholor its the responsiblity of a muslim to speak out and make the truth be known, and exposing the falsehood AND LIES, which was very easy to do as they were very clear.
now if this man was a true believer he wil accept the hadiths of the prophet PBUH, and he will not fight against the word of allah or take teachings from sufism and shias will he. This man is calling ME and others terroists, worse still he insults Allah, by using the name 'wahab'as term of bellitlment.
Let me remind you now that Allah SWT said obey me and obey my messenger, Allah said this numerous times in Quran, so why is this man not willing to obey the messenger PBUH ? he is rejecting hadiths and mocking those of us who follow the Quran and sunnah in its purest form as it should be followed. he even mocks the messenger PBUH!
Allah said DO NOT call each other by nick names.
So if you reject the sunnah you reject islam, you are out the fold of islam, does this make him a kaffir ? I am not a scholor and I will leave it scholors to pass fatwa on his head for that, but I do know he has expelled HIMSELF from folds of islam and he only has himself to blame for that.
And what is greater than Jihad (fighting jihad) jihad of the sunnah is greater than that. (protecting the sunnah is more greater)
Posts: 49 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beba: [QB Let me remind you now that Allah SWT said obey me and obey my messenger, Allah said this numerous times in Quran, so why is this man not willing to obey the messenger PBUH ? [/QB]
I am aware of this Beba, and I am also aware of the adab of disagreement between Muslims, and it should be carried out according to certain guidelines and that involves adressing an individual personally if you have a point of disagreement with them, that it should be done without using isults such as "vile" and "dispicable", and a student of knowledge is not in a position to judge a man who has studied Islam in depth for many years as having "exited the fold of Islam", i.e. that he is a Kaafir (someone who covers the truth)!
Posts: 4576 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newcomer just so you are aware, this person has been advised by people/scholors already, and he continued in his deviance, and anyone who insult the prophet PBUH and rejects the sunnah despite after apparently studying it, is dispicable , as he attmepts to lead others astray and tarnish Islam with his poisonous words.
I am not even a student of knowledge, but I do elhamdolelah understand the fundemantals of Islam and adhere to them inshallah. So it is not just me who judges him as dispicable ask any scholor (I mean really scholor) he will tell you as I have told you.
Just saying you are a muslim is not enough, we have to look at the actions/speech of this person aswell, and his actions/speech are not matching anything Islamic, he is actually anti islam, no wonder GWB loved to have him on his lets make muslims more democratic panel.
I dont make Takfir of him, he makes it upon himself lol.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I thought you might be interested in this extract:
Dealing with those who have Errors Ash Shaykh ‘Ubayd Al Jaabiri
…The Second Topic is in relation to the one who has made an error. Who is he? We are certain that the one who opposes the Sunnah is in error. We are certain that so and so is mistaken. For the prophet may peace and blessing be upon him, said to the one who did not perfect his salat
“…go back and pray for indeed you have not prayed”
Didn’t he draw his attention to the fact that he made a mistake in his salat? Didn’t he inform him three times while saying to him "go back and pray for indeed you have not prayed!" and the man did so until he said:
“I swear by the One Who sent you as a prophet with the truth, I can't do any better than this, so teach me”
So the prophet taught him to the end of the Hadeeth, which is well known to everyone, even our small ones in grammar school know this Hadeeth and the praise is for Allah.
With this I say; how do we deal with the one in error? Pay attention to this for there are some details involved in this topic.
The one in error is of two types and if you want to you can say that his is one of two circumstances.
He is either someone upon the Sunnah and his foot slipped. His intent was the truth but he was not given the tawfeeq (success). Firstly his error is to be refuted because of what we mentioned previously and I showed you all how the mistake was not accepted with Ahlus Sunnah and I will add here that the goal is refinement of the religion and purification of it from desirous innovations and sins.
Secondly he is not to be followed in his errors with the argument that he is a scholar. Rather he is like every other Mujtahid in search of the truth and his Ijtihaad does not make it ok for you to follow him nor the fact that he is foremost in virtue or the sublimity of his rank and status nor his leadership in the religion. He is nothing more than a Mujtahid who said the truth but if you follow him along with the fact that you know he is in error and you are aware of his opposition to the truth then you are a sinner for doing such. As for him, then as long as he is a Mujtahid searching for the truth then his error is refuted and he is rewarded for his ijtihaad and the messenger may peace and blessing be upon him said:
“If the scholar makes his own interpretive judgement and he is correct he gets two rewards and if he is wrong then he gets one.”
You are ordered to worship Allah by following the evidences established in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, this is the truth, and you have not been ordered to worship Him by following the ijtihaad of anyone. For the Ijtihaadaat of the people of Knowledge and the Imams are not infallible and as a result of this they should not be taken as a Manhaj. And because of this he is excused and is not to be defamed nor rebuked or censured. Nor should the people be chased away from him because of what Ahlus Sunnah know of his sublime rank and status, him being foremost in virtue and his leadership in the religion. The scholars have mentioned: “If everyone who has erred is defamed and rebuked there would be no one left.” And they make this clear in relation to those who are known to be from Ahlus Sunnah and their principals are from the Sunnah.
For how many scholars have made mistakes, outrageous mistakes in ‘Aqeedah, the acts of Ibaadah, in their procedures in certain affairs and in their dealings with people, and along with this, we know those who are fair and impartial (towards them). The scholars refute their mistakes along with preservation of their honor and reputation. http://madeenah.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=2Posts: 4576 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
!!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic