The world today and Islam

[iSok]

Do you think that Jihad is justified?

Jihad just means personal struggle.  Jihad doesn't mean "holy war."  Most of us in the West think that a Jihad means holy war.  So sometimes Jihad may be justified, like a Jihad against drunk driving or spouse abuse.

Okay, I'll reformulate for iSok.

Is terrorist jihad (as the extremests use it - holy war) justified?

The primary form of Jihad is the battle against yourself, you have to beat yourself.
Controlling the aspects that are given to you by nature, so you are no longer lead by instinct or emotion.
And this is established by your own choice.
You could say that man came forward from evolution and now man has the choice to get rid of his primitive egocentric behaviour.
'Jihad' is the way in this, the battle during your life against yourself.

Take the example of buying groceries. You'll see people picking the best vegetables by touching each vegetable (are they rotten or not?), picking the best and leaving the rest to others
without carring much. Islam calls this primitive behaviour which belongs in nature (survival of the fittest) and condems it. It's more appropriate that  you just take the first vegetable
that you grab without inspecting it, since you are no better than other human beings.


You probably mean the minor form of Jihad. It depends in what form?
Do you mean in the context of attacking countries and killing people that do not believe in your religion?

[xSilverPhinx]

The primary form of Jihad is the battle against yourself, you have to beat yourself.
Controlling the aspects that are given to you by nature, so you are no longer lead by instinct or emotion.
And this is established by your own choice.
You could say that man came forward from evolution and now man has the choice to get rid of his primitive egocentric behaviour.
'Jihad' is the way in this, the battle during your life against yourself.

Take the example of buying groceries. You'll see people picking the best vegetables by touching each vegetable (are they rotten or not?), picking the best and leaving the rest to others
without carring much. Islam calls this primitive behaviour which belongs in nature (survival of the fittest) and condems it. It's more appropriate that  you just take the first vegetable
that you grab without inspecting it, since you are no better than other human beings.

I wasn't aware of this aspect of Jihad...it doesn't seem that bad.

You probably mean the minor form of Jihad. It depends in what form?
Do you mean in the context of attacking countries and killing people that do not believe in your religion?

I meant any form of coercive spreading of Islam, either 'by the sword' (as Christianity did after the Roman empire broke down) which in more modern terms is done through terrorist acts by extremist groups or political Jihad, in which Islam infiltrates and undermines secular society from within?  

One more question if you don't mind: what do you see as the future of Islam?

[iSok]

The primary form of Jihad is the battle against yourself, you have to beat yourself.
Controlling the aspects that are given to you by nature, so you are no longer lead by instinct or emotion.
And this is established by your own choice.
You could say that man came forward from evolution and now man has the choice to get rid of his primitive egocentric behaviour.
'Jihad' is the way in this, the battle during your life against yourself.

Take the example of buying groceries. You'll see people picking the best vegetables by touching each vegetable (are they rotten or not?), picking the best and leaving the rest to others
without carring much. Islam calls this primitive behaviour which belongs in nature (survival of the fittest) and condems it. It's more appropriate that  you just take the first vegetable
that you grab without inspecting it, since you are no better than other human beings.

I wasn't aware of this aspect of Jihad...it doesn't seem that bad.

This is the primary form of Jihad, the major form. If you talk to a Muslim about jihad, it means this.

You probably mean the minor form of Jihad. It depends in what form?
Do you mean in the context of attacking countries and killing people that do not believe in your religion?

I meant any form of coercive spreading of Islam, either 'by the sword' (as Christianity did after the Roman empire broke down) which in more modern terms is done through terrorist acts by extremist groups or political Jihad, in which Islam infiltrates and undermines secular society from within?  

One more question if you don't mind: what do you see as the future of Islam?

This is very is complicated, I have to confess that I have not looked very deep into it.
Nonetheless, I'll try to answer.

We as muslims believe that during the development of man, God guided man through other religions before Islam.
Society kept advancing, so when man was ready for a system instead of religion, Islam was given to mankind.
So you can't call Islam a religion, it's more a system of life. So man is given a full system of laws. Laws for economy, society, family and so on.
All these laws combined are called: Sharia, which means in Arabic 'The Path'.

The Sharia is based on the Qur'an (God's word) and the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet).
The interpretation is very diverse among Muslims.

90% of the muslims are Sunni  and 10% is Shia.

The Sunni muslims follow one of the 4 streams:
-Hanafi (I am an Hanafi)
-Shafi
-Maliki
-Hanbali

We as muslims see this as blessing from God, for the diversity that is created within religion.
There is no superior movement within these four streams, you just follow a stream on which you have most knowledge.
Most western converts are Hanafi (Hanafi sources are all translated into English)
As I said before, the interpretation of the Sharia is diverse.

Islam in it's essence is not a pacifistic religion, it's a realistic religion. It acknowledges that man can commit certain terrible atrocities.
It says that sometimes the concept of 'turn the other cheek' will simply not work for some people.
As you understand there are certain ethics given by Islam for war.

War is only allowed in three situations.

1.  Self-defense (when someone attacks your country)
2.  After a violation of a peace treaty without any warning given by the opponent
3.  Aiding others when they ask for help in a country where they are oppressed.

Then there are strict rules before declaring war. But it should be stopped immediatly when war is no longer neccesary even if that means that the muslims
will gain loss in some form.

During war, there are rules. I'll give some of them:

1. Do not plunder
2. Do not kill children, women, the elderly or men that are not fighting.
3. Plants should be not harmed (don't cut trees or burn wheat for example)
4. Don't kill livestock, except for food.
5. Do not harm monks, no matter the faith or religion.
6. Do not mutilate the bodies
7. Return the enemies corpses with respect
8. Do not cut down the supply lines of water to the enemy.
9. The defeated army should be given water and food.
10. Officialy declare war and give time for the enemy to prepare. Ambush is strictly forbidden.
During the crusades for example in the 13th century, the Frankish army was defeated by the Muslims.

Oliverus Scholasticus comments for example: Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power.

Prisoners of war:


- Men, women and children can be taken as prisoners of war.
- Should not be tortured or ill-treated. Should be fed and clothed by the Caliphate (Islamic government). --> Torture is a grave sin within Islam.
- Relatives should not be separated (Caliph Umar made this illegal after a prisoner complained to him that he was separated from his daughter)
- Prisoners can be exchanged or rekeased
- A prisoners that learns 10 Muslims how to write and read, should be freed. (form of ransom)

After a war:

- Prisoners can be released (giving them sufficient sources to survive the journey back to his/her home) as an act of charity or for the expiation of sins. (Highly recommended according to the Qur'an)


Execution of prisoners?

There is diversity among this topic. the Hanafi Fiqh (Fiqh=law) is strictly against this, no matter the odds.
Other streams of Islam apply it in certain context when there is no other possible way out (as a last resort).

As for war to impose religion on other people, that is against Islam. Witnessing is simply enough.
The Qur'an states that our witness is the Prophet and mankind's witness is the muslim community.

Qur'an [2:143] - " Thus have We made you a Community of the "Golden Mean" so that you may be witnesses in regard to mankind and the Messenger may be a witness in regard to you."

It's far more complex than what I posted, but my knowledge on the subject is very low, maybe I can give you a better answer in the future.
I hope you understand that the concept of 'holy war' is very complicated.

As for the 'terror' context you mean. That is something that is primitive and in it's essence barbaric.
The teachings of war that are given by Islam, is to avoid situations like that.
I hope you understand that the people that blow up buildings with planes have not even grasped the very basic of Islamic warfare....

Suicide in it's essence is in every context strictly forbidden according to the teachings of Islam.
A soldier mortaly wounded on the battlefield may not end his life because of his suffering according to Islam.
Then, is a suicide bomber allowed to do that? (nonetheless he is transgressing every law of war)


Don't get me wrong, but I personally view the U.S.A. as a typical "Jihad" state, it's ironic that they represent the image that they are 'fighting' against.
Isn't it weird that the west labeled the mujahideen that were fighting against the communists in the 80's as 'freedom fighters'.
The same people now are labeled as 'terrorists'.

The world is far, very very far from justice.

I hope you don't believe that we Muslims actually are infiltrating in the west so we can overthrow the secular society, because we are.


I hope that the Muslim world will be ruled by righteous leaders in the future, I only see leaders that only care for themselves instead of their people.

[DirtyLeo]

Do you believe that Islamic law has its place in a modern society?

[xSilverPhinx]

This is very is complicated, I have to confess that I have not looked very deep into it.
Nonetheless, I'll try to answer.

We as muslims believe that during the development of man, God guided man through other religions before Islam.
Society kept advancing, so when man was ready for a system instead of religion, Islam was given to mankind.
So you can't call Islam a religion, it's more a system of life. So man is given a full system of laws. Laws for economy, society, family and so on.
All these laws combined are called: Sharia, which means in Arabic 'The Path'.

The Sharia is based on the Qur'an (God's word) and the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet).
The interpretation is very diverse among Muslims.

90% of the muslims are Sunni  and 10% is Shia.

The Sunni muslims follow one of the 4 streams:
-Hanafi (I am an Hanafi)
-Shafi
-Maliki
-Hanbali

We as muslims see this as blessing from God, for the diversity that is created within religion.
There is no superior movement within these four streams, you just follow a stream on which you have most knowledge.
Most western converts are Hanafi (Hanafi sources are all translated into English)
As I said before, the interpretation of the Sharia is diverse.

There may have been manifestations of Islam that were advanced for their time long ago, during it's golden age, but is it really accurate to say that Islam as a system on how to live really the best in modern times? Western society has evolved and Islam seems to be frozen in time. What about all the human rights issues going on?  

Islam in it's essence is not a pacifistic religion, it's a realistic religion. It acknowledges that man can commit certain terrible atrocities.
It says that sometimes the concept of 'turn the other cheek' will simply not work for some people.
As you understand there are certain ethics given by Islam for war.

War is only allowed in three situations.

1.  Self-defense (when someone attacks your country)
2.  After a violation of a peace treaty without any warning given by the opponent
3.  Aiding others when they ask for help in a country where they are oppressed.

Then there are strict rules before declaring war. But it should be stopped immediatly when war is no longer neccesary even if that means that the muslims
will gain loss in some form.

During war, there are rules. I'll give some of them:

1. Do not plunder
2. Do not kill children, women, the elderly or men that are not fighting.
3. Plants should be not harmed (don't cut trees or burn wheat for example)
4. Don't kill livestock, except for food.
5. Do not harm monks, no matter the faith or religion.
6. Do not mutilate the bodies
7. Return the enemies corpses with respect
8. Do not cut down the supply lines of water to the enemy.
9. The defeated army should be given water and food.
10. Officialy declare war and give time for the enemy to prepare. Ambush is strictly forbidden.
During the crusades for example in the 13th century, the Frankish army was defeated by the Muslims.

Oliverus Scholasticus comments for example: Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power.

Prisoners of war:


- Men, women and children can be taken as prisoners of war.
- Should not be tortured or ill-treated. Should be fed and clothed by the Caliphate (Islamic government). --> Torture is a grave sin within Islam.
- Relatives should not be separated (Caliph Umar made this illegal after a prisoner complained to him that he was separated from his daughter)
- Prisoners can be exchanged or rekeased
- A prisoners that learns 10 Muslims how to write and read, should be freed. (form of ransom)

After a war:

- Prisoners can be released (giving them sufficient sources to survive the journey back to his/her home) as an act of charity or for the expiation of sins. (Highly recommended according to the Qur'an)


Execution of prisoners?

There is diversity among this topic. the Hanafi Fiqh (Fiqh=law) is strictly against this, no matter the odds.
Other streams of Islam apply it in certain context when there is no other possible way out (as a last resort).

As for war to impose religion on other people, that is against Islam. Witnessing is simply enough.
The Qur'an states that our witness is the Prophet and mankind's witness is the muslim community.

Qur'an [2:143] - " Thus have We made you a Community of the "Golden Mean" so that you may be witnesses in regard to mankind and the Messenger may be a witness in regard to you."

It's far more complex than what I posted, but my knowledge on the subject is very low, maybe I can give you a better answer in the future.
I hope you understand that the concept of 'holy war' is very complicated.

As for the 'terror' context you mean. That is something that is primitive and in it's essence barbaric.
The teachings of war that are given by Islam, is to avoid situations like that.
I hope you understand that the people that blow up buildings with planes have not even grasped the very basic of Islamic warfare....

Suicide in it's essence is in every context strictly forbidden according to the teachings of Islam.
A soldier mortaly wounded on the battlefield may not end his life because of his suffering according to Islam.
Then, is a suicide bomber allowed to do that? (nonetheless he is transgressing every law of war)

Thanks for the elaborate reply. Those look more like rules in a war that is not as assymetrical as the one currently going on (when there are vast differences in opponent's strength and resources, that probably explains a bit why people are resorting to other tactics.)

Don't get me wrong, but I personally view the U.S.A. as a typical "Jihad" state, it's ironic that they represent the image that they are 'fighting' against.

Interesting thing you said there. I'm not American, but I cringe everytime I see a recording of Bush Jr. calling for a 'holy war' and basically "Christianising" the string of invasions after 9/11. I watched a documentary a while back in which it was mentioned that some Muslims see the invasions as a return to the crusades. It surprised me, but then a lot of what's going on made a lot of sense.

Isn't it weird that the west labeled the mujahideen that were fighting against the communists in the 80's as 'freedom fighters'.
The same people now are labeled as 'terrorists'.
The world is far, very very far from justice.

Actually it isn't weird at all. It's to be expected. If politicians are rarely honest and mostly self-serving, even at the expense of their own people, what's to be expected?

I hope you don't believe that we Muslims actually are infiltrating in the west so we can overthrow the secular society, because we are. :crazy:

I hope that the Muslim world will be ruled by righteous leaders in the future, I only see leaders that only care for themselves instead of their people.

People may say what they want, but I'm wholly convinced of the superiority or secular society as a system, rather than any other which basis rather rigid laws on god-given dogmas which are less challenged and changeable. I hope that in the future we can all learn to get along, though I know that achieving that can be near impossible with the discrepancies between groups. Take Israel, for instance. The Jews are not going to leave, they believe they have a god-given right to be there. The Palestinians are also not going to leave, since they've been living there for centuries after the Jew's exodus. Just that localised conflict more or less represents the bigger conflict between Muslims and the western world, IMO. What's going to have to happen?

[iSok]

Do you believe that Islamic law has its place in a modern society?

How do you define a modern society? A secular system?
But I do think Islamic laws have a place in modern society if that is what you mean.
See my post below.

There may have been manifestations of Islam that were advanced for their time long ago, during it's golden age, but is it really accurate to say that Islam as a system on how to live really the best in modern times? Western society has evolved and Islam seems to be frozen in time. What about all the human rights issues going on?  

The reason that there are so many problems in the Muslim world is not because of Islam. But because people have abandonned Islam.
Muslim nowadays lack knowledge severly. The teachings of Islam are now combined with concepts like 'honour revenge', cultural backwardness (women can't drive and can't go to school, while
it's part of your faith for both women and men to gain knowledge). Women are example stoned because they are raped, Islam strictly condemns this.

The rulers (most of them are monarchs) in the Middle-East do not want to apply the full Sharia for a few reasons.
One of it is that the Sharia demands a democratic system, a Calipathe.
Muslim call this a Caliphate with a head of state as Caliph.

A calipathe is in theory a constitutional republic. This form of government is hazardous for the Middle-East, because a monarchy can no longer exist.
Applying the system would be the end for a lot of rulers. This type of government does not exist in the whole Muslim world.
So we muslims are like scattered moth's, there is no organisation or a system that brings us together.

People may say what they want, but I'm wholly convinced of the superiority or secular society as a system, rather than any other which basis rather rigid laws on god-given dogmas which are less challenged and changeable. I hope that in the future we can all learn to get along, though I know that achieving that can be near impossible with the discrepancies between groups. Take Israel, for instance. The Jews are not going to leave, they believe they have a god-given right to be there. The Palestinians are also not going to leave, since they've been living there for centuries after the Jew's exodus. Just that localised conflict more or less represents the bigger conflict between Muslims and the western world, IMO. What's going to have to happen

I understand very well why the west tends to have a secular system. If we take a good look at the history of europe, it wasn't really the best period to live in.
But in the Muslim world we never had this problem, every aspect of science flourished under the Muslim rulers. We started having problems by leaving the system, NOT because of the system.

So in my personal opinion, I don't see the superiority in a secular society.
As for the Sharia, it's not really a system of laws. In which you just have to believe (Because they are from God) even if they don't make sense.
The laws do make a lot of sense once you apply it as a full system. If you take just certain laws you like and leave the rest, then it doesn't make sense.

The Sharia is not a form of strict law that was established in the seventh century and is applicable to each society. Islam recognizes the diversity in the world among cultures and societies..
Islamic Law (The Sharia) evolves with society and it changes. So as for the question: Do Islamic lawas have a place in modern society? They certainly do have a place.

I'll give you a few reasons why I don't see a secular system as superior:

One of the reasons I believe in Islam is because it's the only ideology/religion/system in the world that has succesfully destroyed racism in it's essence.
It treats people as equal no matter your race or colour. In my search for other religions or ideologies, I have not yet come across a system so succesfull like Islam.

Quran [49:13] - "Human beings, We created you all from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the noblest of you in the sight of God is the most God-fearing of you. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware."

A saying of the Prophet: O Mankind, your lord is one and your father is one. You all descend from Adam, and Adam was created from earth. He is most honoured among you in the sight of God who is most upright. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, no coloured person to a white person, or a white person to a coloured person except by piety

Take for example this picture:

It's a picture of the Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The essence of the Hajj is to understand that under God, people are equal.
So you see men, women and children from every nation of earth side by side kneeling to God. During this trip, most people wear plain white clothes.
So there's no difference among race, colour, ethnicity or between the poor and the rich. It symbolises that one day we will come to God in this way, without our wordly gains.
(We don't worship the Ka'Ba, the Ka'Ba is merely a symbol of our unity, some Muslims kiss it but that is wrong)

Secular society in my opinion cannot achieve this. Because it doesn't bring people together under one banner.
The banner in Islam is God.
This guy for example, from the KKK to Islam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2B2QZHhJmY
It's remarkable how his whole worldview has changed.

When Barack Obama was elected for president, everyone was shocked and relieved at the same time. How could a black person become a president?
Some people were very happy, because it meant that society was advancing.
I was shocked, that thoughts like these still take place in the modern world. That we still care about the pigment of our skin.


Another reason is that the secular system forces the equality of gender, don't get me wrong. I don't mean that women are less than men or are not allowed to work.
I'll give you an example:

Let's say that 10 women are looking for a job, and there's just one post.
No doubt that the employer will also take a good look on how the women looks. (Is this fair?)
If you keep doing this, then each time the women with the best combination of intelligence and looks will always get the job.

Now, if you do it again, but this time the women will wear a scarf. And you keep repeating this.
I think that the employer will be forced to hire the women with the best intelligence and will not pay much attention to her looks. (Isn't this more fair?)

Islam recognizes for example how hard it is to be a women in this world and it protects her from being exploited by men. Religion is not the problem
but men are the problem. The word entertainment is important in the west. But do you know what most people entertain themselves with in their freetime?
The largest entertainment industry in the west, is the porn industry. I do not have other words for it than; exploiting the women's body.

If we take a good look at ads. The women's body is used for everything, it's just exploiting.
Take a look at this Dutch website: http://www.suitsupply.nl/#/collection/
What exactly do suits have to do with naked women? I cannot understand the link.
Multiple pictures of men with suits surrounded by naked women...what is the link?

And because of this nonsense, girls of the age of 13 or 14 stick their fingers in their troat or do not eat at all just to be like those women.
According to survey in Great-Brittain, 19% of the women BEFORE the age of 25 try to commit suicide. 19%, that is like 1 in 5 girls.
My sister is studying medecine and she told me that 25% of the population here in the Netherlands is swallowing Prozac (anti-depression).
So something is very very wrong.....
I would recommend you to read the book of the feministe: Germaine Greer, The Whole Woman

Within Islam for example, women inherit 1/2 of what a man inherits. (Women in the west did not inherit anything before the 20th century)
Many would point out that this means that men and women are not equal at all within Islam. But let me explain.

According to the Sharia, it's true that women inherit 1/2 of what men inherit and there's a reason for that.
Men have an obligation to financially sustain their family, so men are forced to use their inheritance for sustaining their family.
Women on the other hand are not, and they are free to use their inheritance for whatever options (jewels, clothes.....etc), men are not allowed to take that.

Women are allowed to work, whatever they earn is theirs, and they do not have to share this with their families to sustain them.
If they share it with their family, within Islamic law it's counted as charity in the eyes of God. Furthermore a women does not have to do domestic work.
Domestic chores are also counted as charity, a women can demand payment from her husband for domestic chores.
Raising the children is the only aspect of life, that is a women's part of work. According to Islamic teachings the mother can raise the children in a better
way than the father (children are the future).

Forced marriage, female genital cutting, honour revenge, killing because of rape, wife beating are all against the teachings of Islam.
Especially the last one: Wife beating. Nowadays many Islamic scholars still imply that the Qur'an allows men to beat their wives (Because of cultural aspects)
For further info, listen to this lecture by Hamza Yusuf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDEKJDgXO-U

Another example is the Islamic economic Law. Because of the greediness of some people, the whole economy crisis started a few years ago.
If we ask ourselves a honest question: Who is paying the bill of the crisis? Is the needy or the rich?
Within Islam, the concept of interest is strictly forbidden. You can't call the system a socialist or capitalistic, it's a 'third way'.
Islamic banks are currently growing, the financial crisis did not touch them and many people are heading towards this system.

Trade in weapons and arms is strictly forbidden within the Sharia Law (How can we start a holy war if our law prohibits trade in weapons?).
Secular society are still doing it (If we want to abandon war, why do we trade in weapons?), some western countries are waging war...otherwise their economy will fail. Economy runs on other people's blood.......
Or take the aspect of gambling, which is also forbidden. But some secular countries allow it and governments benefit from it by letting their civilians visiting casino's.

So I don't think the Sharia is a God-given way of life that you just have to follow to be a good Muslim, no matter the consequences.
As a matter of fact, you can follow the Sharia without even being a Muslim, for me personally it makes a lot of sense.
(The modern world has failed to even follow the most basic ethics of warfare introduced by the Sharia)
In the west the Sharia is immediately linked with stoning, chopping of hands and beheading people.

[DirtyLeo]

Do you believe that Islamic law has its place in a modern society?

How do you define a modern society? A secular system?
But I do think Islamic laws have a place in modern society if that is what you mean.

To dispel this delusion, let's start with "freedom of belief" (or lack of).

What is the penalty for apostasy in countries governed by Islamic law?

[DirtyLeo]

iSok,

Open your Quran and read 4:34. Here's what I read:

"4:34 Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."

And you are telling us that woman is man's equal according to Islam?

[iSok]

iSok,

Open your Quran and read 4:34. Here's what I read:

"4:34 Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."

And you are telling us that woman is man's equal according to Islam?

Biological, men and women are not equal. The Qur'an here points to men that they have physical strength for work.
Men are forced to sustain their families.

Did you read my post above and did you listen to the sermon given by Hamza Yusuf?
Please listen to this lecture, it's very detailed, I hope it will benefit you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDEKJDgXO-U
The sermon will also explain the last part of verse 4:34 --> Beat your wifes (which I don't agree with). If you sincerely want an answer, then listen to the lecture DL.


About apostasy. Death penalty is applied for treason. But some scholars also see the death penalty for leaving your faith.
There is diversity among this topic. Other Islamic scholars refute the death penalty for leaving your faith, others apply it in certain cases.

[DirtyLeo]

iSok,

Quran contains very very controversial surahs to be the basis of a tolerant society. I am sure you know them but here are two more:

4:89 - "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"

2:217 - "They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein."

I can also produce some surahs about slavery or on other topics.

If one becomes tolerant of other faiths (or lack of), it is not thanks to Islam, it is, in my opinion, despite Islam.

And if it is really that great, everybody seems to be "misinterpreting" it. Look at the human rights in the countries governed by Islamic law. Can I openly debate of such subjects in any of these countries? Of course not. In my opinion, you can see what's wrong with Islam (or any religion for that matter) and you choose to interpret it as you wish to see it - a way to modernize the religion or adapt it to today's world. However God is supposed to be great and all-knowing. So:

Why couldn't she/he send words that are not open to interpretation, that are universal (on this world, on the orbit or on other planets) and whose understanding doesn't require a particular language? Those are very basic limitations for a god who can do anything and for a religion that's supposed to be more than Arab nationalism. And again, why do I need a bunch of people and scholars to tell me what is the real meaning of Quran when I am fully capable of reading and understanding? All this don't look a bit suspicious to you? From a God who can do "anything" at will? Couldn't she/he pick better words than "and to beat them" if she/he really meant something else?

[fester30]

Just my experience talking here for whatever it's worth.  I've had many Muslim friends from college on through to my current military service.  I've never personally met a Muslim who is mean, violent, racist, or who would agree with the extreme elements of Islam (i.e. Al Qaida) to my knowledge.  They were all good, loyal friends who enjoyed baseball, apple pie, Chevy, and the American dream, and treated their wives and children with love and respect.  Those I have met in the military are some of the most patriotic people I know, and are just as pissed off at 9/11 as the rest of us.  While I don't agree with Islam or any other religion, I can say that my experiences with Muslims have actually been a bit more tolerant than my experiences with Christians (perhaps because of less exposure, or perhaps because Christians are emboldened by being the majority religion in the US).  I think it's a shame that there is even a council on Muslim radicalization going on in Congress.  It's rediculous, considering we have radicals in other religions, as well as non-religious radicals scattered about in organizations such as Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, etc. (I'm not calling the ALF or ELF radical or terrorist, just a minority of their members).  I think the majority of Muslims in America represent what the relationship between Islam and the world today can be, so long as we remember that the extremists aren't representative of the whole.

[DirtyLeo]

fester,

This is exactly like my personal experience. However, my muslim friends are the ones who pick and choose what they like from an outdated 7th century scripture and discard the things that they don't like. They modernize otherwise obsolete concepts with their interpretation.

For instance most of them (actually as far as I remember all of them) consume alcohol and most consume pork. But almost all of them will go bananas if their daughter lived with a man out of marriage but they'd turn a blind eye to their sons if they did the same. Etc.

[iSok]

iSok,

Quran contains very very controversial surahs to be the basis of a tolerant society. I am sure you know them but here are two more:

Of course they are controversial if you don't understand it in what context.

4:89 - "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"

2:217 - "They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein."

'They' here are meant the Polytheist Arabs. During this verse, the muslims were a minority. The arabs sent spies and war was about to start between the muslims and the arabs.
The arabs were about to wipe out the muslims because by now they understood that God will not allow the muslims to fight.
When this verse was revealed, the arabs were shocked, their whole army suffered a loss of morality. They found out about this, because they had spies under the Muslim minority.
All of a sudden, the muslims were allowed to fight.
This verse actually prevented a bloodbath.

There are several reasons why the polytheist did not accept the message of Islam.
Their economic system was based on polytheism, many people came to Mecca and gave money to the Arabs for permission.
With One God, these people would no longer come and the arabs would suffer an economic loss.
Furthermore, the arabs did not agree with the teachings. Women had all of a sudden rights, you can't just kill everyone, there came a law. Before this they were renegades.

I can also produce some surahs about slavery or on other topics.

Please do so.

And if it is really that great, everybody seems to be "misinterpreting" it. Look at the human rights in the countries governed by Islamic law. Can I openly debate of such subjects in any of these countries? Of course not. In my opinion, you can see what's wrong with Islam (or any religion for that matter) and you choose to interpret it as you wish to see it - a way to modernize the religion or adapt it to today's world. However God is supposed to be great and all-knowing. So:

Why couldn't she/he send words that are not open to interpretation, that are universal (on this world, on the orbit or on other planets) and whose understanding doesn't require a particular language? Those are very basic limitations for a god who can do anything and for a religion that's supposed to be more than Arab nationalism. And again, why do I need a bunch of people and scholars to tell me what is the real meaning of Quran when I am fully capable of reading and understanding? All this don't look a bit suspicious to you? From a God who can do "anything" at will? Couldn't she/he pick better words than "and to beat them" if she/he really meant something else?

DL, you expect God to come down and show everything to you. Even then you might say it was an illusion, or your eyes didn't see well.
The fact is, we live in a reality with certain laws. Finding the way is what life is about.
The way you think, is how humans think, so it's quite normal. If you were some God, you might have done this way. But if you did that, then what is life supposed to mean?
Sitting at home, watching till some proof comes and then believing in it?

We as humans are constantly challenged. Just take a look at science, we are the first species in over 4 billion years  of the history of our planet, that are actually exploring the universe.
The little knowledge that many of you have gained over the last 100 years made you disbelief.

Do you know what the primary reason for atheism was before the 20th century? It was that people could not understand that some invisible beign actually created the Universe.
They could in no way understand nor comprehend that the universe actually had a starting point. So these people safely assumed that the Universe was always there, it is eternal.
A couple of decades ago, 2/3 of prominent physicist according to a survey still thought of this. Is the Universe eternal? Yes!

Today we now say : Yes the Universe had a point of starting, it came out of nothing and expanded into everything.
The size was about this or even smaller:
Would people have laughed before the 20th century, if you would tell them this? They would have laughed, and atheists back then would ridicule religion because of this.
A century later, this concept actually explains the universe, and many atheists now see it as the answer for our universe. Don't you find that ironic?

Like I said DL, we as man are constantly challenged intellectualy to understand the world. Life is about exploring and learning.
It's ridiculous to say that a God that has given us intellect would so easy give us the central message for our existence without even using our intellect.
I can tell you honestly, that you will not fully comprehend Islam even if you study your whole life, it has branches in each aspect of science.
Understanding just the Qur'an on a very deep level will mean studying it for 20 years at the very least, and this is in all aspects quite rational.
Why else do we have intellect? The message has been delivered DL, God gave His promise, it's upto us humans what we choose and do.

Our ego is the problem, this is where humanity fails. We all ponder about this question:
How could the Creator of the heavens and the earth choose a poor Arab with no education?

I think you still didn't listen to the sermon . Once again: Hamza Yusuf - "Removing the silence on domestic violence" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDEKJDgXO-U:
Nonethless I'll try to explain:

In Arabic there is a word called 'Yatrab'. This word is used in the Qur'an.
Yatrab can be translated into two different English words, it has two meanings, depends on the context in which the word is used.

1. When you plant something, for example a flower into soil. You 'yatrab' the soil a bit. You carefully 'tab' on the soil.
2. You physically separate from something.

'Yatrab' is used in verse 4:34 in the Qur'an, and it's translated as 'beating'.

A Prophet that is supposed to be a mercy to mankind, who was against wife beating.
The Prophet is the best example for mankind according to Islam, who never hit anyone.
Is it reasonable that the Qur'an actually allows 'wife beating'? Is it not more reasonable that Yatrab in verse 4:34 is actually meant 'Physical separation' from your wife.

Some Islamic scholars will not think so, so ridiculous theories are put forward.
From 'spiritual beating' to 'beating with a feather'. This is an example where man fails and the blame is on man, NOT Islam.

So DL, if there came a religion from God.
It would be a religion which would be time consuming in order to understand, because man is created curious and a seeker of truth.

[fester30]

fester,

This is exactly like my personal experience. However, my muslim friends are the ones who pick and choose what they like from an outdated 7th century scripture and discard the things that they don't like. They modernize otherwise obsolete concepts with their interpretation.

For instance most of them (actually as far as I remember all of them) consume alcohol and most consume pork. But almost all of them will go bananas if their daughter lived with a man out of marriage but they'd turn a blind eye to their sons if they did the same. Etc.

Christians pick and choose from a scripture that ranges from 2nd century CE to a couple millenia BCE if I'm not mistaken, right?  I have no idea what Jews follow since they stopped sacrificing a lamb of the first year on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies inside the temple on the mount.  

Even scientists pick and choose which laws and theories they want to adhere to, sometimes choosing to ignore centripetal force in favor of inertia, or lending more emphasis to conservation of angular momentum and less to the 2nd law of thermodynamics... you know... just to suit what they want to believe.  It's the same old story.

[iSok]

fester,

This is exactly like my personal experience. However, my muslim friends are the ones who pick and choose what they like from an outdated 7th century scripture and discard the things that they don't like. They modernize otherwise obsolete concepts with their interpretation.

For instance most of them (actually as far as I remember all of them) consume alcohol and most consume pork. But almost all of them will go bananas if their daughter lived with a man out of marriage but they'd turn a blind eye to their sons if they did the same. Etc.

Christians pick and choose from a scripture that ranges from 2nd century CE to a couple millenia BCE if I'm not mistaken, right?  I have no idea what Jews follow since they stopped sacrificing a lamb of the first year on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies inside the temple on the mount.  

Even scientists pick and choose which laws and theories they want to adhere to, sometimes choosing to ignore centripetal force in favor of inertia, or lending more emphasis to conservation of angular momentum and less to the 2nd law of thermodynamics... you know... just to suit what they want to believe.  It's the same old story.

A wise post Fester.