Wahabism in Centers of Learning

Re: # 274

Very simply PM: Allah has forbidden the former (fornication) but permitted the latter (concubines). Ergo, sex with one`s concubines does not equate to fornication. Therefore the definition of fornication is `sex with someone outside of marriage or one`s concubines`.

simple. :-)

Urstruly,
Lest I forget to give credit where it is due, may I commend you on your excellent dilation on Adl-o-Ihsan in Islam as well as Christianity/Judaism from the Islamic perspective, back in #254.
That, notwhithstand your somewhat circular reasoning in other posts, was quite excellent and informative. Thank you.

Urstruly:

Yes, i was indeed referring to the fact that the Koran permnits one the ``use`` of concubines for sexual `needs` in the event of a man`s not being able to provide equitably for more than one wife.

Here is some commentary on the matter from an Islamic site that is well referenced:

``Since the relationship between a man and concubines has nothing to do with the issue of marriage, and they theoretically don`t have the rights and competence that free women enjoy, we don`t find a separate chapter on them in the sources of jurisprudence. This can be explained by the fact that they aren`t regarded as persons, but as possessions belonging to their owner, as was the case in the Old Testament.(7) Therefore, they cannot marry their owners legally. Yet, a slave-owner has the right to marry his female slave off without her permission-- he then acts as her owner, not her guardian. As for the children of that slave, they are slaves like their mother, whether their father is a freeman or a slave, since they belong to their mother`s owner. It is true that the Sharia allows a Muslim to enjoy [sexual relations with] all his slave women, provided that they be Muslims [or of the people of the Book] and unmarried, yet it emphasises the great difference between this kind of marriage and regular legal marriage. As long as the man remains the owner of the slave woman, they argue, this same right of ownership prevents him from marrying her. If he wants to marry her, he has to pay her a marriage dowry (sadaq). As to children of the slave from her owner, they are as free as the other children of the man in all respects.(8) A man has the right to marry someone else`s slave, if she is a believer, as long as her owner approves of it. The Sharia, however, places additional conditions on this sort of marriage, since the children coming from this marriage have no freedom.(9)

My question to you, once again, is this: how does one reconcile the prohibition on fornication with the permissibility of sexual relations with as many concubines as one my afford?

Re: # 272

sattar2

Very interesting argument going on between you and urstruly ending (perhaps?) with your post above.

I have a question to both of them. Is lying (the highest sin), leading to hypocrisy (munafiqat) is punishable in Shariah? If not then why should one apostatises to invite any penalty here or there?

#264 by urstruly

Your quotation from the Quran (The Cattle 6:83-90):

``If these people disbelieve, we will substitute others in their place, and the new people will not be disbelievers. These are the ones guided by GOD; therefore follow their guidance.``

Who are ``these people` referred to in the above quotation? And who are the `New ones``? Does it not mean that though there can be no new prophet after Mohammad (PBUH) but their can be a new `Ummah`? How can we know who is the real Momin and which is the real `ummah` when God says about Arabs:

``The Arabs say: We believe. Say, you believe not, but rather say We submit, for the faith has not yet entered into your hearts (49/14)``?

Urstruly (#270),

Your conclusions are grossly incorrect. Some comments are as follows:

- You’ve finally accepted that Quran is not silent on apostasy. Getting you to accept such a simple fact was a battle …

- You’ve overlooked that Quran discusses possibility of an apostate reverting back to Islam. This adequately rules out possibility of killing a person for apostasy.

- Punishment for apostasy in hereafter is a matter that rests between Allah and the individual. It is not up to you to punish him in this world. There is a difference between ‘you’ and ‘Allah’ ... between ‘here’ and ‘hereafter’. Let’s keep things straight …

+++

Moving on …

Islamic concept of ‘halal’ and ‘haram’ (‘allowed’ and ‘forbidden’) applies to a Muslim. For example, eating pork is ‘haram’ for a Muslim. However, if he were to leave Islam, eating pork will no longer be ‘haram’ for him.

[BTW, Quran does not give you any authority to punish a Muslim for eating pork either!]

Apostasy being ‘haram’ for a Muslim is circular argument. By rejecting Islam a person also rejects Islamic definition of ‘haram’, Islamic idea of punishment in hereafter, etc. That is, these definitions apply to a Muslim, and not to one who ’used to’ be a Muslim. Yours is an invalid point to begin with.

Now to your final comment: What a Muslim ‘can’ and ‘should’ think is between him and his conscience/god. You are not appointed by Allah to police his thoughts or to force your thoughts on him. If a person consults you, offer your best advice. If he wants to leave Islam, he should be allowed to do so freely. After all, there is no compulsion is matters of faith (guess where I read this …).

+++

Dude, the way you think is scary: denial of facts, twisted logic, and choppy reasoning … all in attempts to satisfy bloody instincts and brutal pursuit of power. Don’t hate me because I am an Ahmadi – I am only trying to help and save your a$$ (wink). Later dude, we’re going in circles here.

… and tomorrow is Friday, so don’t forget to take your weekly bath - regardless of what Bible says or Quran doesn’t say …

Urstruly (#269),

Instead of speculating unnecessarily, use Quran as guide on dealing with apostasy.

If no worldly punishment is prescribed for a sin, it does not nullify sinfulness of the sin. A sin remains so in the eyes of Allah, whether you punish the sinner or not. For example, a person missing prayers may constitute a sin. However, it is not up to you to punish him for missing his prayers. I hope this simple point is clear.

The question you should ask instead is … `does Quran give anyone authority to punish an apostate?` The answer here is an emphatic “no”. And please don’t tell me that Quran is silent on apostasy.

Why do you want to go beyond the authority vested in you by Quran, is beyond me. BTW, what does Quran say about transgression …?

Will respond to #270 later …

Sattar

I have checked the refernces given in your post #230 regarding the divine punishment for Apostasy and I found them quite an eye opener: For example


2.217

``…… And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

3;86-89

How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;- In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);- Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

16.106
Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

So even if we accept that (for sake of argument that) there is no legal punishment for apostasy prescribed in Qura`n, there is no denying that there are grave consequences in the next world. Which means that Apostasy, or even pondering to turn away from faith is a grave sin and it is thus haram (forbidden) for Muslims. In other words no Muslim can or should even think about abandoning his religion. Is that what you have been trying to tell me all along??

Urstruly MiaN,

You make up “450+ ahadith” when you want to … but fail to recognize a few dozen Quranic verses on apostasy, adultery, and blasphemy??? You claim Quran is silent on these issues. Do I now have to teach you how to read?

As an example, review references in #230 for Quranic commandments on apostasy. And you think Quran is silent on this issue?

More later …

Re: # 266

Lets look for a common ground here. For sake of argument let us suppose that there is no (worldly) punishment for Apostasy in Islam and if there is any it is inconsistent with Islam then would the status of Apoatasy as a grave sin also be nullified. If not, and if Apostasy remains as a grave sin, would it be appropriate to avoid this sin individually and collectively (through education not legislation); would it be consistent with Qura`n?

Re: # 266

Yes I already know about your opinion on these matters; but in order to be valid your opinions must be supported by Qura`n and Hadith. Simply saying that `it is or isn`t in Qura`n` doesn`t cut it.

Urstruly,

... quick, succinct responses to your twisted reasoning …

”… Holy Prophet was not only sanctioned but urged to follow the laws in early scripture through the following Quranic revelation…”

Not if the previous Law was overwritten by Quran.

”… So in other words, Holy Prophet (pbuh) was not overriding Qura`n and its authority but he was working and doing his Ijtehad with in the boundries set by Qura`n itsef…”

Contradicting teachings of Quran is same as overriding it. Quran is clear on dealing with apostasy, blasphemy, and adultery.

”… So whenever, Qura`n (or Allah) felt a need to show a new way to prophet he was given guidance through a revelation, and whenever his Ijtehad was based on the law of previous people and consistent with message of Islam, Allah gave His tacit approval by remaining silent…”

What you allege violates Quranic commandments. So your point about `consistency` here is invalid.

Furthermore, Quran openly deals with apostasy, adultery, etc. There is no ‘tacit approval by silence’ here. Perhaps you should read Quran first. Your view is simply incorrect here.

… What is so difficualt to understand here.

Heaps of lies from you is the problem here. Figuring your lies is as easy as 1,2,3 ...

1) Quran deals with apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, but you claim Quran is silent!
2) Alleged ahadith violate Quran, but you deny this!!
3) Bible has been changed, you admit - but still you override Quran with Bible!!!

And you can’t figure out the problem … (hmmm). Your reasoning is lame and does not stand even a rudimentary scrutiny.

PM #262

I did not understand your question. Would you please elaborate.

But in case you are referring to Quranic verse that addresses the women POWs as ``what your right hand possesses``; then let me assure you that fornication and adultery is not permitted in even that case. There is an elaborate law, based on shariah that deals with the issue of female POWs and how marriage rites are performed and laws of inheritence that deal with the oddspring of such marriage. If that was your question then let me know.

Sattar

I knew I was playing flute in front of a buffalo but I had to do it.

Please keep in mind that semantics are no substitute for an argument. You must make an argument that is based on Qura`n and Hadith to make a point. Your pesonal opinion has no value here. Coming back to the topic;

Holy Prophet was not only sanctioned but urged to follow the laws in early scripture through the following Quranic revelation. So in other words, Holy Prophet (pbuh) was not overriding Qura`n and its authority but he was working and doing his Ijtehad with in the boundries set by Qura`n itsef. So whenever, Qura`n (or Allah) felt a need to show a new way to prophet he was given guidance through a revelation, and whenever his Ijtehad was based on the law of previous people and consistent with message of Islam, Allah gave His tacit approval by remaining silent. What is so difficualt to understand here.

The following verse is the cornerstone of Islamic jurisprudence. In Arabic this verse is reffered to as ``Sharai-e-Qablena`` meaning the Law (Sharia) of Previous People.

The Cattle 6:83-90


``Such was our argument, with which we supported Abraham against his people. We exalt whomever we will to higher ranks. Your Lord is Most Wise, Omniscient. And we granted him Isaac and Jacob, and we guided both of them. Similarly, we guided Noah before that, and from his descendants (we guided) David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. We thus reward the righteous. Also, Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias; all were righteous. And Ismail, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot; each of these we distinguished over all the people. From among their ancestors, their descendants, and their siblings, we chose many, and we guided them in a straight path.Those were the ones to whom we have given the scripture, wisdom, and prophethood. If these people disbelieve, we will substitute others in their place, and the new people will not be disbelievers. These are the ones guided by GOD; therefore follow their guidance. Say, ``I do not ask you for any wage. This is but a message for all the people.``


In one of my posts below I erroneously reffered to this verse as being in Chapter 2, but in fact it is in Chapter 6. I regret the error.

Let me make this clear to you HINDOOS, if you guess can`t proof your facts then youa re welcome to leave. throught my post I had provided all the necessary links that proof my comment therefore there are no babbling about any stuff which mohar11 and krishna_abcd fail to understand.

mohar main do you even read my post properly,i guess not. Let me show you why

i ask aplogy from all my HINDOO brother/sister who are hurt by my vulgar description of their religion.

If you see this from a 3rd angle, actually this is an insult on you HINDOOS. If your so called discribtion of islam and muslim is correct then there is no need for me to ask apology but guess what I did. Simply because there are other[Muslims] who respect every faith unlike HINDOOS who shit around without any proof.

You are babbling a lot, but not saying much...:)... you fail to explain the inhuman and criminal behaviors of the prophet, pubh...

Once again I need you to show me any proof that this inhuman act was really done by the prophet. As far as I know Islam allow others religion to practice there faith but with conditions, these condition are minor only. Since you HINDOOS are majority from INDIA then i should give you MOGHALs example...

If anyone of you really read my post properly then you`ll understand that Moghals ruled india about 500 year. If uslam really allow mass murder and terrorism then all you HINDOOS ram koo paray hooja tay. Your Kind might be eliminated from the surface of sub-continent but it didn`t happen. Instead Moghal marry Hindoos queen example Akbar

I agree I do fail to explain the inhuman of Prophet Muhammad because there are no such criminal behaviour. neighter they were recorded in history nor heard. I don`t know from where you HINDOOS heard this story. Might be from some Pandit Biharilaal.

religions have no explanations, particularly the primitive tribal philosophies like islam... it`s futile to try to explain and justify such stuff...

Do you mean to say that HINDUISM was not introduce in tribe first? and was introduce in metropolitan cities like New York. Do you really read before posting.

Simply because you can`t justify your religion doesn`t mean that all religion are not jestified. Every religion which is true is Justified, this is the reason why people convert to ISLAM becuase they see something special in ISLAM which is not there in any religion. Indirectly this strain of Islam also influenced Malcolm X and other figures who sought a global ethic through the Five Pillars of Islam. HINDUISM is filled with hoax and fabrication. BAGWAN flying around in some ufo kind of stuff, repoduciong and burning woman. Now tht is not justified.

Islam in the first four centuries, ... was inclined to take into its possession not only the outward advantages of the world, but also the intellectual acquisitions of Mankind.This is a well-written and authoritative review of the history of Islamic philosophy during the middle ages. Medieval Islamic civilization at its height was a center of learning, and its philosophers were no exception. Islamic philosophers grappled with issues such as free-will, causality and the nature of reality. Some of these figures are still well-known, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Roshd (Averroes), the Sufi Gazali, and Kindi.

re:Krishna_abcd

It is NOT your internal problem. The name of the article is ``Wahabism in Centers of Learning``. Because there are so many of these animals in India, unfortunately it is OUR problem as well. UNTIL you Pakis take ALL Muslims out of India to Pakiland, it will continue to be our problem.

Get it, shithead?

In that case your caste system is our problem too. because 25 % Hindoo make up pakistans population. And unlike your religion teaching. Islam allow HINDOOS to work in a muslim country but with some condition as mentioned above. If your shiv seena do relly have problem with muslims then exile them all. yea thats a good suggestion, start exiling all the muslims from your country. But Plese don`t sacrifice them to Kali, c`mon they are human too.

No, you are wrong. You DO believe your prophet. You believe him when he tells you that the koran was transmitted to him by the Al-lah dude. If you did not belive him on that point, you would not belive that the koran came from Al-lah. And therefore there would be no Islam.

In that case we believe that dhroppati was rape by five man,and your RAM was homosexual, is it true? We believe in Prophet who came before Muhammad[P.B.U.H] too. In this case, Muhammad[P.B.U.H.} is just a messanger of Allah. He justified his point by saying that there is 1 god only. Human made god can`t protect you because they depend on you. Same case with hindu.

You are mistaking what believes are really. Beliving in Muhammad is a wrong concept but Believing in his speech is a right concept, this is wht we call Hadith. We BELIEVE in ALLAH and we BELIEVE in his MESSENGER who taught us what ALLAH taught them.
Its not unusual to talk about what BELIEVE are. A book written by AL-JUMI, persian philosopher is all about wht believe really are and how we make mistake in its meaning. Try searching for any of his book in INDIA and try reading it.

ALL of those are true. I have quoted chapter and verse on all of those a thousand times here on Chowk. None of the pedophile followers had any answers. Go back and read the posts by Ajeya, Ramanujan and my current nick.

IF YOU STILL DOUBT IT, let me know. I`ll quote chapter and verse again. One at a time. Otherwise it may be too much for a shitbrain like yourself.

If that`s true then show us all the proof, please quote the name of the book and its chapter, one by one. Throughout this consversation you talked baout horis, and there history. lets see your proof them. I start by posting link at the bottom of the page, keep in mind these research papers are not from muslim or Hindu point of view but from 3rd party research group.

Don`t worry about me shitting properly. You Muslas eat so much meat - that you guys are the most constipated people in the world. Go buy a suppository.

On second thoughts, don`t worry. Go visit your favorite mullah. That`ll do the job

Don`t tell me now you want me to talk about how Meat are scientifically proven to be good for human body. okay leave that alone, are you aware of your religion, The Aghori ascetic who are basically hindu eat human flesh. The Aghori ascetic considers himself to be a symbol of the Lord Shiva (the last from the trinity of Brahma and Vishnu according to Hindu Mythology). says Prerna salla

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-16-2004-51742.asp

You HINDOOS don`t even know what your religion is.... I am telling you from my previous post that its teaching is rascism nothing else. Onsecond though, go to your local Pandit and ask him these question that I ask you, He will do 2 things to you.

1. Put you for human sacrificial for kali ofcourse
2. He will consider you an evil spirit or son of devil[ravan]

and before I forget, he may give you some more piss to drink as a medicine. After drinking that piss come back again.
Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html
http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521806038_CCOL0521806038A006
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm
http://www.carm.org/islam.htm
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/mideast/cuvlm/Islam.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index.htm and so on....

none of the site describe you discribtion of Prophet Muhammad or these non-muslim are lying as well. I want to see you proof.