[Discussion] "Questions Relating to Islam" Thread

[TheMohammadman]

I wanted to create this thread for any people that have any questions about Islam or Muslims in general.

I just hope to clarify any misconceptions anyone has about my religion. I know the stupid terrorists that are in the countries above me (Iraq and Syria) aren't going to stop anytime soon. But every time something bad happens, stereotypes fly around, so I would like to clarify.

I am not claiming to be a scholar or a religious expert, but I can refer people to scholars and experts for answers.

I will try to do my best.

BTW, I am indeed posting from Saudi Arabia.

Ask Away!

Oh, and also before anything, please watch this video.

[TLindenIsGod]

Why must people insist on opening up the religion floodgates?
"We know there are groups amongst every religion that are military" Maybe it's time we 86'd religion, as I don't think i've ever heard of a militant Atheist group.

[VICanucksfan5551]

A couple of questions, I guess

- Which madhhab (if any) would you consider yourself to be a follower of?

- In your view, what is the proper punishment (if any) for an apostate under an Islamic state?

- In your view, is it acceptable to follow the sunnah in regards to marrying and having intercourse with a 9 year old girl? Why or why not?

Why must people insist on opening up the religion floodgates?
"We know there are groups amongst every religion that are military" Maybe it's time we 86'd religion, as I don't think i've ever heard of a militant Atheist group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Religion often doesn't fare very well under communist regimes.

[BanTSN]

1. Is this whole 'Isis makes Al Queda crap their pants' stuff we hear over here total bs? Or legit?

2. What's the impression of the average muslim on the extremism we get beaten over the head with here? It looks like propaganda to me. To justify needless wars.

3. Does religion play a true role in the war on terrorism? Or is that trumped up over here because 'murica believes that religion is a good enough reason to go to war over? To me it looks like waring over oil and power.

4. A lot of people say that all muslims are bad. I think that's bs. Seems silly, but do all muslims over there hate us?

[Gross-Misconduct]

Is it true that the Quran contains over 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?

[Bure to Mogilny]

I learned in the last Ramadan the why people fast and is because of to get people to be more relatable and kind to poor people. Or something like that maybe the OP can make clear because i was realy impresed by that cause im christian and never we do nothig like that

[Lockout Casualty]

I learned in the last Ramadan the why people fast and is because of to get people to be more relatable and kind to poor people. Or something like that maybe the OP can make clear because i was realy impresed by that cause im christian and never we do nothig like that

You should convert to Islam!

[Watermelon]

I learned in the last Ramadan the why people fast and is because of to get people to be more relatable and kind to poor people. Or something like that maybe the OP can make clear because i was realy impresed by that cause im christian and never we do nothig like that

Yeah its that as well as putting away desires and getting closer to god and if you can't fast for whatever reason, you can donate food or money to people who need it

[Cackerot]

A couple of questions, I guess

- Which madhhab (if any) would you consider yourself to be a follower of?

- In your view, what is the proper punishment (if any) for an apostate under an Islamic state?

- In your view, is it acceptable to follow the sunnah in regards to marrying and having intercourse with a 9 year old girl? Why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Religion often doesn't fare very well under communist regimes.

I can answer the last question. In regards to Hazrat Ashia (RA), nowdays people are always bringing up the age. However, look back in history and not even the worst enimies of Hazrat Muhammed (SWS) ever brought this point up. It wasn't until 1904 that Sir William of Britian even mentioned Hazrat Aisha (RA)'s age in a negative light and that was due to an orentialists perspective on the history. In the time when the marriage was done, that was the norm for the society at the time and no one had an objection to it. It is only in the last century this point is brought up because we are putting our own perspective to something that occurred 1400 years ago, where the time was much different.

[2SKATES1STICK]

I learned in the last Ramadan the why people fast and is because of to get people to be more relatable and kind to poor people. Or something like that maybe the OP can make clear because i was realy impresed by that cause im christian and never we do nothig like that

Lent...

[Cackerot]

Is it true that the Quran contains over 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule?

That's false. There are 7 passages in the Quran which have to do with war. 3 of them are in defense of self and property. The other 4 were revealed during the battles of Uhud/Badr/ and one other. Islam isn't a passive religion where it says that if you find yourself in war, sit on your hands and do nothing. The vereses in Quran are for when war is upon you, not before or after, because if that was true, there wouldn't be any non-muslims in the middle east or anywhere for that matter.

[Cackerot]

1. Is this whole 'Isis makes Al Queda crap their pants' stuff we hear over here total bs? Or legit?

2. What's the impression of the average muslim on the extremism we get beaten over the head with here? It looks like propaganda to me. To justify needless wars.

3. Does religion play a true role in the war on terrorism? Or is that trumped up over here because 'murica believes that religion is a good enough reason to go to war over? To me it looks like waring over oil and power.

4. A lot of people say that all muslims are bad. I think that's bs. Seems silly, but do all muslims over there hate us?

1. Yes, it is legit. ISIS's barbarianism is heads over shoulder over what Al-Qeda did. I recall a news story just last week that was hardly reported in American news about ISIS lining up 200 Muslims and shooting them in the head for refusing to join their cause.

2. They honestly don't know about it. Most people in the middle east aren't that conconered with what people in the western world think and they're just trying to survive and live another day. However, for Muslims living the western world, it's kinda like being black in the 1930s.

3. War is always fought over interests. It's never done for rightous reasons, but is accomponied by self-interests.

4. I wouldn't say all Muslims hate westernes in Middle east, but a large majority due. Since the 1980s, we have been constantly at war with them by destroying their homes and lives, and they have grown up in a time period where every few months, people are coming and killing them and taking over their resources.

[Gross-Misconduct]

That's false. There are 7 passages in the Quran which have to do with war. 3 of them are in defense of self and property. The other 4 were revealed during the battles of Uhud/Badr/ and one other. Islam isn't a passive religion where it says that if you find yourself in war, sit on your hands and do nothing. The vereses in Quran are for when war is upon you, not before or after, because if that was true, there wouldn't be any non-muslims in the middle east or anywhere for that matter.

OK. How do you explain this? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Is this incorrect?

[Cackerot]

OK. How do you explain this? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Is this incorrect?

OK. How do you explain this? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Is this incorrect?

That site is a anti-Islamic site. It's been disproven on /r/Islam many times because they fabricate many hadiths and texts to fit their own narrative, as well as taking things grossly out of context to justify their claim that the Quran calls for violence in all aspects.

Edit: I'll just add an example so you get my point. In their very first verse, they blanatly lie about the historical context of the verse. They write:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

The actual context of the verse is that after the battle of the trench, where the Banu tribe betrayed the Muslims by attacking them while they were at war with the Meccans (while they were outnumbered), and then when the Muslims won, they came back to Medina to fight against Banu tribe who had attacked them while they were fighting the Meccans in order to desotry the Muslims. After the long battle of the trench, Banu tribe finally fell and as a result of their treason and breaking the treaty (which they themselves drew up and signed which stated that they would not attack the Muslims while they fought the Meccans) they were found guilty of high treason and their miliants were to be killed. They were given 4 months to evacuate the city and take their belongings with them or else the original punishment of high treason (capital punishment) would be applied to them if they stayed.

Source: Took Islamic History, as well you can find these stories narrated in Ibn Ishq's book as well as many other historical books.

[VICanucksfan5551]

I can answer the last question. In regards to Hazrat Ashia (RA), nowdays people are always bringing up the age. However, look back in history and not even the worst enimies of Hazrat Muhammed (SWS) ever brought this point up. It wasn't until 1904 that Sir William of Britian even mentioned Hazrat Aisha (RA)'s age in a negative light and that was due to an orentialists perspective on the history. In the time when the marriage was done, that was the norm for the society at the time and no one had an objection to it. It is only in the last century this point is brought up because we are putting our own perspective to something that occurred 1400 years ago, where the time was much different.

Hence why I asked about whether he'd consider it to be acceptable to follow the sunnah in that regard nowadays and not 1400 years ago.

Also, I'm not exactly sure "it was the norm at the time" is really an acceptable defence of a practice. Let's take the example of infanticide. Does the Quran's condemnation of it fall flat because it was accepted as the norm in some societies?

[Gross-Misconduct]

That site is a anti-Islamic site. It's been disproven on /r/Islam many times because they fabricate many hadiths and texts to fit their own narrative, as well as taking things grossly out of context to justify their claim that the Quran calls for violence in all aspects.

Edit: I'll just add an example so you get my point. In their very first verse, they blanatly lie about the historical context of the verse. They write:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

The actual context of the verse is that after the battle of the trench, where the Banu tribe betrayed the Muslims by attacking them while they were at war with the Meccans (while they were outnumbered), and then when the Muslims won, they came back to Medina to fight against Banu tribe who had attacked them while they were fighting the Meccans in order to desotry the Muslims. After the long battle of the trench, Banu tribe finally fell and as a result of their treason and breaking the treaty (which they themselves drew up and signed which stated that they would not attack the Muslims while they fought the Meccans) they were found guilty of high treason and their miliants were to be killed. They were given 4 months to evacuate the city and take their belongings with them or else the original punishment of high treason (capital punishment) would be applied to them if they stayed.

Source: Took Islamic History, as well you can find these stories narrated in Ibn Ishq's book as well as many other historical books.

Thanks for the info.

Are the other 108 verses incorrect also?

[Cackerot]

Thanks for the info.

Are the other 108 verses incorrect also?

Again, the CORRECT historical context must be taken into consideration when looking at ANY quanic verse. I can't be bothered to go through 108 vereses but it's pretty evident to me or anyone else that the site you quoted for a source/reference is defietnly not only anyone should be looking towards for Quranic Knowledge or Islamic knowldge in general.

[Cackerot]

Hence why I asked about whether he'd consider it to be acceptable to follow the sunnah in that regard nowadays and not 1400 years ago.

Also, I'm not exactly sure "it was the norm at the time" is really an acceptable defence of a practice. Let's take the example of infanticide. Does the Quran's condemnation of it fall flat because it was accepted as the norm in some societies?

Ahh good question, the Sharia allows for marriage between a man/women when both have reached the age of puberty and have waited atleast 1 menstural cycle. Typically nowadays you see people waiting much long after this, but it wouldn't be against Sharia if two people married who both had reached puberty and consented to the marriage.

Also, the example of infanticide, what are you talking about? (if your're referring to the arab tradition of buring their daughters if they weren't born a son that was one of the things that Islam abolished from the arab practicies).

[Fox Mulder]

This is not what I've been told by Fox news

[VICanucksfan5551]

Ahh good question, the Sharia allows for marriage between a man/women when both have reached the age of puberty and have waited atleast 1 menstural cycle. Typically nowadays you see people waiting much long after this, but it wouldn't be against Sharia if two people married who both had reached puberty and consented to the marriage.

Also, the example of infanticide, what are you talking about? (if your're referring to the arab tradition of buring their daughters if they weren't born a son that was one of the things that Islam abolished from the arab practicies).

I see. I'd obviously raise an objection on whether or not a 9 year old girl would be capable of consent, having reached menarche or not. A 9 year old body would also be much more likely to have complications in childbirth than a woman who has fully developed (take this study for example and note the results for girls aged 15 or younger http://aecid.lac.unfpa.org/webdav/site/AECID/shared/files/Conde-Agudelo%20et%20al.,%20Adolescent%20Pregnancy.pdf ).

I'm referring to the Quran's condemnation of infanticide (surah 6, verse 151, for example). If we use the "it was the social norm of the time" defence that you used for child marriage, pre-Islamic Arabs who practiced infanticide could also defend their practice of infanticide in a similar fashion.