Compelling conversion is explicitly prohibited in Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I will answer this only because it relates to the subject of the thread:
http://islam.about.com/od/marriage/ss/stepstodivorce_5.htm
The Sharia (Islamic Law) varies from country to country. And sometimes the Sharia can even contradict the Quran. It shoudn't but it does. For example, some Sharia may state that if a man and woman divorce, the wife must return her dowry and other gifts she received. The Quran explicitly prohibits this.

Ah, here you are with half-truths again. Not "if a man and woman divorce". In men-initiated divorces, the return of the dowry is never in question. In WIFE-initiated divorces, there is very ample scriptural support for the return of the dowry. This form of separation is called khul (as opposed to talaq), and in this scenario the wife essentially buys out her freedom - if the judge and husband agree. They don't have to.

197:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him)." On that Allah's Apostle said (to her), "Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr)?" She said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said to Thabit, "O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once."

Note that this describes a scenario with no abuse or other misbehavior toward the wife, but rather the scenario of "I don't love you any more."

anonymous wrote:
Child custody depends wholly on who is the better parent for the children, the age of the children, and in the Quran Allah asks that both parties decide amicably.

For Muslim/Muslim marriages, yes. For Muslim/non-Muslim marriages, the worst Muslim is presumed to be better than the best non-Muslim. Islam sees the children as trust and takes their upbringing very seriously. Entrusting a Muslim child to the custodianship of a non-Muslim is unthinkable. If the husband is unfit, the custody goes to the next Muslim relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Churches

Regarding churches, `Umar ibn-al-Khattâb wrote that any church which was built after the coming of Islam should be destroyed, and he forbade any new church to be built. He also commanded that the exterior of a church should not be such as to attract attention, and if any cross is displayed outside the church it should be broken over the head of the owner of the church.

`Urwa ibn-Muhammad used to destroy churches in Sanâ`a.[3] This is the position of all Muslim scholars.

`Umar ibn-`Abdal`azîz was particularly severe about this. He ordered that in Islamic territory no synagogue or church should be left, whether old ones or new. Al-Hasan al-Basrî held the same opinion when he said: "It is a sunna to destroy the churches which are in old or new cities, and to prevent the people under dhimma to rebuild what fell into ruins."

Al-Istakhrî said: "If they want to plaster the outside of the walls, they should be prevented, but not the inside. Their churches may not be higher than the buildings of the Muslims. According to one opinion they may be of equal height, but according to another opinion they may not be."

You went to great length arguing that you don't think what Muslims do or say is relevant. But now suddenly what they say and do IS relevant, because you need it to prove your point. It doesn't matter what Umar or anyone says or thinks. No human is infallible and above God. The Quran is the word of God and here's what the Quran said about Christians:
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).
I can not imagine the same God that said this would also expect Muslims to destroy all synogogues or churches, despite the fact that in them are men who are close to God. It's a contradiction, which should lead you to question the people destroying the places of worship, not the Quran and not the religion.

Yes, you've made your position clear that you discount the totality of Muslim scholarship, the ahadith and pretty much everything except Hamza Yusuf's videos. Now I see you extend this to the sahaba. Excellent. It's just too bad you weren't around then to tell Mr. Umar he doesn't know his religion.

[Anonymous]

If you believe only in the Quran and nothing else, please address this:

How do you know how often to pray?

How do you know how to pray?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jizya amount has never been fixed to a percentage. It has always been up to the rulers of a particular community. Thus, the claim that it is less that zakat (fixed at 2.5%) is nonsense.

For those of you fixated on the amount, read the rest of the line "so that they consider themselves subdued." Jizya is the symbol of submission to the Islamic state. Not alliance, not friendship, not affection. Submission.

I should also point out that rulers throughout history have differed on much humiliation they wanted to express toward their non-Muslim citizens. The Ottoman empire has traditionally been very tolerant of non-Muslims, for instance.

I'm not the PP who wrote about jizya and zakat above. But it seems pretty clear that the tax paid by non-Muslims (Jizya) was often greater than the tax paid by Muslims (zakat, a 2.5% tax). For example, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya) says there's some debate on this, but

"Other scholars[61][62][63] claim the tax rates and amounts were fixed and strictly implemented. The rate of jizya and Kharaj tax, head tax and land tax respectively, exceeded 20% for all non-Muslims, and payable by new moon. In the western Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Christians and Jews of Egypt and Morocco, these taxes were often graded into three levels with minimum rate being 20% of all estimated assets and any sales.[64] The highest rates ranged from 33% to 80% of all annual farm produce on land inside the Islamic empire.[65] In the eastern Islamic states, for dhimmis who were Hindus and Jains, the tax structure were similar, with non-Muslims paying jizya and Kharaj tax rate at least twice the zakat tax rate paid by Muslims. The discriminatory and high tax rates led to mass civil protests of 1679 in India, these protests were crushed by Aurangzeb.[55][66]"

ISIS is now imposing jizya (poll tax) on non-Muslims in Mosul: http://wwrn.org/articles/42778/. The poll tax of $250 seems pretty crushing in Mosul's devasted economy where few businesses are operating.

Jizya seems like a pretty significant economic advantage Muslims have over non-Muslims.

This Canadian Muslim scholar, Dr. Jamal Badawi, explains Jizya tax better than anyone I know and explains why Jizya is less burdensome than being a Muslim and having to pay Muslim taxes. Muslim taxes include 1) zakat 2) sadaqa 3 ) Eid ul Fitr. He has an accent but overall he's easy to understand and the video is only 5 min long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iSdCCBlHJ8

And this scholar is an American, so no accent and very easy to understand in a 10 min video. He also explains the jizya and cites a couple of famous historians: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2014/05/hamza-yusuf-explaining-concept-of.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you kidding me? Have you visited Pakistan? I have. My uncle's father was brutally murdered by Hindus and had to flee to Pakistan during the war. Have you visited India? I have. In fact my father lived there for a while. Muslims are still intensely discriminated in jobs despite their qualifications. You like to speak with great authority. You have illusions of grandeur about your understanding of the world and Islam. I do question, however, how many Muslims you personally know, how many scholars or Imams you have personally spoken to, and how many Muslim countries you have visited for an extended period of time or lived in. You have such a big ego that you can't possibly imagine being wrong about anything on the subject of Islam. But here you are, wrong again. You would learn more with a dose of humility.

You have a lot of nerve bringing up people who were killed during this partition because I don't think you even knew ONE person who died. I did. I have family members that were directly impacted by this partition. So get off your high horse and try living there to understand what it was truly like for Muslims also.

Why do you focus exclusively on Islam and Muslims? The treatment of native American Indians was tantamount to genocide. What was the Indian Removal Act about? The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was enacted in the late 1800's. What about the genocide of Bosnian Muslims at the hands of Serbs in 1995? Have you ever even known a Bosnian refugee? I was young during that time but my family and I helped many. Do you even know about the Uigher Muslims in China and how they are treated? Do you even know one person who's Uigher from that area that can speak of the mistreatment at the hands of the Chinese government? I do. What about the Palestinian people and the oppression they live under? Do you even know any Palestinian Muslims? I do. So do me a favor…it's time for you to sit down. STOP VILIFYING ISLAM.
[/b]
What is it about you that you think you have some exclusive, monopoly "in" on knowing Muslims personally or living in Muslim countries? Muslims are plentiful in this world. People know lots of them. You aren't in any way special for knowing lots of Muslims or living in a Muslim country.

You remind me of these chicks I saw in a booth on Islam during student fairs. They parrot the lines designed to impress wide-eyed freshmen. Once you start talking to them from the place of experience and knowledge, they either begin to yell or get all huffy and puffy. One thing that a Muslim proselytizer cannot stand is a dress-down by an educated kaffir.

You aren't talking to a roomful of freshmen, dear. People in this place have educations. They've traveled. Some, gasp, have Muslim family members. You don't have any special knowledge of Islam, of Muslims, or of Muslim countries. Every single experience you've had has been had by lots of people.

I think your education has largely been self study, possibly due to your arrogance and ego. In doing so, you denied yourself the rich body of knowledge that comes with scholarly insight. I also suspect you do not read or understand Quranic arabic. If you did, you would not make such amateur mistakes as misinterpreting the word "Jizya" literally for "subdued" in it's historical context. You're a googling queen and a wikipedia master and that's all you are with a huge chip on your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Muslim PP, I agree with another PP who said you do not, and cannot, speak for all Islam. Nobody is challenging your right to your personal interpretation of Islam. If you think you know better than other practicing Muslims, that's obviously your total right and also your lookout. If you're reading from the How to Convert Kaffirs playbook, then I'm annoyed because you probably know better than to say some of the things you say, but then again maybe you don't know better.

Where several of us have an issue is when you represent your Islam as the only "true" Islam. Particularly since you do get things wrong (on this thread, how concubines are only freed after the master dies). Particularly since millions of Muslims are following somebody else's Islam, maybe al Azhar's Islam or Sistani's Islam.

Here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml
Islamic law allows slaves to get their freedom under certain circumstances. It divides slaves with the right to freedom into various classes:

The mukatab: a slave who has the contractual right to buy their freedom over time
The mudabbar: a slave who will be freed when their owner dies (this might not happen if the owner's estate was too small)
The umm walid, a female slave who had borne her owner a child

Here's what is TRUE Islam - what is in the Quran. The Hadith may be valuable in providing context or details, but only on issues that were already mentioned in the Quran. The hadith can not be relied on exclusively. There are many people, particularly from the Arab region that do not practice true Islam. For example, the Sharia in some countries states the woman must return her dowry upon divorce. This directly conflicts with the Quran. If a woman is guilty of fornication, they may stone her. However, the Quran does not authorize death for such a crime. There are many other examples like these. So you can see that the Quran is not being followed properly in some states. So why should their behavior represent the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice Islam the way it was intended to be practiced? It reflects poorly on those of us who do practice what the Quran says and it reflects poorly on Islam. This is what I am objecting to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again and again you make the crucial point of confusing Muslim practice with Islam. You are so emotional that you simply can not evaluate Islam objectively. You said many many pages back that your husband's family pressures you to convert. Its no wonder you're incapable of being objective.

You need to separate the forest from the trees. Remember, Hitlers actions does not reflect badly on all German citizens for eternity. Separate Islam the religion from the people, AND PARTICULARLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PRODUCTS OF TRIBAL AREAS, TRADITIONAL CULTURAL UPBRINGING. Its absolutely unbelievable to me you judge the faith of 1.6 bil people based on actions of a handful of assholes and that you ignore the meaning and historical context of the Quran.

What's absolutely unbelievable to ME is your assumption that you're talking with the same, and only one person. Do you realize that the a) punjabi person, and b) woman whose husband's family pressured her to convert might just possibly be two separate people?

It may be or might not be. The issue is not whether Muslims have comitted atrocities. They have. Some still do. But an educated person should recognize it may not reflect poorly on the religion, particularly if the vast majority of the 1.6 billion are peaceful. An educated person does not read other people's religious scriptures literally with zero regard to historical context. An educated person who wants to completely understand a faith will not simply engage in self study, they will seek out a wide variety of scholars and imams also, particularly well educated ones. And they would not insist that an entire religion is barbaric. Thats not only ignorant but terribly irresponsible.

If she continues to babble on this way, and succeeds in her intent to foster hatred, mistrust, and rancor between Muslims and Christians and Jews, it may have the unintended consequence of inflaming some people, and then inspiring them into violent retaliation. Thus, its this biased hateful version of Islam she insists is representative of all Muslims that might actually give rise to even more hateful and violent reactions.

Oooh, goody. If ISIS beheads a few more people tomorrow, it will be all my fault.

I don't think anyone here insisted that the entire religion is barbaric. You made that up to make yourself look better. Although I have to say that the number of times you repeated "CRUSADER EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ISLAMOPHOBE RACIST" has certainly advanced this cause.

You have somehow mistaken me for someone who cares about what you think. You are an islamophobe. You hate Islam, the whole of it.

Oh darlin', if caring what other people think was a requirement for posting, this board would have been empty. Besides, why do you answer if you don't care?

I'm Islam-neutral. It's like any other religion - has beautiful bits and unlovely bits both. You chose to focus your energies on the defense of the unlovely bits like polygamy and concubinage. I have no problem in calling them unlovely. Luckily, I'm not Muslim so the burden of accepting all or nothing doesn't weigh heavily on me. You're just angry someone who responds to you has some actual knowledge of the subject.

You never answered, and I'm genuinely and coolly curious: why is "EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN CRUSADER" a default insult of choice for you, even when you know nothing of the poster's religion? Why not, for instance, a "DIRTY ZIONIST"? Or a "COW WORSHIPPING HINDU"?

Tell me -- what do you think people should have done in those times with the large numbers of women who were left alone and behind after their husbands, fathers, uncles were killed in war? How would women have supported themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again and again you make the crucial point of confusing Muslim practice with Islam. You are so emotional that you simply can not evaluate Islam objectively. You said many many pages back that your husband's family pressures you to convert. Its no wonder you're incapable of being objective.

You need to separate the forest from the trees. Remember, Hitlers actions does not reflect badly on all German citizens for eternity. Separate Islam the religion from the people, AND PARTICULARLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PRODUCTS OF TRIBAL AREAS, TRADITIONAL CULTURAL UPBRINGING. Its absolutely unbelievable to me you judge the faith of 1.6 bil people based on actions of a handful of assholes and that you ignore the meaning and historical context of the Quran.

What's absolutely unbelievable to ME is your assumption that you're talking with the same, and only one person. Do you realize that the a) punjabi person, and b) woman whose husband's family pressured her to convert might just possibly be two separate people?

It may be or might not be. The issue is not whether Muslims have comitted atrocities. They have. Some still do. But an educated person should recognize it may not reflect poorly on the religion, particularly if the vast majority of the 1.6 billion are peaceful. An educated person does not read other people's religious scriptures literally with zero regard to historical context. An educated person who wants to completely understand a faith will not simply engage in self study, they will seek out a wide variety of scholars and imams also, particularly well educated ones. And they would not insist that an entire religion is barbaric. Thats not only ignorant but terribly irresponsible.

If she continues to babble on this way, and succeeds in her intent to foster hatred, mistrust, and rancor between Muslims and Christians and Jews, it may have the unintended consequence of inflaming some people, and then inspiring them into violent retaliation. Thus, its this biased hateful version of Islam she insists is representative of all Muslims that might actually give rise to even more hateful and violent reactions.

Yes, the dialogue here in DCUMland will be the inspiration for violent retaliation. Any disagreement on your version of Islam is hateful and will give rise to violent reactions and foster hatred, mistrust and rancor amongst Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Not the kidnappings, murders, beheadings, bombings and overall violence that those not proper Muslims are engaged in. Those won't give rise to hateful and violent reactions, leave that to DCUM. So we all just need to hush up, stop sharing, stop discussing, stop questioning, and accept. Lol.

What kind of objectivity have you brought to the thread on Islam thus far? What were some of the postive points you "shared" with DCUMers about Islam? List them for us. Please share now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the advice I gave you pages ago...find a scholar on the World Muslim Council or Fiqh Council and speak to him. Not hard to do.

I'll do that just as soon as you schedule a meeting with a clergyman of my faith.

Provide his contact information. I'll report back after I speak with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslim PP, I agree with another PP who said you do not, and cannot, speak for all Islam. Nobody is challenging your right to your personal interpretation of Islam. If you think you know better than other practicing Muslims, that's obviously your total right and also your lookout. If you're reading from the How to Convert Kaffirs playbook, then I'm annoyed because you probably know better than to say some of the things you say, but then again maybe you don't know better.

Where several of us have an issue is when you represent your Islam as the only "true" Islam. Particularly since you do get things wrong (on this thread, how concubines are only freed after the master dies). Particularly since millions of Muslims are following somebody else's Islam, maybe al Azhar's Islam or Sistani's Islam.

Why would I want you to convert to Islam? Islam isn't hurting for converts. You make no sense.

Might their number exceed the number of Muslim immigrants? Didn't you say that once? Although you probably regret it by now.

Of course not. That subject will be revisited soon.

When you figure out a way to make 100,000 look lower than 25,000?

Lets play this back…

Concubinage - you said Islam exclusively endorsed female prisoners of war and that Christianity and other religions did not tolerate concubinage. I proved you wrong with scriptures as proof. The Old Testament frequently spoke of concubinage and regulated it.

Compelling conversion - you said if nonMuslims do not convert, Islam mandates they be killed or pay jizya. You said jizya was exploitive. I proved you wrong with Quranic verses. You said jizya translated to mean "subdued" as if it was intended to humiliate the nonMuslims. I explained the real Arabic translation was to "submit," since the jizya was a contract acknowledging or acquiescing to the Islamic State as governing authority.

Child custody - you said a woman automatically loses her children upon divorce if she is a nonMuslim. Not necessarily. I proved you wrong by showing you the Quran stipulates both parties need to work things out amicably and do what is best for the child.

Muhammad being a pedophile - you or whoever made this statement because you insisted her married Aisha at age 9. I do not agree with this age but rather than arguing her age, I showed you that early marriages in 600 AD was common. In fact, the wealthier the family, the earlier the age of marriage.

Freedom from slavery - you said that concubines who got pregnant were not freed. I pulled the sharia law (which you put far more emphasis on than I do) to show you proof that a pregnant slave acquired her freedom.

It's fair to say that you presented lots of inaccuracies in your effort to vilify Islam. Even when presented with scriptural proofs, you simply shifted, dodged, and moved on to a different subject.

And this leads me to why you are so hell bent on revisting the immigration/ converstion issue. You think it's something you can finally prove me wrong on and you are hanging your hat on that topic coming back….how old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You intrigue me, as a psychiatric case, that is. Any bipolar in your family? The rapid fire posts of yours (most are yours I believe) are indicative of a manic person. It would explain a lot, in which case I would apologize to you.

You obviously have a lot of free time. Are you employed or rather, employable? I can not reply extensive answers throughout the day as you do. I have other responsibilities. But I will later. Way too much bs to expose in your posts.

Why does that matter?

Are you also interested in my cooking skills?

ha ha, I was about to say kettle, meet pot.

Because I was asked to be a witness in a case with a woman very much like you on Twitter. She posted manically and was very emotional. Ultimately she violated Twitter rules apparently and did something she should not have done. An investigation was done and it turned out that she was in a psychiatric institution and apparently she is bipolar.

I post during down time, when my kids go to school, at kiss n ride, after the family is asleep. You and your friend post all day, throughout the day, long, extensive diatribes, you follow me on threads about Islam, and, hell, you even argued with the moderator of the site. Classic cases of psychiatric issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad all of these discussions about Islam go off the rails. I guess it's no different than any other subject on DCM but it's a shame. I'd like to learn what it is about Islam that seems to work for so many people. I don't see it.

Sorry, these idiots keep following me from thread to thread to make it go off the rails. Thats their entire agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Churches

Regarding churches, `Umar ibn-al-Khattâb wrote that any church which was built after the coming of Islam should be destroyed, and he forbade any new church to be built. He also commanded that the exterior of a church should not be such as to attract attention, and if any cross is displayed outside the church it should be broken over the head of the owner of the church.

`Urwa ibn-Muhammad used to destroy churches in Sanâ`a.[3] This is the position of all Muslim scholars.

`Umar ibn-`Abdal`azîz was particularly severe about this. He ordered that in Islamic territory no synagogue or church should be left, whether old ones or new. Al-Hasan al-Basrî held the same opinion when he said: "It is a sunna to destroy the churches which are in old or new cities, and to prevent the people under dhimma to rebuild what fell into ruins."

Al-Istakhrî said: "If they want to plaster the outside of the walls, they should be prevented, but not the inside. Their churches may not be higher than the buildings of the Muslims. According to one opinion they may be of equal height, but according to another opinion they may not be."

You went to great length arguing that you don't think what Muslims do or say is relevant. But now suddenly what they say and do IS relevant, because you need it to prove your point. It doesn't matter what Umar or anyone says or thinks. No human is infallible and above God. The Quran is the word of God and here's what the Quran said about Christians:
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).
I can not imagine the same God that said this would also expect Muslims to destroy all synogogues or churches, despite the fact that in them are men who are close to God. It's a contradiction, which should lead you to question the people destroying the places of worship, not the Quran and not the religion.

Yes, you've made your position clear that you discount the totality of Muslim scholarship, the ahadith and pretty much everything except Hamza Yusuf's videos. Now I see you extend this to the sahaba. Excellent. It's just too bad you weren't around then to tell Mr. Umar he doesn't know his religion.

[b]Well that level of reverance is dangerous because people are not infallible. No person is perfect, no matter who they are. I dont' discount the hadith completely. I have read the Quran many times and seen the value of many hadith that affirm Quranic principles. However, there are also hadith that speak of the Prophet's sweat and how his mother apparently stored it in a bottle. Who can take such hadith seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you believe only in the Quran and nothing else, please address this:

How do you know how often to pray?

How do you know how to pray?

I believe in the Quran first, and use the hadith only as a secondary authority to support principles that the Quran mentions. I do not discount the hadith completely.

I was taught how often to pray and how to pray by my parents and in sunday school as a young child. I pray five times a day (occasionally if I get busy I miss a prayer though!) The Quran does mention the times of prayer but I believe it mentions three specific times. Most Muslims pray five times a day and rely on hadith for the authoritative source for this. Other prayers are also mentioned in the Quran such as the Tahajjud, which is in the last 1/3 of the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad all of these discussions about Islam go off the rails. I guess it's no different than any other subject on DCM but it's a shame. I'd like to learn what it is about Islam that seems to work for so many people. I don't see it.

People love having a sense of certainty, which Islam gives them. Islam also gives highly specific guidelines for every aspect of life, and lots of people crave that as well.

I think that describes all religions.

What I like about Islam is that I do not have to pray to a saint or prophet or messenger to get to God, I pray to God directly. There is no concept of Trinity. And I like that at my mosque there is diversity, African Americans, Bosnians, Arabs, Americans.