Tell me about Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are intentionally screwing up this thread to deflect from the truth. Yes, my dear, punishment for apostasy exists, as does stoning for adultery and beheadings, but by a version of Islam that has zero basis in the Quran. The political solution is for clerics, imams, and mullahs in those countries where culture is deeply entrenched in Islam to meet with US and European clerics, imams, and mullahs and re-evaluate their understanding. In such countries they used to bury female infants. They were, and in some respects, remain an ignorant pseudo muslim society.
Islam in America or Europe as taught by reputable scholars is free of those old cultural restraints, and that is why it is TRUE islam.

If you truly want to know about true Islam you would check out the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf's youtube lectures. Google him rather than cutting and posting your cliff notes of oppressive Sharia laws.

And I mentioned that Hamza Yusuf was Muslim as a mockery and in reference to the pp who felt it noteworthy to expose that most of Islams converts were of African descent. Our own prophet was middle eastern and possibly dark complected, so whether anyone is dark or light complected is irrelevant to God in Islam.

Yes, thanks to a non-Muslim PP, we all understand the Muslim position, which is that anybody who doesn't see the logic and beauty is "intentionally" avoiding the "truth" and deliberately "screwing up the thread." Sorry, but I do not find your arguments convincing. If Yusuf argues in the same deceptive vein as you, which seems likely if the recommendation comes from you, then I'm staying far away. That does not make me "vile" or "full of hatred" or "dense." It means I do not find your so-called explanations convincing.

How about you take a different approach, one that addresses specific concerns instead of insulting the asker. If death by apostasy has "zero basis in the Quran" then please do us the favor of explaining the Quranic verse that two of us have quoted, that apparently calls for death for apostates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The moot point is having to literally draw for you the connection between Mary to Christianity to illustrate her relevance, not that her "disgraced" status was irrelevant. Wow. Just wow. Did I need to explain that too??

Now you're arguing that you need to explain that Mary is part of Christianity? You are so full of BS.

Still waiting for your promised explanation about the whole "Muslims can RAPE captive non-Muslim women" thing. Of course, instead you will avoid taking that on, and instead you will continue to insult me with increasingly ridiculous claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Hamza Yusuf may be accessible via a phone call. If you are truly interested in clarifying your misunderstanding you would call him. Here is his bio:

"He is one of the leading proponents of classical learning in Islam. He has promoted Islamic sciences and classical teaching methodologies throughout the world. He has also been a strong advocate for social justice, peace, and conviviality among peoples and places. For several years, he has argued that the "them versus us" problem is fundamentally flawed, as he considers himself one of "them" as well as one of "us."Hamza Yusuf is a cofounder of Zaytuna College, located in Berkeley, California. He is an advisor to Stanford University's Program in Islamic Studies and the Center for Islamic Studies at Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union. He also serves as a member of the board of advisors of George Russell's One Nation, a national philanthropic initiative that promotes pluralism and inclusion in America. In addition, he serves as vice-president for the Global Center for Guidance and Renewal, which was founded and is currently presided over by Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, one of the top jurists and masters of Islamic sciences in the world. Recently, Hamza Yusuf was ranked as "the Western world's most influential Islamic scholar" by The 500 Most Influential Muslims, edited by John Esposito and Ibrahim Kalin, (2009).

If I asked Hamza Yusuf whether Shariah is manmade and flawed, and therefore wholly discountable, what would he say?

But let's not get into pesky detail. Let us take a closer look at Mr. bin Bayyah, "one of the top jurists and masters of Islamic sciences in the world." What does Mr. Bin Bayyah have to say about the topics of the day? (Would he say Shariah is manmade and discountable?)

On women-initiated divorces (cliff's notes version: it's nice if the husband agrees but if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to):

Someone divorced his wife and after a few weeks he revoked the divorce. Now, she wants to file for Khul`, although he promised her he would not make the same mistakes with her again. Earlier, he had not given maintenance or due care to the family, and she had to pay for everything. She does not want to continue living with him, and she wants to know: Does her husband have the right not to grant her khul`?

Basically, the husband has to provide for his wife. If she requests khul` (divorce on the request of the wife in return for the marriage dowry), while he provides for her, then he may or may not accept to give it to her, as believed by the majority of Muslim scholars. To illustrate, the husband is not obligated to accept a woman’s request for khul`, but he is recommended to accept it if his wife requests it, and he should not hold her within the wedlock against her own will. Thus, if she insists on requesting khul`, the judge shall intervene to identify whether it is the husband or the wife who has caused the discord. To that end, the judge shall appoint two arbitrators to investigate the case. Allah, Exalted be He, says, {Appoint (two) arbitrators, one from his family and the other from her family; if they both wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation} [An-Nisa': 35]. Accordingly, the appointment of the two arbitrators is an important issue in Shari`ah. If it is found out that the reasons of the quarrel are wholly on the part of the husband, then divorce shall be effected; if it is on the part of the wife, she will be demanded to adhere to good marital practices. However, if no reconciliation could be reached, the judge shall request the husband to accept khul`. The majority view states that acceptance of khul` is not obligatory. In this respect, there is a hadith indicating that Thabit Ibn Qays was ordered by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to divorce his wife upon her request for khul`. The Prophet asked the wife, “Will you give him back his garden (transferred to her as the marriage dowry)?” She replied, “Yes!” The Prophet then told the husband to divorce her [Sahih Al-Bukhari, 5273]. This hadith implies preferability, not obligation.
http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/01/19/woman-wants-to-file-for-khul/

Peace be upon you. My husband divorced me weeks ago and then he took me back. Now I want to ask for khul` but he has told me that he will not make the same mistakes (namely, not spending on me or providing a house, as I used to pay for everything). However, I do not want to keep living with him. I want to know if it was his right not to give me khul`.

The husband has to spend on his wife. If she asks for khul` after this, he has the right to accept or reject. This is the position of the majority of scholars. The husband does not have to accept the wife’s request for khul`, but it is recommended that he should accept it and not keep her while she is reluctant to stay. But if she insists, the judge should interfere to examine the reason for such schism, whether it is the husband or the wife, and send two arbitrators. Almighty Allah says, “Then, send an arbitrator from his people and another arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will bring about harmony between the two of them.” [4:35] Sending the two arbitrators is very important in the Shari`ah. If it becomes apparent that the husband is responsible for the problem, they can enforce the divorce. If the problem is on the wife’s side, they should ask her to observe the etiquettes of the matrimonial relationship. If no reconciliation takes place, the judge should ask the husband to accept her request for khul`.
Thus the position of the majority of jurists is that the husband does not have to accept khul`. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Thabit ibn Qays to part from his wife who asked for khul`, and he said to her, “Will you give back his garden to him?” She said, “Yes.” [Sahih al-Bukhary (5273)] This was a recommendation, but not an obligation.
http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/01/19/khul-without-the-consent-of-husband-permissible/

And what would Mr. Bin Bayyah, an eminent Muslim jurist, say about your denial of Shariah? let us see.

Ruling on Applying Man-Made Laws http://binbayyah.net/english/2012/01/19/ruling-on-applying-man-made-laws/

What is the ruling of applying man-made laws? Can we charge the ruler who rules with man-made laws with disbelief?

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Mercy-giving. This issue is problematic and there has been much ado about it. In the past century fatwas were given in this regard. The issue should be dealt with in detail.
First, it is undoubtedly prohibited and an enormous sin to rule with man-made laws, and there are Shari`ah texts contrary to implementing these laws. In the Quran we read, “And judge between them by what Allah has sent down. Nor are you to follow their whims.” [5:49] “Is it, then, the judgment of ignorance that they seek? Yet, who renders a fairer judgment than Allah to a people who have certainty?” [5:50]
As for the charge of disbelief, this is something that cannot be definitely decided unless, along with ruling with these laws, there is explicit derision, degradation or belittling of the status of the Shari`ah. One says, for example, that the Shari`ah is not suitable to be applied, or similar words. But if one believes that the Shari`ah is true and everything else is not true, enacting such laws is not enough reason for the charge of disbelief, as it may be due to his inability, ignorance or imitation of others. Therefore, Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) said about the Quranic verse that reads, “And whoever does not rule by what Allah has sent down – then such as these are the non-muslims,” [5:44] that this is a lesser disbelief, and about the verse that reads, ” And whoever does not rule by what Allah has sent down – then such as these are the ungodly,” [5:47] that this is a lesser ungodliness, which means that it does not cast the person out of the fold of the religion. This is the position we adopt based on many scholarly statements including statements from Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy with him).
`Adyy ibn Hatem said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) reading from Bara’ah, “They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from Allah” [9:31] and he said, “They did not worship them, but if they made things lawful for them, they would deem it lawful, and if they made things unlawful for them, they would deem it unlawful.” [Reported by al-Termidhy (3095) and others] This is the indirect meaning of worshiping them. They changed the prescribed injunctions given in the name of the lawgiver insomuch that they declared as unlawful what the lawgiver made lawful and as lawful what the lawgiver made unlawful, attributing this to the Shari`ah, such as saying, for example, that the Prayer, Fasting or Zakah are not obligatory in the Shari`ah, or that committing enormous sins is permissible. But committing these enormous sins and letting others commit them is not a reason for disbelief, in itself.
This position is contrary to the position of some muftis and sheikhs in the past century who considered merely doing this as enough reason for the charge of disbelief. We verified this point in a separate study titled (al-Takfeer bi al-Hukm bi Ghayr ma Anzala Allah) in the Contemporary Fiqh Research Magazine. Besides, the charge of disbelief will lead to wars and will stir devastating mischief. It is rather better to educate people and draw their attention to the importance of the Shari`ah and the great benefits the Shari`ah provides. Many of the Muslim countries were colonized and thus they inherited the laws of the colonizers and unconsciously continued in this way, lacking the courage to change these laws.
Hence, we do not deem this as enough reason for the charge of disbelief unless it is accompanied by disparaging or deriding the Shari`ah, or by a deviant conviction. Peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: No, silly. I will explain. Islam is the product. Converts are the customers. "Who is buying what we're selling?" - is a question reasonably asked by any product sponsor. In that context, the information on who are the converts and where they are hailing from is an essential piece of information. The spread of Islam in prisons and ghettos is a part of your religion's history in this country. There are many other parts. This one exists as well. It doesn't look good for you to deny that, or to say that it's irrelevant, because if most of Muslim converts were MIT graduates, we'd hear about it non-stop.

You don't need to confirm or deny it, Pew Center has done it for you.

Not to mention, all the Saudi money that finances those mosques in poor parts of town, and gives jobs running mosques and perfumed oils to ex-cons. I think the jobs part is a good thing. But you can't argue that there isn't a certain amount of financial suasion, along with the moral suasion, that's particularly attractive to low-income groups.

[Anonymous]

And where does Mr. Bin Bayyah teach? In what hotseat of tolerance and free thought?

Hmm...King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi Arabia. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are intentionally screwing up this thread to deflect from the truth. Yes, my dear, punishment for apostasy exists, as does stoning for adultery and beheadings, but by a version of Islam that has zero basis in the Quran. The political solution is for clerics, imams, and mullahs in those countries where culture is deeply entrenched in Islam to meet with US and European clerics, imams, and mullahs and re-evaluate their understanding. In such countries they used to bury female infants. They were, and in some respects, remain an ignorant pseudo muslim society.
Islam in America or Europe as taught by reputable scholars is free of those old cultural restraints, and that is why it is TRUE islam.

If you truly want to know about true Islam you would check out the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf's youtube lectures. Google him rather than cutting and posting your cliff notes of oppressive Sharia laws.

And I mentioned that Hamza Yusuf was Muslim as a mockery and in reference to the pp who felt it noteworthy to expose that most of Islams converts were of African descent. Our own prophet was middle eastern and possibly dark complected, so whether anyone is dark or light complected is irrelevant to God in Islam.

First, Europe is full of barbaric scholars.

Second, Islamic scholars outside Europe and America would find your assertion that what they teach is not TRUE Islam seriously weird, and your proclaimed need for them to learn their Islam from their American turbaned brothers would send them into a fit of giggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No, silly. I will explain. Islam is the product. Converts are the customers. "Who is buying what we're selling?" - is a question reasonably asked by any product sponsor. In that context, the information on who are the converts and where they are hailing from is an essential piece of information. The spread of Islam in prisons and ghettos is a part of your religion's history in this country. There are many other parts. This one exists as well. It doesn't look good for you to deny that, or to say that it's irrelevant, because if most of Muslim converts were MIT graduates, we'd hear about it non-stop.

You don't need to confirm or deny it, Pew Center has done it for you.

Not to mention, all the Saudi money that finances those mosques in poor parts of town, and gives jobs running mosques and perfumed oils to ex-cons. I think the jobs part is a good thing. But you can't argue that there isn't a certain amount of financial suasion, along with the moral suasion, that's particularly attractive to low-income groups.

Don't forget the black seed. It's always the black seed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Soon there will be a Muslim on every block if not in every house. Everyone will know at least one Muslim. I am not trying to frighten you with this prediction; its simply the direction we are headed in. So its not wise to alienate such a large population by insults about our religion or references to people in our faith who live in ghetto's...

Proof? Source? Link? ANYTHING to show this isn't just the product of your feverish imagination?

Remember that Muslims are not trying to conquer the world, it just represents the growth rate of Muslims across the world:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population

Interesting. Unfortunately, this link doesn't mention conversions at all. It does mention large-scale Muslim immigration from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. It also seems to imply that Muslim birthrates are higher than those of other groups, which I find highly probable.

Notably, the article says, "The Pew findings demonstrate that fear of a Muslim takeover was largely the product of hysteria."

The words "conquer" or "takeover" were never used by me. I simply said there will be a Muslim on every block or even in every house. That does not equate to conquering or taking over. You jumped the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Soon there will be a Muslim on every block if not in every house. Everyone will know at least one Muslim. I am not trying to frighten you with this prediction; its simply the direction we are headed in. So its not wise to alienate such a large population by insults about our religion or references to people in our faith who live in ghetto's...

Proof? Source? Link? ANYTHING to show this isn't just the product of your feverish imagination?

Remember that Muslims are not trying to conquer the world, it just represents the growth rate of Muslims across the world:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population

Interesting. Unfortunately, this link doesn't mention conversions at all. It does mention large-scale Muslim immigration from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. It also seems to imply that Muslim birthrates are higher than those of other groups, which I find highly probable.

Notably, the article says, "The Pew findings demonstrate that fear of a Muslim takeover was largely the product of hysteria."

The words "conquer" or "takeover" were never used by me. I simply said there will be a Muslim on every block or even in every house. That does not equate to conquering or taking over. You jumped the gun.

Is this your theory based on current demographic, immigration and conversion numbers, or just something to say? What is the evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Soon there will be a Muslim on every block if not in every house. Everyone will know at least one Muslim. I am not trying to frighten you with this prediction; its simply the direction we are headed in. So its not wise to alienate such a large population by insults about our religion or references to people in our faith who live in ghetto's...

Proof? Source? Link? ANYTHING to show this isn't just the product of your feverish imagination?

Remember that Muslims are not trying to conquer the world, it just represents the growth rate of Muslims across the world:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population

Interesting. Unfortunately, this link doesn't mention conversions at all. It does mention large-scale Muslim immigration from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. It also seems to imply that Muslim birthrates are higher than those of other groups, which I find highly probable.

Notably, the article says, "The Pew findings demonstrate that fear of a Muslim takeover was largely the product of hysteria."

The words "conquer" or "takeover" were never used by me. I simply said there will be a Muslim on every block or even in every house. That does not equate to conquering or taking over. You jumped the gun.

The point is, you simply made up that claim about Muslims on every block/house, or you took it from some Muslim source that made the claim up out of thin air. That's why some PP linked to the Pew article, which explicitly debunks your claim, and that's one of numerous reasons your credibility is really low around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The words "conquer" or "takeover" were never used by me. I simply said there will be a Muslim on every block or even in every house. That does not equate to conquering or taking over. You jumped the gun.

Still waiting for actual numbers from you. In the absence of any numbers, you really need to stop making unsupportable assertions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Soon there will be a Muslim on every block if not in every house. Everyone will know at least one Muslim. I am not trying to frighten you with this prediction; its simply the direction we are headed in. So its not wise to alienate such a large population by insults about our religion or references to people in our faith who live in ghetto's...

Proof? Source? Link? ANYTHING to show this isn't just the product of your feverish imagination?

Remember that Muslims are not trying to conquer the world, it just represents the growth rate of Muslims across the world:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/11/islam-population

Interesting. Unfortunately, this link doesn't mention conversions at all. It does mention large-scale Muslim immigration from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. It also seems to imply that Muslim birthrates are higher than those of other groups, which I find highly probable.

Notably, the article says, "The Pew findings demonstrate that fear of a Muslim takeover was largely the product of hysteria."

The words "conquer" or "takeover" were never used by me. I simply said there will be a Muslim on every block or even in every house. That does not equate to conquering or taking over. You jumped the gun.

The point is, you simply made up that claim about Muslims on every block/house, or you took it from some Muslim source that made the claim up out of thin air. That's why some PP linked to the Pew article, which explicitly debunks your claim, and that's one of numerous reasons your credibility is really low around here.

Contrary to you, I have a husband, children, and a job. I am more than happy to answer every question, but after my responsibilities are taken care of. I will be back with a few great links later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is, you simply made up that claim about Muslims on every block/house, or you took it from some Muslim source that made the claim up out of thin air. That's why some PP linked to the Pew article, which explicitly debunks your claim, and that's one of numerous reasons your credibility is really low around here.

Contrary to you, I have a husband, children, and a job. I am more than happy to answer every question, but after my responsibilities are taken care of. I will be back with a few great links later.

I'm not holding my breath. Pew, an internationally-respected organization, has already done the work for you, and Pew concluded that reliable numbers simply don't exist.

Surprise: I too have a husband, children and a job. You really are a nasty piece of work. Do you just make up lies and insults for the heck of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Contrary to you, I have a husband, children, and a job. I am more than happy to answer every question, but after my responsibilities are taken care of. I will be back with a few great links later.

Yes, please answer the following questions, which posters have been asking you for pages and pages.
(1) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, require Muslims to kill those who leave the faith? You denied this, but two people have posted quotes from the Quran that suggest you're not being entirely truthful here.
(2) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, permit Muslim soldiers to rape female captives?
(3) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, require Muslims to try to convert non-Muslims? Again, you denied this categorically, but someone posted a quote from the Quran that suggests you're not being entirely truthful here.

There are several other things, but that's enough for now. After so many pages of obfuscation, it feels like, if you answer these questions, it will be a miracle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Contrary to you, I have a husband, children, and a job. I am more than happy to answer every question, but after my responsibilities are taken care of. I will be back with a few great links later.

Yes, please answer the following questions, which posters have been asking you for pages and pages.
(1) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, require Muslims to kill those who leave the faith? You denied this, but two people have posted quotes from the Quran that suggest you're not being entirely truthful here.
(2) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, permit Muslim soldiers to rape female captives?
(3) Does the Quran, or does the Quran not, require Muslims to try to convert non-Muslims? Again, you denied this categorically, but someone posted a quote from the Quran that suggests you're not being entirely truthful here.

There are several other things, but that's enough for now. After so many pages of obfuscation, it feels like, if you answer these questions, it will be a miracle.

PS. I'm off to talk to my husband and my younger child, my older child having gone off to college. I've finished my work for the day. But thanks for the unnecessary condescension!