Message
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Ok, for some perspective, the minimum age for marriage in the US-State of Delaware in year 1880 was 7 and 10 in most of the other states.
Now, authentic Hadith reports do show us that the prophet Muhammad saw did marry Aisha at the age of 6, but they also show the consummation of the marriage was completed when she was 9 years old. As a Muslim, I have no shame in sharing this. The West says, he married a child, don't they? And some Muslims when they are told this get embarrassed, their faces become red, and they don't know how to answer, they start stuttering. Did you know that American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in Delaware, the age of consent was only seven? Now during the Prophet saw's time it was a NORM to be married at a young age. This is why the people of Quraish and other Arabian tribes at Prophet's time found absolutely no fault in their marriage. They detested Islam, they did everything to belittle the Prophet, tried to prevent Islam from spreading and even attempted to kill the Prophet saw ! However, they raised no objection to the marriage of the Prophet saw to Aisha since at those times such a thing was not considered 'immoral'. It ought also be noted that Aisha was engaged to Jubayr before Prophet Muhammed saw. This indicates the age of marriage and engagement in Prophet' saw's time. However, the engagement was later nullified by Jubayr's parents due to Abu Bakr (Aisha's dad) embracing Islam.Thus the history demonstrates that the age of the marriage was lower and relative to olden times, the marriage of the Prophet was not abnormal and there was nothing immoral about it. It was a norm at biblical times to be wedded at puberty or earlier, the age of consent one century ago in a 'modern country' was as low as 10 or 12, even 7 in Delaware! Even in our times, in certain societies, the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13. In the light of historical evidences, the marriage cannot be criticized.
ALSO it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet saw , and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. Prophet Muhammad's saw marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!So to call Prophet Muhammad saw a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.
A lot of the things we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards" today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago. Today, anyone under 18 years old is considered a "child", a baby still under his mommy's and daddy's care. Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age of 18 were considered wise and very mature.
An English Historian stated, "At that age 'A'ishah was fully developed, through fast development which was present amongst the Arab women of the time and where they would start to age during the late twenties. But this marriage has troubled many people about Muhammad. This is because they look upon the marriage as if it is in the present day, not taking into account the context of this marriage and that it was an accepted event. They do not consider that this trend is still present in Europe and Asia, until this very day. This was common in Spain and Portugal until recent years. Even in these times it is not uncommon. In some mountainous areas in the United States of America, it still exists.
I think you may be mistaken about this, Sister. The hadith are not always reliable. Check out www.supremeislamiccouncil.com
I know that some Muslims do say that Aisha was older and there is a difference of opinion about this Allahu Ahlam! I go by the Bukhari hadith where she states that the marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. Subhanallah, as Muslims we have nothing to be ashamed of, whether Aisha R.A was 9 years old, 14, or 16 shouldn't make a difference to us. In seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe). What's more, Aisha r.A had already been engaged to someone else before she married our Rassul saw suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.
Anonymous wrote:
I think everybody should have to read the Quran (and the New Testament and key parts of the Old Testament). It's a very difficult task, though, because context is indeed vital, and this history is critical for interpreting various revelations in the Quran.
Many Quranic revelations occurred as a result of different events in the life of Mohammed and the growing Muslim community. Within Mohammed's own lifetime, Islam went from being the religion of a small group of his followers to a religion that conquered other cities and towns. This is reflected in the changing nature of the revelations. Islam gradually became more confident about challenging internal dissent and outsiders, and the later revelations are very different from the early revelations. Changes in Mohammed's own life were also accompanied by revelations (for example his first wife died and he subsequently took on additional wives, eventually going beyond the 4 wives allowed other Muslim men--historians often argue that these additional marriages were to build alliances). Thus, it's possible to pull from different parts of the Quran to support very, very different interpretations of issues.
However, I think asking an Imam is going to result in interpretations that are just as biased as Muslima's posts here. Similarly, "Sheikh Wikipedia" will often lead you to the rabid anti-Muslim posters. There are some thoughtful exegesis via Google and books, but it would take a whole lot of work, and a whole lot of reading, to sort the wheat from the chaff. It's not for the faint of heart!
Those who listen to the Word
and follow the best meaning in it;
those are the ones whom God has guided,
and those are the ones endued
with understanding. (Qur’an 39:18)
The Qur'an was revealed 1400+ years ago, into an oral society, in the middle of the desert; for some, on the other side of the world, that's a long distance, physically and culturally. Civilization as we knew it changed dramatically in that timespan. Not to mention the language barrier, both for non-Arabs and (to a lesser extent) Arabs ; the Qur'an is in fusha, classical Arabic. Given the cultural, geological, and socio-political changes, one would conclude that the people who were there when the Qur'an was revealed* would be the best interpreters. They understand the context, the culture, the language, all of it. Aisha (radiallahu anhaa) said essentially this when asked about the prophet Muhammad saw. She said: "His personality was the Qur'an." That is: he was a walking, talking, living, breathing embodiment of the Qur'an. He understood it, lived it, and implemented it , all of it, without exception, as it was revealed to him and preserved throughout time. if you want to understand who is the best to interpret the Qur'an and sunnah, and Islam in general, the answer is the ones who are most knowledgable and closest to it. Rasulullah died. He's gone. But he did one very important thing before he died: he taught the Qur'an to his companions, both in letter and in interpretation. They, too, died; but they passed this on to the tabi'een, who passed it on, down through the chain of scholarship throughout time until today.
For us, today, scholars are the ones who are the best fit to understand the Qur'an. Many of them spent decades of their lives studying Arabic, studying the life of rasulullah, the biographies of companions and scholars, and the various sciences (more than a dozen!) of the Qur'an in an attempt to give us, to the best of their ability, the real, true interpretion of Islam. Yes, difference of opinion exists. It existed in the time of rasulullah (he clarified it), and it existed after him; that doesn't take away from what Islam is. This is why I said ask for the Imam's credentials, any learned Imam who understands the science of the Quran can give you a clear concise explanation of a Quranic verse you have questions about, it is not that complicated!
Anonymous wrote:As a Muslim, I believe in the 6 articles of faith in Islam:
4. Belief in The Prophets of God
Muslims must believe in all the Messengers and Prophets of God such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Jesus and Muhammad saw who were human beings endowed with His Revelations and appointed by God to teach mankind how to worship and obey Allah.
This is impossible. It is like saying "I believe when I turn on the light switch the light comes on but I also believe when I turn on the light switch the light goes off too." It is nonsense. The Revelations of Jesus and the Revelations of Muhammad contradict one another, so either a) one is true and one is false or b) both are false. They both cannot be true.
from http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/christianity-vs.-islam
Islam...denies that Jesus died on the cross at all (Sura 4:157)—this in spite of overwhelming evidence both from the Bible and from historical sources outside the Bible. It denies that Jesus conquered death by his bodily resurrection—an historical event acknowledged by rigorous critical scholarship (www.faithfacts.org/easter.html). Islam must deny these things because the religion is based on the idea that you can earn your way to heaven.
Christianity teaches that our salvation is a free gift through faith alone in Jesus Christ—and specifically not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:1-3; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Corinthians 1:29). Islam teaches that one gains entrance into heaven by your works in addition to faith (but not faith in Christ). These are clearly opposing positions.
So you have a dilemma. You must study and determine which one is true, and guess which one will chop off your head if you
decide a certain way? Guess which one?
I personally believe Islam is nothing more than the cult of Muhammad, who was a murderer http://faithfreedom.org/challenge/massmurderer.htm and a pedophile.
(Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
Pedophile:Bukhari 58:236 Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
This is outrageous and disgusting. It is similar wicked behavior of Joseph Smith who formed the cult of Mormonism.
Both Muhammad and Joseph "Con-man" Smith were sons of their father Satan. They are tares among the wheat.
Unfortunately your post is so full of ignorance that I do not have the time or desire to educate you. You will never understand and have no idea of the love that 1.6 billion Muslims have for Allah and his messenger saw. So how can we blame you and hold you responsible for your ignorance? The good thing is your ignorance , your hatred, doesn't tarnish or diminish this love of our Rassul, in any way.The honor of our messenger saw, the nobility, the respect, the love of our messenger, the status of our messenger saw is not something we give him; it's not something that comes from human beings. It came from the sky. It came from Allah. Nobody on the earth can take it away.....
What is your point? 
Ok, for some perspective, the minimum age for marriage in the US-State of Delaware in year 1880 was 7 and 10 in most of the other states.
Now, authentic Hadith reports do show us that the prophet Muhammad saw did marry Aisha at the age of 6, but they also show the consummation of the marriage was completed when she was 9 years old. As a Muslim, I have no shame in sharing this. The West says, he married a child, don't they? And some Muslims when they are told this get embarrassed, their faces become red, and they don't know how to answer, they start stuttering. Did you know that American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in Delaware, the age of consent was only seven? Now during the Prophet saw's time it was a NORM to be married at a young age. This is why the people of Quraish and other Arabian tribes at Prophet's time found absolutely no fault in their marriage. They detested Islam, they did everything to belittle the Prophet, tried to prevent Islam from spreading and even attempted to kill the Prophet saw ! However, they raised no objection to the marriage of the Prophet saw to Aisha since at those times such a thing was not considered 'immoral'. It ought also be noted that Aisha was engaged to Jubayr before Prophet Muhammed saw. This indicates the age of marriage and engagement in Prophet' saw's time. However, the engagement was later nullified by Jubayr's parents due to Abu Bakr (Aisha's dad) embracing Islam.Thus the history demonstrates that the age of the marriage was lower and relative to olden times, the marriage of the Prophet was not abnormal and there was nothing immoral about it. It was a norm at biblical times to be wedded at puberty or earlier, the age of consent one century ago in a 'modern country' was as low as 10 or 12, even 7 in Delaware! Even in our times, in certain societies, the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13. In the light of historical evidences, the marriage cannot be criticized.
ALSO it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet saw , and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. Prophet Muhammad's saw marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!So to call Prophet Muhammad saw a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.
A lot of the things we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards" today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago. Today, anyone under 18 years old is considered a "child", a baby still under his mommy's and daddy's care. Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age of 18 were considered wise and very mature.
Now, authentic Hadith reports do show us that the prophet Muhammad saw did marry Aisha at the age of 6, but they also show the consummation of the marriage was completed when she was 9 years old. As a Muslim, I have no shame in sharing this. The West says, he married a child, don't they? And some Muslims when they are told this get embarrassed, their faces become red, and they don't know how to answer, they start stuttering. Did you know that American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in Delaware, the age of consent was only seven? Now during the Prophet saw's time it was a NORM to be married at a young age. This is why the people of Quraish and other Arabian tribes at Prophet's time found absolutely no fault in their marriage. They detested Islam, they did everything to belittle the Prophet, tried to prevent Islam from spreading and even attempted to kill the Prophet saw ! However, they raised no objection to the marriage of the Prophet saw to Aisha since at those times such a thing was not considered 'immoral'. It ought also be noted that Aisha was engaged to Jubayr before Prophet Muhammed saw. This indicates the age of marriage and engagement in Prophet' saw's time. However, the engagement was later nullified by Jubayr's parents due to Abu Bakr (Aisha's dad) embracing Islam.Thus the history demonstrates that the age of the marriage was lower and relative to olden times, the marriage of the Prophet was not abnormal and there was nothing immoral about it. It was a norm at biblical times to be wedded at puberty or earlier, the age of consent one century ago in a 'modern country' was as low as 10 or 12, even 7 in Delaware! Even in our times, in certain societies, the age of consent is as low as 12 or 13. In the light of historical evidences, the marriage cannot be criticized.
ALSO it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet saw , and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. Prophet Muhammad's saw marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!So to call Prophet Muhammad saw a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.
A lot of the things we do today are not right in the eyes of many. Our "standards" today mean nothing to what took place 1400 years ago. Today, anyone under 18 years old is considered a "child", a baby still under his mommy's and daddy's care. Back then on the other hand, people who reached the age of 18 were considered wise and very mature.
An English Historian stated, "At that age 'A'ishah was fully developed, through fast development which was present amongst the Arab women of the time and where they would start to age during the late twenties. But this marriage has troubled many people about Muhammad. This is because they look upon the marriage as if it is in the present day, not taking into account the context of this marriage and that it was an accepted event. They do not consider that this trend is still present in Europe and Asia, until this very day. This was common in Spain and Portugal until recent years. Even in these times it is not uncommon. In some mountainous areas in the United States of America, it still exists.
As a Muslim, I believe in the 6 articles of faith in Islam:
1. Belief in Only One God
I believe that there is only one God, Allah (S.W.T) The Supreme and Eternal, The Merciful and Compassionate, The Creator and Provider. He is the God of all beings and there is none like Him.
2. Belief in the Books of God
Muslims must believe in all Revelations sent by God to His Prophets that is the Torah to Moses (A.S), the Scrolls of Abraham (A.S), the Gospel to Jesus (A.S), the Psalms of David (A.S) and the Qur'an to Muhammad (S.A.W).
3. Belief in God's Angels
Angels are pure and spiritually obedient beings, created by God to fulfill His commands and worship Him tirelessly. Muslims believe in all the angels for instance the Angel Gabriel who brought the Qur'an to Muhammad saw, the Angel of death who takes away life out of a person and also the Angels of battle.
4. Belief in The Prophets of God
Muslims must believe in all the Messengers and Prophets of God such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Jesus and Muhammad saw who were human beings endowed with His Revelations and appointed by God to teach mankind how to worship and obey Allah.
5. Belief in Judgement Day
The Day of Judgement and the Hereafter are essential beliefs in Islam. Life on earth is just temporary while life in the Hereafter is forever and will never end. Those who have done good deeds and obeyed Allah (S.W.T) while living on Earth will be rewarded Paradise but those who did otherwise will be punished in Hell accordingly.
6. Belief in God’s Will
This is derived from the Arabic phrase "Al-Qada' Wa Al-Qadar" which means "Divine Decree and Predestination". God has measured and planned out everything that happened, is happening, and will happen. In Islam, Muslims must understand that if we have a will to do something, it does not always happen, but if Allah wills, it will definitely happen. A simple example of this belief is the frequent phrase used by Muslims: "Insha Allah" which means "if God wills" with regards to every planned action.
1. Belief in Only One God
I believe that there is only one God, Allah (S.W.T) The Supreme and Eternal, The Merciful and Compassionate, The Creator and Provider. He is the God of all beings and there is none like Him.
2. Belief in the Books of God
Muslims must believe in all Revelations sent by God to His Prophets that is the Torah to Moses (A.S), the Scrolls of Abraham (A.S), the Gospel to Jesus (A.S), the Psalms of David (A.S) and the Qur'an to Muhammad (S.A.W).
3. Belief in God's Angels
Angels are pure and spiritually obedient beings, created by God to fulfill His commands and worship Him tirelessly. Muslims believe in all the angels for instance the Angel Gabriel who brought the Qur'an to Muhammad saw, the Angel of death who takes away life out of a person and also the Angels of battle.
4. Belief in The Prophets of God
Muslims must believe in all the Messengers and Prophets of God such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Solomon, Jesus and Muhammad saw who were human beings endowed with His Revelations and appointed by God to teach mankind how to worship and obey Allah.
5. Belief in Judgement Day
The Day of Judgement and the Hereafter are essential beliefs in Islam. Life on earth is just temporary while life in the Hereafter is forever and will never end. Those who have done good deeds and obeyed Allah (S.W.T) while living on Earth will be rewarded Paradise but those who did otherwise will be punished in Hell accordingly.
6. Belief in God’s Will
This is derived from the Arabic phrase "Al-Qada' Wa Al-Qadar" which means "Divine Decree and Predestination". God has measured and planned out everything that happened, is happening, and will happen. In Islam, Muslims must understand that if we have a will to do something, it does not always happen, but if Allah wills, it will definitely happen. A simple example of this belief is the frequent phrase used by Muslims: "Insha Allah" which means "if God wills" with regards to every planned action.
Thanks for the chuckle, lol ! The craziness that some people believe, smh
OMG, not t he “why don’t they march against something else” crowd . Seriously, Muslims are free to march/denounce any causes they see fit, like any other human being. They do NOT have to march against ISIS. They can march for whatever causes they choose to support just like you can, we dont have to prove to you or anybody else our humanity by marching against something YOU think we should march against. I for one marched against the apartheid state of Israel and I will not march against ISIS. Whether people, Muslims or others, march to protest ISIS's brutality and abuse/distortion of religion or not will not have a spit of impact on ISIS. ISIS is not a freaking country, government or international organization that relies on public marches to decide what its next move is. There are certainly many terrible humanitarian disasters in the world about which we must all feel anguish.The point of a mass demonstration for Gaza is to put pressure on our government and to alter public opinion in this country, now comparing that to ISIS, really? Despite the fact that numerous Muslim religious authorities, advocacy groups, and Imams have come together to denounce the Islamic State's un-Islamic crimes against humanity, people like you will never be satisfied.
As a Muslim, I’m getting a bit sick of people asking me over and over how I feel about ISIS. What do you want me to say, seriously? “It is a great humanitarian organization, mwahahaha!” before I fly off on a magic carpet? I am quite sick of feeling guilty for someone else's actions. Yes, someone ELSE. Not me, nor anyone else I influenced. Every time someone who shares my faith goes wacko, almost instantaneously all Muslims are forced into the limelight, and compelled to condemn the actions, yet the same standard isn't applied to non-Muslim terrorists and criminals. Weren’t we clear before how we feel about terrorism? If people didn’t understand us for the past 10 + years since 9/11, what makes you think they’re going to understand us now? I’m not trying to be insensitive about the crimes committed by ISIS. Of course my prayers and sentiments are with anyone affected by the tragedy. The same goes for any act of terrorism. But I’m not going to apologize or condemn them and march on the streets just because you want me to because I don’t need to prove my patriotism with some kind of McCarthyite litmus test.
BTW, just so you know , a quick google search could have shown you that there have been numerous marches by Muslims against ISIS not just in the US but other parts of the world as well. These just being some of them:
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/25/muslims-against-isis-gather-in-dearborn-mich-to-condemn-inhumane-crimes/
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/27/norways-muslims-rally-against-isis
As a Muslim, I’m getting a bit sick of people asking me over and over how I feel about ISIS. What do you want me to say, seriously? “It is a great humanitarian organization, mwahahaha!” before I fly off on a magic carpet? I am quite sick of feeling guilty for someone else's actions. Yes, someone ELSE. Not me, nor anyone else I influenced. Every time someone who shares my faith goes wacko, almost instantaneously all Muslims are forced into the limelight, and compelled to condemn the actions, yet the same standard isn't applied to non-Muslim terrorists and criminals. Weren’t we clear before how we feel about terrorism? If people didn’t understand us for the past 10 + years since 9/11, what makes you think they’re going to understand us now? I’m not trying to be insensitive about the crimes committed by ISIS. Of course my prayers and sentiments are with anyone affected by the tragedy. The same goes for any act of terrorism. But I’m not going to apologize or condemn them and march on the streets just because you want me to because I don’t need to prove my patriotism with some kind of McCarthyite litmus test.
BTW, just so you know , a quick google search could have shown you that there have been numerous marches by Muslims against ISIS not just in the US but other parts of the world as well. These just being some of them:
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/25/muslims-against-isis-gather-in-dearborn-mich-to-condemn-inhumane-crimes/
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/27/norways-muslims-rally-against-isis
I would say the unity and brotherhood for Islam. I can a meet a Muslim from anywhere in the world and automatically there is this instant bond of kinship and love that I can't even explain.And in the mosque when the call for prayer is sounded, and the worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and the king kneel side by side and proclaim: “God Alone is Great”.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:There are many people who do not have the true knowledge to make the right estimations regarding Islam and Muslims because of their ignorance. They have no idea of the love that 1.6 billion Muslims have for Allah and his messenger. So how can we blame them and hold them responsible for their ignorance?
As a Muslim woman living in America, I have seen it & heard it all, so I am totally desensitized to the insults directly at me or Islam. As far as people insulting the Prophet Muhammad saw & Islam, well People physically assaulted him during his life, people threw stones at him, they threw dirty intestines on him whilst he was praying, they threw their dirty garbage on him, they abused him, they killed his loved ones, poisoned his food, ridiculed him, laughed at him.However, although they hurt him, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) looked beyond his own wounds and forgave them, replying when asked whether to destroy them‘No, do not destroy them, for I hope that Allah will bring out of their offspring people who worship Him alone without associating any partner with Him in worship." What a beautiful excellent response, look at the humiliy, the control. This is the man's values that I follow, and he taught me better than that.
The honor of our messenger saw, the nobility, the respect, the love of our messenger, the status of our messenger saw is not something we give him; it's not something that comes from human beings. It came from the sky. It came from Allah. Nobody on the earth can take it away.. The Quran has come from the sky. People can burn copies of it, people can make fun of it, people can make pieces of it; it will not insult the Quran; because the Quran is in Laohe Mahfudh ( the preserved tablet in the seventh heaven,). It can not be insulted. It is above these insults.
Allah azzawajal took the most insulting things that were said about prophet saw and gave the most intellectual responses in the Quran. This is our religion. Two thirds of the Quran is a conversation with the people who didn’t even believe in it. What was prophet saw doing? Reciting it to people who don’t even believe. And they were insulting it back, criticizing it back; and there was a discussion happening!
May Allah educate ourselves, our family, our entire Ummah, the way it suppose to be educated. May Allah lift the Ummah from the darkness that it suffers from. May Allah make us of those who can speak the word of truth courageously and be able to engage with each other in civil, respectful disagreement when the time comes. And may Allah make us of those who truly represent the beauty of this Deen to their neighbors and to the world around us.
Ma Salaama (Peace) !
For someone that really just doesn't understand, why do the Shiites and Sunnis keep killing each other?
Short answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KLvjs7Yrtw
I would reframe your question, Sunnis and Shias are not killing each other, a small minority of Sunnis and Shias are. First, let's go back to the basics. Over 90% of the world's Muslim's population is Sunni and the rest Shia. However, Shia Muslims are the majority in some countries such as Iran, Iraq, and more recently, Lebanon.The split between Sunni and Shia goes back to the death of the Prophet Muhammed saw in 632 CE. It was about the succession. Some Muslims thought the leader of Islam should be elected from among the learned and devout and whoever was the most learned man should be the Muslim Leader. They chose Abu Bakr, a close friend and companion of the Prophet saw, who became first Caliph, secular leader of the Islamic nation. His followers claimed the title of "Sunni," or followers of the tradition of the Prophet.
Other Muslims believed in a hereditary solution and chose to follow Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law. They became known as Shia, or party of Ali, or people of the Prophet's household. Their leaders were known as Imams . This dynastic approach has some similarities with the Christian ideas of the divine right of kings and the apostolic succession in the Catholic and Anglican churches, and it continues to characterise Shia practice today. It is no longer dynastic but it does confer a sort-of infallibility on its leaders. The schism is therefore between the Sunni belief that Islam confers no hereditary privilege or sainthood, and the Shia belief that its leaders are infallible, without sin, appointed by God. From the beginning, the schism had a political rather than religious nature.
The conflict now brewing between certain (key work=certain) Sunni and Shia political factions in the Middle East today has little or nothing to do with religious differences and everything to do with modern identity politics. While the Sunni Ottoman Empire and Shia Safavid Empire experienced their share of conflict, they also lived peaceably alongside one another for hundreds of years, even considering it shameful to engage in conflict with one another as Muslim powers. For every sectarian terrorist group or militia, there are countless ordinary Shia and Sunni Muslims around the world who have risked their lives to protect their co-religionists as well as the religious minorities within their societies. For every story which discards the nuances of todays' conflicts and casts them as part of a narrative of spiralling sectarian violence, there are others which point resolutely in the opposite direction. The "Shia Crescent" that runs from Iran, through Assad’s regime in Damascus to Hizbullah in Lebanon was once praised by Sunni figures. But the revolutions in the region have pitted Shia governments against Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have supported their co-religionists with cash. This is strengthening Sunni assertiveness and making the Shia feel more threatened than usual. In most cases, though, members of the two groups still live harmoniously together.
Have the leaders of the Sunni and Shia tried to stop this? What have they done to prevent the violence?
I don't know what you mean by the leaders of the Sunni & Shia. In Islam, we don't have a 'Pope', Muslim Scholars of course have denounced violence and are still denouncing violence every single day. The fact that the mainstream media doesn't cover those stories because they do not fit the current narrative doesn't mean they don't exist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person you're responding to, but I'm not 23:35. I'm sorry, but a lot of this glosses over what's in the Quran and also doesn't reflect historical reality. Who do you think was selling black slaves to the European slave traders? It was Muslims selling African polytheists to the European Christians. You haven't even attempted to deny that the Quran condones taking non-Muslim (kaafir) prisoners as slaves, instead you've offered some fairly unconvincing arguments about how slave-taking is limited (ask West African polytheists how this worked out for them a few centuries ago). As for your point about how Islam didn't invent slavery, the pity of it all is that a document that purports to be God's direct word to humanity actually condones slavery.
PS. I would encourage everybody here to seek out additional opinions, by reading the relevant passages of the Quran for yourself and by googling. The way to increase your own understanding is not to accept my opinion, or to accept Muslima's carefully curated selection of favorable apologetics. I am pretty confident, however, that when you read the actual passages of the Quran (in translation, but for most of you this can't be avoided) you will see through some of the cut-and-pastes that Muslima has provided.
Actually, I will encourage every person curious about Islam to take their copy of the Quran to any mosque, go ask to talk to the Imam, ask about their credentials, sit down with them and ask all of your questions about any passage, chapter, story, ect that you are confused about. We Muslims don't have anything to hide. Islam is not a religion you learn through Google or Sheikh Wikipedia. Scholars spend years and years to study every piece, section and verse of the Quran, its tafseer, meaning, year it was revealed and reason behind the revelation. To understand the Quran as a Non-Muslim you would have to understand or Know the life of the prophet Muhammad saw to even understand what some verses are referring to. The Qur'an is not arranged chronologically. Chapters come in groups joined by similarity or identity of the first verse, similarities of verse structure or length, and sometimes similarities of subject matter. Another point to be taken note of is that, as hinted above, the methodical nature of the Quran is not just an incidental matter in the study of the Quran, it is integral to the meaning of the Quran. In plain terms, since the Quran has an organic structure, every verse or group of verses and every surah has a definitive context and interpretation of any portion of the Quran must be based on a correct understanding of that context.
It is unfortunate how some people misuse the Quran. Too often its verses have been torn out of context to prove some particular juristical opinion or sectarian notion. Frequently its terms and phrases have been misconstrued by those who come to it seeking, in some odd verse, support for views they have already formed on other than Quranic grounds. It is indeed a great irony that all heresies have been claimed by their propounders to have their basis in the Quran. And if these heresies looked plausible to many, it was because the context of the verses constituting the so-called 'basis in the Quran' was not properly understood. As Mawlana Islahi has shown, contextualization gives to countless verses a construction different from the one usually placed on them; it throws new light not only on the doctrinal and creedal aspects of the Quranic message but also on the methodological aspects of the message; it lends new significance not only to the moral and legal injunctions of the Quran but also to the stories and parables narrated by the Quran; and it affords a deep insight not only into the continually changing style and tone of the Quran but also into the varied patterns of logic it employs.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:
The issue is, who defines what is "evil" and "unjust"? There is a great deal of latitude for interpretation here, obviously.
A crucial point for the current ISIS crisis is that Muslims are required to live under Muslim law, i.e. with a Muslim government and courts to enforce sharia law, with an Islamic banking system, et cetera. In a Muslim state, sharia rules apply to everybody, including dhimmi (non-Muslims). Therefore, teachers can define "evil" to include any secular (read: religiously tolerant) government. ISIS wants a "caliphate" to impose sharia law on everybody within the Islamic state's borders, because secular governmental structures are "evil."
False!One of the fundamental teachings of Islam is that non-Muslims are guaranteed freedom to practise their religions and customs without any restriction as long as non-Muslims reciprocate by not being insensitive to the Muslim community. The Constitution, too, categorically restricts Most Islamic laws to Muslims. And one more time, Muslims are not required to live under sharia law, they are required to follow the law of the land they live in. In Islam obedience to the law of the land is a religious duty. The Qur'an commands Muslims to remain faithful to not only Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (saw), but also the authority they live under.
Also, the Quran is quite clear that you can't kill your prisoners of war, but you can certainly make slaves out of your non-Muslim prisoners. This is applies equally tor capturing non-Muslim women and children. If your slaves convert to Islam, you must free them. It strikes me that Muslima is gilding the lily when she calls this "asylum" in her post above.
PP again. I should add, I believe it's permissible for Muslims to sleep with female captives/prisoners of war, in addition to with their wives. Mohammed did this.
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves. In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, this was a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves. Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free. Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality which was unheard of in that society 1400 years ago. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam. It is painful to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam should take no notice of this principle of equality, when even in this enlightened age there are countries where laws are made discriminating against the vast majority of population, to keep them in practical servitude. This dignity restored to slaves was documented even by Non-Muslims throughout history:
P. L Riviere writes:
"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization"
Source: Riviere P.L., Revue Bleaue (June 1939).
And not only in ancient civilisations; even in the modern Christian civilisation the ingrained belief of racial supremacy is still manifesting itself every day. A. J. Toynbee says in Civilization on Trial:
"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue..." Then he comments that "in this perilous matter of race feeling it can hardly be denied that (the triumph of English-speaking peoples) has been a misfortune."
Source: Toynbee, A.J., Civilization on Trial (New York, 1948), p. 205.
Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:
"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."
Source: Cherfils, Bonaparte et l'Islam (Paris, 1914)
Annemarie Schimmel writes:
"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). “
Source: "Islam: An Introduction", p. 67
Islam recognises no distinction of race or colour, black or white, citizens or soldiers, rulers or subjects; they are perfectly equal, not in theory only, but in practice. The first mu'azzin (herald of the prayer call) of Islam, a devoted adherent of the Prophet and an esteemed disciple, was a slave. The Qur'an lays down the measure of superiority in verse 13 of chapter 49. It is addressed to mankind, and preaches the natural brotherhood of man without distinction of tribe, clan, gender, race or colour. It says:
“O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and then We made you (into different) races and tribes so that you may know (and “recognise) each other. Surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious among you; surely Allah is All-Knowing and “Aware.” The Qur'an 49:13
it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, but it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them. The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227). It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them. Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war.
I'm the person you're responding to, but I'm not 23:35. I'm sorry, but a lot of this glosses over what's in the Quran and also doesn't reflect historical reality. Who do you think was selling black slaves to the European slave traders? It was Muslims selling African polytheists to the European Christians. You haven't even attempted to deny that the Quran condones taking non-Muslim (kaafir) prisoners as slaves, instead you've offered some fairly unconvincing arguments about how slave-taking is limited (ask West African polytheists how this worked out for them a few centuries ago). As for your point about how Islam didn't invent slavery, the pity of it all is that a document that purports to be God's direct word to humanity actually condones slavery.
Look, I am not here to deny or approve of anything according to your liking. I am here to share the true teachings of the Quran through how it was taught to me for years that I spent studying and my understandings as a Muslim and my life as a perpetual islamic Student. I am not just an ignorant anonymous googling random verses that they don't know anything about, no context, not the reason why the verse was revealed, when it was revealed, what the tafseer of the verse is and spreading lies on the internet. Whether you like it or not, Islam doesn't condone slavery especially not slavery in the barbaric way it was practiced in the WEST. In short, it is not only the institution of slavery that causes revulsion in the human heart, it is the attitudes of inhumanity which sustain it. And the truth is, if the institution no longer formally exists but the attitudes persist, then humanity has not gained much, if at all. That is why colonial exploitation replaced slavery, and why the chains of unbearable, unrepayable international debt have replaced colonial exploitation: only slavery has gone, its structures of inhumanity and barbarism are still securely in place. Before we turn to the Islamic perspective on slavery, let us recall a name famous even among Western Europeans, that of Harun al-Rashid, and let us recall that this man who enjoyed such authority and power over all Muslims was the son of a slave. Nor is he the only such example; slaves and their children enjoyed enormous prestige, authority, respect and (shall we say it) freedom, within the Islamic system, in all areas of life, cultural as well as political. How could this have come about? Islam amended and educated the institution of slavery and the attitudes of masters to slaves. The Qur’an taught in many verses that all human beings are descended from a single ancestor, that none has an intrinsic right of superiority over another, whatever his race or his nation or his social standing. And from the Prophet’s teaching, upon him be peace, the Muslims learnt these principles, which they applied both as laws and as social norms:
"Whosoever kills his slave: he shall be killed. Whosoever imprisons his slave and starves him, he shall be imprisoned and starved himself, and whosoever castrates his slave shall himself be castrated." (Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; Al-Nasa’i, Qasama, 10, 16). For this reason ‘Umar and his servant took it in turns to ride on the camel from Madina to Jerusalem on their journey to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was the head of the state, ‘Uthman had his servant pull his own ears in front of the people since he had pulled his. Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his servant wear one half of his suit while he himself wore the other half. From these instances, it was being demonstrated to succeeding generations of Muslims, and a pattern of conduct established, that a slave is fully a human being, not different from other people in his need for respect and dignity and justice.
Muslims were encouraged by their faith to enter into agreements and contracts which enabled slaves to earn or be granted their freedom at the expiry of a certain term or, most typically, on the death of the owner. Unconditional emancipation was, naturally, regarded as the most meritorious kind, and worthiest of recognition in the life hereafter. There were occasions when whole groups of people, acting together, would buy and set free large numbers of slaves in order to obtain thereby the favour of God.
There is not a single verse in the Quran that says "Slavery is forbidden" just like there isn't a verse in the Quran that says "Alcolhol is forbidden" but all Muslims know that alcohol is haram and forbidden in Islam. However, there are several verses which refer to the freeing of slaves as an act of righteouness and for the purification of sins, this means that eventually the slave industry ( in the context of what it was back then ) would have died out. If every religion or culture had the right to enslave another because it was not forbidden to do so then that would lead to chaos and revolts.....it is human conciousness that has made the practise redundant ( that is in the form in which it was formally practised and not the economic slavery that exists today ie Vulture Capitalism ) ..and this human conciousness is consistent with the Quranic verses on FREEING slaves. The Quran aknowledged the practise but did not encourage it but rather the freeing of slaves and equated the freeing of slaves as a righteous act....now ask yourself that question...why do you think Allah has encouraged the Freeing of slaves?????think about it!.and then think again! As there is NOT A SINGLE statement in the Qur’an, whereby believers are commanded to enslave other human beings, and as the Qur’an has called for freeing of slaves as a meritorious act, alleviated their status by way of marriage as well as economic support, and declared that servitude is due to God alone (51:56) and no human being, no matter how high a status he may occupy, has the right to say to people ‘be my slaves’ (3:79), it is wrong to suggest that the Book sanctions slavery.
The great genius of our religion, and one of the great truths of our Prophet saw is that he came as a mercy to everyone. He created multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies. He had all types of people: Persians, Romans, Africans, Arabs from different tribes and he brought them into a fraternity of mercy. He had Jews and Christians and he honored them, and spoke to them kindly. He was not a harsh person, he was a gentle person. He created an open society. Our religion honors people and treats them with dignity and that is something you can not change!
The issue is, who defines what is "evil" and "unjust"? There is a great deal of latitude for interpretation here, obviously.
A crucial point for the current ISIS crisis is that Muslims are required to live under Muslim law, i.e. with a Muslim government and courts to enforce sharia law, with an Islamic banking system, et cetera. In a Muslim state, sharia rules apply to everybody, including dhimmi (non-Muslims). Therefore, teachers can define "evil" to include any secular (read: religiously tolerant) government. ISIS wants a "caliphate" to impose sharia law on everybody within the Islamic state's borders, because secular governmental structures are "evil."
False!One of the fundamental teachings of Islam is that non-Muslims are guaranteed freedom to practise their religions and customs without any restriction as long as non-Muslims reciprocate by not being insensitive to the Muslim community. The Constitution, too, categorically restricts Most Islamic laws to Muslims. And one more time, Muslims are not required to live under sharia law, they are required to follow the law of the land they live in. In Islam obedience to the law of the land is a religious duty. The Qur'an commands Muslims to remain faithful to not only Allah and the Prophet Muhammad (saw), but also the authority they live under.
Also, the Quran is quite clear that you can't kill your prisoners of war, but you can certainly make slaves out of your non-Muslim prisoners. This is applies equally tor capturing non-Muslim women and children. If your slaves convert to Islam, you must free them. It strikes me that Muslima is gilding the lily when she calls this "asylum" in her post above.
PP again. I should add, I believe it's permissible for Muslims to sleep with female captives/prisoners of war, in addition to with their wives. Mohammed did this.
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves. In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.
Concerning having slave women, this was a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as “Those whom your right hand possess” or “ma malakat aymanukum”; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves. Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.
But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant. What's more, her child would also become free. Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.
Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status. It made no distinction between a slave or a free man, and all were treated with equality which was unheard of in that society 1400 years ago. It was this fact that always attracted slaves to Islam. It is painful to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam should take no notice of this principle of equality, when even in this enlightened age there are countries where laws are made discriminating against the vast majority of population, to keep them in practical servitude. This dignity restored to slaves was documented even by Non-Muslims throughout history:
P. L Riviere writes:
"A master was enjoined to make his slave share the bounties he received from God. It must be recognised that, in this respect, the Islamic teaching acknowledged such a respect for human personality and showed a sense of equality which is searched for in vain in ancient civilization"
Source: Riviere P.L., Revue Bleaue (June 1939).
And not only in ancient civilisations; even in the modern Christian civilisation the ingrained belief of racial supremacy is still manifesting itself every day. A. J. Toynbee says in Civilization on Trial:
"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue..." Then he comments that "in this perilous matter of race feeling it can hardly be denied that (the triumph of English-speaking peoples) has been a misfortune."
Source: Toynbee, A.J., Civilization on Trial (New York, 1948), p. 205.
Napoleon Bonaparte is recorded as saying about the condition of slaves in Muslim countries:
"The slave inherits his master's property and marries his daughter. The majority of the Pashas had been slaves. Many of the grand viziers, all the Mamelukes, Ali Ben Mourad Beg, had been slaves. They began their lives by performing the most menial services in the houses of their masters and were subsequently raised in status for their merit or by favour. In the West, on the contrary, the slave has always been below the position of the domestic servants; he occupies the lowest rug. The Romans emancipated their slaves, but the emancipated were never considered as equal to the free-born. The ideas of the East and West are so different that it took a long time to make the Egyptians understand that all the army was not composed of slaves belonging to the Sultan al-Kabir."
Source: Cherfils, Bonaparte et l'Islam (Paris, 1914)
Annemarie Schimmel writes:
"The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). “
Source: "Islam: An Introduction", p. 67
Islam recognises no distinction of race or colour, black or white, citizens or soldiers, rulers or subjects; they are perfectly equal, not in theory only, but in practice. The first mu'azzin (herald of the prayer call) of Islam, a devoted adherent of the Prophet and an esteemed disciple, was a slave. The Qur'an lays down the measure of superiority in verse 13 of chapter 49. It is addressed to mankind, and preaches the natural brotherhood of man without distinction of tribe, clan, gender, race or colour. It says:
“O you men! We have created you of a male and a female, and then We made you (into different) races and tribes so that you may know (and “recognise) each other. Surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one who is most pious among you; surely Allah is All-Knowing and “Aware.” The Qur'an 49:13
it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, but it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with them. The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227). It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them. Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war.
If you open a modern Oxford English dictionary, you would probably
find the definition of Jihad as “a holy war undertaken by Muslims againstnon-believers”. This is a very poor definition. Before trying to define what Jihad is, we should first define what it is NOT.
Jihad is NOT Holy War
Jihad is NOT blowing up one’s self (Suicide is a sin in Islam)
Jihad is NOT killing innocent people
Jihad is NOT flying a plane into a building packed with civilians
Jihad is NOT fighting out of anger and hatred
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they don’t agree with you
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they are not Muslims
Jihad is an Arabic word from the root Jee Ha Da. It literally means to
struggle or strive. Jihad is struggling or striving in the way or sake of
Allah. Jihad takes a very important status in the doctrine of Islam and is one of the basic duties for every Muslim. Though, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the term Holy War. Such a term, or its equivalent doesn’t exist in the Islamic doctrine. The Christian Crusaders in the mid-ages invented this ideology of Holy War.
Jihad has many forms:
Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb): is referred as
"The greater Jihad” (al-jihad al-akbar).It is one’s inner struggle of good against evil; refraining oneself from the whispers of Shaitan (Satan).This process involves allowing Islam to transform one’s soul to achieving internal peace; and forgoing hatred and anger.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan): It is defending Islam and spreading Islam by scholarly lectures, speeches and debates. It often overlaps with Da’awah (invitation to Islam, or spreading the message of Islam).
Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) In contrary to Jihad of the
heart/soul; this form of Jihad is referred as “the lesser jihad” (al-jihad alasghar).Sometimes it is necessary to undertake Jihad by the sword. This would include usage of arsenals and engaging in a combat. This could be simply a bunch of freedom fighters or an organised campaign of army.Jihad by the sword is use of arms to engage into a combat. It is not misuse of arms to create violence.There are only two situations were Jihad by the sword is allowed to be
undertaken.
1) For self-defense. When someone attacks you or when your
nation has been attacked. Engaging into combat due to self defense.
2) Fighting against evil and unjust. It is also a sin if a Muslim sees unjust been done, capable of stopping it, yet not doing
Anything about it. This can include war on drug, war on child labour as well as war on terror!The Muslims already announced the war on terror fourteen centuries ago, under the name of Jihad bis saif!
There are many rules and limitations when engaging in combat under the title of Jihad. For example, civilians are not to be harmed; trees are not tobe cut down; women and children can't be killed, asylum should be granted to surrendering enemy soldiers;etc.
“And if anyone of the Mushrikun seeks your protection then grant
him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then
escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men
who know not.”
{Quran, Surah 9: At-Taubah, Verse 6; Mohsin Translation}
The treatment for prisoners of war is also clearly stated in the Quran.
Prisoners of war under Muslim prisons are to eat, drink and dress the
same Muslim soldiers eat, drink and dress.And even under the unfortunate event of shortage of food, it is the prisoners who are to eat first before the Muslim soldiers guarding them!
Despite the fact that Jihad by the sword is the lesser Jihad, it is the only form of Jihad that most of the people in the world perceive Jihad as.This is unfortunate, especially for the Muslims. Many so-called “teachers of Islam” have been misusing this to assemble their so-called “holyarmy” to fight their so-called “holy war”. But you can’t blame the religion for what a few of its people do.
find the definition of Jihad as “a holy war undertaken by Muslims againstnon-believers”. This is a very poor definition. Before trying to define what Jihad is, we should first define what it is NOT.
Jihad is NOT Holy War
Jihad is NOT blowing up one’s self (Suicide is a sin in Islam)
Jihad is NOT killing innocent people
Jihad is NOT flying a plane into a building packed with civilians
Jihad is NOT fighting out of anger and hatred
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they don’t agree with you
Jihad is NOT killing others just because they are not Muslims
Jihad is an Arabic word from the root Jee Ha Da. It literally means to
struggle or strive. Jihad is struggling or striving in the way or sake of
Allah. Jihad takes a very important status in the doctrine of Islam and is one of the basic duties for every Muslim. Though, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the term Holy War. Such a term, or its equivalent doesn’t exist in the Islamic doctrine. The Christian Crusaders in the mid-ages invented this ideology of Holy War.
Jihad has many forms:
Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb): is referred as
"The greater Jihad” (al-jihad al-akbar).It is one’s inner struggle of good against evil; refraining oneself from the whispers of Shaitan (Satan).This process involves allowing Islam to transform one’s soul to achieving internal peace; and forgoing hatred and anger.
Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan): It is defending Islam and spreading Islam by scholarly lectures, speeches and debates. It often overlaps with Da’awah (invitation to Islam, or spreading the message of Islam).
Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)
Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)
Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) In contrary to Jihad of the
heart/soul; this form of Jihad is referred as “the lesser jihad” (al-jihad alasghar).Sometimes it is necessary to undertake Jihad by the sword. This would include usage of arsenals and engaging in a combat. This could be simply a bunch of freedom fighters or an organised campaign of army.Jihad by the sword is use of arms to engage into a combat. It is not misuse of arms to create violence.There are only two situations were Jihad by the sword is allowed to be
undertaken.
1) For self-defense. When someone attacks you or when your
nation has been attacked. Engaging into combat due to self defense.
2) Fighting against evil and unjust. It is also a sin if a Muslim sees unjust been done, capable of stopping it, yet not doing
Anything about it. This can include war on drug, war on child labour as well as war on terror!The Muslims already announced the war on terror fourteen centuries ago, under the name of Jihad bis saif!
There are many rules and limitations when engaging in combat under the title of Jihad. For example, civilians are not to be harmed; trees are not tobe cut down; women and children can't be killed, asylum should be granted to surrendering enemy soldiers;etc.
“And if anyone of the Mushrikun seeks your protection then grant
him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then
escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men
who know not.”
{Quran, Surah 9: At-Taubah, Verse 6; Mohsin Translation}
The treatment for prisoners of war is also clearly stated in the Quran.
Prisoners of war under Muslim prisons are to eat, drink and dress the
same Muslim soldiers eat, drink and dress.And even under the unfortunate event of shortage of food, it is the prisoners who are to eat first before the Muslim soldiers guarding them!
Despite the fact that Jihad by the sword is the lesser Jihad, it is the only form of Jihad that most of the people in the world perceive Jihad as.This is unfortunate, especially for the Muslims. Many so-called “teachers of Islam” have been misusing this to assemble their so-called “holyarmy” to fight their so-called “holy war”. But you can’t blame the religion for what a few of its people do.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:There are many people who do not have the true knowledge to make the right estimations regarding Islam and Muslims because of their ignorance. They have no idea of the love that 1.6 billion Muslims have for Allah and his messenger. So how can we blame them and hold them responsible for their ignorance?
As a Muslim woman living in America, I have seen it & heard it all, so I am totally desensitized to the insults directly at me or Islam. As far as people insulting the Prophet Muhammad saw & Islam, well People physically assaulted him during his life, people threw stones at him, they threw dirty intestines on him whilst he was praying, they threw their dirty garbage on him, they abused him, they killed his loved ones, poisoned his food, ridiculed him, laughed at him.However, although they hurt him, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) looked beyond his own wounds and forgave them, replying when asked whether to destroy them‘No, do not destroy them, for I hope that Allah will bring out of their offspring people who worship Him alone without associating any partner with Him in worship." What a beautiful excellent response, look at the humiliy, the control. This is the man's values that I follow, and he taught me better than that.
The honor of our messenger saw, the nobility, the respect, the love of our messenger, the status of our messenger saw is not something we give him; it's not something that comes from human beings. It came from the sky. It came from Allah. Nobody on the earth can take it away.. The Quran has come from the sky. People can burn copies of it, people can make fun of it, people can make pieces of it; it will not insult the Quran; because the Quran is in Laohe Mahfudh ( the preserved tablet in the seventh heaven,). It can not be insulted. It is above these insults.
Allah azzawajal took the most insulting things that were said about prophet saw and gave the most intellectual responses in the Quran. This is our religion. Two thirds of the Quran is a conversation with the people who didn’t even believe in it. What was prophet saw doing? Reciting it to people who don’t even believe. And they were insulting it back, criticizing it back; and there was a discussion happening!
May Allah educate ourselves, our family, our entire Ummah, the way it suppose to be educated. May Allah lift the Ummah from the darkness that it suffers from. May Allah make us of those who can speak the word of truth courageously and be able to engage with each other in civil, respectful disagreement when the time comes. And may Allah make us of those who truly represent the beauty of this Deen to their neighbors and to the world around us.
Ma Salaama (Peace) !
For someone that really just doesn't understand, why do the Shiites and Sunnis keep killing each other?
Short answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KLvjs7Yrtw
I would reframe your question, Sunnis and Shias are not killing each other, a small minority of Sunnis and Shias are. First, let's go back to the basics. Over 90% of the world's Muslim's population is Sunni and the rest Shia. However, Shia Muslims are the majority in some countries such as Iran, Iraq, and more recently, Lebanon.The split between Sunni and Shia goes back to the death of the Prophet Muhammed saw in 632 CE. It was about the succession. Some Muslims thought the leader of Islam should be elected from among the learned and devout and whoever was the most learned man should be the Muslim Leader. They chose Abu Bakr, a close friend and companion of the Prophet saw, who became first Caliph, secular leader of the Islamic nation. His followers claimed the title of "Sunni," or followers of the tradition of the Prophet.
Other Muslims believed in a hereditary solution and chose to follow Ali, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law. They became known as Shia, or party of Ali, or people of the Prophet's household. Their leaders were known as Imams . This dynastic approach has some similarities with the Christian ideas of the divine right of kings and the apostolic succession in the Catholic and Anglican churches, and it continues to characterise Shia practice today. It is no longer dynastic but it does confer a sort-of infallibility on its leaders. The schism is therefore between the Sunni belief that Islam confers no hereditary privilege or sainthood, and the Shia belief that its leaders are infallible, without sin, appointed by God. From the beginning, the schism had a political rather than religious nature.
The conflict now brewing between certain (key work=certain) Sunni and Shia political factions in the Middle East today has little or nothing to do with religious differences and everything to do with modern identity politics. While the Sunni Ottoman Empire and Shia Safavid Empire experienced their share of conflict, they also lived peaceably alongside one another for hundreds of years, even considering it shameful to engage in conflict with one another as Muslim powers. For every sectarian terrorist group or militia, there are countless ordinary Shia and Sunni Muslims around the world who have risked their lives to protect their co-religionists as well as the religious minorities within their societies. For every story which discards the nuances of todays' conflicts and casts them as part of a narrative of spiralling sectarian violence, there are others which point resolutely in the opposite direction. The "Shia Crescent" that runs from Iran, through Assad’s regime in Damascus to Hizbullah in Lebanon was once praised by Sunni figures. But the revolutions in the region have pitted Shia governments against Sunni Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who have supported their co-religionists with cash. This is strengthening Sunni assertiveness and making the Shia feel more threatened than usual. In most cases, though, members of the two groups still live harmoniously together.