Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fairly liberal Muslim but have enough knowledge and understanding about Islam to be able to answer most questions. I know there is great mistrust about Muslims and the religion of Islam generally. Even if you've heard the most awful things about Islam and have awkward questions, I'm ready to answer them. I will ignore any posts that use profanity and seem to have no purpose other than to attack.

I once read that men who want to have casual sex sometimes get "married" temporarily to their partners, and the marriage is either annulled shortly after fornication or has a defined period of validity (say 72 hours). Did I read this incorrectly?

Anonymous wrote:I've been wondering this ever since I moved to arlington.

What the heck is going on, noonish, Fridays on Leesburg Pike between 7 corners and Baily's crossroads.

EVERY SINGLE TAxi cab in the dc metro area is parked over there, there are cops, and burkas and men in pajama-looking cloths. and lots of normal looking people too but those are clues to me that this is indeed a question for a Muslim.

Namaste.

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about Muhammed marrying a 9 year old? Do you consider him a pedophile? If not, would you allow your 9yr old girl to marry a 50 something prophet (assuming that "the prophet" returned?

Anonymous wrote:If you're female, do you go to the beach? What do you wear?

Anonymous wrote:Are you married? Did you date?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about Muhammed marrying a 9 year old? Do you consider him a pedophile? If not, would you allow your 9yr old girl to marry a 50 something prophet (assuming that "the prophet" returned?

Does it bother you that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus?
You know even in the United States about 100 yrs ago it was normal for 12 and 13 yr olds to get married.

Maybe Aisha was a mature 9? Yes, 12/13 was the norm in those days, soon after their first period, but Aisha was 6 or 7 when actually married and then 9 when she moved in with her 53 year old husband (which was ANCIENT at that time).

not only do I know that in the US it was normal for a 12/13yr old to marry, but I EVEN know that in other parts of the world it is still the norm, but I'm not so sure where marrying and haivng sex with 9yr olds is the norm.

I've read that in warmer climates some girls reach puberty sooner. My own mother was 8 or 9 when she reached puberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about Muhammed marrying a 9 year old? Do you consider him a pedophile? If not, would you allow your 9yr old girl to marry a 50 something prophet (assuming that "the prophet" returned?

Does it bother you that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus?
You know even in the United States about 100 yrs ago it was normal for 12 and 13 yr olds to get married.

Maybe Aisha was a mature 9? Yes, 12/13 was the norm in those days, soon after their first period, but Aisha was 6 or 7 when actually married and then 9 when she moved in with her 53 year old husband (which was ANCIENT at that time).

not only do I know that in the US it was normal for a 12/13yr old to marry, but I EVEN know that in other parts of the world it is still the norm, but I'm not so sure where marrying and haivng sex with 9yr olds is the norm.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, there's this, which doesn't seem to require death, although the afterlife will be bad: "Lo! those who disbelieve after their (profession of) belief, and afterward grow violent in disbelief: their repentance will not be accepted. And such are those who are astray. Lo! those who disbelieve, and die in disbelief, the (whole) earth full of gold would not be accepted from such an one if it were offered as a ransom (for his soul). Theirs will be a painful doom and they will have no helpers." (Qur'an 3:90-91)

OP here: I am putting my answers in bold face and right after your quoted Quranic material to make it easier for you to see my replies. I'm relying on the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. There are different translations, however. Islam is not viewed as an ethnic religion or a religion of sect. The best analogy I can come up with is that Islam is like the third book of a trilogy. And one can not go to immediately to that third book without first understanding and knowing the first two books. The first book is Judaism. The second book is Christianity. So if one is to be a Muslim, he must accept the important figures and prophets and messengers and principles of Judaism and Christianity also. He must then also accept the last messenger of God, which is Muhammad. Thus, to be a Muslim or to accept Islam, one must accept Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Mary, and many other important figures such as the angels Gabriel and Michael, and lastly, also Muhammad. Islam is all encompassing this way. So in this particular verse, it is saying that when one embraces belief (meaning he once believed in God and these important figures of all three faiths) he should not later denounce his belief. Belief is a serious acceptance, not to be taken lightly and not something one can waffle back and forth about. If one denounces belief in the existence of God and his messengers, then God will not guide them. If, however, they repent and make amends (3:89), then God will accept their repentance and guide them again. If they accept belief and then reject it and keep going back and forth like this, or if they try to harm other believers then God will never guide them again no matter how much they repent. This is one of the reasons also why Muslims rarely convert to other faiths; their own faith is all encompassing as it requires the belief and acceptance of the most important figures in Christianity and Judaism already.

But there's also this: "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them" (Qur'an 4:89)

OP here again: The Quran doesn't tell a story in a beautiful, chronological order. Instead it refers to important events taking place at the time without actually discussing them in any depth at all. This is terribly confusing for nonMuslims and even for many Muslims. So this is why every passage can not be read literally and instead has to be read in context..in context of the time at which that passage was revealed and what exactly was happening at that time. For example, in 4:88 it says, "Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites?" God is referring to an obvious difference of opinion between Muslims over some group of hypocrites. But who are these hypocrites? And what two parties is God talking about? It doesn't provide these details. God expects the reader of the Quran to not just read it as though he's reading a novel or story. He expects the reader to study it. And to study it means one must also learn it's historical context too. Yes, it's a tall order but to avoid misinterpretations it is somewhat necessary, at least for these type of passages. So to answer your question regarding 4:89 we have to go back a little. in 4:88, God is talking about a particular war (here i believe it's the Battle of Uhud) where some deserters caused a lot of trouble for the Muslims. Some Muslims wanted to kill the deserters. Others wanted to just leave them alone. The next couple of passages from God addresses how to actually address the problem of deserters. God says if those deserters have sought asylum with another tribe that you are on peaceful terms with, even if they choose not to fight your cause (Islam), then let them be (4:90). If they, however, turn against Muslims and try to cause harm or kill Muslims, then they are to be considered dangerous enemy. And in a time of war, it is not uncommon to kill one's enemy if the enemy is trying to kill one of your own. (4:89)

Some might think any recommendation for killing anyone goes against the very purpose of religion, which should be to foster peace and harmony between people. Islam says live in peace and harmony but if Muslims are at war with people who are trying to kill them, God give them the right to defend themselves.


And this: But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist. (Qur'an 9:11-12)

OP here: I'll answer this one a bit later!



I realize it's a bit unfair to ask you to interpret these.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to a lighter topic -- I’m Muslim and wanted others’ views -- have you ever been to a (south asian) Muslim wedding, which was practically a pre-prom picture taking party? I went to one last summer, where the ceremony had already happened, so the reception literally consisted of the bride/groom and their families doing the entrance into the reception following by a 5 minute slideshow showing pics of each of them. After that the only activity consisted of the bride/groom sitting up on the stage for 2-3 hours having a 1000+ pictures taken, including various combinations of guests going up to the stage to have their pics taken with the couple. Thus the rest of us spent the night watching them take pics.

This is a conservative family so of course there was no alcohol and they also went with no music and no open dance floor. Yet they did 3 separate wedding related events, all of which were like this; the first one wasn’t bad because it at least consisted of talking over dinner with the people you were seated with who I hadn’t seen in years. Events #2-3, I was bored to tears -- what else is there to talk to the same people about 3 nights in a row, but I couldn’t not attend as I’m fairly close family. Has “picture taking” become the activity at these types of wedding since there is nothing else going on?

This made me laugh. I think this might just be a South Asian (or maybe South Asian, no alcohol) thing. I've been to multiple conservative Hindu weddings like this, but they've all been in India. I haven't seen one like that here. They just want everyone who attended to be captured on film. But the end result is, yeah, it's just a photography session, and it's boooring.

Anonymous wrote:Back to a lighter topic -- I’m Muslim and wanted others’ views -- have you ever been to a (south asian) Muslim wedding, which was practically a pre-prom picture taking party? I went to one last summer, where the ceremony had already happened, so the reception literally consisted of the bride/groom and their families doing the entrance into the reception following by a 5 minute slideshow showing pics of each of them. After that the only activity consisted of the bride/groom sitting up on the stage for 2-3 hours having a 1000+ pictures taken, including various combinations of guests going up to the stage to have their pics taken with the couple. Thus the rest of us spent the night watching them take pics.

This is a conservative family so of course there was no alcohol and they also went with no music and no open dance floor. Yet they did 3 separate wedding related events, all of which were like this; the first one wasn’t bad because it at least consisted of talking over dinner with the people you were seated with who I hadn’t seen in years. Events #2-3, I was bored to tears -- what else is there to talk to the same people about 3 nights in a row, but I couldn’t not attend as I’m fairly close family. Has “picture taking” become the activity at these types of wedding since there is nothing else going on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about Muhammed marrying a 9 year old? Do you consider him a pedophile? If not, would you allow your 9yr old girl to marry a 50 something prophet (assuming that "the prophet" returned?

Does it bother you that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus?
You know even in the United States about 100 yrs ago it was normal for 12 and 13 yr olds to get married.

Maybe Aisha was a mature 9? Yes, 12/13 was the norm in those days, soon after their first period, but Aisha was 6 or 7 when actually married and then 9 when she moved in with her 53 year old husband (which was ANCIENT at that time).

not only do I know that in the US it was normal for a 12/13yr old to marry, but I EVEN know that in other parts of the world it is still the norm, but I'm not so sure where marrying and haivng sex with 9yr olds is the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about Muhammed marrying a 9 year old? Do you consider him a pedophile? If not, would you allow your 9yr old girl to marry a 50 something prophet (assuming that "the prophet" returned?

Does it bother you that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus?
You know even in the United States about 100 yrs ago it was normal for 12 and 13 yr olds to get married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Along those lines, I am very tired of hearing, "Islamic rules for women are so much more progressive than in pre-Islamic, tribal Arabia of 600 CE."

I like OP, and I think she's trying hard to put forward a progressive, open face of Islam. I like the idea of getting away from the often paternalistic interpretations in the various legal schools. I do happen to know a lot about the issue, and I think she may be glossing over some very difficult issues that appear as the word of God in the Quran, as opposed to problems of interpretation among the various schools of jurisprudence. I suppose this would offend some, but I'm interested in signs of a movement towards an Islamic "Reformation" along the lines of what happened in Europe several centuries ago.

PP, its hard to get into a deep discussion on DCUM. But please ask me anything and give me a chance to answer your questions, even some of the difficult issues you speak of.

Hi OP. I guess the problem is, I don't really want to go there, because when you put the verses out there in black and white on the screen, the perceptions for somebody who isn't really familiar with the religion could be difficult. I suppose we could start with the Quranic verses on apostates (possibly less controversial), which would be a simple google, but again I don't want to put them out there raw.

And feel free not to respond and we'll assume you're at work instead! And I'll probably stop with the apostates anyway, and not get into women or other religions.