Challenging Islam

Hey all,

I have began a blog to challenge Islam: http://challengingmuslims.blogspot.com...

I would like your thoughts on the blog and the Muslims response.

At 2/26/2012 6:07:23 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Hey all,

I have began a blog to challenge Islam: http://challengingmuslims.blogspot.com...

I would like your thoughts on the blog and the Muslims response.

Your posts on atheism/philosophy of God shouldn't be specifically in that blog. You're using the same argument as the ones against Christianity. I think you lack a lot of facts (and misrepresent many) in your posts about the hadith/Qur'an and their take on terrorism. I'll give a short rebuttal:

1: You claim that Muslims are mistaken in defining "Jihad" as "inner struggle." You claim that according to the "Dictionary of Islam," which doesn't even exist, it means "Holy War." Your source is biased, coming from someone who writes about why he is not a Muslim. A more detailed quote would be better.

Jihad does indeed mean "to strive, struggle." The Arabic term of "Holy War" is "Harb ul-Muqadasa." In none of your hadith quotes can that be found, and in no Qur'anic verse or any authentic hadith can you find the words "Harb ul-Muqadasa." It's just not there, much like I am not in your room right now.

Jihad can also mean external struggle, in which case you can connect it to battles. If there's a nation that is being oppressed, Muslims are obliged to defend against the oppressors. Even though it is related to physical fights, you cannot say it means "Holy War," because you're innovating a wholly unfamiliar concept in Islam.

2: You are associating the terms "Jihad" and "terrorism" falsely. Even if Jihad meant Holy War, there's nothing which suggests that it means terrorism. That word originated during the French Revolution, long after the Qur'an was revealed. Holy War can be good, don't you think? If the Sikhs in India attacked all innocent Hindus, the Hindus would not be waging a terrorist war by defending themselves. That would be their Holy War, and there would be nothing wrong with it.

3: The verses you quoted from the Qur'an promote peace. You tried using the so-called "Cut and Paste" method of quoting the Qur'an, where you take a little part of a whole verse in order to prove your point. The verses you quoted start by calling Muslims to battle, then they end by saying:

"But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
"But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression"

If they don't end with that, they begin by saying, "Fight those who fight you." If you think that is terrorism, I'm afraid we'll never cease our discussions on the subject, because on one hand, I think defense battles are completely fine, while you think they are terrorist acts. That's a fundamental difference, unfortunately.

4: You quote verses not only out of context (though you still get the parts promoting peace if the enemy wishes it), but you completely ignore their historical contexts. For example, how would you apply this verse to our times? "But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there." It's impossible. There's no doubt that this verse talks about a dispute that happened 14 centuries ago. You're not taking the historical facts into discussion whatsoever.

The fact is, most of the Qur'anic verses concerning war speak of battles that happened during the times of the beloved Prophet. Muslims were constantly oppressed, and when they were to engage in battles, the Qur'an was their number one commander. That's why it instructed them to fight. The historical context tells us that the fights were defensive, and even if the verses simply said "fight the disbelievers," it would be enough. But most go on to say that Muslims should fight only those who fight them. I can cite countless verses for you.

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers."

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then force mankind, against their will, to believe!"

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace."

To cite a few. So, you're concluding way too fast, and you're not writing simple facts on your blog, no doubt about that.

At 2/26/2012 8:54:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
It's just not there, much like I am not in your room right now.

Or are you?
*twilight zone music*

Mirza,

Thank you for your post. I will take your rebuttal points into consideration and will be writting a blog on your rebuttal.

I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Sorry if I spelled some things wrong. I don't have much time to post this.

Mirza, I have responded to your rebuttal.

I updated the blog to deal with all religions--not just Islam. The domain has been changed. http://refutingreligion.blogspot.com...

At 2/26/2012 6:07:23 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Hey all,

I have began a blog to challenge Islam: http://challengingmuslims.blogspot.com...

I would like your thoughts on the blog and the Muslims response.

Here is a response to your 5 questions on islam.

1. No compulsion in religion is not the same as prescribing a punishment for wrong doing tht a person agrees to. In islam, there are prescribled punishments, like there is in any law. Therefore, if a person chooses to accept islam, they are themselves accepting the prescribed punishments. Thus it is not compulsion, when you accept a way of life on your own choosing. Compulsion is when someone is forced to believe in islam or something that they do not accept. Yet in islam, laws of punishment are prescribed, so there is no compulsion when they are enforced when a person accepts islam willingly with all the prescribed punishments.

2. The stone is sacred simply by tradition, not for necessity. Therefore, if the stone was destroyed today, it does not change any aspect of islam. It's significance is only traditional, not religious. So there is no need for Allah to protect it.

3. Allah has only revealed one religion (islam) and has revealed in the qur'an that it is the true religion and it will be protected. The qur'an relates to the scientific method of assuring that the qur'an is th true word of Allah. The tests are in the following:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

Here we have test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur'an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur'an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur'an is without error, indecency, and immorality. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur'an answers this question with the following test. The Qur'an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspre enough followers to conquer a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of the people.

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur'an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur'an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagrees, then take the challenge and prove differently.

4. Muhammad (saw) did not have sex with a 9 year old. Muhammad wrote a marriage contract with Aisha at 6 years old, and entered into the contract of living with her at 9 years old. The marriage was a fulfillment of a vision he received by Allah to marry her, for Allah knew that she would grow to become an important teacher of islam. It is not immoral, for the purpose of marriage is to love, protect, and provide for your spouse. Therefore, there is nothing immoral in loving, protecting, and caring for a 9 year old. The motive ws not sexual.

5. I would not approve of a 53 year old marrting my 9 year old daugter unless that person was a prophet as well, thus ensuring that the person had good intentions like Muhammad (saw).

At 2/27/2012 1:17:20 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/26/2012 6:07:23 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Hey all,

I have began a blog to challenge Islam: http://challengingmuslims.blogspot.com...

I would like your thoughts on the blog and the Muslims response.

Here is a response to your 5 questions on islam.


1. No compulsion in religion is not the same as prescribing a punishment for wrong doing tht a person agrees to. In islam, there are prescribled punishments, like there is in any law. Therefore, if a person chooses to accept islam, they are themselves accepting the prescribed punishments. Thus it is not compulsion, when you accept a way of life on your own choosing. Compulsion is when someone is forced to believe in islam or something that they do not accept. Yet in islam, laws of punishment are prescribed, so there is no compulsion when they are enforced when a person accepts islam willingly with all the prescribed punishments.

2. The stone is sacred simply by tradition, not for necessity. Therefore, if the stone was destroyed today, it does not change any aspect of islam. It's significance is only traditional, not religious. So there is no need for Allah to protect it.

3. Allah has only revealed one religion (islam) and has revealed in the qur'an that it is the true religion and it will be protected. The qur'an relates to the scientific method of assuring that the qur'an is th true word of Allah. The tests are in the following:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

Here we have test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur'an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur'an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur'an is without error, indecency, and immorality. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur'an answers this question with the following test. The Qur'an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspre enough followers to conquer a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of the people.

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur'an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur'an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagrees, then take the challenge and prove differently.

4. Muhammad (saw) did not have sex with a 9 year old. Muhammad wrote a marriage contract with Aisha at 6 years old, and entered into the contract of living with her at 9 years old. The marriage was a fulfillment of a vision he received by Allah to marry her, for Allah knew that she would grow to become an important teacher of islam. It is not immoral, for the purpose of marriage is to love, protect, and provide for your spouse. Therefore, there is nothing immoral in loving, protecting, and caring for a 9 year old. The motive ws not sexual.

5. I would not approve of a 53 year old marrting my 9 year old daugter unless that person was a prophet as well, thus ensuring that the person had good intentions like Muhammad (saw).

Are you all so verbose?

At 2/27/2012 1:52:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

Are you all so verbose?

Response: In facing propagandists, such is not verbose.

At 2/27/2012 2:58:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 1:52:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

Are you all so verbose?

Response: In facing propagandists, such is not verbose.

OIC...yes it is. You used many words, ergo verbose. Islam is a valid religion, they way it is practice today in places like Pakistan is an abomination to God. See, not verbose.

At 2/27/2012 3:13:16 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 2:58:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 1:52:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

Are you all so verbose?

Response: In facing propagandists, such is not verbose.

OIC...yes it is. You used many words, ergo verbose. Islam is a valid religion, they way it is practice today in places like Pakistan is an abomination to God. See, not verbose.

Response: Yet the fact that you fail to disprove any of my words supports evidence to the fact that your small amount of words is a weak rebuttal and proves nothing. Thanks for the confirmation.

At 2/27/2012 5:12:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 3:13:16 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 2:58:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 1:52:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

Are you all so verbose?

Response: In facing propagandists, such is not verbose.

OIC...yes it is. You used many words, ergo verbose. Islam is a valid religion, they way it is practice today in places like Pakistan is an abomination to God. See, not verbose.

Response: Yet the fact that you fail to disprove any of my words supports evidence to the fact that your small amount of words is a weak rebuttal and proves nothing. Thanks for the confirmation.

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

At 2/27/2012 6:11:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

Response: Only in the eyes of the delusional. Thanks for clarifying.

At 2/27/2012 6:11:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

Are you implying that you are satan?

At 2/27/2012 6:57:02 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 2/27/2012 6:11:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

Are you implying that you are satan?

lol

At 2/27/2012 6:57:02 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 2/27/2012 6:11:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

Are you implying that you are satan?

Response: Are you demonstrating the inability to comprehend simple basic english?

At 2/27/2012 7:18:31 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 6:57:02 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 2/27/2012 6:11:19 PM, logicrules wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:44:06 PM, Fatihah wrote:

At 2/27/2012 5:32:51 PM, logicrules wrote:

It is arrogance to presume to be able to speak for God. Prophets are never accepted, and rarely understood. I see no reason to confront one who presumes more than even Satan his own self.

Response: To the contrary, it is illogical to deny the prophethood of the prophets of islam, when the qur'an is clearly the revelation and true word of Allah.

Satan has spoken. Islam is a religion of fear, intimidation and hate. May God have Mercy on you.

Are you implying that you are satan?

Response: Are you demonstrating the inability to comprehend simple basic english?

Response: Oops. Quoted the wrong post. Pay no mind to my post above tkubok.

I like the ruling by the Converted Muslim judge in Pennsylvania with regard to an atheist making fun of muhammad and being beaten by a Muslim man. It was the Muslims man's right to beat the crap out of him. Does this mean I can go to Bill Marrs TV set and beat the crap out of him? We wouldn't any double standards when comes to religion now would we?

At 2/27/2012 7:07:45 AM, joneszj wrote:
I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

Shari'a itself means "The Path." It is the right path for all people to take in order to achieve success, according to Islam. Following Shari'a means you don't steal, murder, lie, rape, adulterate, fornicate, and so on. The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts. Islam puts emphasis on the individual following Shari'a, so that he can help guiding others through good example, not force. Shari'a can be applied as state law, and this can come with very good results.

In a libertarian state, Shari'a could easily exist alongside other laws. Muslims would be forbidden from drinking alcohol, non-Muslims wouldn't. Each to their own ideology. However, if the state has Shari'a as its constitution, then certain elements would be enforced upon everyone, but there will be vast freedom. For example, private property, free market, etc., would have to be enforced or secured by the state. Laws forbidding Muslims from drinking alcohol would be placed, but non-Muslims would be exempt from such rulings. Muslims could be placed into conscription, non-Muslims would never be forced to do that. And so on. Basically, certain universal laws would exist within Shari'a, but a lot would break down to personal ideologies. Even the obligatory charity, zakat, that Muslims have to pay every year, is something that non-Muslims would never be obliged to.

No, Muslims cannot 'cleanse' the American law. They are not obliged to force anyone to abandon any laws that aren't a direct threat to innocent people. Muslims need to have Shari'a in their personal lives, and let change come through good example.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Taqqiya is a concept which says that a Muslim is allowed to lie in order to promote the religion of Islam. However, it has no roots in any authentic Islamic texts, nor in the examples of the Prophet. This stems from false sects of Islam, and if this concept was applied to all of Islam, it would have been the most distorted religion in the world. But quite the contrary, its teachings are the best preserved.

Muslims aren't allowed to lie, except when it is completely necessary, such as for saving their own lives. Let's say a Nazi came to a Muslim and wanted to kill him, but the Muslim says that he's an atheist. This wouldn't make the Muslim sin because he is doing a lesser evil by saving his life, rather than boasting about his faith so that he gets murdered as a result.

At 2/27/2012 8:07:03 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 2/27/2012 7:07:45 AM, joneszj wrote:
I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

Shari'a itself means "The Path." It is the right path for all people to take in order to achieve success, according to Islam. Following Shari'a means you don't steal, murder, lie, rape, adulterate, fornicate, and so on. The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts. Islam puts emphasis on the individual following Shari'a, so that he can help guiding others through good example, not force. Shari'a can be applied as state law, and this can come with very good results.

In a libertarian state, Shari'a could easily exist alongside other laws. Muslims would be forbidden from drinking alcohol, non-Muslims wouldn't. Each to their own ideology. However, if the state has Shari'a as its constitution, then certain elements would be enforced upon everyone, but there will be vast freedom. For example, private property, free market, etc., would have to be enforced or secured by the state. Laws forbidding Muslims from drinking alcohol would be placed, but non-Muslims would be exempt from such rulings. Muslims could be placed into conscription, non-Muslims would never be forced to do that. And so on. Basically, certain universal laws would exist within Shari'a, but a lot would break down to personal ideologies. Even the obligatory charity, zakat, that Muslims have to pay every year, is something that non-Muslims would never be obliged to.

No, Muslims cannot 'cleanse' the American law. They are not obliged to force anyone to abandon any laws that aren't a direct threat to innocent people. Muslims need to have Shari'a in their personal lives, and let change come through good example.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Taqqiya is a concept which says that a Muslim is allowed to lie in order to promote the religion of Islam. However, it has no roots in any authentic Islamic texts, nor in the examples of the Prophet. This stems from false sects of Islam, and if this concept was applied to all of Islam, it would have been the most distorted religion in the world. But quite the contrary, its teachings are the best preserved.

Muslims aren't allowed to lie, except when it is completely necessary, such as for saving their own lives. Let's say a Nazi came to a Muslim and wanted to kill him, but the Muslim says that he's an atheist. This wouldn't make the Muslim sin because he is doing a lesser evil by saving his life, rather than boasting about his faith so that he gets murdered as a result.

Shari'a means you don't steal, lie, adulterate, fornicate, and so on.
Isn't all that leagal in the US?

At 2/28/2012 6:32:24 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 2/27/2012 8:07:03 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 2/27/2012 7:07:45 AM, joneszj wrote:
I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

Shari'a itself means "The Path." It is the right path for all people to take in order to achieve success, according to Islam. Following Shari'a means you don't steal, murder, lie, rape, adulterate, fornicate, and so on. The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts. Islam puts emphasis on the individual following Shari'a, so that he can help guiding others through good example, not force. Shari'a can be applied as state law, and this can come with very good results.

In a libertarian state, Shari'a could easily exist alongside other laws. Muslims would be forbidden from drinking alcohol, non-Muslims wouldn't. Each to their own ideology. However, if the state has Shari'a as its constitution, then certain elements would be enforced upon everyone, but there will be vast freedom. For example, private property, free market, etc., would have to be enforced or secured by the state. Laws forbidding Muslims from drinking alcohol would be placed, but non-Muslims would be exempt from such rulings. Muslims could be placed into conscription, non-Muslims would never be forced to do that. And so on. Basically, certain universal laws would exist within Shari'a, but a lot would break down to personal ideologies. Even the obligatory charity, zakat, that Muslims have to pay every year, is something that non-Muslims would never be obliged to.

No, Muslims cannot 'cleanse' the American law. They are not obliged to force anyone to abandon any laws that aren't a direct threat to innocent people. Muslims need to have Shari'a in their personal lives, and let change come through good example.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Taqqiya is a concept which says that a Muslim is allowed to lie in order to promote the religion of Islam. However, it has no roots in any authentic Islamic texts, nor in the examples of the Prophet. This stems from false sects of Islam, and if this concept was applied to all of Islam, it would have been the most distorted religion in the world. But quite the contrary, its teachings are the best preserved.

Muslims aren't allowed to lie, except when it is completely necessary, such as for saving their own lives. Let's say a Nazi came to a Muslim and wanted to kill him, but the Muslim says that he's an atheist. This wouldn't make the Muslim sin because he is doing a lesser evil by saving his life, rather than boasting about his faith so that he gets murdered as a result.

Shari'a means you don't steal, lie, adulterate, fornicate, and so on.
Isn't all that leagal in the US?

Yes and those are not really whats in question. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that it also dictates the homosexuals and adulterers be put to death. That would be a confliction with our current law system. I could be wrong about that though.

At 2/27/2012 8:07:03 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 2/27/2012 7:07:45 AM, joneszj wrote:
I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

Shari'a itself means "The Path." It is the right path for all people to take in order to achieve success, according to Islam. Following Shari'a means you don't steal, murder, lie, rape, adulterate, fornicate, and so on. The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts. Islam puts emphasis on the individual following Shari'a, so that he can help guiding others through good example, not force. Shari'a can be applied as state law, and this can come with very good results.

"The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts." Interesting.

In a libertarian state, Shari'a could easily exist alongside other laws. Muslims would be forbidden from drinking alcohol, non-Muslims wouldn't. Each to their own ideology. However, if the state has Shari'a as its constitution, then certain elements would be enforced upon everyone, but there will be vast freedom. For example, private property, free market, etc., would have to be enforced or secured by the state. Laws forbidding Muslims from drinking alcohol would be placed, but non-Muslims would be exempt from such rulings. Muslims could be placed into conscription, non-Muslims would never be forced to do that. And so on. Basically, certain universal laws would exist within Shari'a, but a lot would break down to personal ideologies. Even the obligatory charity, zakat, that Muslims have to pay every year, is something that non-Muslims would never be obliged to.

Well if it were 'constitutional' would it mean that is a Muslim converts to another religion or to atheism would he/she be punished?

No, Muslims cannot 'cleanse' the American law. They are not obliged to force anyone to abandon any laws that aren't a direct threat to innocent people. Muslims need to have Shari'a in their personal lives, and let change come through good example.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Taqqiya is a concept which says that a Muslim is allowed to lie in order to promote the religion of Islam. However, it has no roots in any authentic Islamic texts, nor in the examples of the Prophet. This stems from false sects of Islam, and if this concept was applied to all of Islam, it would have been the most distorted religion in the world. But quite the contrary, its teachings are the best preserved.

Interesting. How could anyone determine a sect of Islam being false? What is to say they are correct and your theology is false?

Muslims aren't allowed to lie, except when it is completely necessary, such as for saving their own lives. Let's say a Nazi came to a Muslim and wanted to kill him, but the Muslim says that he's an atheist. This wouldn't make the Muslim sin because he is doing a lesser evil by saving his life, rather than boasting about his faith so that he gets murdered as a result.

Thank you for your response.

At 2/28/2012 6:32:24 PM, sadolite wrote:

At 2/27/2012 8:07:03 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 2/27/2012 7:07:45 AM, joneszj wrote:
I have a few questions Mirza:

1. What is the nature of Sharia (spell check please). I have understood it to be the law of Allah and it is to be enforced everywhere. Is this true? If it is true, does 'everywhere' included non-Muslims or Muslims only? Can Sharia coexists in a country like America where the laws enforced can be problematic with Sharia? Would not Jihad (externally) be declared to 'purify' Americas current justice system to conform with Sharia? Just curious.

Shari'a itself means "The Path." It is the right path for all people to take in order to achieve success, according to Islam. Following Shari'a means you don't steal, murder, lie, rape, adulterate, fornicate, and so on. The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts. Islam puts emphasis on the individual following Shari'a, so that he can help guiding others through good example, not force. Shari'a can be applied as state law, and this can come with very good results.

In a libertarian state, Shari'a could easily exist alongside other laws. Muslims would be forbidden from drinking alcohol, non-Muslims wouldn't. Each to their own ideology. However, if the state has Shari'a as its constitution, then certain elements would be enforced upon everyone, but there will be vast freedom. For example, private property, free market, etc., would have to be enforced or secured by the state. Laws forbidding Muslims from drinking alcohol would be placed, but non-Muslims would be exempt from such rulings. Muslims could be placed into conscription, non-Muslims would never be forced to do that. And so on. Basically, certain universal laws would exist within Shari'a, but a lot would break down to personal ideologies. Even the obligatory charity, zakat, that Muslims have to pay every year, is something that non-Muslims would never be obliged to.

No, Muslims cannot 'cleanse' the American law. They are not obliged to force anyone to abandon any laws that aren't a direct threat to innocent people. Muslims need to have Shari'a in their personal lives, and let change come through good example.

2. Taqqiya. This is a term spread around alot. What does it mean? Can Muslims lie to further their faith?

Taqqiya is a concept which says that a Muslim is allowed to lie in order to promote the religion of Islam. However, it has no roots in any authentic Islamic texts, nor in the examples of the Prophet. This stems from false sects of Islam, and if this concept was applied to all of Islam, it would have been the most distorted religion in the world. But quite the contrary, its teachings are the best preserved.

Muslims aren't allowed to lie, except when it is completely necessary, such as for saving their own lives. Let's say a Nazi came to a Muslim and wanted to kill him, but the Muslim says that he's an atheist. This wouldn't make the Muslim sin because he is doing a lesser evil by saving his life, rather than boasting about his faith so that he gets murdered as a result.

Shari'a means you don't steal, lie, adulterate, fornicate, and so on.
Isn't all that leagal in the US?

I said it's something the individual doesn't do. It's a personal law. Marriage is a contract, and whoever doesn't want to respect it should not sign it either. If Shari'a were to be applied as a state law, adultery would be punishable.

At 2/28/2012 7:10:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
"The best appliance of Shari'a isn't in the lands, but in the hearts." Interesting.

Yes, and it's true. Shari'a was first applied as a moral law.

Well if it were 'constitutional' would it mean that is a Muslim converts to another religion or to atheism would he/she be punished?

No, I don't agree with punishment for apostasy. Freedom of religion is a strict guarantee in the Qur'an, and a person should feel free to abide by whatever belief he wishes.

Apostasy-punishment was first applied as a response to Jews who endangered Islam by pretending to be Muslims. Because Muslims were heavily endangered and oppressed already, converting to Islam meant you had a permanent contract with the Muslim government 14 centuries ago. This is why apostasy was prohibited for those who converted to Islam. As a general ruling, a person is free to apostatize. Muslims are in no similar danger like 14 centuries ago.

Interesting. How could anyone determine a sect of Islam being false? What is to say they are correct and your theology is false?

Much like one argues against another religion. For example, the Qur'an teaches that the Prophet had pious companions. Some Islamic sects curse these companions on a daily basis. Clearly they follow idiotic, vain ideologies that go directly against the Qur'an.

Same with Taqiyya, it has no basis in the Qur'an. If Muslims were allowed to lie about their religion, it would have been a completely different Islam all over the world today. It's not. No Muslim deems Jesus (peace be upon him) as God. Nobody worships Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And so on. If Muslims were encouraged to lie about their religion, they would have made false stories that would've changed Islam heavily.

Thank you for your response.

Anytime.