Deep Sight:

Thanks for your answers, Tbaba.

Do you regard sharia punishments such as amputation in cases of theft, stoning in cases of adultery, etc to be humane punishments? Do you not think that these are rather archaiaic punishments which ought to have been since phased out? Do you think it is ideal for modern societies to adhere strictly to codes of punishments set out by very ancient traditions?

I do insist on the term Gender Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. And there is a wealth of overwhelming evidence for that. Surely you cannot wave aside all the evidence for that and seek to deny the overwhelming pointers of severe discrimination against women which stem from Islamic injunctions.

How does a woman divorce her husband. Are divorce rights saved for men alone?

Q1 Thanks for your questions, Now, the important thing is to understand how an Islamic system works:

THEFT
Under an islamic system,  wealth is redistributed by a system known as the Zakat system. Muslims give 2.5% of their wealth(not income) every year to the poor in the society, therefore the rich in the society are responsible for the needy in the society. Therefore, if a thief steals in islam because he is hungry or cannot feed his family, It is a failure of society for failing to provide opportunity for that person to create wealth for himself. Therefore, the person is let go without  any punishment and provided with capital or a job by the state.

Now if theft is as result of greed or any other selfish reason, the punishment is the amputation of the hand. I know of a person who is serving 42 years in prison for stealing about $200. Ask that person if he would prefer to have an amputation of the hand and be with his family or remain in prison. The option will always be the first one. The harsh punishments are to serve as a deterrent as much as anything. It is to make you think about the possible consequences of your actions.

Adultery
The punishment for adultery is stern but again it only serves as a deterrent. It is almost impossible to get a conviction on adultery because you need 4 witnesses who must have seen the actual act of adultery take place. These four witnesses must be of high moral standard and impeccable behaviour. How do you get four people of high moral standards to witness such an act? The fact that they are witnessing such an act is a testament that they are probably not of such high moral standard.

Many people do not know this, but in the first 1000 years of islam. There were only 3 convicted cases of adultery and these were people who came forward and reported themselves and refused to withdraw their statements after appeals from the scholars.

So to answer your question, i do not think the punishments are archaic. The laws are supposed to be applied by creating a balance between justice and mercy.

Q2. The saudi legal system makes an attempt to implement the sharia but even the idea of a monarchy ruling a state is against the islamic system. The islamic ruling system is the shu'ra system which is similar to today's parliamentary democracy. In the world today, there are no countries applying the Islamic model of governance, because the governments are more concerned with maintaining power. From the discussions, i have had with saudis, the situation isn't nearly as bad as you put it. Anything that oppresses anyone can not be from islam.

Q3. How does a woman divorce her husband. Are divorce rights saved for men alone?

Excellent question, Before a woman gets married in islam; she writes a marriage contract which the husband must agree to. The contract is to ensure that all her rights in the marriage are assured. For instance, the contract could include:

'He must provide for my needs and that of my kids'
"He must not hit me under any circumstances"
"He should not take a second wife:

If the man violates any of the conditions of marriage set by the wife. Those are grounds for the wife to file for divorce.

I do not post these questions as a "proof" that Islam is false.  I do not believe that is possible with a simple list of questions.  Nevertheless, they are here to encourage discussion that the truth may be known.

The Qur'an says "To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward" (Surah 5:9). 

Question: Are you doing enough good deeds to receive salvation on the Day of Judgment?

Question: Are you doing all you can or are you relaxing in your dedication to Allah?


The Qur'an says, "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9).  Notice how it says if you are sincere you may receive forgiveness. 

Question: How do you know you are sincere enough to be forgiven of Allah?

Question: Does it give you peace to know that even if you are very sincere then, at best, you may receive forgiveness?

Question: If you say that you know you are sincere enough in your repentance before Allah, how do you know you are not deceiving yourself?

Question: Is your heart really good enough to muster enough sincerity before a Holy and Righteous God?

Question: If you say yes, I honestly and humbly ask you, "Are you being prideful?"

Question: If you say you are not being prideful, then are you boasting in your sincerity?


In Christianity, Jesus is God in flesh who paid for our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24).  Because of that, we Christians are secure in Him and do not have to worry about doing enough good works to please God since we are saved by grace through faith in Him, (Eph. 2:8-9).

Question: Why should we Christians give up our guarantee of salvation in Jesus for the requirements of your Qur'anic law when you yourselves don't even know if you have done enough good deeds to be saved on the Day of Judgment?


The Bible says that God is love (1 John 4:16) and that He loves all people (Matt. 5:43-48; John 3:16).  The Qur'an never says that "God is love."  In fact, the Qur'an says that Allah does not love unbelievers (2:98; 3:32). 

Question: If Allah does not love unbelievers, can you say that Allah is love, especially if the Qur'an does not say it?

[b]Question: [/b]If you say yes, that Allah is love, then why does he only love the Muslims and not all people?

Question: If you say Allah is love, is he more loving than the God of the Bible who loves all people?



In the Bible, Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In Christianity, the greatest act of love is performed by God Himself -- since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9).  Jesus is the one who fulfilled His own words on this.  He laid His life down for us.

Question: What is the greatest act of love performed by Allah?

Question: If what Jesus said is true, then hasn't someone besides Allah performed the greatest act of love?

Question: Why do you, as a Muslim, want me to give up such a great love performed by God Himself (from a Christian perspective) for your belief in Allah who only loves people if they are Muslims?

Islam teaches that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel.  In the Bible, the Holy Spirit lives in the Christians.

Question: If the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit, how can he dwell in us?   (Note:  According to the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Textual Apparatus, there are no textual variations of any of the following biblical references.  They are recorded and transmitted to us accurately.)

"Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you," (2 Tim. 1:14, NASB).

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16, NASB).


Lying is okay?

Question: Was Muhammad wrong for advocating lying?  Is Lying okay? "Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369).

Question: Who is more holy, Allah or Yahweh?

In the above quote from the hadith, Muhammad advocated lying.  The Christian God would never approve of lying.  Does the god of Islam approve of lying?  If not, then wasn't Muhammad wrong?  If he was not wrong, then Allah approves of lying.  Which God is more holy?  The God of Christianity is far more holy


http://carm.org/religious-movements/islam/questions-muslims

@ frosbel:

Would you please kindly respect my request to stay off this thread? You and I would have a proper discussion at a later time.

Thanks

Sorry but I have a right to ask questions , this is an open forum.

Have you heard of freedom of speech ?

My impression is that you are in dread of any truth exposition out in the open.

Answer my questions please.

Thanks.

Big Meat:

@ tbaba:

1. explain why there are different sects in islam with reference to the shia, sunni, wahabis etc, which of them is the most authentic sect accepted by Allah

2. why do the quran and hadith contradicts each other in terms of explaning what islam is all about

thanks

1. The Quran states:
    Surah 6
   159. Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.

But like humans we differed and have divided ourselves into sects. Judgement belongs to Allah at  the end of the day. The most important thing is not to compromise on the oneness of Allah and the sunnah of the prophet.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spoke of the ummah splitting into seventy-three groups, he said that they would all be in Hell apart from one, the one which follows the same path as him and his companions. This is the standard.

2. why do the quran and hadith contradicts each other in terms of explaning what islam is all about?

Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid. However, it is important to understand the context of a hadith before concluding whether it goes against the Quranic principles. You must understand that the Quran is perfect whilst the hadith was compiled by men and each hadith has a different level of authenticity. Some hadiths are considered pretty much authentic based on the chain of narration and the people who transmitted it, others are considered false.

MyJoe:

Sound.
As a followup to the above or to rephrase it, do you think that precepts, a system of ethics, code of conduct or laws developed in the 7th century can work successfully in the 21st century? Should Islam be "modernised"?

I believe that the values are dynamic and flexible and can offer solutions to the problems faced by modern societies. For instance, the problem of wealth distribution is probably the biggest problems faced by modern societies. The islamic Zakat system offers a solution to that. So i do not think islam needs to be modernised, I think the values have to be practiced altruistically.

tbaba1234:

Adultery
The punishment for adultery is stern

tbaba1234:

Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid.

Here are my questions:
1. Which Quranic verse prescribes stoning as the punishment for adultery.
2. How do you reconcile this punishment with the claim that the Quran is complete and perfect?

Why are the hadith given equal or almost as much importance as the Koran, given the fact that Mohammed did not directly write them.

amor4ce:

What does Islam say about dark-skinned peoples?
How are Christians and Jews to be treated?
Does Islam say anything against slavery, especially of dark-skinned people, and the trans-saharan and east African slave trade of the of the recent past?

Q1 The prophet of islam said: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves." in his last sermon.

So it is obvious the only thing that distinguishes people is piety.

Q2. Thanks for this question.

Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance. Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam (by muslims and non muslims), as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named "the People of the Book" in the Qur'an , is very friendly and tolerant.

This attitude towards the People of the Book developed during the years of the birth of Islam. At that time, Muslims were a minority, struggling to protect their faith and suffering oppression and torture from the pagans of the city of Mecca. Due to this persecution, some Muslims decided to flee Mecca and shelter in a safe country with a just ruler. The Prophet Muhammad told them to take refuge with King Negus, the Christian king of Ethiopia. The Muslims who followed this advice found a very fair administration that embraced them with love and respect when they went to Ethiopia. King Negus refused the demands of the pagan messengers who asked him to surrender the Muslims to them, and announced that Muslims could live freely in his country.

Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Qur'an . A verse of the Qur'an states:

… You will find the people most affectionate to those who believe are those who say, 'We are Christians.' That is because some of them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant. (Surat al-Ma'ida, 82)

Another important fact we learn from the Qur'an is that Muslims must respect Jewish and Christian places of worship. In the Qur'an , the places of worship of the People of the Book, i.e. monasteries, churches and synagogues, are mentioned as places of worship protected by God.

…if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed. God will certainly help those who help Him - God is All-Strong, Almighty. (Surat al-Hajj: 40 )

This verse shows all Muslims the importance of respecting and protecting the sanctuaries of Christians and Jews.

Indeed, in the Qur'an God commands Muslims not to harbor any enmity towards any people. In many verses, friendship is recommended, even with idolaters. God even refers to the idolaters at war with Muslims in this way: "If any of the idolaters ask you for protection, give them protection until they have heard the words of God. Then convey them to a place where they are safe." (Surat at-Tawba: 6)

Jews and Christians, however, are much closer to Muslims than idolaters. Each of these religions has its book, that is, they are subject to a revelation sent down by God. They know what is right and what is wrong, what is lawful and what is unlawful. They know they will give an account to God, and they love and revere His prophets. This shows that Muslims and the people of the book can live easily together and cooperate.

At a time when anti-religious, atheist and materialist ideologies surround the world, similarities among theistic religions should be emphasized, and cooperation should be established for common aims.

Concerning the People of the Book, God gives Muslims a command in the Qur'an ; to rally to a common formula:

O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God. (Surat Al 'Imran, 64)

Thanks.

3. Does Islam say anything against slavery, especially of dark-skinned people, and the trans-saharan and east African slave trade of the of the recent past?

During the time of the prophet, Slavery existed amongst the arabs. Islam promoted the freedom of slaves by encouraging the freedom of slaves for the expiation of sins and encouraged muslims to marry slave women. One of the closest companions to the Prophet was a freed black slave named Bilal. He occupied a very important role amongst the early muslims.

aletheia:

Here are my questions:
1. Which Quranic verse prescribes stoning as the punishment for adultery.
2. How do you reconcile this punishment with the claim that the Quran is complete and perfect?

Islamic law is based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet because the Quran says:

The only saying of the faithful believers,when they are called to Allah (His Words, the Quran) and His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, is that they say: WE HEAR AND WE OBEY.And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise ). (Surah Al-Nur, Ayat 51]

We obey the teachings of the prophet because the Quran says so: Not the other way around. There are many instances where the prophet example guides a muslim's life.

One quick example which is frequently used but is a great reminder.Allah (swt) commands us to pray but does not tell us how. So how do we know how to pray? From the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). And how do we know the Sunnah? From the hadith.

Allah (swt) commanded us to follow the Prophet (saw), and that can't be done without Hadith.

The Quran in its perfection gave us an example to help us follow its values.

The fact the punishment was prescribed by the prophet who we are commanded to obey by God is enough.

The completeness of the Quran is in that it gives you a course of action to take, in every situation.

tpia@:

Why are the hadith given equal or almost as much importance as the Koran, given the fact that Mohammed did not directly write them.

Nothing is given as much importance as the Quran. However, the Quran asks us to look at the example of the Prophet, that is why we do. The science of the hadith is complex and the hadith have different levels of authenticity.

tbaba1234:


Islamic law is based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet because the Quran says:

The only saying of the faithful believers,when they are called to Allah (His Words, the Quran) and His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, is that they say: WE HEAR AND WE OBEY.And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise ). (Surah Al-Nur, Ayat 51]

We obey the teachings of the prophet because the Quran says so: Not the other way around. There are many instances where the prophet example guides a muslim's life.

One quick example which is frequently used but is a great reminder.Allah (swt) commands us to pray but does not tell us how. So how do we know how to pray? From the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). And how do we know the Sunnah? From the hadith.

Allah (swt) commanded us to follow the Prophet (saw), and that can't be done without Hadith.

The Quran in its perfection gave us an example to help us follow its values.

The fact the punishment was prescribed by the prophet who we are commanded to obey by God is enough.

The completeness of the Quran is in that it gives you a course of action to take, in every situation.

^. . .but you did not actually answer my question:

aletheia:

Here are my questions:
1. Which Quranic verse prescribes stoning as the punishment for adultery.

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear enough. Let me rephrase:

What is the specific punishment prescribed by the Quran for adultery?

aletheia:

^. . .but you did not actually answer my question:
Perhaps, I did not make myself clear enough. Let me rephrase:

What is the specific punishment prescribed by the Quran for adultery?

Stoning as punishment for sexual sin is not prescribed in the Qur'an, but is prescribed in the hadith—oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad.

"The woman and the man guilty of fornication(or adultery) scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah" (Surah 24:2)

Now, there are differences of opinion on this point. There are scholars who feel that flogging should apply to both the fornicator and the adulterer, and others that prescribe much harsher punishments based on the hadith, their opinion is that the illegal intercourse mentioned in the Quran is for the fornicator and not the adulterer and it is one hundred lashes.

A scholar would be able to give you detailed reasons why they differ. I would not do justice to the argument.

The point is whatever the punishment, if the law is applied altruistically; Conviction is impossible because of the conditions that need to be met".

And God knows best.

tbaba1234:

Stoning as punishment for intimate sin is not prescribed in the Qur'an, but is prescribed in the hadith—oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad.

"The woman and the man guilty of fornication(or adultery) scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah" (Surah 24:2)

^
The Qur'an prescribes 100 lashes for adultery. . .the hadith says death by stoning. So the Qur'an says one thing while the hadith says another. Islamic jurisprudence follows the hadith in this case and yet you say:

tbaba1234:

Any hadith that contradicts the Quran is invalid.

Why then have you not set aside the hadith that prescribes death by stoning seeing as it says a different thing from the Qur'an? Even saying that:

tbaba1234:

. . .the hadith have different levels of authenticity.

. . .does not help because by your statement, the Qur'an is the ultimate authority on matters of faith for Muslims and therefore any hadith no matter how authentic must be set aside if it says anything different on a matter already covered by the Qur'an.

But since the hadith is regarded as authentic then; it is accepted. This must place you in a bind for that very hadith directly implies that your Qur'an is incomplete, and if incomplete, then it is imperfect.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
, In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam, the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' (Sahih Bukhari 8.817)

So where did the missing verse go?

@ poster, Sir

In the quran it is mentioned that adultery is punishable by 100 lashes, whilst in the hadith it is death by stoning which majority of islamic country follows eg Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan, Somalia just to name a few. In your own opinion which is correct.

How do moslems differentiate if there is adultery, when men are allowed to marry up to four wives.

Why is it that moslems in some countries riot and killed many people (as it is always stated that Islam is peace) when Mohammed's name or so-called pictures are made reference to, a classic example the Danish cartoon newspaper.

Why do people who renounce the Islamic faith sentenced to death, in Pakistan a woman is still awaiting her sentence if she will be put to death or not because she left the Islamic faith.

Sir, I have many questions to ask, but please let's start with these

Islam Was Not For Me ( Please read this with an open mind , I did not write it)

My breach with Islam started as far back as I could discern things. More to the point, I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family.

For one thing, I had a very difficult time following a so-called religion whose founder and followers had butchered my ancestors, violated and sold our women, burned our libraries, and destroyed our magnificent culture. Islam was forced down the throats of Iranians with the sword of Allah. In my heart, I never considered myself a Muslim. However, I didn’t reveal this until later in life for fear of retribution by radical Muslims.

Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be given a chance to revert to the faith. For an unrepentant male apostate, death is the proscribed punishment and life imprisonment for the female apostate.

“Kill whoever changes his religion.” __Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57

Islam considers an apostate as a person who unilaterally breaks the covenant he has made with the faith. An apostate is condemned as guilty of turning his back on Allah’s immutable eternal religion.



I came to the realization that the root cause of my peoples’ degradation and suffering was Islam. It was a creed imposed on an enlightened, tolerant and free people at the point of the sword by savages hailing from the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century with promises of booty and women in this world and glorious eternal sensual rewards in the promised paradise of Allah in the next. With each passing day, I rejoice more and more in my good fortune; in my ability to avoid the yoke of Islamic slavery and its blinders that imprisons a billion and half people by walls of superstition, hatred of others, and a celebration of death.

Iranian Muslims are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that is enshrined in the Cyrus the Great Cylinder, the unconditional respect for the complete rights of all the people of the world (an anathema to the Islamists’ credo) that has held the nation together over the millennia. Although Islam was imposed on Iran some 1,400 years ago, Iranians deeply value their own ancient non-Arab identity and have never fully surrendered to the Arab culture.

The 2009 protests were just as much against the Islamic Republic as they were about Shi’a Islam. In fact, much of it was against Islam itself. People have experienced what a primitive and defective system of belief Islam is and aim to abandon it for good. Many will still hang on to it to some extent for some time. Yet, a great many would simply leave Islam and even actively oppose it.

Things Islamic not only did not resonate with me, they often clashed head on with what I valued and loved. What appealed to me and even enchanted me were more often than not, taboo in Islam or anathema to the creed. I loved life, beauty in all its forms, poetry, ancient Iranian culture and traditions. I loved laughter, celebrations of joy such as birthdays; our yearly festivities of Nowruz, my favorite, lasts for thirteen days. Nowruz, this ancient festival, has been celebrated for thousands of years by my people; it ushers in the spring, welcomes renewal of life, and expresses optimism for the year ahead to bless us with good health, abundant food, family, and friends in the land of a civilized and free people.

I have always believed one cannot possibly be a Persian and hold to the lofty tenets of the ancient Iranian Zoroastrian triad of good thoughts, good words, good deeds, and remain a Muslim. In the same fashion, one cannot cherish American values, the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution and be a true Muslim. They are comprehensively incompatible with Sharia Law.

Currently, a large number of Iranians are completely fed up with Islam and they want to leave this dogma of hate and violence. In fact, many already have, but they simply aren’t able to come forward and announce it, for obvious reasons.

Such duplicity exists within the Iranian culture. Originally, Iranians were forced to accept Islam to save their lives from Arab invaders, but deep within the heart of every single Iranian alive today, exists a burning resentment of the Arab-Islamic invasion of their homeland and culture. It is ironic that many Iranians may actually confess to being Muslims; yet, an overwhelming number of Iranians have never read the Quran or understand its language. The events in history have toughened present day Iranians. They have become great pretenders. But the totality of 1400 years of Islamic barbarity and savagery must end. We no longer need to pretend that we are practicing Muslims; when in fact, we are not.

Realistically speaking, there is perhaps 10-15 percent of the population that continues to support the clerical system in varying degrees. Many in this group are government employees, Mullahs, and hired thugs such as the Basiji. Also, the regime has some backers among the poor, the less educated, and the deeply religious. Yet, the alienation from the regime and Islam spans the entire spectrum of the Iranian society with the intelligentsia and the university students leading the determined opposition to end Islamic rule.

Masses of Iranians are irreparably alienated from a corrupt and oppressive Islamic rule. The rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is crumbling. The previously solid edifice, or at least the appurtenance of it, is finally showing many cracks that continue to grow. There are just too many fault lines to list here.
My fellow secularist Iranians and I have indeed done, and continue to do, what we can to help our compatriots in Iran, who are on the front line fighting Islam and the Islamic Regime.

There are still those who foolishly claim that Muhammad was a messenger from God and the Quran is a divinely revealed book. My suggestion is that they use their intellect and read the Quran fully for themselves without the assumption that the book is the literal word of God and that Muhammad was their messenger. Without this assumption as their starting point, they will find better than 90% of the book is about violence, threats of hell, exclusion of people, and the like. What kind of God would dictate things like what you find in the Quran? It took Muhammad 20 years to reveal this hodge-podge book that reads more like expressions of a delusional individual with multiple personality disorder.

I bemoan the plight of my native land and the people who have suffered and continue to suffer under Islam. Without Islam there wouldn’t be any Muslims to hoist the banner of hate and violence against non-Muslims. A few claim that Islam has done some good in the past. Well, that’s debatable. There are those who are equally convinced that Islam has inflicted a great deal of suffering on others from its inception to the present. What we all must agree on is that Islam and its sharia laws, at the very least, do not fit in today’s world.

Islam is a creed of an ignorant people in a primitive and barbaric age. It is fixated in time and place; it harbors the ambition of taking the 21st century world back 14 centuries and ruling it by its dogma of violence, intolerance, injustice and death. Yet, Islam is not only an obsolete vestige of a defunct era, but itself is an infinitely fractured belief that can hardly put its own home in order. The numerous Islamic sects are at each other’s throats; sub-sects and schools despise one another as much as they hate non-Muslims. Hatred, not love, drives Islam.

I am not against Muslims. I condemn Islam with all its derivatives and those who support and promote it. Muslims are patients and Islam is a disease. You want to help the patients to rid themselves of the affliction. You want to eradicate a horrifically communicable disease. Although many prefer to tackle the militant version of Islam “Islamism,” for all intents and purposes, there is no sharp demarcation between, Islamists, Jihadists and Islamism. One and all are progeny of Islam itself. Any differences among the three are of degree and not kind. When one addresses Islamism and jihadism, their source is also addressed.

Regrettably, Islam cannot be reformed. Keep in mind that Islam claims it is the perfect eternal faith for mankind. Splits have occurred and will continue to occur in Islam. Yet, reformation has not happened in nearly 1400 years and is not going to happen. Islam is carved in granite, just the way it is. No change. Allah’s book is sealed.
In the monumental task of dealing with Islam and its variations, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. We must urge all people to resist Islam’s encroachment and not be deceived by its sanitized version presented in non-Islamic lands. The destiny of civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking of this responsibility would be an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=866:islam-was-not-for-me&catid=48:imani&Itemid=58

My Question, in this 21st century, is ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE? and what can you say about the boded?

aletheia:

^
The Qur'an prescribes 100 lashes for adultery. . .the hadith says death by stoning. So the Qur'an says one thing while the hadith says another. Islamic jurisprudence follows the hadith in this case and yet you say:Why then have you not set aside the hadith that prescribes death by stoning seeing as it says a different thing from the Qur'an? Even saying that:. . .does not help because by your statement, the Qur'an is the ultimate authority on matters of faith for Muslims and therefore any hadith no matter how authentic must be set aside if it says anything different on a matter already covered by the Qur'an.

Thanks for your question: I hope i can  be clearer this time.

Like  I said, there are differences of opinion on this point. There are scholars who feel that flogging should apply to both the fornicator and the adulterer, and others that prescribe much harsher punishments based on the hadith, their opinion is that the illegal intercourse mentioned in the Quran is for the fornicator and not the adulterer and it is one hundred lashes. 

First of all, humans are imperfect so they interpret texts based on their understanding

Scholar I says : fornication and adultery are included in this verse so based on the Quranic injunction, he makes his judgement.

Scholar II says: This verse only includes fornication, so looks to the prophetic traditions for answers; Again, based on the Quranic instruction to look for answers there.

Saying that

aletheia:

^
The Qur'an prescribes 100 lashes for adultery. . .the hadith says death by stoning.

is a disingenuous because it fails to recognize the two opinions held by people. Each group have based their opinions on the Quran. So In both cases, the Quran is the ultimate source of reference.

So the imperfections lie in each groups interpretation of the verse and not the Quran. Even at that, they both make references to the Quran to arrive at final conclusions.

aletheia:

^
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
,  In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam, the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal intimate intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal intimate intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' (Sahih Bukhari 8.817)

So where did the missing verse go?

Simple answer, there is no missing verse. I will give a detailed explanation of the context of this hadith and an understanding of the history.

The allegation that a verse prescribing stoning as the punishment of adultery by a married man or woman is also without sound foundation. I will provide a brief demonstration by examining briefly Bukhari's two relevant traditions. The shorter version reads, on the authority of Ibn Abbas:

`Umar said: I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find rajam (stoning) mentioned in the book of God," and consequently they may go astray by neglecting an obligation that God has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of rajam is applicable to him who commits adultery and he is already married and the crime is established by witnesses, pregnancy or confession (Bukhari, Book: "The punishment of those who, " Chapter: "To confess committing adultery".

The second version is also related on the authority of the same Ibn ‘Abbas but with different chain of transmitters. In the following quotation I have highlighted the parts that are not found in the first version.

God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed the holy book to him, and a part of what God revealed was the verse of rajam and we did recite it, understood it, and memorized it. God's messenger stoned (for adultery) and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, "By God we do not find the verse of rajam in the book of God," and thus they will go astray by neglecting an obligation that God has revealed. The penalty of rajam is applicable in the book of God to whoever commits adultery, male or female, and is already married and the crime is established by witnesses, pregnancy or confession (Bukhari, Book: "The punishment of those who, " Chapter: "The rajm of a married lady whose adultery is established by pregnancy".

There is no reasonable explanation in sight as to why the verse whose existence is alleged in this second version is not there in our copies of the Qur’an if it was once part of the Qur’an. By whom or why or how it was removed from the original Qur’an and why it was not rewritten if companions like `Umar knew of its presence in the Qur’an and if they approved the law that it prescribed. But we can easily provide a reasonable explanation of how the tradition alleging the existence of the verse came to be formed.

Notice that both versions talk about people who will object to the penalty of stoning on the grounds that the Qur’an does not mention it. This suggests that we are dealing here with a controversy between the supporters and opponents of the penalty. The opponents reject the penalty because it is nowhere found in the Qur’an. The fact that both versions say that the objection of the opponents will be raised after a long time suggests that we are not dealing here with the time of `Umar. Rather the traditions in question arose out of much later legal controversies about the penalty for adultery. The objective of these traditions is to counter a strong objection against the stoning penalty. Apparently, this objection was met with increasing force as the time passed, as we can see by comparing the two versions.

In the first version there is no mention of the verse about stoning. We are only told in vague terms that the penalty was "revealed" (anzala) by God. This was obviously not enough to support the stoning penalty as long as the verse was not found in the Qur’an. Hence in the second version it is asserted that "a part of what God revealed was the verse of stoning and we did recite it, understood it, and memorized it". These words are not found in the first version. Also, in the first version the opponents of stoning penalty say only:

"We do not find stoning mentioned in the book of God."

In the second version this becomes:

"We do not find the verse of stoning in the book of God."

Note also that in the first version it is said only that:

"The penalty of stoning is applicable to, ”

In the second version it becomes:

"The penalty of stoning is applicable in the book of God to…."

Clearly as we move from the first version to the second a Qur`anic verse about stoning is created as a fact. If we trace the history of the tradition still further we find that some people did not find even this enough. They actually produced a verse commanding the stoning penalty. The next step would have been to add this verse to the text of the Qur’an. But this nobody could do, for the received text was so well established that none of the supporters of the stoning penalty had the necessary authority to change it. Moreover, while many Muslims were willing to tolerate mere allegations of the existence of such a verse, they would not have accepted an actual addition to the Qur’an.

Nevertheless the supporters of the stoning penalty won the day. The reason is not hard to find: To oppose the penalty would be generally regarded as being soft on adultery, and not many wanted to appear in that light. At the same time many trusting Muslims were misled by the traditions which used the authority of `Umar and then the Prophet and the Book of God to support the stoning penalty. In this way the penalty and the traditions about it supported each other and helped to establish both. At one point in time it became difficult to deny the traditions about the stoning verse and they became part of the canonical collections. Then some scholars came up with the concepts of mansukh al-tilawah (abrogated in respect to recitation) and mansukh al-`amal, (abrogated in respect to practice). It was said that the verse about stoning was mansukh al-tilawah not mansukh al-`amal. That is, one could no longer recite the verse as part of the Qur’an but one was nevertheless obligated to act upon it.

So you see, it is important to understand how some of these traditions came about before making conclusions.

As a side note:

As regards the Quran completeness and preseravtion, Scholarly work done by both western and eastern scholars attest to this:

Introduction to the Qur'an, W. Montgomery Watt (Author), Richard Bell Page 3: They assert the job done by the companions preserved the Quran and that the Quran is exactly as it was revealed to the prophet.

These are both christians:

A.T. Welch, a non-Muslim orientalist, writes:

“For Muslims the Quran is much more than scripture or sacred literature in the usual Western sense. Its primary significance for the vast majority through the centuries has been in its oral form, the form in which it first appeared, as the “recitation” chanted by Muhammad to his followers over a period of about twenty years… The revelations were memorized by some of Muhammad’s followers during his lifetime, and the oral tradition that was thus established has had a continuous history ever since, in some ways independent of, and superior to, the written Quran… Through the centuries the oral tradition of the entire Quran has been maintained by the professional reciters (qurraa). Until recently, the significance of the recited Quran has seldom been fully appreciated in the West.” (The Encyclopedia of Islam, ‘The Quran in Muslim Life and Thought.’)

Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that:


“…this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone.”(Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26.)

John Burton, at the end of his substantial work on the Quran’s compilation, states that the Quran as we have it today is:

“…the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet…. What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad. (John Burton, The Collection of the Quran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.239-40.)

The evidence above confirms God’s promise in the Quran:

“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder, and verily We shall preserve it.” (Quran 15:9)

Thanks for your patience.

Macavelius:

@ poster, Sir

In the quran it is mentioned that adultery is punishable by 100 lashes, whilst in the hadith it is death by stoning which majority of islamic country follows eg Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan, Somalia just to name a few. In your own opinion which is correct.

Again let me clarify this, The majority interpretation of the Quranic verse is that it refers to fornication (unmarried couples) and that the hadith has the punishment for adultery(married couples). so there is no contradiction. I would rather not give my personal opinion on this. I will just present the truth to clear all the fog.

The punishment for adultery is stern but again it only serves as a deterrent. It is almost impossible to get a conviction on adultery because you need 4 witnesses who must have seen the actual act of adultery take place. These four witnesses must be of high moral standard and impeccable behaviour. How do you get four people of high moral standards to witness such an act? The fact that they are witnessing such an act is a testament that they are probably not of such high moral standard.

Many people do not know this, but in the first 1000 years of islam. There were only 3 convicted cases of adultery and these were people who came forward and reported themselves and refused to withdraw their statements after appeals from the scholars.

Macavelius:

@ poster, Sir

How do moslems differentiate if there is adultery, when men are allowed to marry up to four wives.

Sex outside the confines of marriage is not permissible. You can only marry more than one wife if you can ensure justice and fairness between them. The option of four wives offers solutions to some social problems.

The Quran states:
,  Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly [with them], then only one, " Q 4:3

The above verse permits a man to take more than one wife on the condition that he can deal justly with them.  So justice  between wives is a precondition to marry more than one,  This offers a practical solution to some of the societal problems. For example, In war torn regions of Africa, there are many widows caught in tough financial conditions because they have to take care of their kids alone. The Islamic model offers them Justice in a family environment.  In the African American community in the U.S., there are so many men in prisons that the ratio of men to women is unfavourably skewed. We have many women without husbands and end up being mistresses and 'baby mamas'. It is a practical solution to problems societies face.

Also, Islamically a man provides for his family,  Whatever a woman earns belongs to her and she has the freedom to do whatever she wants with it.

A muslim woman who doesn't want to be in a polygamous marriage can include the condition in her marriage contract. With that in her contract, her husband can not take more wives.

Macavelius:

@ poster, Sir
Why is it that moslems in some countries riot and killed many people (as it is always stated that Islam is peace) when Mohammed's name or so-called pictures are made reference to, a classic example the Danish cartoon newspaper.

First of all, any riot that involves destruction of human life and property is prohibited in islam:  The Quran tells us that to ", to kill an innocent person is to kill the whole of humanity and to save someone is like saving all of humanity".(Quran: 5; 32). That is the value a muslim is supposed to place on human life.

The danish cartoon were provocative to say the least and they incited passion across the muslim world. Some muslims should have reacted with better wisdom but the reaction was based on emotion.

So it is unislamic to destroy things but a lot of people are intent on provoking muslims by not respecting their values.

I want you to understand the fact that the vast majority of muslims have value for the sanctity of human life and would protect the lives of their neighbours because that is what islam preaches.

Islam means "obtaining peace by submitting sincerely  to the will of the  one God."

Macavelius:

@ poster, Sir
Why do people who renounce the Islamic faith sentenced to death, in Pakistan a woman is still awaiting her sentence if she will be put to death or not because she left the Islamic faith.

This is what the Quran states:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error:whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy
hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Q 2: 256)

So in islam, there is no compulsion in religion. If he wants to convert, he is free,

Now there are certain conditions under an Islamic government where if someone converts and fights against the state, it is considered an act of treason. Most countries have the death penalty for treason.

I can't comment on the pakistani woman's case because i don't know what she did. She shouldn't be sentenced for just converting.

NOTE TO EVERYONE:

I want to thank you for your questions and i hope i help to lift the fog and give you a clearer view on Islam. I believe dialogue is important for people to gain a better understanding on Islam.

I spend a lot of my time trying to provide concrete answers to questions because regrettably there is too much misinformation out there. I would ask that anyone who has a question should look through the history of the thread to see if there is already an answer.

I would also ignore people trolling because i am not here for a debate; I am here to help people who can ask the 'tough questions' with an intent to know.

Once again thank you

And keep the questions coming.

tbaba1234:

Q1. Sure I'll like that. How would sharia deal with issues such as free speech, separation of religion and government and teachings or scientific information that contradict the Qur'an?

Free speech: Absolute freedom of speech is a myth, racial slurs for instance are generally not acceptable in today's society; The muslim's approach to speech is defined by the sayings of prophet(peace be upon him) where he said "Whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day, let him speak good or else keep silent".
There is a huge difference between free speech and hate speech.
Islam is for free speech whilst protecting the rights of people from hate speech.

In islam, I might disagree with you on a number of issues, and total freedom of opinion is a principle that was assured by Islam since it emerged, and applied by Muhammad (pbuh).

The prophet said: "The best Jihad is a speech of truth in the presence of a tyrant ruler." (Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi)

Challenging islam, the prophet or the Quran is fine as long as you don't result to insults and infringe on the rights of people. The Quran invites challenge when it states:

Surah 23
23. And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant,then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you
are truthful.

Where would the drawing of cartoons, such as was done in Denmark and France, fall?

tbaba1234:

separation of religion and government

In a Islamic state, there is no such thing,   It doesn't mean the scholars  become the rulers, It mean the state is ruled by the islamic values of Truth, Justice and mercy.

The Islamic punishment meted out to people can be quite inhumane. Is there a chance of reforming practices such as amputation?

tbaba1234:

scientific information that contradict the Qur'an?

So far, i know of none. Attempts at finding scientific misinformation in the Quran are often laughable because they are mostly by people who don't even understand the classical arabic or rules of the language.

How about issues such as fresh water and salt water not mixing, Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, Mohammed cutting the moon into two and people being created from a liquid gushing from between the loins and the ribs?

tbaba1234:

Q2. Like i said, the age of aisha is irrelevant. It was a different socio-cultural environment. If you talk about the values and lessons we can take from the prophet's marriage and the love and kindness he showed his wives. Those are the values muslims try to adopt and aspire to,

But not marrying 9 year old females. I understand.

tbaba1234:

Q3. How can you tell if a certain statement or illustration is an insult? Deciding that something is an insult is a matter of taste so are you trying to regulate  people's tastes?

Understanding the values of a people is what is important here. you would assume that a black man will take offence if a white man calls him using a racial slur,  but some black men will shrug it off. It doesn't make it ok. It is about respecting people and their values and making a attempt to understand those values. That is why i have this thread.

Some value their female relatives so much that they are willing to kill them for what they perceive as crimes. Should we let them commit such murders?

thehomer:

Where would the drawing of cartoons, such as was done in Denmark and France, fall?

The Islamic punishment meted out to people can be quite inhumane. Is there a chance of reforming practices such as amputation?

How about issues such as fresh water and salt water not mixing, Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, Mohammed cutting the moon into two and people being created from a liquid gushing from between the loins and the ribs?

But not marrying 9 year old females. I understand.

Some value their female relatives so much that they are willing to kill them for what they perceive as crimes. Should we let them commit such murders?

Q1. Drawing of degrading cartoons of the prophet or any other prophet do invoke feelings amongst muslims. It is the kind of cynicism that unfortunately exists in our society. Some muslims overreact, but most people will if their mother or father was insulted. Like i said, respect for other people's traditions is an important value. It's a big place, we can all get along.

Q2. Inhumane? THEFT
Under an islamic system,  wealth is redistributed by a system known as the Zakat system. Muslims give 2.5% of their wealth(not income) every year to the poor in the society, therefore the rich in the society are responsible for the needy in the society. Therefore, if a thief steals in islam because he is hungry or cannot feed his family, It is a failure of society for failing to provide opportunity for that person to create wealth for himself. Therefore, the person is let go without  any punishment and provided with capital or a job by the state.

Now if theft is as result of greed or any other selfish reason, the punishment is the amputation of the hand. I know of a person who is serving 42 years in prison for stealing about $200. Ask that person if he would prefer to have an amputation of the hand and be with his family or remain in prison. The option will always be the first one. The harsh punishments are to serve as a deterrent as much as anything. It is to make you think about the possible consequences of your actions.



Q3. a. There are no scientific discrepancy:

fresh water and salt water not mixing? It doesn't say so, I will try to explain.

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.” (Al-Qur’an 55:19-20)

In the Arabic text the word Barzakh means a barrier or a partition. This barrier, however, is not a physical partition. The Arabic word yaltaqiyāni literally means ‘they both meet and mix with each other’. Early commentators of the Qur’an were unable to explain the two opposite meanings for the two bodies of water, i.e. they meet and mix, and at the same time there is a barrier between them.

Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density.1 Oceanologists are now in a better position to explain this verse.

There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the two seas through which water from one sea passes to the other. But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic and becomes homogenized with the other water. In a way this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters.

This phenomenon is also mentioned in the following verse of the Qur'an:

“And made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water?” (Al-Qur’an 27:61)

This phenomenon occurs in several places, including the divider between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean at Gibralter. A white bar can also be clearly seen at Cape Point, Cape Peninsula, South Africa where the Atlantic Ocean meets the Indian Ocean.

But when the Qur’an speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier.

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: one palatable and sweet, and the other salty and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, and a partition that is forbidden to be passed. (Al-Qur’an 25:53)

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from that found in places where two salt water seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”2 This partition (zone of separation) has a salinity different from both the fresh water and the salt water.3

This phenomenon occurs in several places, including Egypt, where the river Nile flows into the Mediterranean Sea.
These scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an was also confirmed by Dr. William Hay, a wellknown marine scientist and Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A.

Y

b. Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, Mohammed cutting the moon into two? We believe in miracles because we believe that God has power over all things.  These fall into the realm of miracles. Just like we believe Jesus raised the dead or Moses parted the red sea.

c. people being created from a liquid gushing from between the loins and the ribs?? Liquid gushing LOL, also inaccurate,  You should keep off some of these sites.

"Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted --- Proceeding from between The back bone and the ribs."

                                                                                            [AL-QUR'AN 86:5-7]
In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads(ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads(testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the back bone(spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.

Also, The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles. If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.

The seminal vesicles from which the Fluid spurts out during Reproduction, lies between the ribs and the coccyx!

I will ignore the sarcasm in the Aisha statement.

Q4. Some value their female relatives so much that they are willing to kill them for what they perceive as crimes. Should we let them commit such murders?

Honour killings are cultural pratices NOT based on islamic values. So anyone who commits murder should face justice.

tbaba1234:

"Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted --- Proceeding from between The back bone and the ribs."

[AL-QUR'AN 86:5-7]
In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads(ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads(testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the back bone(spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.

lol this is a real dishonest stretch. In order to justify the apparent problem with mohammad claiming man is created from a "drop emitted" from between the backbone and the ribs we now have to go all the way to the embryonic stage of man?

At what point did we figure out that the gonads descend from around the kidneys IN THE EMBRYO and was this common knowledge prior to AD 640?

davidylan:

lol this is a real dishonest stretch. In order to justify the apparent problem with mohammad claiming man is created from a "drop emitted" from between the backbone and the ribs we now have to go all the way to the embryonic stage of man? 

At what point did we figure out that the gonads descend from around the kidneys IN THE EMBRYO and was this common knowledge prior to AD 640? 

In addition, The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.

If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.

The seminal vesicles from which the Fluid spurts out during Reproduction, lies between the ribs and the coccyx!.

tbaba1234:

In addition, The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.

If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.

The seminal vesicles from which the Fluid spurts out during Reproduction, lies between the ribs and the coccyx!.

^Not true. . .
This "between the backbone and ribs" thingy was comprehensively debunked on this here thread (with diagrams for that matter!).

www.nairaland.com/attachments/328650_male_tract_jpgc5839b1a9afe286db274cb0b2dec8ace

As you can see there are no ribs anywhere near the seminal vesicles.

From #48 on that thread:

---

nopuqeater:

The root therefore, we must find, starting from conception. When the organs begin to form inside the body, where each is specifically formed from its unique cluster of cells. Tell us Aletheia from this stage, if you are capable of telling the truth? [/b]This is your challenge. I do have many family members in this noble professions of yours. From sister and brother, nieces and nephews, cousins and even a one from my loin.

I see where you going with this: first you cast aspersions implying I am lying. That which I have seen with my own eyes; I described to you. I hope you understand what it means to dissect the human body?

Secondly

[b]between the back bone and the ribs

is not describing an embryo but the bony structure of a full-formed man.

Thirdly where do the cells that go on to become spermatozoa in the testes form in the embryo? This is a highly technical question whose answer requires the use of specialized language but I will endeavor to simply it for you. The cells that go on to form spermatozoa are called primordial germ cells in the embryo. They originate from parts of the same structure that later on becomes the skin. The skin, we all know is outside covering everything, not between the ribs and backbone.
What is their definite location of origin before moving down: the area that later on becomes your belly button (navel). Is your own belly button between your ribs and backbone? At the time all this is happening (around 4 - 6 weeks after conception [about 6 - 8 weeks after the woman misses her period]) the embryo doesn't even have fully formed ribs or backbone! .

[img]http://www.embryology.ch/images/imgmultuse/c1d_embryo5w.gif[/img]
^The red dots indicate the movement of the primordial germ cells; you can see how they move from the outside around the area of the umbilical cord (later to become your navel).



Please note: the cells that become the spermatozoa are different from those that form the testicles.
And:

between the back bone and the ribs is not describing an embryo but the bony structure of a full-formed man.

aletheia:

^Not true. . .
This "between the backbone and ribs" thingy was comprehensively debunked on this here thread (with diagrams for that matter!).

As you can see there are no ribs anywhere near the seminal vesicles.

Thanks for this, my understanding of the verse was totally wrong.

I have dug deeper into the tafsir based on classical arabic understanding of the verse and this is what i find. Now debunk this.

The correct translation of ‘sulb’ is not backbone, nor does the word ‘tara’ib’ indicate the man’s ribs. Let us review the verse in question:

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

The word ‘tarai’b’—according to the Arabic—is actually referring to a female body part. Much like the English word ‘joystick’ can only be ascribed to a male, the word ‘tara’ib’ can only be applied to a female.

This is not apologetic modernism or revisionism; the classical works of Quranic commentary throughout the last 1400 years confirm this view categorically. In other words, the sulb belongs to the male, and the tara’ib belongs to the female. This is the view of the Muslims since the last fourteen hundred years, and there is consensus (ijma) on this matter, since the time of the Sahabah (the Prophet’s disciples) until today.

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to Fluid but is used in Arabic for both the Fluid and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

[b]Lane’s Lexicon s[/b]ays:
Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)
All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women. Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:
Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:
That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.

(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

AmericanPregnancy.org says:

Ovulation is assumed to take place on the day a woman has the most amount of wet fluid.

(http://www.americanpregnancy.org/get, ulationfaq.htm)
A medical website, OncologyChannel.com, says:

When a woman is fertile, each month a Graafian follicle travels to the surface of the ovary, bursts, and releases an egg and its fluid contents into a fallopian tube.
(http://www.oncologychannel.com/ovari, er/index.shtml)
The cilia in the fallopian tube push the fluid and the egg forward towards the uterus. It is the fluid which is the main force that causes the cilia to beat and thereby push the egg to its destination. Without the fluid, the egg will most likely not make it. One can read this medical article on the topic:
The Effect of Ovarian Follicular Fluid and Peritoneal Fluid on Fallopian Tube Ciliary Beat Frequency

BACKGROUND: …At ovulation, follicular fluid is released into the peritoneal cavity and enters the Fallopian tube. We hypothesized that this fluid may provide the stimulus for the increase in CBF (Ciliary Beat Frequency) detected after ovulation.

…CONCLUSIONS: The increase in CBF detected after ovulation may aid ovum pick-up and transport along the Fallopian tube. Factor(s) within human follicular fluid and secretory phase peritoneal fluid may be responsible for this increase in CBF.

(http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi, stract/21/1/52)
Reproduction-Online.org confirms this:
Formation of Fallopian tubal fluid:

Fluid produced and secreted by the Fallopian tube provides the environment in which gamete transport and maturation, fertilization and early embryo development occur.

(http://www.reproduction-online.org/c, ract/121/3/339)


As for the proper definition of sulb in the context of this verse, it is ‘loins’ and NOT backbone.

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:
The word “sulb” should not necessarily be translated as “backbone”. This word has many possible meanings and backbone is only one of them. It is also quite commonly used to mean the loins of a man. This is how it is used elsewhere in the Qur’ân. Allah says: “Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslâb, the plural of sulb).” [Sûrah al-Nisâ’: 23] There can be no problem with Fluid coming out from the area of a man's loins.
Pickathal, a translator of the Quran, similarly translates the word ‘sulb’ as ‘loins’.

At this point in time, I think it would be appropriate to define the word ‘loins’, since many people nowadays have weak vocabularies. The word ‘loins’ refers to the Core and pubic area, or the Cores. So if the Quran says that Fluid comes from the Cores (and it does!), then how is this a scientific error?

Arabic-English Dictionaries and Journal Articles

We refer the reader to p.226 of The Concise Oxford English Arabic Dictionary. The English word ‘loins’ is translated as ‘sulb’. (source: http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Oxford, /dp/0198643217 )

We refer the reader to p.231 of Hippocrene Standard Dictionary Arabic-English English-Arabic by John Wortabet, in which once again, the only definition of the word loins is ‘sulb’. (source: http://www.amazon.com/Hippocrene-Dic, 6200382&sr=1-1)

It is a simple matter of driving down to Barnes and Noble or another bookstore to verify these definitions. But if the reader is too lazy to do that, here is an online reference. On p.146 of An English and Arabic Dictionary by Joseph Catafago, notice that the only definition given for the word ‘salbi’ is ‘proceeding from the loins’. (click here to view: http://books.google.com/books?id=42o, =5&ct =result)

Here is another online reference: on p.791 of A Comprehensive Persian English Dictionary: Including the Arabic Words, we see that the first definition of the word ‘sulbi’ is ‘proceeding from the loins’. (click here: http://books.google.com/books?id=knA, um=4&ct=result)

Still not convinced? Here is another online reference, this time from the YemenTimes.com, which translates the word ‘sulb’ as ‘loins’. It should be noted that this article has nothing to do with the verse in question, so the issue of bias cannot be brought up! (It’s a Bohra website, and Bohras are not considered Muslims by us.) We read:
He was succeeded by his brother Imam Husayn (SA), Sayyid al-Shuhada, (Lord of the Martyrs) through whose sulb (loins) the tasalsul to the Imamat has continued and will continue, until the Day of Judgment.
(YemenTimes.com, http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=656&p=report&a=1)

Cambridge University Press published a journal article in which the word ‘sulb’ was similarly translated as ‘loins’:

It is suggested that the Chelebi is derived from the Arabic salb or sulb, “loins,” and that it originally denoted “true born” or “lawful heir”…
(http://www.jstor.org/pss/607751)
The University of California Press published a book, written by Carol Lowery Delaney, in which the word ‘sulb’ was translated as ‘loins’:

The father’s side can be called sulb tarafi (sulb means loins, descendants, seed; spinal column, hard, rigid, firm)….

(The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society, p.158, http://books.google.com/books?id=GjE, =5&ct =result)
In the Persian Translator’s Introduction to Adab al-Suluk, the word ‘sulb’ is defined as ‘loins’. (‘Sulb’ is one of the many Arabic words used in the Persian and Hindu languages.) We read:
…The starting point is the father’s loins (sulb); the second stage is the mother’s womb; the third stage is the physical world; and the fourth stage is that of the grave…

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freeb, ritualway.html)
In A Dictionary, Hindustani & English, by Duncan Forbes, we read on p.514:
Sulb: the loins, offspring
(A Dictionary, Hindustani & English, p.514, http://books.google.com/books?id=jLo, m=10&ct=result)

Perhaps the greatest proof is from the Quran itself. The word ‘sulb’ is used in another verse:
Prohibited to you (for marriage) are…wives of your sons proceeding from your loins (aslaab, the plural of sulb). (Surah an-Nisa, 23)
It is also used in the Prophetic sayings (hadeeths). For example, the Prophet [s] was alleged to have said:

…From the loins (sulb) of this (man) will come a man who will fill the earth with fairness and justice…

(At-Tabarani)

Proof from the Bible

The Bible uses the word ‘loins’ in the exact same way, in numerous verses. For example:

And kings shall come out of your loins. (Genesis 35:11.)

You shall not build the house (the Temple); but your son that shall come forth out of your loins, he shall build the house unto my Name. (I Kings 8:19.)

And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: and Joseph was in Egypt already. (Exodus, 1:5)

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence against the Christian Islamaphobes is that the Christians translated the Bible into Arabic, and they translated the word ‘loins’ as ‘sulb’! Exodus 1:5 reads:
Exodus 1:5: And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: and Joseph was in Egypt already. (American Standard Version)
The word ‘loins’ in this verse is rendered as ‘sulb’ by the Christian translators at ArabicBible.com:
5وَكَانَتْ جَمِيعُ نُفُوسِ الْخَارِجِينَ مِنْ صُلْبِ يَعْقُوبَ سَبْعِينَ نَفْسًا. وَلكِنْ يُوسُفُ كَانَ فِي مِصْرَ
(http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/doc_bible.htm)

when the Quran says that a human is created from a father’s sulb, suddenly they accuse the Quran of being inaccurate. Fairness dictates that if the Christians are going to mock the Quran for saying that Fluid comes from the male’s sulb, then they must also mock their Bible which similarly uses the word.

From a linguistic standpoint, the term ‘tara’ib’ means ‘an arch of bones.’ Because of this, some of the early Muslims thought that it could refer to the woman’s rib cage, which encases the uterus. During normal pregnancies, the uterus actually grows underneath and into the rib cage. Dr. William D. McIntosh (M.D.) says to one woman:

…Your uterus is still under your ribs, but the movement is frequently more intense on the right side due to the prescence [sic] of the liver.

(Dr. William D. McIntosh,
http://forums.obgyn.net/pregnancy-bi, 0011/1708.html)

The American Pregnancy Association (APA) writes:
As your baby continues to grow, he/she takes up a larger portion of your uterus. You may not feel that your body can handle your growing baby, but it will compensate by allowing your uterus to extend underneath your rib cage.

(http://www.americanpregnancy.org/weekbyweek/week30.htm)

BeFitMom.com says:
Ribcage

The ribcage expands enormously during pregnancy to help make room for the expanding uterus and to maintain adequate lung capacity. Many pregnant women experience rib discomfort from this expansion, as well as the occasional little foot or knee that might habitually press against the ribs.

(http://www.befitmom.com/discomforts.html)
In other words, the word tara’ib could simply be referring to the woman’s uterus, since the rib cage surrounds it.

Another possible meaning for tara’ib could simply be ‘pelvic arch’, where the ovaries are located. Again, tara’ib literally means ‘an arch of bones’. The ribs form an arch of bones and this is why some of the early Muslims considered the tara’ib to be, but the pelvis certainly looks like an arch of bones as well. This is how Muhammad Asad translated the verse:

(7) issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].*

* The plural noun tarai’b, rendered by me as “pelvic arch”, has also the meaning of “ribs”, or “arch of bones”; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Quranic expressions, this term relates specifically to female anatomy. (Taj al-`Arus). (Quran, Ref: 86:7)
Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî confirmed this, saying:

It can apply to any region nearing the ribcage. Therefore, the area of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, or the uterus can easily fit into the general area that is being indicated by these verses.
The truth is that tara’ib is a very obscure word. Just open up Lane’s Lexicon to see this! We read:

The part of the bosom which is the place of the collar, or necklace : (T, M, K so by the common consent of the lexicologists : (T or the bones of the bosom: (M, A, K or the bones of the bosom that are between the collar-bone and the pap: (8 or the part of the bosom, or chest, that is next to the two collar-bones : or the part that is between the two bosoms and the collar bones :or four ribs of the right side of the chest and four of the left therefore : (M, K or the two arms and two legs and two eyes: (T, M, K ,

(Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

And the definition goes on! It seems that the word ‘tara’ib’ can refer to quite a few parts on the female body.

The Quran is very much superior to any manmade book. The analogy barely suffices, since the work of man cannot be compared to the Word of God. Nonetheless, fairness dictates that the same principle apply here. If the Westerners will give credit to Shakespeare for using new words, then surely the same should apply to the Quran. In fact, the Quran revolutionized the Arabic language, using words in a way that was never ever seen before. The Quran’s beauty stunned both friend and foe alike.

The Quran could have merely used mundane language and said ‘testes’ instead of sulb, or ‘ovaries’ instead of tara’ib…yet this would have altered the literary flow and epic beauty of the Quranic recitation. We urge the reader to listen to the Quranic verses in Arabic, and see why we say this! Click here to listen to the verse of the Quran that uses the word ‘sulb’ and ‘tara’ib’:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmIUk0Tcgw

Of course, the non-Arabic speaker cannot fully appreciate the eloquence and power of the Quranic recitation. Nonetheless, one can see that it transcends any manmade literature. The Quran had a profound and lasting impact on the Arabic language. There has never been a more beautifully written book, in Arabic or any other language.

Going back to the Shakespeare analogy, we see what effect he had on the English language. About.com says:

The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original.

… Shakespeare also invented many of the most-used expressions in our language.

(http://shakespeare.about.com/library, /aa042400a.htm)
Likewise, the Quran invented many words, and used common words in ways that they had never been used before, changing their usage from the mundane to the magnificent.

Why is there a need to invent words? The reason is that the language is not grandiose enough for the writer. Shakespeare invented words because he excelled above the capacity of the English language. He coined many phrases, such as the famous “star-crossed lovers”. The word “star-crossed” had never been used before Shakespeare. Yet, now it is—thanks to Shakespeare—engraved into the English repertoire as one of the most poetic of words. Surely the same effect would not have been conveyed had he simply used the word ‘unlucky lovers’ as opposed to ‘star-crossed lovers.’

Similarly, the Quran invented many words, and used words in a way that Arabs had never used before, thereby transcending the Arabic language and revolutionizing it. Nobody could use language the way God did when he gave us the Quran. If we look at the verse in question (i.e. verse 86:7), it is extremely eloquent and moving in its Arabic language; the words sulb and tara’ib convey a grandiosity that no other words could.

The Quran is quite literally the epitome of beauty.

You will have to pay for all this research  . i needed to do it though.

Conclusion

The very basis of the Islamaphobic argument falls apart. Nowhere was the Quran trying to explain where semen comes from. So all these creative titles on the internet such as “Mohammad’s Faulty Science”, “Where Muhammad thinks Sperm comes from”, etc., are all ludicrous. The Quran was not trying to show some random scientific trivia; the fact that semen comes from the loins—and that it mixes with the female’s egg in her body—is just common knowledge. It was used to build a spiritual—and not scientific—argument.

The word ‘sulb’ most definitely means ‘loins’, and we have provided definite proof of that, from multiple dictionaries, as well as from the Bible itself! As for the word ‘tara’ib’, then this is an obscure word. At most, the Islamaphobes can hope to criticize the Quran for ambiguity, but they cannot at all pinpoint any specific scientific error. The matter is not black-and-white as the Islamaphobes tried to make it out to be. However, I already explained how the ambiguity in one term does not at all distract from the meaning and purpose of the beautiful verses of the Quran. As a creedal point, Muslims believe that there are words in the Quran that we can never know the meaning of. For example, the famous words Alif Lam Meem have an unknown meaning, and we say that nobody can grasp the power of their meaning!

Nice save @ tbaba1234.

That was a tough one but you pulled it off.

tpia@:

Nice save @ tbaba1234.

That was a tough one but you pulled it off.

Thanks, the tougher the questions, the more i learn.

This is one of the reasons why a deep knowlegde of the Arabic language and the tafsir of the Quran is useful.

Keep the questions coming.

if islam is a religion of peace, why do muslim clerics issue 'fatwa' on people who say or go against islam
is there anywhere in quran that justifies the issue of 'fatwas'
it means there's no forgiveness in the religion

@tbaba, do you believe in the issue of fatwa
please explain

wow you are really outstanding i must confes

My question is this: Why did muhammad marry children and break treaties on whim?
It is not a joke question, please answer seriously. These things are generally dishonorable and do not reflect God's nature.