http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
Macalatunji could not have said it better. Many people just follow the majority, Muslims included without doing research. Many countries allow marriage well below 14 years with or without parent consent. Getting married does not automatically mean getting pregnant and marrying does not disturb schooling. They rather allow them to disobey God(fornication) than obey God(marriage) some Muslims included.

babyosisi:


Good place to start for anyone who wants to know more about Islam

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

You can also learn abt Christianity by starting here
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dmpj50QxGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Kay 17: It would be unfair for the OP to cast non Christians in the bad light of immorality and savagery. It is true that modern ppl expose their bodies, and hide behind thin veiled clothes, but they view their bodies differently. Unlike the Christians and muslims who see the human body as scarred by imperfection, unholy and shameful, and hence it must be hidden.

But most non-Christians see their bodies as models of beauty, that should be admired, flaunteds hared just like any artwork.

So if the underlying beliefs are very important, otherwise opinions like the OP which aren't well informed will be prejudicial.

Don't say what u do not know....I don't know for the Christians but the bolded is not an islamic view....human body is created in perfect form....

“We have indeed created humankind in the best of molds.”
Quran 95:4 (Surat At-Tin, The Fig)
and:
“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!”
(Quran 23:14) (Surat Al-Mu’minun, The Believers)

and:

“The work of Allah who has perfected everything (He created).
Qur’an 27:88 (An-Naml, The Ant)

and:

“He is the One Who has made perfectly everything He has created: He began the creation of human beings with clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised: But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit…”
Quran 32:7-9 (As-Sajdah, the Prostration)

“By the fig and the olive, and the Mount Sina, and this city of peace (Makkah), We have indeed created humankind in the best of molds.”

Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.

[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Surah al-hajj

Is it permissible to use the shoudher? Shoudher is a substance that is to be rubbed on hands after using henna in order to make the henna colour black.

Praise be to Allaah.
The Sunnah indicates that it is prescribed for women to dye their hands with henna, and the scholars stated that it is mustahabb, and that not doing it is makrooh, and there is nothing wrong with adding “shoudher” to it. 

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote. 

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas 


Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah li’l-Buhooth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa’l-Ifta (24/36).

Having a permanent tattoo is islamically haram because it harms the body. Instead of it we can use henna but its problem is that it is not accurately drawn mostly, and it also stays for long time. Now there is a new type of tattoo known as “sticking tattoo” used instead of the permanent tattoo and henna. It is to be used for one night and it can be easily and immediately removed leaving no signs behind. What is the ruling on this new type of tattoo?.

Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly: 

There is a difference between permanent adornment which changes the colour or shape of part of the body, and temporary adornment. The former is haraam and is changing the creation of Allaah, and the latter is permissible.  

Tattooing means changing the colour of the skin, by interesting a needle in the skin until blood flows, then injecting kohl or something else into that place so that the skin takes on a colour other than that which Allaah created. 

Dyeing with henna and the like does not come under this heading. It does not change the colour of the skin, rather it is drawing and decoration and colours that disappear after a while. 

Allaah has permitted women to adorn themselves in this manner on condition that the drawings do not represent animate beings such as humans or animals, and that she does not show this adornment before non-mahram men. 

There are three types of permanent tattoos in general, all of which come under the same ruling, which is that it is haraam. These types are: 

1 – The ancient traditional manner, which is what we mentioned above, where a needle is inserted into the skin and blood is made to flow, then the place is filled with kohl or some other dye. 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Waashimah refers to the one who does tattoos (washm), which means inserting a needle or the like in the back of the hand, wrist or lip, or elsewhere on the woman’s body until the blood flows, then that place is filled with kohl and it turns blue. That may be done with circles and decorations, and it may be a lot or a little. The woman who does this is called waashimah and the one to whom it is done is called mawshoomah, and if she asks for that to be done she is called mustawshimah. This is haraam for the one who does it and the one to whom it is done by her choice and at her request. End quote. 

Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim (14/106). 

For the evidence and the comments of the scholars on this issue please see the answer to question no. 2119. 

2 – Using chemicals or doing a surgical procedure to change the colour of the entire skin or part of it.  

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: 

Some people – especially women – use some chemical substances and natural herbs to change the colour of the skin, so that after using these chemicals and natural herbs for a while, dark skin becomes white and so on. Are there any shar’i reservations concerning this? Please note that some husbands order their wives to use these chemicals or herbs on the basis that the wife has to adorn herself for her husband. 

He replied: 

If this change is permanent then it is haraam and is a major sin, because it is a worse change in the creation of Allaah than tattooing. It is proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the women who does hair extensions and the woman who has that done, and the woman who does tattoos and the woman who has them done. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: May Allaah curse the women who do tattoos and the women who have them done, and the women who pluck eyebrows and the women who have that done, and the women who file their teeth for the purpose of beautification, those who change the creation of Allaah. And he said: Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed? 

The one who does hair extensions means the one who has short hair, and she adds something to it, whether it is hair or something that resembles hair. 

The one who asks for hair extensions to be done is the one who asks for that to be added to her hair. 

The woman who does tattoos is the one who puts the tattoo on the skin by inserting a needle and the like, then fills that place with kohl or something similar which changes the colour of the skin.  

The woman who asks for tattoos to be done is the one who asks someone to do a tattoo for her. 

The woman who plucks eyebrows means the one who plucks hair from the face, from the eyebrows or elsewhere, for herself or for someone else. 

The woman who asks for that to be done is the one who asks for her eyebrows to be plucked. 

The woman who files her teeth is the one who asks someone to file her teeth so as to widen the gaps between them. All of these things are changing the creation of Allaah. 

What is mentioned in the question is worse in terms of changing the creation of Allaah than that which is mentioned in the hadeeth. End quote. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (17/ answer to question no. 4). 

See the answer to question no. 2895 for more information on this topic. 

3 – Temporary tattoos which may last for up to a year. 

Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen (may Allaah preserve him) was asked: 

Recently there has appeared a new way of using kohl and outlining the lips by using a temporary tattoo which lasts for six months or a year, instead of using regular kohl and lip outliner pencils. What is the ruling on that? 

He replied: 

That is not permissible because it comes under the heading of tattooing, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed the women who does tattoos and the woman who asks for that to be done. This outlining of the lips and eyes remains for a year or half a year, then it is done again when it fades and remains for a similar length of time, so it is similar to the tattooing that is haraam. 

The basic principle is that kohl is a remedy for the eyes, and its colour is black or grey; it is applied to the lashes and eyelids when there is a disorder in the eye, or in order to protect the eye from disease, and it may be a beauty and adornment for women, as a permissible kind of adornment. As for outlining the lips with a temporary tattoo, I think that it is not permissible, and women should keep away from doubtful matters.  

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon Muhammad and his family and companions. End quote from a fatwa on which is his signature. 

Secondly: 

What we think with regard to temporary tattoos is that they come under the same ruling as dyeing with henna, if they are done in the manner mentioned in the question and not in the way that is forbidden. This permissibility is subject to several conditions: 

1-     That the drawing should be temporary and will disappear, and not permanent

2-     She should not put any drawings of animate beings

3-     She should not appear with that adornment before non-mahram men

4-     Those colours and dyes should not be harmful to the skin

5-     There should be no resemblance to immoral or kaafir women

6-     She should not put any drawings of symbols that venerate deviant religions, corrupt beliefs or misguided ways

7-     If it is done by someone else, it should be another woman and it should not be put on any place that is ‘awrah. 

If these conditions are met, we do not see any reason why she should not adorn herself with it. 

Al-San’aani (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

Some ahaadeeth give the reason for tattooing being haraam as being because it is changing the creation of Allaah, but it is not said that dyeing with henna and the like comes under this heading, and even if it does come under this heading, it is exempted according to scholarly consensus and because it happened at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).  

Subul al-Salaam (1/150). 

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: 

It has become common among people – especially women – to use some chemicals and natural herbs that change the colour of the skin … we have quoted the question above. 

He replied: 

What is mentioned in the question is worse in terms of changing the creation of Allaah that that which is mentioned in the hadeeth.  

But if the change is not permanent, such as henna and the like, there is nothing wrong with it, because it will disappear, so it is like kohl, blusher and lipstick. What must be avoided is that which changes the creation of Allaah and this warning should be spread among the ummah so that the evil will not spread and become difficult to change. End quote. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (17/answer to question no. 4). 

We have quoted the Shaykh as saying in his fatwa that it is permissible so long as the drawings do not include images of animate beings. See the answer to question no. 8904. 

Some doctors have warned about the medical harm that is caused by these temporary tattoos. 

It says in the Saudi newspaper al-Yawm: 

Temporary tattoos are increasingly popular among girls of various ages, especially on Eids and during school holidays. 

Dr Usaamah Baghdadi, a specialist in skin diseases, has warned against getting carried away with these stickers which lead to disfigurement of the body and lead to many skin diseases in accordance with the amount of glue that is used, which may pass through the skin and enter the bloodstream, and the chemicals used for colouring also have a negative effect on overall health. End quote. 

Issue no. 11,159, thirty-ninth year, Saturday 11/11/1424 AH -- 3/1/2004 CE. 

If it is proven that this method is harmful and that it leads to skin diseases or other kinds of sickness, then it is forbidden according to sharee’ah, because the Muslim may not do anything that will harm himself or others. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” Narrated by Ibn Majaah (784); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel. 

And Allaah knows best.

Suppose we are in Magrib prayer and we joined the salat from the second rakat ie from the Tashahud part., then how shall I complete my prayers. Like I normally stand after the salam complete one rakat sit for Tashahud and then complete the third rakat and complete the Tashahud.

Praise be to Allaah.
If you join the congregation during the first tashahhud of Maghrib prayer, then you should follow the imam in the third rak’ah, and recite the tashahhud, then get up after he says the salaam to complete your prayer. You have two rak’ahs left, so pray the first one with al-Faatihah and another soorah, then recite the tashahhud, which is the first tashahhud for you, then get up for the third rak’ah, and recite al-Faatihah only, and recite the last tashahhud, then say the salaam.

What is stated above is based on the assumption that what the latecomer caught up with with the imam is the beginning of his own prayer, and what he prays on his own is the end of his prayer. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him).

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (4/117): If he catches up with a rak’ah of Maghrib he should stand up after the imam says the salaam and pray one rak’ah and recite the tashahhud, then pray a third rak’ah and recite the tashahhud.

Then he said:

We have mentioned that our view is that what the latecomer catches up with is the first part of his prayer and what he makes up is the last part. This is the view of Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan al-Basri, ‘Ata’, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, Makhool, al-Zuhri, al-Awzaa’i, Sa’eed ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez and Ishaaq. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated it from them and said: This is also my opinion. He said: and it was narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Ali and Abu’l-Darda’, but that is not proven. It was also narrated from Maalik and was the view of Dawood.

Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Thawri and Ahmad said: What he caught up with is the latter part of his prayer and what he makes up is the first part of his prayer. This was narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir from Ibn ‘Umar, Mujaahid and Ibn Sireen. They quoted as evidence for that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Whatever you catch up with, pray, and whatever you have missed, make it up.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim. Our companions quoted as evidence the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Whatever you catch up with, pray, and whatever you have missed, complete it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim with many isnaads.

Al-Bayhaqi said: Those who narrated the words “complete it” are greater in number, have better memories and are closer to Abu Hurayrah who is the narrator of this hadeeth, so they are more correct. Shaykh Abu Haamid and al-Maawirdi said: Completing a thing can only be done after doing the first part of it. Al-Bayhaqi also narrated a view similar to ours from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, ‘Ali, Abu’l-Darda’, Ibn al-Musayyib, Hasan, ‘Ata’, Ibn Sireen and Abu Qilaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).

With regard to the report which says “make it up.” This may be answered in two ways:

1 – That those who narrated the words “complete it” are greater in number and have better memories

2 – That qada’ (the word translated here as “make it up”) is actually to be interpreted as meaning “do it” and not the usual sense in which the word is understood, because this usage is that of the later fuqaha’, whereas the Arabs used the word in the sense of doing. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So when you have accomplished [qadaytum] your Manaasik (rituals of Hajj)”

[al-Baqarah 2:200]

“When you have finished [qudiyat] As-Salaah (the congregational prayer)”

[al-Nisa’ 4:103]

Shaykh Abu Haamid said: What is meant is: what you have missed of your own prayer, not what you missed of the imam’s prayer; what the latecomer has missed of his own prayer is the latter part of it.

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (7/322):

Question: I would like to know more about how a latecomer should pray:

1- If the imam has already prayed one or two rak’ahs of Maghrib

2- If the imam has already prayed one or two rak’ahs of a four-rak’ah prayer.

What should he recite? Should he recite al-Faatihah only or another soorah as well?

Answer:

Whatever the latecomer catches up with of the prayer with his imam is regarded as the first part of his prayer. So whoever catches up with one rak’ah of Maghrib, that is regarded as being the first part of his prayer. So he should stand up after the imam says the salaam and make up what he missed. In the first rak’ah he makes up he should recite al-Faatihah and another soorah or verses, because it is the second rak’ah for him. Then he should sit and recite the first tashahhud. Then when he stands up to make up the remaining rak’ah of Maghrib he should recite al-Faatihah only, because it is the third rak’ah for him. Then he should sit and recite the final tashahhud. If what he missed of Maghrib was one rak’ah, and he caught up with two rak’ahs with the imam, then he should recite al-Faatihah only in the last rak’ah that he makes up after the imam says the salaam, because it is the third rak’ah for him.

If it is a four-rak’ah prayer and he catches up with three or two rak’ahs with the imam, then he should recite al-Faatihah only in the one or two rak’ahs that he makes up, because that is the latter part of the prayer for him, so he does not have to recite another soorah as well as al-Faatihah. This is the correct scholarly view. And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas.

And Allaah knows best.

If the society encourage 15 year old to have sex, then why can't she marry? Hypocracy....

Hadd punishment means capital punishment and b4 it is carried out on someone there has to be overwhelming evidence that he deserves it so as not to hastily kill the wrongly accused!

Praise be to Allaah.
Rape is essentially zina (fornication or adultery) and is proven in the same way as zina is proven, which is with four witnesses. The punishment is one hundred lashes if the man was a virgin and stoning if he was previously married. 

If rape is committed using the threat of a weapon or if the woman is abducted forcefully from her home, then it becomes a case of haraabah (banditry or terrorising the people), which is proven with two witnesses only. The punishment for it is mentioned in the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter”

[al-Maa’idah 5:33]. 

It should be noted that he becomes subject to this hadd punishment merely by abducting the woman forcefully, regardless of whether he has his way with her or not. 

Merely by abducting her he comes under the ruling of “qaati‘ at-tareeq” (lit. bandit); if he commits zina with her (rapes her), that his crime becomes more abhorrent because he has then combined two crimes: zina and haraabah. 

For more information please see the answer to question no. 72338 and 128448 

Secondly: 

The accusations made by non-Muslims against Muslims, saying that the man's word is given precedence and that the woman cannot prove that she was raped, and that the man will get away with his action, is not correct. 

But one of the basic principles of both sharee‘ah and man-made law, to which attention must be paid, is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and the claim of the claimant – whether man or woman – cannot be accepted unless there is proof that it is valid. Hence the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “If people were given on the basis of their claims, people would make claims on the blood and property of others. Rather the oath should be sworn by the defendant.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4277; Muslim, 1711 

An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

This hadeeth represents one of the most important principles of shar‘i rulings: it shows that no person’s word can be accepted merely on the basis of his claim; rather there is a need for evidence or confirmation from the defendant, and if the claimant wants to ask the defendant to swear an oath, he has the right to ask for that. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) demonstrated the wisdom behind not giving on the basis of a mere claim, because if it were to be given on that basis, then some people would make claims on the blood and wealth of others, and would regard that as permissible, and the defendant would not be able to protect his wealth or blood. As for the claimant, he can protect his wealth and blood by means of proof. 

Sharh Muslim, 12/3 

If the field were open for every woman to make claims of rape, the prisons would be filled to bursting with the men accused by those women, and they would not be able to prove their innocence. The matter is not so random that any woman’s claim may be taken as being true and certain, otherwise a woman could make a claim against her former lover in order to take revenge on him! Or she could make claims against rich and famous people and blackmail them, or against her father and brothers so as to escape their guardianship and authority. And these are things that would lead to the collapse of society. 

Thirdly: 

A woman’s claim to have been forced into zina can only be accepted on the basis of proof or strong circumstantial evidence. If there is no such evidence, then the hadd punishment is to be carried out on her as it is carried out on the zaani (the man who committed fornication or adultery). 

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

She is not to be punished if it is proven that he forced her and overpowered her. That may be known from her having screamed and shouted for help. 

Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146 

Fourthly: 

The presence of the man’s semen on the woman does not prove that rape has taken place. That may have happened with her consent, in which case she is as deserving punishment as he is. It may be that she is claiming that he raped her because of an argument between them, so that he will be punished or in order to blackmail him. So this is not proof that the crime of rape has taken place, nor is it proof that the crime of zina has taken place. It is possible that no real intercourse took place, but the semen entered her vagina or she put it there herself. The possibilities are many and according to sharee‘ah, hadd punishments cannot be imposed on the basis of possibilities; rather it must be on the basis of proof. The results of DNA testing may be mistaken, or samples may be switched or the results may be falsified, so they cannot be taken as shar‘i evidence on the basis of which hadd punishments are carried out. 

In the answer to question no. 103410 we quoted a statement from the Islamic Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League on the issue of DNA and ways of benefitting from it, in which it said: 

Firstly: there is no shar‘i prohibition on relying on DNA in criminal investigations and regarding it as a means of proving evidence in crimes for which there is no hadd punishment or qisaas (retaliatory punishment) prescribed in Islam, because of the report which says, “Ward off hadd punishments by means of doubts (i.e., do not carry out hadd punishments if there is any doubt).” That is so as to achieve justice and security in society; it leads to the criminal getting the punishment he deserves and proving the innocence of the innocent. This is an important aim of sharee‘ah. End quote. 

This statement indicates that the hadd punishment may not be applied to the accused if the evidence that is specified in sharee‘ah in order for the crime to be proven is not available. But there may be strong circumstantial evidence to prove the case against the accused. 

In this case the judge may punish the accused with a disciplinary punishment (ta‘zeer) as he sees fit. Then the accused (once he is proven guilty by circumstantial evidence) will not escape punishment. 

Even if this criminal is saved from punishment in this world, that is not due to a shortcoming in sharee‘ah. It may be because there is not sufficient evidence or it may be because of shortcomings on the part of the judge or because he is not sufficiently qualified … and so on. 

Moreover, there is the punishment of the Hereafter that awaits him if he does not repent from his crime or if Allah does not forgive him. 

And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allaah.
The Arabic word ightisaab refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honour of women by force (rape). 

This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and in the minds of all wise people and those who are possessed of sound human nature. All earthly systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the strictest penalties on it, except a few states which waive the punishment if the rapist marries his victim! This is indicative of a distorted mind let alone a lack of religious commitment on the part of those who challenge Allaah in making laws. We do not know of any love or compassion that could exist between the aggressor and his victim, especially since the pain of rape cannot be erased with the passage of time – as it is said. Hence many victims of rape have attempted to commit suicide and many of them have succeeded, The failure of these marriages is proven and they are accompanied by nothing but humiliation and suffering for the woman. 

Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action is haraam and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who commits it. 

Islam closes the door to the criminal who wants to commit this crime. Western studies have shown that most rapists are already criminals who commit their crimes under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and they take advantage of the fact that their victims are walking alone in isolated places, or staying in the house alone. These studies also show that what the criminals watch on the media and the semi-naked styles of dress in which women go out, also lead to the commission of this reprehensible crime. 

The laws of Islam came to protect women's honour and modesty. Islam forbids women to wear clothes that are not modest and to travel without a mahram; it forbids a woman to shake hands with a non-mahram man. Islam encourages young men and women to marry early, and many other rulings which close the door to rape. Hence it comes as no surprise when we hear or read that most of these crimes occur in permissive societies which are looked up to by some Muslims as examples of civilization and refinement! In America – for example – International Amnesty stated in a 2004 report entitled “Stop Violence Against Women” that every 90 seconds a woman was raped during that year. What kind of life are these people living? What refinement and civilization do they want the Muslim women to take part in? 

The punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married. 

Some scholars also say that he is required to pay a mahr to the woman. 

Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. End quote. 

Al-Muwatta’, 2/734 

Shaykh Salmaan al-Baaji (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

In the case of a woman who is forced (raped): if she is a free woman, the one who forced her must pay her a “dowry” like that of her peers, and the hadd punishment is to be carried out on him. This is the view of al-Shaafa’i, and it is the view of al-Layth, and it was also narrated from ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him). 

Abu Haneefah and al-Thawri said: the hadd punishment is to be carried out on him but he is not obliged to pay the “dowry”. 

The evidence for what we say is that the hadd punishment and the “dowry” are two rights, one of which is the right of Allaah and the other is the right of the other person. So they may be combined, as in the case of a thief whose hand is cut off and he is required to return the stolen goods. End quote. 

Al-Muntaha Sharh al-Muwatta’, 5/268, 269 

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help. End quote. 

Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146 

Secondly: 

The rapist is subject to the hadd punishment for zina, even if the rape was not carried out at knife-point or gun-point. If the use of a weapon was threatened, then he is a muhaarib, and is to be subjected to the hadd punishment described in the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter”

[al-Maaidah 5:33] 

So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in this verse, and may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the objective, which is to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers and aggressors. 

And Allaah knows best

Today there is virulent propaganda against Islam in the international media, in international newspapers and magazines, on radio broadcast stations and satellite TV channels. A section of the media is attacking Islam, and this has reached epidemic levels especially after eleventh of September, 2001.

This is not the first occasion where the media has been used as a tool to malign Islam.

On the 30th of September 2005, one of the Danish newspapers (Jyllands - Posten) published 12 defamatory caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) which included images of the Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse and showed him as a knife-wielding nomad surrounded by veiled women. These drawings were later reprinted on January 10, by a Norwegian evangelical newspaper “Magazinet” in the name of defending “free expression”.
More recently is the controvercial movie that sparked boycotts and demonstrations against these acts throughout the Muslim world. Islam prohibits any depiction of the prophet (pbuh), even if it is done in the right spirit, as such images could possibly lead to idolatry.
My question:What do they gain in provoking others all in the name of ''freedom of expression''?

Recently, an interesting article appeared in the ‘Guardian’ (weekly newspaper of the UK) on Monday, February 6, 2006. Three years ago in April 2003, a Danish illustrator Christopher Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ, to Jyllands-Posten. However, the cartoons of Christ were turned down by Jyllands-Posten on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were surely not funny.
If for xtians, these cartoons were rejected in other not to hurt them, why did they allow hurting of Muslims?

A British historian David Irving was recently given a three-year sentence on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Holocaust. (The Times of India, February 24, 2006). The report urges us to contemplate why is “freedom of expression” conveniently forgotten when it comes to topics that may hurt a section of this world?

Rich4god: @bigmanamed... Thanks for your response. From your post, i can deduce two points though i stand to be corrected .
1) is that, the qur'an supports a heavy punishment on someone who blasphem against the qur'an (which includes its burning)... if there is a witness.
2)Its wrong for the muslims to just carry out the punishment without proper investigation which include hearing from a witness.
I dont want to talk about point number 1 cos its islamic teaching so, i dont think it realy matter now. But on point number 2, why are muslims(i dont mean all of them) still hasty to pass out judgement (esp the death penalty)on people that blasphem even without investigation, know fully well that the qur'an kicks against it like you just said. Thanks.

Burning is not a part of punishment in Islam....at least not in this world. Punishment with fire is left to God and that is in the hell
Why people hastily pass punishment?I don't know? It just goes on to show the ignorance in them

There is nothing wrong in asking questions about others beliefs if you dislike them but abusing their beliefs is wrong and that is abuse of freedom of speech.
You know that Muslims are against abuse of their beliefs and yet you kept on abusing it? That is just outright insanity. What pleasure do you gain in hurting others beliefs?
If you were to do the same to the Jews, you would become anti semitic and you are lucky if they do not prosecute you....
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2013/01/20131816135089802.html
The people are just trying to provoke Muslims but that does not also justifies the actions of the Pakistanis
The blasphemy laws have been put in place just like any other law which is aimed at prevention..
ABUSING OTHER PEOPLES BELIEFS CREATE ENEMITY AND DESTROYS A SOCIETY. It should not be condoned in any manner. There are many other ways to express your dislike for a particular thing and abuse is not one of them!

FYI:I HAVE HEARD PUNNISHMENT WITH FIRE IS PROHIBITTED IN ISLAM!! I can not verify, maybe someone here can?

I believe what you are asking about is ''BLASPHEMY''...it comes in all forms but to the best of my knowledge, the glorious Qur'an gave four options for such people;

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.(Surah Al-maidah :33-34)

However, the path to which the Pakistani people have exercised the penalty is not Islam as it ridicule the call for witnesses or evidences (daleel) in islam. What if the man was innocent of the charges. Take for example the case of the girl recently accused of burning the Qur'an in Pakistan. If there were no investigations, they would have wronged a soul. Investigation later revealed that the evidences were planted and that she did not commit such act.
In other to exercise these penalties, the proper course have to be followed which is the provision of witnesses and or evidencies.

Anybody can not just exercise these penalties like the way the Pakistani people did. We have laws and those in charge of upholding it!
If you were to catch a thief, your duty is only to report to the proper authorities who will then look for witnesses and evidences to charge him..

Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.(An-nisa: 58-59)

Bear in mind that the above is just my view. I may be correct or wrong. I am only a learner and Allah knows all!

Hmmn.... And We did not grant to any man before you eternity [on earth]; so if you die - would they be eternal?

Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned.

WOW...I COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT IN ANY BETA WAY...THANK YOU FOR YOUR USE OF KNOWLEDGE AND NOT EMOTION...
I INVITE YOU TO ISLAM....YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR

striktlymi: Good morning Mr. Proo,

I am not here to speak for Islam neither do I claim to know the quran. All I will apply here are intuitive knowledge.

I believe you are a Christian and I decipher from your post that you are quite angry. I do understand your anger and frankly when my Uncle was killed I was very angry and looked for whom to blame. But is this the Christian spirit?

I felt the need to say my bit because I opened the thread and I don't want it to become a "battle ground" for all. I welcome any constructive argument both for and against.

But when I went through the quotes you put forward, I was quick to note that those quotes did not in any way support suicide. The quran was quite explicit about those it regards as martyrs and one key ingredient is being killed by someone or something else in the cause of Allah.




* The bolded implies that someone has to do it not the individual killing him or herself.



* The bolded still implies same. For the second bit, the prophet said the man fought till he was killed not that the man went to kill himself.



* The bolded actually strengthens the case of Islam. When one is stricken by a plague or Cholera which was incurable at the time, the need to commit suicide would be high but the prophet made them understand that allowing the process take its toll till you die for the sake of Allah without giving yourself to the temptation of suicide is heroic and as such implies martyrdom. This also can make a case for Jihad. From this I believe Jihad is not just about fighting humans. If you fight an internal struggle then you can be said to have fought bravely for the cause of Allah if and only if you do so for him.

It is quite clear too in our every day lives. If for instance you happen to kill a renowned criminal in cold blood, everyone in the society will be happy but the law will not find this funny. You will indeed be prosecuted as charged. So the fact that some Muslims are happy and the actions of the suicide bomber seem to be noble to him does not free that person from the judgement of Allah.

Thank you!

Praise be to Allaah.

The whole issue of hiraabah, which is also known as banditry, can be summed up in the following points:

Definition of hiraabah

Ruling on hiraabah

Punishment for hiraabah

The reasons for the different types of these punishments

Repentance of the muhaarib (person who commits hiraabah)

Definition of hiraabah

Hiraabah means ambushing people and threatening them with weapons and so on, in the deserts or in the cities, killing them, terrorizing them and seizing their property by force and openly.

Wealth is mentioned specifically because this is what usually happens, but the ruling applies also to people who terrorize others for the purposes of rape or sodomy.

Ruling on hiraabah

Hiraabah is one of the most serious of major sins, and it is forbidden according to the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).

Qur’aan: The Qur’aan says (interpretation of the meaning): “The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. Except for those who (having fled away and then) come back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Maa’idah 5:33]

Sunnah: the hadeeth of al-‘Arniyeen. Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that some people came from ‘Akl or ‘Areenah and avoided Madeenah (i.e., they did not want to stay in Madeenah because they were suffering from a fever). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered them to drink the urine and milk of milch-camels (for treatment of their fever). They did that, and when they got better, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and stole the sheep. This news reached (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) at the beginning of the day, and he sent people in pursuit of them. At mid-day, they were brought to him and he commanded that their hands and feet should be cut off and their eyes put out, then they were left in al-Harrah begging for water, but no one gave them water. (Agreed upon).

Ijmaa’: the ummah is agreed that hiraabah is haraam.

Punishments for hiraabah

The punishment for hiraabah is one of the hudood or punishments prescribed by sharee’ah, and the punishment varies according to the severity of the crime. This is explained as follows:

Whoever kills someone and steals their property, should definitely be killed and crucified, so that everyone will know about him. It is not permitted to forgive him, by the consensus of the scholars, as was reported by Ibn al-Mundhir.

Whoever kills but does not steal, should definitely be killed, but not crucified.

Whoever steals property but does not kill, his right hand and left foot should be cut off at the same time, then the bleeding should be stopped and he should be released.

Whoever merely terrorizes people, but does not kill or steal, should be banished from the land to another country, where he should be detained until he has repented sincerely and is reformed.

The evidence for the above is as follows:

The words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land…” [al-Maa’idah 5:33].

The report narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them both), who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made a peace treaty with Abu Barzah Hilaal ibn ‘Awaymir al-Aslami. Some people came, wanting to embrace Islam, and they were ambushed by the companions of Abu Barzah. Then Jibreel (peace be upon him) brought to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the revelation of the punishment for killing and stealing property, which is to be killed and crucified, and the punishment for killing without stealing, which is to be killed… Whoever steals property but does not kill should have his hand and foot from opposite sides cut off. Whoever becomes Muslim, Islam cancels out whatever deeds came before it at the time of shirk.” (Tafseer al-Tabari, 10/260-261).

The reason for different levels of punishment

Different punishments for different degrees of hiraabah have been prescribed for a very important reason. Hiraabah may take different forms, as is well known, it might not involve only killing, or only stealing. It might involve both stealing and killing, or it may involve neither, only terrorizing people. These different forms of crime dictate different forms of punishment.

The basic principle in sharee’ah is that the punishment should fit the crime, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof…” [al-Shoora 42:40]. If these punishments did not vary according to the crime, and there was room for choice, this might result in the most severe punishment for one whose crime was the least serious, or the lightest punishment for one whose crime was most heinous, which is a travesty of justice. The fact that punishments vary according to the seriousness of the crime makes perfect common sense.

Repentance of the muhaarib

If the muhaarib repents, it can only be either of the following two scenarios:

Either he repents before he is caught

In this case, the punishment for hiraabah no longer applies, and he should be treated like one who is not a muhaarib. The punishment of banishment, amputation, or execution etc., no longer applies, except in cases where the victim or his family have the right to demand retribution. The evidence for this is the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): “The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. Except for those who (having fled away and then) come back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Maa’idah 5:33]

Or he repents after he is caught

In this case the punishment for hiraabah still applies, and indeed the ruler is obliged to carry it out, because the exception mentioned in the aayah clearly applies only to one who repents before he is caught. It is not too difficult for a person who wants to escape the prescribed punishment to feign repentance.

This punishment is part of the Islamic sharee’ah which Allaah has prescribed for every time and place, not just for one particular country or period. The Muslims applied this punishment for hiraabah at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and until the present time. The fact that some of the Roman and Pharaonic punishments were similar to those prescribed by Islamic law is of no particular significance, good or bad. These Islamic punishments cannot be regarded as backward or savage or barbaric at all. Any intelligent person who thinks about the severity of the crime of hiraabah and the resulting lack of security in the cities and on the road, terrorizing of the populace, robbing and killing, will know for sure that this ruling is exactly what these criminals deserve. The one who looks at the way the punishments for hiraabah fit the crime exactly will see that this is the essence of justice. How can it be otherwise when the One Who has prescribed this law is the Almighty, the All-Wise, the All-Knowing, the All-Seeing, the Judge, the Just, the All-Aware? He is the Best Disposer of Affairs and the Best of Supporters.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Is it O.K. to drink non alcoholic beer?

The basic ruling on food and drink is that things are halaal, except for those which are specifically described in sharee’ah as being haraam, such as alcoholic drinks. If the drink includes any intoxicating substance, it is haraam. On this basis it may be said that beer (a drink made from barley), if it is intoxicating when drunk in large amounts, then it is not permissible to drink it. It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Every intoxicating substance is haraam.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Ahkaam, 6637) And it was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Every intoxicating substance is haraam, and whatever intoxicates in large amounts, a handful of it is haraam.’” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, al-Ashribah, 1789; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 1521). Al-Teebi said: “ ‘a handful of it’ is an expression meaning a small amount.” And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Paris-Love:
Lemme just ask this simple question;

[color=blue]"The quran is not in chronological order, all real scholar agree to this! But there was such order obviously. The first "revelation" came to muhammad in the cave. But it has number 96 in the quran. So, this is my question; WHO HAS CORRUPTED THE QURAN BY PLACING SURAHS IN THE WRONG ORDER ? AND WHEN ?? AND MOST IF ALL ...WHY !!!

IF ONLY YOU KNEW HOW THE QUR'AN WAS REVEALED, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS STATEMENT.
THE QURAN CAME IN VERSES NOT CHAPTERS...IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT THE FIRST REVELATION IS CHAPTER 96...INSTEAD, WE SAY THAT THE FIRST VERSE REVEALED WAS VERSE 1-5 OF CHAPTER 96.....THE OTHER VERSES CAME MUCH MORE LATER...
THE QURAN AS YOU CORRECTLY STATED WAS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL OTHER BUT THE WAY ALLAH HAS ORDAINED HIS MESSENGER pbuh TO ARRANGE IT...

Paris-Love:
There are medina-surahs (came first). And mecca-surahs (came later). Now the order is completely mixed up !!

AGAIN, ANOTHER MISTAKE...THE MECCAN SURAH CAME FIRST(the messenger of Allah pbuh lived in mecca for 12 yrs or more b4 he migrated to medina)
THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS MECCAN SURAH COZ THEY WERE REVEALED IN MECCA... THE MEDINA SURAH CAME LATER.

WHEN A NON MUSLIM PRESENT US WITH A QUESTION, IT MAY BE THAT HE WANTS TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OR IT MAY ALSO BE THAT HE WANTS TO RIDICULE OUR DEEN...WHAT EVER HIS INTENTIONS MAY BE (GOOD OR BAD), LET US ALL KEEP IN MIND THIS VERSE OF THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN;

The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel (the evil) with one which is better (i.e. Allah ordered the faithful believers to be patient at the time of anger, and to excuse those who treat them badly), then verily! he, between whom and you there was enmity, (will become) as though he was a close friend. (41;34)

WHO KNOWS MAY BE TRUTHMAN MAY BE GUIDED THROUGH HIS CURIOSITY (ALTHOUGH IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS QUESTION DOES NOT LOOK LIKE WHAT A CURIOUS PERSON WOULD ASK)...
@TRUTHMAN and others....salam alaykum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhZ00xnHIA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

truthman2012:
@bigmanahmad

I appreciate your articulate and detailed explanations but I am sorry to tell you that I do not agree with them.

Thanks for your gentle approach.

truthman2012: I cannot accept your interpretation of sura 2:62 as a statement refering to the past christians just because the word 'believed' is a past tense. Christians are christians whether then or now.

Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.
THE VERSE IS VERY CLEAR AS IS EVIDENT IN ITS REPEATED USE OF PAST TENSE.YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO THAT.

truthman2012: Again, sura 4:136 says ''O ye who BELIEVE in Allah and His messanger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messanger and the Scripture which He revealed AFORETIME. Whosoever disbelieveth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messangers and the Last Day, he verily hath wandered far astray''. Here the quran approves of christian scripture which is the one revealed aforetime.

WE BELIEVE IN ALL THE REVELATIONS OF GOD, WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. INJEEL, TORAH, PSALMS, QURAN...HOWEVER, THROUGH TIME, THESE REVELATIONS (except the glorious quran) HAVE UNDERGONE CHANGES. PLZ WATCH THIS; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=QSYgEsfxyB4&NR=1
THE QUR'AN TOLD US TO BELIEVE IN ALL REVELATIONS BUT ALSO WARNED US ABOUT THE CORRUPTION OF THE BIBLE. THE XTIANS CALL THE PRESENT DAY BIBLE THE WORD IF GOD, YET IT IS NO MORE THAN HISTORICAL NOTES WRITTEN BY MEN...
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

truthman2012: Therefore any other parts of the quran as you have quoted that condemned the Bible (which is the Scriptures revealed aforetime) amounts to contradiction among other contradictions in the quran.

When was the christian scriptures altered or corrupted after Gabriel had accepted it as genuine in the sura quoted above? The Bible did not derive its authenticity from the quran anyway.

Who carried the cross of Jesus? You quotations are right but you would notice that Matthew and Mark agree or at least two agree and that is what is required. ''It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true'' (John 8:17).

IF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE BIBLE WERE REALLY DIRECTED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, THEN THEY WILL AGREE IN ALL MATTERS FOR GOD IS ONE AFTER ALL AND HE IS NOT AN AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. THE TRUTH AS EVIDENT FROM THE BEGINNING AND MIDDLE OF MANY CHAPTERS IN THE BIBLE IS THAT, MANY OF THESE BIBLE WRITERS WROTE WHAT THEY THINK WAS RIGHT AND WERE NEVER DIRECTED BY THE SPIRIT...REMEMBER THE THOUGHT OF MAN IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF GOD...
TAKE FOR EXAMPLE...LUKE; CH1;V1-4...TOLD US THAT, MANY PEOPLE HAS WRITTEN THE HISTORY BEFORE HIM...AND THIS PEOPLE ARE EITHER EYE WITNESSES OR MINISTERS OF THE WORD...LUKE THEN DECIDED TO WRITE HIS OWN HISTORY BEING ALSO AN EYE WITNESS.
THE SAME HAPPENED IN THE BOOK OF MATHEW WERE MATHEW WAS REFERRING TO HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON...''..and he Mathew said to he Jesus''(something like this)...THIS ALSO HINT US THAT MATHEW DID NOT WRITE THE BOOK OF MATHEW....I CAN GO ON...

truthman2012: I had ealier said that when there are two or more writers on an event, there writing cannot be the same verbatim. It was only Gabriel who spoke in the quran and yet the are many contradictions, an example is one on christian scriptures mentioned above.

THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN!!!
IF GOD INSPIRED ALL THE WRITERS OF THE BIBLE, SHOULDN'T ALL OF THEM AGREE??
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

How did the crowd identify Jesus to arrest him?

Jesus often met with his disciples in the garden of Gethsemane. Having agreed to betray him, Judas led an armed crowd there so that they could arrest him. The gospels contradict each other, however, concerning how the crowd knew who to arrest.According to Matthew and Mark, Judas kissed Jesus in order to identify him to the crowd who had been sent to arrest him:

While he [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; with him was a large crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him.’ At once he came up to Jesus and said, ‘Greetings, Rabbi!’ and kissed him. Jesus said to him, ‘Friend, do what you are here to do.’ Then they they came and lay hands on Jesus and arrested him. [Matthew 26:47-50, NRSV]

Immediately, while he [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; and with him there was a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.’ So when he came, he went up to him at once and said, ‘Rabbi!’ and kissed him. Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. [Mark 14:43-46, NRSV]

According to Luke, Judas intended to identify Jesus with a kiss, but Jesus interrupted him:
While he [Jesus] was still speaking, suddenly a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him; but Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?’ … Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple police, and the elders who had come for him, ‘Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit?’ When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness!’ Then they seized him and led him away… [Luke 22:47-48, 52-54a, NRSV]

According to John, Jesus identified himself to the crowd; there was no need for Judas to point him out using a kiss or any other means:
So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’ They answered, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus replied, ‘I am he.’ [John 18:3-5a, NRSV]

So how did the crowd identify Jesus to arrest him? Did Judas kiss him, approach to kiss him but get interrupted, or did Jesus identify himself?

I CAN GO ON AND ON!!

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND WORDS....WE CAN ONLY COME TO A TERM WITH DIALOGUES NOT ARGUMENTS
GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF XTIANITY, THE EARLY YEARS OF THE JEWS WHO WERE LATER CALLED XTIAN AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF JESUS WAS BAD. THEY WERE PERSECUTED FOR THE FIRST CENTURY...THE PERSECUTION ONLY STOPPED WHEN XTIANITY HAD TO CHANGE SOME OF THEIR TEACHINGS TO MATCH THE ROMAN PEOPLE OF THEN..
WATCH THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=QSYgEsfxyB4&NR=1

Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. quran 2;62
the verse is speaking in the past tense and refers to those who believed among the people of the book during the time of the prophet pbuh.

there are verses in the quran as i will show you now which declared that the injeel is corrupted:

Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah [the Taurat (Torah)], then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it? 2;75

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby 2;79

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.3;78

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it." But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.
.....to mention a few.....
as for the last word of jesus, to writers agree(mat and mrk) two disagree and said a diff thing (luk and john)...i gave you the verses already...WHAT EXACTLY DID JESUS SAY LAST B4 HE GAVE UP THE GHOST??

Who carried Jesus’ cross?
When Jesus had been sentenced to crucifixion, he was marched out to the place of his execution, Golgotha. The gospels disagree, however, as to who it was that carried Jesus’ cross.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. [Matthew 27:32 (NRSV)]

They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. [Mark 15:21 (NRSV)]

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus. [Luke 23:26 (NRSV)]
John, however, has Jesus carry his own cross:
… and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. [John 19:17 (NRSV)]
So who carried Jesus’ cross to Golgotha, Simon of Cyrene or Jesus himself?

truthman2012:

You made a number of assertions here, one correct and others wrong.

You said there were many Gospels but only a few made it to the Bible. That is correct. There was nothing the Devil didn't do to corrupt the Bible but God would not allow him to succeed. Devil's success means victory over God and it cannot happen.

Before the Bible was compiled into one Book, the Scriptures were in various parchments. There were many other writings of various people? some of them magicians some occultists.

They all wanted their writings incorporated into the Bible including the so-called
6th and 7th book of Moses, which was authored by a magician. It was the early christians who by the Spirit of God discerned the word of God among the writings. This shows the Scripture had been in writing (including the ten commandment) for as long as God knows.

The quran never condemned the bible, instead it approved of it (Sura 2:62). What the quran is quarelling with is the sonship of Jesus, which was the message of angel Gabriel to Mary (Luke 1:35) and God Himself confirmed the message (Matthew 3:16-17, Luke 3:21-22). The same denial was the reason the pharises and saduses persecuted Jesus before islam. It is the same spirit behind it.

As for interpretation from the original language of the Bible to other languages, I don't see any problem in that. The Hebrews, Greek and Aramaic people are still alive today. Many of them can read the Bible in other languages and there has been no complaint from them.

As for Jesus last words, two writers agreed, others did not disagree, they were only silent on it, silence means consent. When more than one writer cover an event, they cannot write the same thing verbatim.

@truthman
As you have said,we muslims believe in Jesus and the revelation given to him. The glorious Qur'an tot us that the injeel (popularly translated as GOSPEL) is no more in the form in which Jesus preached it. Bear in mind that when Quran mentioned about the injeel given to Jesus, it does not necessarily mean that it was a test book which jesus tot to his followers, it most certainly means that it was a revelation given tot to him by the angel, which Jesus preached to his people... his people later wrote them down..

There are many gospels but only few made it to the bible. Amongst them are, the four canonical Gospel (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) some of whom were not the desciples of Jesus. What was the original lang of the bible, HEBREW? GREEK? ARAMAIC?
lets be logic here, Jesus spoke aramaic yet the new testament was written in Greek...care to explain why?
TRY THIS AT HOME
there are three main lang in nigeria (Yoruba, hausa, igbo). PICK A YORUBA SENTENCE, TRANSLATE TO HAHSA, THEN TO IGBO THEN ENGLISH and see what will happen to the original meaning of the word when it was in yoruba..most times, it will change.

ARAMAIC----->GREEK----->ENGLISH...WHAT DO YOU EXPECT...
THAT IS WHY YOU FIND EACH GOSPEL CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER

What were Jesus’ last words?
Matthew has Jesus shout “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”:[Matthew 27:46,50 (NRSV)]
Mark’s account is almost identical[Mark 15:34, 37 (NRSV)]
In Luke, though, Jesus’ last words are “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”:Luke 23:46 (NRSV)]
John confuses matters further, having Jesus say “It is finished”:[John 19:30 (NRSV)]
WHO CARRIED THE CROSS OF JESUS SIMON OR JESUS

TO MENTION FEW

proo212: @Truthman, these questions have been asked countless number of times and answers cannot be given, just posturing.These same questions are asked on different boards/blogs that I have read and the same, no answers can be given. And the truth is they have no answer.

History tells us the Quran we have now is not complete. Some versions are 114-116 chapters. Which is the correct version. Also, the copies that were burnt by the Caliph Abu Baker, why were the copies from Hafsah burnt and new copies rewritten? Which ones did the goats eat? Which ones died with those ho memorized them?

FROM WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR HISTORY FROM?? A XTIAN SITE...
WHO TOLD YOUR ABU-BAKR BURNT ANY COPY OF THE QURAN.... I WILL NOT GIVE YOU THE ANSWERS..GO BACK AND LEARN YOUR HISTORY FROM REAL HISTORIANS AND NOT XTIAN SCHOLARS...

WELL SAID
SOMETIME AGO, I WAS WATCHING A PROGRAM,THEN CAME THE PRINCESS OF SAUDI ARABIA NOT WEARING THE HIJAB...IF ALL WOMEN IN SAUDI ARE TO WEAR THE HIJAB, WHY SHOULD THE PRINCESS BE EXEMPTED..DOES THAT MEAN THAT SHE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE LAW OF GOD, OR MAY BE SHE IS ABOVE IT?? LEADERS ARE TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE..
MUSLIMS ARE BOUND BY THE LAW SPIRITUALLY WEATHER HE LIVES IN A MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRY OR IN A WESTERN OR EUROPEAN OR XTIAN MAJORITY COUNTRY.

Atheist:-D:
Hello to all the muslims in the house

As muslims are bound spiritually by sharia law and to my knowledge it is the religious leaders who impress this on the general islamic populace. Why is it that these same religious leaders do not make the effort to enforce or highlight this same sharia law on the aristocratic upper class?

Whenever a crime or a haram act is committed by an islamic aristocrat these religious leaders rarely raise any concern. They never criticise or raise action.

Isnt sharia law for all muslims?

Atheist:-D:
Hello to all the muslims in the house

As muslims are bound spiritually by sharia law and to my knowledge it is the religious leaders who impress this on the general islamic populace. Why is it that these same religious leaders do not make the effort to enforce or highlight this same sharia law on the aristocratic upper class?

Whenever a crime or a haram act is committed by an islamic aristocrat these religious leaders rarely raise any concern. They never criticise or raise action.

Isnt sharia law for all muslims?

IN TODAY'S WORLD, INDIVIDUAL WILL NOT REACH ANY LEVEL OF MORALITY..WE LIVE IN A WORLD THAT GIVES IT ALL AWAY,MAKING SHARIAH LAW LOOK OLD FASHIONED..FORNICATION IS NO MORE A BIG DEAL...ALCOHOL HAS RULED THE DAY,,,AND MUSLIMS ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THIS ACT..
IF WE WANT THE LEVEL OF MORALITY IN THE SOCIETY TO REACH A LEVEL B4 WE IMPOSE SHARIAH, WE WOULD WAIT 4 CENTURIES IF NOT EONS...WE LIVE IN THE END TIMES REMEMBER!
THERE ARE MANY MUSLIMS WHO DONT WANT THE LAW AT ALL COZ THEY LOVE THE MATERIAL WORLD AS IT IS AND THEY WOULD GO INTO ANY EXTENT TO DEMONIZE THE LAW.(AUDHUBILLAH)..TAKE THE CASE OF EGYPT FOR EXAMPLE.
FOR ME, I THINK THIS IMMORALITY AMONGST THE MUSLIM WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THEY FEEL THE PRESENCE OF A LAW PREVENTING THEM.(many muslims are simply incapable of governing them selves spiritually by the law or maybe they dont know)
CONSIDER THE PRESENT STATE OF NIGERIA, WHT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO REMOVE THE PRESENT 20YRS PENALTY FOR DRUG SMUGGLING?

tbaba1234: Hi,
i. Individual level
You see, whenever a person becomes muslim, He as an individual is bound by the sharia. This means he is required to pray, fast, give charity, care for the orphans and needy. These are all laws in the sharia. The new muslim is required to follow these laws. Gradually, the person develops the morality expected of a muslim.
So the sequence is Faith - Law - Morality

Societal level
Implementing sharia on a societal level is slightly different. Faith and morality must first be imbedded in a society if the law is to be successfully implemented. In the 1920s, the US attempted a ban on Alchohol, this ban failed woefully more alchohol was produced during tha ban than before. This is because the average american didn't see alchohol consumption as a bad thing.

You see, implementing sharia in a system where the leaders have no accountability and where corruption is rife will make a mockery of the law. A law is only as effective as the extentof its implementation.

“’Qad khalat’: means separation from their communities, either though death or ascension to the heavens. And what is meant by “they parted with them” (khalaw minhum) is that they were there sometimes in the past time (fi b'adh al-zaman al-madhi).” (Nazam al-Dorar fi Tanasib al-Ayat wal Saur vol.5 p.82 Da’ira al-Ma’rif al-Uthmania, Hyderabad, 1973)

Now the point to note here that (khalaw bil-mawt) is clear evidence that (khalaw) itself does not mean death. If it is taken so (khalaw bil-mawt) would mean "died through death." The fact simply remains that "khalaw" means "to part with/to depart" and this can be any way, death or ascension to the heavens as we consider the case of the Prophets- may Allah bless them all.

Wama muhammadun illarasoolun qad khalat min qablihi arrusulu afa-in mataaw qutila inqalabtum AAala aAAqabikum wamanyanqalib AAala AAaqibayhi falan yadurra Allahashay-an wasayajzee Allahu ashshakireen

Paris-Love:
The word used for messengers here is al-russul, which means THEmessengers (al = the, russul = messengers), indicating that this verse refers to all the messengers. In other words it is definite even though most translators are trying to make it indefinite. So it's still saying the same thing, all messengers has already died including Jesus which contradicts Quran claim of raising him alive