Misplaced Pages

Shariah

Truthspreader, please have a look at this stoning video : . Of course similar punishments are found in the Old Testament. Some scholars such as Watt, believe "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer." BUT I DON'T really know. --Aminz 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that the punishments, in reality, apply only rarely, BUT I have problem with their very existence. They are really harsh, aren't they? And Yes, the Jewish ones may be more harsh but still. --Aminz 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. Everybody I've seen so far has been not very bad. I have no idea of people who are "really" bad. BUT I don't really wish to be present there where any of those punishments are executed. But I understand your point. I personally then prefer to remain without any opinion as I used to be. --Aminz 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I was just editing about Aisha in Muhammad article. What a coincidence. --Aminz 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, I'll look into it more closely, but here are some reliable sources disputing Aisha being married at 6 . --Aminz 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have already established the reliablity of the source. There is no need of me ;) --Aminz 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please write a bit about "Zahid Aziz" on the Aisha talk page? Does he have any degree from any Islamic school? You just need to establish that he is "notable" enough. That is, to show that he is knowledgable enough about Islam. "The Legacy of Prophet Muhammad And the Issues of Pedophilia and Polygamy " is written by Muqtedar Khan who is a notable scholar. So, you can use it. You may want to start the article Zahid Aziz. --Aminz 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the Sandbox

Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Misplaced Pages because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages! -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No longer active

Dear Truthspreader,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I read the verses in the Hejab article. I wouldn't be surprised to see it being totally taken wrong by most Muslims. In fact, when it comes to this issues, the culture is more important than religion (Both religion and culture affect each other. Culture shapes our perception and we read the holy text with that perception. Then what we read will affect the culture and ...) Sometimes this loop doesn't work well and that is when the is culture is strong. This quote from Bernard Lewis in Muhammad article is relevant here:"Bernard Lewis believes the advent of Islam in a sense was a revolution which only partially succeeded after long struggles due to tensions between the new religion and very old societies in the countries that the Muslims conquered. He thinks that one such area of tension was a consequence of what he sees as the egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine. Lewis believes that "the equality of Islam is limited to free adult male Muslims," but according to him "even this represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents.""

Anyways, Truthspreader, my current status here is non-active. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Please keep working on Islam related articles. They are far from being *ideal*. I was also surprised by Itaqallah's job in creating the page diplomacy of Muhammad here . Like you, he has very good access to Islamic sources (I noticed al-Mubarakpuri in the references). Unfortunately, the western secular sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam are not available on the internet for free. Hey, Truthspreader, I have several good articles from Encyclopedia of Islam (all articles from Encyclopedia of Islam satisfy WP:RS). Do you want me to send them for you? Maybe they turn out to be useful one day. I sent a couple for Itaqallah. They are secular but I usually enjoy reading them and plus, secular point of view is a POV anyways. Please send a Wiki-email for me and I'll send some of the articles for you. (Tomorrow actually since it is 2:12 here now and I am still in my office in campus; what a nerd student I am! :P )--Aminz 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you should have got many emails from me. can you read the files? --Aminz 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. hope they would be useful sometime. --Aminz 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

mizan

link it to the article on aqeedah. --JuanMuslim 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add our discussion on this source to here:. -_Aminz 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I found the article very informative and well constructed. Two things you may like to add. 1) the date or dates when the work was published and 2) any references or information to show how influential or well-regarded it is. Best wishes Itsmejudith 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are interested

Since you are interested in Shariah, you might want to compare jewish law with Islamic law. I guess you know the differences but I am sure you will be surprised to notice the differences if you already don't know it. A Jewish friend of mine in wikipedia told me that "EVERY SINGLE commandment in Jewish law regulates ACTION, not thought or belief (the only exception might be the prohibition of coveting one's neighbor). We believe that God cares what we do - not really what we believe or think (except how what we believe or think determines our actions)." (Truthspreader, BTW, if you found a Jewish editor who is friendly with you, appreciate conversation with him/her as how few they are). Well, Islamic law is essentially different as it regulates actions&thoughts&belief. You can find the whole discussion here . --Aminz 09:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was what Timothy told me. I think my friend should have made this clear. At the time of discussion, I was too ignorant (and still I am actually to a good extent) but the discussion was useful. --Aminz 09:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahrif

I think this article is not well written. But I was interested to know your view on Tahrif. Here are the relevant qur'anic verses:

Here are verses of Qur'an on Tahrif that I know:

• 3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

• 4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
  

• 5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them — barring a few — ever

bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.

• 2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you? — Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

• 2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed.

Can you please show me a verse that explicitly says that Injil and Torah are distorted?

Gary Miller (who is somebody :) ) states that Qur'an doesn't say the people of the book changed their books. Qur'an only makes three accusations:

(I) The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.

(II) Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.

(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.

--

Also, please have a look at 5:45-49 (particularly 47):

005.045 YUSUFALI: We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

005.046 YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

005.047 YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

005.048 YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

005.049 YUSUFALI: And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

---

Interesting verse from Bible : "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. "(From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8). See also Deuteronomy 31:25-29.

---

Question and Answer from Prof. Montgomery Watt on this issue:

Q. What do you think of the Qur’anic statement that the Old Testament has been changed, thus accounting for some of the differences between the Abrahamic faiths?

A. Well, I think that the later writers sometimes changed earlier things to make them more suitable for their contemporaries. I think there was a lot of rewriting of the Old Testament, though the form in which we have it hasn’t been changed since the Christian era. I see the Old Testament as the record of a developing religion. As a religion develops some of the earlier stages may have to be abandoned completely. An example might be Islamic teachings on usury. I don’t see how it is possible completely to get rid of usury. We’ll have to see how Islamic attempts to get rid of usury work. Undoubtedly capitalism has got to be restricted in various ways. The world is certainly in a mess at the moment, but how we can get out of it, I don’t know. All I can say is that there are things that Christianity can learn from Islam, especially on its spiritual side, and Islam can perhaps learn from Christian understanding of God in relation to the universe and human life. I think Muslims would find that this might give a slightly greater emphasis to something in their own faith.

I think another thing is that we have all got to come to terms with the scientific outlook of today. That is very critical of the Old Testament. Old Testament says a lot about God’s anger which I think is based on some of the false ideas that the Old Testament people had. They thought, you see, that God could interfere with the laws of nature. They thought that God made the sun stand still for a whole day so that Joshua could get a great victory. Well, that’s impossible. They thought that God could intervene with his own natural laws and punish people. Well, I think there is a sense in which wrongdoing is punished, but even in the Bible it is recognised that the wicked sometimes flourish. There are different strands of thinking in the Bible.

---

What do you think? --Aminz 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

done

Muhammad as a diplomat :-) request peer review? ITAQALLAH 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic behaviour in Islam

Sorry I don't really have much information, knowledge or time to do this article, however it can be improved by changing the way it deals with quotes. Too many quotes atm.--Tigeroo 09:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Women in Islam

That did sound like a good sugestion, ill take a look at it today. Thank you for the trust :) --Striver 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the grammatical/syntactical edits of this article, to the best of my knowledge al7amdulillaah, as of Sept. 6th. Hopefully we can have more collaborative efforts like this, towards applying some of the improvements suggested by myself and others, like Striver, Saadsaleem and Itaqallah (among others). --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

Hi Truthspreader,

Sorry for my long delay. Great JoB, Man!!!

BTW, re: "interestingly, even with some basic differences, Shias and Sunnis have the same Qur'an". Truthspreader, Shia's have exactly the same Qur'an as Sunnis. It is an unfortunate forged lie against Shias that they use a different Qur'an (have a look at Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn). Unfortunately, I have heard that when Shias want to enter Saudi Arabia for Hajj, their Qur'ans are checked or taken from them on the basis of this lie. The only difference is that Shia's count "Bismillah" as an Ayah but Sunnis don't consider Bismillah as part of the Suras (or reversly, I'm not sure). Cheers, --Aminz 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: while it is true that Shias & Sunnis have the same Qur'an (I'm not arguing this issue at all), I wanted to point out that "Bismillah" is actually counted as an Ayah, at least by Sunnis. There are 114 instances of "Bismillah" in the Qur'an (the same as the number of Surahs); one Surah (At-Towbah) doesn't have it at its beginning like the other 113, while another Surah (An-Naml) has it twice (at its beginning and in the middle). Clearly, the number of times "Bismillah" was revealed is of significance. Salaam. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This might be interesting to you ()

Truthspreader, I will have those articles on my watchlist till you come back. Take care, --Aminz 04:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Best of Luck to you. --Aminz 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are definitely right on your point about salvation. Cheers, --Aminz 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence - rebellious wives

TS, rebellious wives seems even more POV to me than domestic violence. Violence means hitting; domestic means in the house. Women can commit domestic violence against men. It's not as common, but it happens. As for rebellious wives -- that assumes that it's women's duty to obey their husbands and if they don't, they can be punished until they do. To heck with that! There are a great many of us women who refuse to obey. Tell me to obey and I'll walk out. Anyone who tries to punish me for rebellion is going to be reported to the police.

You're so far inside your worldview that it doesn't seem like a worldview to you.

Would you like to change the wording to "men punishing or beating their wives"? Those are the simple and plain words for what you advocate. "Domestic violence" is a much nicer way of saying it. Zora 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

just a note, domestic violence connotes attempted physical domination, and in conventional use it typically implies a good battering, the like of which is not legislated within shari' interpretation (i am not sure you can physically dominate anyone with a miswaak). similarly, a parent disciplining his child is quite simply not domestic violence by any stretch until it crosses a certain threshold. but, obviously, domestic violence is an occurance in muslim communities as well as non-muslim communities. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Islam and Slavery

regarding the name change, this is being discussed on the talk page.

about islam gradually eradicating slavery, this is already alluded to in the article, with a scholarly opinion already asserting this. i believe the facts should be presented as they are, within their correct context and objectively. excessive apologetics or justification will merely tilt the balance of the article, and i believe there is no need for such large doses of it because when people see the plain facts, then that is sufficient for them to derive what the most sensible view is. regarding intercourse with slaves, then nowhere is rape implied. it doesn't matter if you source it or not, but including too much information justifying the islamic stance is simply going to get the article tagged and subject to another revert war: the topic should be dealt with in an objective manner. that section in particular is to briefly review the fiqh of slavery, although i'm not entirely finished with it yet. if there are further materials which go into discussing the hukm and the 'illah in detail then one can include them in the external links section. thanks. ITAQALLAH 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i think it neads a real cleanup before considering a merge, as i think it will only decrease the quality of the Islam and Slavery article (there's no point in merging with an article that has no information which is both useful and verifiable). almost everything on it is original research and very poorly laid out... (also i don't know what "free-minds" is doing on that page.. as it as an extremely non-notable minority opinion) ITAQALLAH 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have any objection. I think the article already touches this to some extent. Itaqallah is more competent to opinion on this. I just think that the first sentences in the section are not referenced: I mean: "At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, the institution of slavery was essential to the economic and social needs of the society. In markets, slave-men and slave-women were bought and sold, and affluent houses had slave-men and slave-women of all ages. Sex with female-slaves was considered a norm. Qur'an adopted a gradual way to eradicate slavery from society. As stated in Qur'an:And if any of your slaves ask for Mukatabat, accept it give it to them if you know any good in them and give them out of the wealth which Allah has given to you.24:33". Cheers, --Aminz 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it would be better then to have them referenced at the end of each paragraph. --Aminz 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, the Qur'an only aims to make free those slaves who actually want to become free. If someone wants to remain slave (i.e. one who is working with the money of the master and under his protection), Islam doesn't oppose it. So, Islam doesn't wish to abolish slavery. That's my POV. --Aminz 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think saying Islam wanted to abolish slavery isn't quite corret. It only wanted to make free those who wish to be free to be, rather than abolishing the slavery as a whole. --Aminz 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. God doesn't like it and I can see the flare. --Aminz 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

Here is the template for Bukhari: Template:Bukhari-usc There are also templates for Abu-Dawud etc, etc. which I don't recall. Cheers, --Aminz 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't know. Sorry --Aminz 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jihad

Hi,

I see you add too many details to Jihad. I propose moving details to Defensive Jihad and Offensive Jihad. I put a comment in talk:Jihad too.--Sa.vakilian 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, you are very hardworking. It took me quite a lot to write a small section here to Muhammad article about his miracles . Good job. Cheers, --Aminz 09:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good man. Great job! A big thank you!!! --Aminz 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, I personally agree with proponents. Well, actually, in Shia'sm, it is believed that issuing the fatwa for millitary jihad like ruling over the Umma, should be only done by the Khalifata Allah' Fil Arz, whom are specified by God himself for this task. Thus, practically, no shia authority can issue jihad fatwa (the jihad that is wajib). --Aminz 09:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They do have clergy of course, but they believe they can not do this on the behalf of their hidden Imam (Mahdi). The theory of welayat faghih, proposed by Khumeyni, justified for them the rule of clergy over the umma somehow on the behalf of the hidden Imam. Well, they believe that they are actually doing what they shouldn't do, but they say that they are preparing the way for the coming of Mahdi and that Imam Mahdi is guiding them. --Aminz 10:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that there exists the minority view that Jesus is not coming back. The Qur'an is kind of silent on this issue and on the Mahdi. But maybe only at the surface level. I dunno. I am going to sleep BTW. I'll get back tomorrow sometime. Cheers, --Aminz 10:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have even more unorthodox personal beliefs. I think Jesus was indeed crucified and that the Qur'an didn't actually deny the crucifixtion but rather deny the claims of those boasting Jews who said that we killed Jesus. Furthermore, I do think that Jesus's blood brings salvation, well not in the sense Christians believe, but in an Islamic sense and form of it. We kind of believe in the same things I guess, but just don't use the true terminology. That's all my original research of course :) --Aminz 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! The Qur'an wouldn't make such a passing remark on such a huge event. One thing, I think Muslims usually downplay the love of God in the sense that God actually send a prophet among them who sacrificed his whole life for them. Muhammad didn't have to do that. See verse 18:6 Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. God sent prophets to people out of his love, but people killed and teased the prophets. But yet, God sent his beloved prophet as a gift for them and they again did the same for him. Similarly for Jesus. Jesus is called in the Bible the son of God, not meaning that he was literally the son of God or divine I think, but that he was God's beloved. God selected and sent his Son to people so that those who believe in him and accept him would be protected from his wrath through their faith and trust in God's grace. Jesus's blood is a symbol of the sacrifice. The sacrifice that Jesus did and Prophet Muhammad did. They didn't have to accept the burden and responsibility of what they did. Cheers and Salaam. --Aminz 10:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, this is what I believe Islam is saying regarding the sin issue. This is part of a prayer probably belonging to Ali I think.

Prophet Muhammad said:

"Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and rejoice, for no one's good deeds will put him in Paradise." The Companions asked, "Not even you O Messenger of God?" He replied, "Not even me unless God bestows His pardon and mercy on me." ref: Reported by Aboo Hurayrah & 'Aa'ishah & collected by al-Bukhaaree (eng. trans. vol.8 p.315 no.474)

Without God's grace we are all damned FOR no one's good deeds alone will put him in Paradise. That is what Christians say. We need to cling to something. We, Chiristians and Muslims, both say: God's mercy and grace. That's the essence of what Bible says and Apostle Paul says "I think".Cheers and Salaam, --Aminz 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Goodnight --Aminz 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Jihad and general source usage

sorry for not responding lately.. i have had very little wiki time as of late. i am thinking about working on the articles related to muslim battles again in order to clean them up and such. the real thing i think i need to discuss with you is regarding the use of al-ghamidi and islahi to speak for the majority view on certain issues. from my own personal research of their work, their statements and the publications of their students, i have little reason to think that such people are representative of the sunni stance in fiqh or in creed. if you can, please provide a source on which you base your reasoning that these people are traditional "Sunnis". in fact, they have a methodology extremely similar to that of the Mu'tazilites, which expresses itself today as what is coined "modernism". this is also reflected in a lot of their theological and jurisprudential stances. in a number of related articles i feel that these minority opinions are being given way too much space. i understand that these views may be your personal conviction, but i think in some places there are grave violations of NPOV per giving undue weight, perhaps swaying the entire article, due to the heavy reliance on relating the islamic or majority view on an issue from these two or those from their ideology. i think perhaps part of this problem derives from excessive quoting which takes up unnecessary space when the idea should be to summarize the view and then proportionalize it according to how widely it is believed, or at least keep the quoting to a reasonable degree. i think you may also need to address the issue of copyvio's (copyright violations), if the works of the respective people are subject to copyright. thanks. ITAQALLAH 09:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

generally, mu'tazilah were strongly into philosophy, yes. however, they were also the only ones to adopt views such as only accepting tawatur, whereas the Sunni position has always been to accept tawatur in both lafz and meaning, and to also accept khabr ahad if they pass specific stringent conditions, as described by ash-shaafi'ee in al-'umm. you will also see ghamidi/islahi/their students referencing classical mu'tazili scholars like ibn rushd, az-zamashkari et al. classic mu'tazili positions include: denial of mahdi, denial of descent of jesus, denial of adhaab al-qabr, denial of "ru'yah" on qiyaamah, doubting narrations not reaching tawatur, and so on. no sunni text has ever denied any of these, i think some scholars even went on to say whoever denied such was on the verge of kufr. "sunni" does not necessarily mean to accept sunni hadeeth sources: most orientalists accept the corpus of sunni literature, even some shi'ites are willing to accept sunni literature when it benefits them. a "sunni" in fiqh would be one who is strictly within the realms of the four madhabs. there is no question that certain rules need to be addressed in terms of "fiqh al-waaqi" (jurisprudence of our times), but these differences are extremely minor and already being done by the fuqaaha within the madhaahib, and certainly not to the level of re-interpreting by ghamidi et al. do you have a source confirming that ghamidi/islahi is a conventional sunni? i may not be able to keep up with the rate of your editing, that is why i thought it would be better to bring it up to you, and some of the issues such as extensive quoting are better fixed by you instead of me IMHO. thank you. ITAQALLAH 10:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't say that they are mu'tazilites per se but they share many common traits, particularly their stand on tawatur (re: islahi cf ), and the implications of that stance. i did have a quick look in ghamidi's work, the discussion he instigates is very light and general, so there's not much you can analyse about it. even so, ghamidi's position on khabr waahid generally speaking does not conform to conventional sunni methodology. i have heard about some very strange fiqhi ideas coming from ghamidi also. i have seen from my own research that al-mawrid/renaissance pubs do not conform to conventional sunni methodology in a number of areas.

salafis in fact, as opposed to common belief, do indeed state that a layman should do taqleed of a madhab/mujtahid. when they say "the layman has no madhab", they mean that the layman is in reality doing taqleed of the mujtahid he follows, not necessarily the accepted position within the madhab, and this has always been the majority opinion and traditional sunni websites accept such. scholars like ibn uthaymeen and ibn as-sa'di were hanbali jurists. the only conflict that arose was regarding if someone could change who he was doing taqleed of if he saw someone to be more pious and learned, regardless of what madhab he was from. very few of them in reality tell people to follow primary sources, because it's not very practical. furthermore, they are also sunni in creed, following the athari school. ITAQALLAH 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

template

I started to work on the template you requested, and ended up writing a main article for it: Controveries related to Islam and Muslims. Any input? --Striver 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

To be honest with you, the impression that I got from reading Lewis was that many Islamic scholars at that time were thinking abolishing slavery means forbiding what God has permitted. I honestly thought maybe it is the modern scholars who think Qur'an wanted to *abolish* slavery. But that was just my impression. Feel free to remove "the modern" addition of mine. Cheers, --Aminz 08:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

re: hadith

to be honest, i don't think it's possible. ITAQALLAH 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi Truthspreader,

Could you please watch the Muhammad article. There is a hot debate there going on. Thanks so much.

BTW, I would like to add a new section to "Muhammad the reformer" section in the article. It is going to be about "Rejection of Racism" or something similar. I am now in the process of gathering sources. If you could help me there, that would be great (if you are free of course). Thanks and Cheers, --Aminz 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know the arabic word for racism? I want to check Encyclopedia of Islam. Thanks --Aminz 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It requires membership. Is it just a dictionary? I think I can google it and find something. Thanks anyway. --Aminz 07:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways, --Aminz 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Ajami is the concept with Arabs, Arabi wa Ajami, usually that meant persians. Look at ridda wars, there is a small aspect of its existence is Arabia, ofcourse there is Salman al Farsi, Omar's death etc that can tie up with the concept but not with the specific article you have in mind though. Not sure if there is a distinct term for racism though.--Tigeroo 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hi Truthspreader,

If you would like (and have time) to do an scholarly job on this article, I can help you with academic sources that explain the situation and provide the context; the jewish laws, etc. etc. . --Aminz 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About the bare fact, the main academic POV is that although Banu Qurayza had remained neutral but they had also negotiated with the enemy. Another academic POV is the denial of the story. The idea is that Ibn Ishaq supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendents of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These Jews allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times. Watt however thinks that this argument is not entirely convincing.

But regarding the interpretations of the event and whether it is a moral failure for Muhammad, much has been said:

Watt writes: "When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam."

John L Esposito in his book "Islam: The Straight Path" also compares this with other traditions. (in books.google.com try "John L Esposito Islam: The Straight Path banu qurayza"). Others may also have written on this. Cheers,--Aminz 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of punishment was neither alien to Arab customs nor to that of Hebrew prophets. But from the perspective of the modern man who is viewing the world from the radical perspective of french revolution and is living in a much more peaceful world, these doesn't seem nice. --Aminz 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. --Aminz 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I realized that some other scholar believe that Muslims 'discovered, or perhaps became suspected' that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy. --Aminz 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

who goes to heaven?

Someone ask on my talk page following question. I have answered few of them. Can you please try to answer each of the following one by one? thanks --- ابراهيم 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that in sura 2 line 62 in the koran that jews, christians, and sabians go to heaven just like muslims. I want you to ask a few things.

1.) If someone is good their whole life do they go to heaven

2.) if no to the first, what about those who have never heard of islam, christianity, judaism, or sabians, and they are good?

3.) If protestants and reform jews came after that line in the koran was written wouldn't that mean the are not elligable for heaven?

4.) magians (who were zoroastrians) were mentioned in the koran beside christians, jews, and sabians, but after polytheists. Zoroastrians are also monotheistic. Do zoroastrians get into heaven?

Itmaam-i-hujjat

Hi Truthspreader,

I read the article. Good job!! My only comment is that it seems that you have used only one source and that it is a Muslim source. It is good to include the view of western Islamic scholars as well. I'll try to find some. Cheers --Aminz 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But Dhimmi in general is a *good* and *prideful* aspect of the Muslim record till premodern times. Don't let yourself to be influenced by polemics. Lewis states "The status of dhimmi "was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews" but ceased to be so after the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis." --Aminz 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Being an unbeliever in Muslim land would have meant, say, the ban on using car and forcing you to use bicycle, but in Christian land it would have meant forcing violence or exile on you.

Persecution of pagans, well, I won't have any simpathy for Meccan pagans. For others, probably. --Aminz 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there was discrimination, even there is discrimination today. I like one thing about Islam: its laws were practical at that time. Do you really think Muhammad could have established modern human rights at that time?

Good boy, if you believe that the Bible has indeed prophecied Muhammad (here), then you might want to read what this person is supposed to do:

13-The LORD will march out like a mighty man,

like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;

with a shout he will raise the battle cry

and will triumph over his enemies.

14-"For a long time I have kept silent,

I have been quiet and held myself back.

But now, like a woman in childbirth,

I cry out, I gasp and pant.

15-I will lay waste the mountains and hills

and dry up all their vegetation;

I will turn rivers into islands

and dry up the pools.

16-I will lead the blind by ways they have not known,

along unfamiliar paths I will guide them;

I will turn the darkness into light before them

and make the rough places smooth.

These are the things I will do;

I will not forsake them.

17-But those who trust in idols,

who say to images, 'You are our gods,'

will be turned back in utter shame.

--Aminz 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reform in Islam

Truthspreader, to say that Islam gives equality to believers and non-believers is an absurdity. Think about it, how can God of Islam treats those who accept Islam and those who reject it the same? So, forgive me if this is blasphemy, but I would say, the known mainstream interpretation of Islam was *excellent* for 1400 years ago, but now, this interpretation is outdated. We do need a revival and that I think is moving from polytheism towards monotheism. If the famous medieval jurist al-Ghazzali rejected the idea of a white man being not equal to a black one as falling into polytheism; today as Azizah Y. al-Hibri suggests, the revival movement should reject inequality between men and women as falling into polytheism. As Lewis says, the monotheism of Islam was only partially successful and was to some extent counteracted by other influences, notably the practice of various conquered people and countries Muslims encountered. One such area was politics and women. Lewis or Esposito, one of them, mentions that had real monotheism of Islam been implemented in politics, Islamic countries would have never been ruled by dictators. Islamic doctrine is not only monotheistic in surface but is naturally egalitarian.

Also, please read the Haddad and Esposito's quote here Muhammad#Women.27s_rights

-- Regarding the taxation, yes, Muslims were paying less tax, and taxation was a concern for Dhimmis and a motivation for them to convert to Islam, but please note that:

1. Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, Cahen states, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes" and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of Dhimmi's subjection

2. Lewis states that it seems that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters. Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egpyt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines cf. Lewis (2002) p.57

-- Some appologic comments regarding Islam and the world history of toleration (in case you haven't seen them):

• First general comment: Mark Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. cf. Cohen (1995) Princeton University Press p. xix

So, it is not something particular to Islam.

• Second comment: Michael Sells states that "The plaintiffs boast that Jesus never commanded his followers to kill the unbelievers but told them to leave punishment for the afterlife. But scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India."
• Third comment: Change in our standards: Lewis and Cohen point out that until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers, at least as it is understood in west after John Locke, was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslims and Christians.
• Fourth comment: There is a consensus among scholars that "in most respects" the position of non-Muslims under Muslim lands "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe" cf. Lewis (1984) p. 62, Cohen (1995) p. xvii

Truthspreader, I would like to chat a bit about the universal moral values. It doesn’t contradict the change in our moral standards in the sense I mean. Truthspreader, don't you think it is better to continue this discussion over email? (Tomorrow probably, it is 1:33 a.m. now and I need to wake up in the dawn for eating otherwise I won't be able to survive till the end of the day :P ) --Aminz 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 07:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Truthspreader, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or ] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! —Xyrael / 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Islahi

Can you tell me about Islahi's tafseer, how big it is & how much does it cost . F.a.y. 08:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm , I was planning to buy it in Urdu (my native language). BTW where are you from . F.a.y. 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK . F.a.y. 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thats the point that amazed me when I saw a few on line selections . I have read 4-5 tafsirs , but the thing thats different about Tadabbur-e-Quran is that it tells you a lot other then Sharia/jurisprudence , & at the same time it makes you think . A quality that is non-existant in other tafsirs . F.a.y. 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

re: raids

that hadeeth is about after al-hudaybiyyah (not pre-badr) when a treaty was signed between the Meccans/Muslims. abu baseer stayed away from medinah as far as i know and would waylay Meccan caravans. to actively encourage it in this time would constitute a violation of the treaty. also see and ITAQALLAH 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

English

In pre-Islamic society, parents use to bury their daughters due to fear of drought or hunger. Qur'an criticized attitude of such parents who reject their female children. As in Qur'an:

In pre-Islamic society, parents buried their daughters due to fear of drought or hunger. The Qur'an criticized the attitude of parents who reject their female children. As in the Qur'an:

Good job

Very well researched and scholarly! --Aminz 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, can you please let me know a value which west hasn't found yet but Islam has championed. Thanks --Aminz 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the west also used to be very conservative. See, Islam had *net* improvements over the best of what went before it at 1400 years ago. I would like to know if there is any aspect of Islam which wasn't put into practice but can add some real improvements over the best of what is known now in the world? --Aminz 07:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i.e., for example we know today that women should be viewed very equal to men, but is there anything unknown to us that Islam has teached 1400 years ago but has been neglected so far. --Aminz 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should continue this over email again sometime soon (i am kind of busy these days). --Aminz 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason not to believe so. I can not however get access to the journal paper from home but probably can do it from university. --Aminz 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)