Is Islam actually peaceful?

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by ~:MOK:~

Let me just ask you if you've ever lived in a nation governed by Sharia? I'm going to assume that you haven't but forgive me if you have. I have lived in Egypt, side by side with the Christians (20+ percent of the pop.) who, I can attest are not looked down upon, atleast in the area i lived in.

I will say that the majority of the population (this is a grotesque generalization, I hate generalizations) does seem a bit racist towards dark skin colour though, which is odd. Although I do feel like it is something every nation has encountered and will grow out of as the population matures.

Egypt, strictky speaking, is not a Sharia country. Egypt has not adopted the laws associated with "Hadd" offenses as part of it's state law. Does Egypt enforce the Jizyah?

.

[Light]

Islam is a very peaceful religion. Some people will be baffle by this. Reason being, they will bring the current crisis in Middle East as an example.

Worth noting that these examples aren't even accurate. There are a lot of lies and untold stories behind these crisis that nobody even want to talk about.

Again about the reference to the Shariah law, etc. You are just referencing one part of the shariah without referring to the whole. Thus why it seems very harsh and inhumane. Again, harsh and inhumane is subjective to individual. Just like defining a country is governed by Sharia. That is also subjective according to one's knowledge of Sharia itself.

Originally by Juantoo3
Therein lies a fundamental difficulty: why the need for conversion? While it is true that Christians do seek to convert others, it is not mandatory.

In Islam, there is no compulsion in religion.

It is clearly stated in the Quran sura 2, verse no 256

002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

God further state that truth stands our clear from Error. Thus, if you have ever come across a da'i (Muslim missionaries), his objective is not to convert you but he is more interested in conveying to you the message of Islam. This is what has been commanded by Allah. Allah do not instruct Muslims to convert people. The issue of the heart is Allah's and HE will open the hearts of people to Islam at HIS will. Thus, the work of Muslims missionaries is simple - to convey the message of Allah.

Quite the opposite, from what I have been able to glean, considering Sharia nations. There it seems that conversion to Islam is mandatory.

No, that is not true. If such a nations does that, then based on my understanding, they have erred. Unless there is strong reasons why this has to be done, nobody should be Islam to live in an Islamic state. Look into history, there are Christians/Jews who lived peacefully in the Caliphate State. In fact it is the contrary, where in Europe during the crusades, everybody are Christians.

To end, if there is a need to refer on the true Islamic state, you have to refer to the time of the caliphates. Not the present moment as none are following fully the shariah because their version also contain values that are more cultural rather than islamic.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

And Islam wonders why nobody else will trust it, that nobody else believes what they say? Actions speak louder than words. The actions of Muslims speak louder than any verses they may quote, or any lies that are told. Ah, but these are not the actions of all Muslims...true, yet how many "average, common, everyday Muslims" cheered when the buildings burned in New York? Ah, but aren't Christians guilty also of saying one thing and doing another...to which I say, who has greater freedom: the Christian in a Muslim nation, or the Muslim in a Christian nation?

Saying, and doing, are two different things. When Christians and Muslims both figure this out, the world will be better off. As long as there are those who cheer for the suffering of others, there will be troubles in the world.

Here are my observations (take them as you will):

One can cherry pick quotes from leaders of Islam and Christianity (or any wisdom tradition - whether overtly "religious" or not) about their peaceful message and good intentions. And at the core the philosophy of each, there typically is a great revelation about the way to peace and harmony that inspires us to moments when we look beyond ourselves. But the way is a personal remedy and not a political one. The result is the great struggle in revealed religions between the more superstitious and violent tendencies inherent in the notion of having received the "one true faith"TM and the pushback by individuals who connect with the revealed path. This dichotomy and its attendant struggle is not unique to Islam and Christianity. We can see it in cultures where Hinduism is the norm. China is a particularly interesting example, with the "yin-yang" of strictly ordered Confucianism and the personal journey and chaos of the Tao.

To understand a religion, the more important thing is to look at what has been produced. And I agree that in Western societies, dominated by Christianity, liberalism has been more successful in the last 250 years than it has been in Islam.

But why? Is it a product of people straining the philosophy out of the mythology from Christianity that reached a crescendo in the Enlightenment? Was the Enlightenment itself a process that began, really, with the Renaissance?

I think we should carefully consider a few things:

(1) When we look at the violence and turbulence surrounding Islam, might we be mistaking correlation for causation? Is it Christian liberalism that uniquely made Western Democracy possible? Or is it the great wealth of western nations built on the sweat of their empires (and the end of a gun) that has allowed these nations to prosper and build a large, educated middle-class that makes Democracy work? Are these, along with other factors all part of the picture? If so, what other signficant factors are in play?

(2) Christianity and the nations who claim it as their main cultural base has an extremely violent history. First, there are the by-products of Christian Europe (fascism of the last century, Communism). There was 400 years of Empire building built largely on the justifications of racism and evangelism of Christianity. Before that, there were hundreds and hundreds of years of wars of religion set off by the Reformation that look, feel, and act a lot like what you are seeing in Islam today. Alongside these brutal wars of religion, there were the witchhunts, genocidal cleansing in the name of the faith during the Albigensian crusade, Inquisitions and the brutal colonization of the New World. The wars of religion have continued right up to our own lifetime in places like Northern Ireland, where people of different Christian sects were (within the last three decades) regularly blowing up civilians to make their political and religious points. Before the Reformation and Renaissance, Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages. Before that it was the violence the Christian Roman Empire carrying its authority to the barbarians.

(3) When Christianity was in the Dark Ages, art, science and philosophy were blossoming in Islam. It was through contact with Muslims during the Crusades that Christian Europe rediscovered much of Greek philosophy (including rediscovering Aristotle), which had disappeared in Christendom, but had been cultivated in the meantime in Islam. Islamic science blossomed while Europe slept - particularly in mathematics, medicine and astronomy.

(4) Many places in the world are the product of arbitrary line drawing and enforcement of those lines through violence by the various colonial empires that dominated the world for centuries. Those empires have only just collapsed (or started to collapse in some cases) in the last 60 years. The result is the struggle for autonomy (and more importantly "identity") by people who may not share a common cultural identity, but who were forced together by the arbitrary lines drawn around them by others.

Consider that it isn't just a Christian/Muslim difference, but that something else is going on. At their roots, both religions have the seeming conflict between the inherent violence of claiming to be the one true faith, and more liberal and enlightened views of love, compassion and forgiveness. The history of both seems to indicate that the more stressed the societies in which they function are, the more reign is given to the superstitious and violent aspects of their doctrines and dogmas. And historically this appears to be as true of Christianity as it is of Islam. And perhaps, in the real sense, it is a human thing at work.

I think the big caution we all need to observe is not to alienate each other. Those who push back against the methods of violence and fascism are fighting to win over the hearts and minds of individuals in their cultures. That battle must to be carried out within the context of the faith itself. By not labeling an entire faith tradition as "violent" or "oppressive" we may help to accomplish something much more valuable both by giving encouragement to those who have found the way in Islam and want to share its meaning with others in their culture (letting them know we see, understand, and support them), and by minimizing the ammunition of extremists who build their consensus on an "us vs. them" mentality. By using our own labeling we help feed an increasingly uncontrollable fire.

These are my opinions, anyway.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Here are my observations (take them as you will):

One can cherry pick quotes from leaders of Islam and Christianity (or any wisdom tradition - whether overtly "religious" or not) about their peaceful message and good intentions. And at the core the philosophy of each, there typically is a great revelation about the way to peace and harmony that inspires us to moments when we look beyond ourselves. But the way is a personal remedy and not a political one. The result is the great struggle in revealed religions between the more superstitious and violent tendencies inherent in the notion of having received the "one true faith"TM and the pushback by individuals who connect with the revealed path. This dichotomy and its attendant struggle is not unique to Islam and Christianity. We can see it in cultures where Hinduism is the norm. China is a particularly interesting example, with the "yin-yang" of strictly ordered Confucianism and the personal journey and chaos of the Tao.

To understand a religion, the more important thing is to look at what has been produced. And I agree that in Western societies, dominated by Christianity, liberalism has been more successful in the last 250 years than it has been in Islam.

But why? Is it a product of people straining the philosophy out of the mythology from Christianity that reached a crescendo in the Enlightenment? Was the Enlightenment itself a process that began, really, with the Renaissance?

I think we should carefully consider a few things:

(1) When we look at the violence and turbulence surrounding Islam, might we be mistaking correlation for causation? Is it Christian liberalism that uniquely made Western Democracy possible? Or is it the great wealth of western nations built on the sweat of their empires (and the end of a gun) that has allowed these nations to prosper and build a large, educated middle-class that makes Democracy work? Are these, along with other factors all part of the picture? If so, what other signficant factors are in play?

(2) Christianity and the nations who claim it as their main cultural base has an extremely violent history. First, there are the by-products of Christian Europe (fascism of the last century, Communism). There was 400 years of Empire building built largely on the justifications of racism and evangelism of Christianity. Before that, there were hundreds and hundreds of years of wars of religion set off by the Reformation that look, feel, and act a lot like what you are seeing in Islam today. Alongside these brutal wars of religion, there were the witchhunts, genocidal cleansing in the name of the faith during the Albigensian crusade, Inquisitions and the brutal colonization of the New World. The wars of religion have continued right up to our own lifetime in places like Northern Ireland, where people of different Christian sects were (within the last three decades) regularly blowing up civilians to make their political and religious points. Before the Reformation and Renaissance, Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages. Before that it was the violence the Christian Roman Empire carrying its authority to the barbarians.

(3) When Christianity was in the Dark Ages, art, science and philosophy were blossoming in Islam. It was through contact with Muslims during the Crusades that Christian Europe rediscovered much of Greek philosophy (including rediscovering Aristotle), which had disappeared in Christendom, but had been cultivated in the meantime in Islam. Islamic science blossomed while Europe slept - particularly in mathematics, medicine and astronomy.

(4) Many places in the world are the product of arbitrary line drawing and enforcement of those lines through violence by the various colonial empires that dominated the world for centuries. Those empires have only just collapsed (or started to collapse in some cases) in the last 60 years. The result is the struggle for autonomy (and more importantly "identity") by people who may not share a common cultural identity, but who were forced together by the arbitrary lines drawn around them by others.

Consider that it isn't just a Christian/Muslim difference, but that something else is going on. At their roots, both religions have the seeming conflict between the inherent violence of claiming to be the one true faith, and more liberal and enlightened views of love, compassion and forgiveness. The history of both seems to indicate that the more stressed the societies in which they function are, the more reign is given to the superstitious and violent aspects of their doctrines and dogmas. And historically this appears to be as true of Christianity as it is of Islam. And perhaps, in the real sense, it is a human thing at work.

I think the big caution we all need to observe is not to alienate each other. Those who push back against the methods of violence and fascism are fighting to win over the hearts and minds of individuals in their cultures. That battle must to be carried out within the context of the faith itself. By not labeling an entire faith tradition as "violent" or "oppressive" we may help to accomplish something much more valuable both by giving encouragement to those who have found the way in Islam and want to share its meaning with others in their culture (letting them know we see, understand, and support them), and by minimizing the ammunition of extremists who build their consensus on an "us vs. them" mentality. By using our own labeling we help feed an increasingly uncontrollable fire.

These are my opinions, anyway.

Well said. I think the problem is that some people or groups get a little piece of the truth and believe they have it all. Then the viciousness inherent in much of our human nature takes over, and some say "An idea in my head is worth more than your life."

Thus, religion is not only degraded, but turned into its opposite, leading away from God rather than toward Him.

[bananabrain]

jeannot,

i don't mean to be rude, but what on earth is the POINT of such a big quote? quote the bit you're interested in! if you mean the whole thing, say so without bloody pasting it again so we have to scroll ALL the way down it to read your two lines at the bottom - whether they're interesting or not!

Originally Posted by Light

Islam is a very peaceful religion. Some people will be baffled by this. Reason being, they will bring the current crisis in Middle East as an example.

Worth noting that these examples aren't even accurate. There are a lot of lies and untold stories behind these crisis that nobody even want to talk about.

well, why don't you talk about them, then? otherwise i might as well respond "so you say, but what makes you qualified to say so?" with reference to the "current crisis", which one are you talking about? lebanon? iraq? iran? gaza? if there is an "untold story" or "lie", you are welcome to respectively tell or expose it!

to return to the subject under discussion, which was that it seems that a lot of the groups and individuals fomenting intolerance and violence in the world (even if you ignore the middle east for a second) claim to be doing it in the name of islam. it is, to those of us who wish to understand islam and muslims, extremely unhelpful to paper over the differences by saying "islam is X" or "islam is Y" if it's patently obvious that individuals and groups who consider themselves muslim disagree with you and with each other! it makes the statement look ridiculous and i am sure it is not in the interest of muslims. it seems to *me* patently obvious that muslims (like christians and jews) all seem to disagree with each other all the time! could it not be that the oft-quoted surah "there is no compulsion"... might also refer to diversity of opinion within islam?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Light]

well, why don't you talk about them, then? otherwise i might as well respond "so you say, but what makes you qualified to say so?" with reference to the "current crisis", which one are you talking about? lebanon? iraq? iran? gaza? if there is an "untold story" or "lie", you are welcome to respectively tell or expose it!

The main topic is about Islam. Yes, we can discuss about the differences in opinion on the current crisis. But, personally I don't think it will go anywhere. You will have your opinion and I have mine. Even if we both disagree, it won't extend the main topic. When I refer to the crisis in the Middle East, I am explaining that you can't look at the Middle East as an example of Islam. There are Christian, Jews and Arabs there. As well as there are other countries with Muslim population outside this region. Islam is not the reason for this crisis nor was it the reason for terrorist to do devious acts.
Yes, there are lies and untold stories in every crisis, named it:- World War 1, World War 2, in all wars. It will carry some propoganda and that will include lies and deception to bring success to a campaign.
This is not a topic about the crisis in Middle East, this is about 'Is ISLAM actually peaceful'.

to return to the subject under discussion, which was that it seems that a lot of the groups and individuals fomenting intolerance and violence in the world (even if you ignore the middle east for a second) claim to be doing it in the name of islam.

Why do you only refer to Islam and Muslim in regards to intolerance and violence? Why don't you refer to Christian (US/UK) who attack countries without the permission of the international community. Why don't you refer to Israel whom have been for the pass years bulldozing palestinian houses and illegally annexing lands for settlers? Leaving the Palestinian homeless? Isn't there intolerance in all this actions? It is strange to see that people relate intolerance to Islam when it involve Muslims, yet they relate the country being intolerance when it involve Christian or Jews.
You probably have not heard Muslims scholars who have clearly object the violence/suicide bombing etc. that supposedly being done in the name of Islam. Yet, I am sad to hear that people can blatantly claim Muslims has not done enough to oppose such acts.

it is, to those of us who wish to understand islam and muslims, extremely unhelpful to paper over the differences by saying "islam is X" or "islam is Y" if it's patently obvious that individuals and groups who consider themselves muslim disagree with you and with each other!

It is similar to any faith. You can have the IRA who suppose that they are representing the Roman Catholics. You also have the KKK who supposed to represent Christianity. And the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang after the World War II representing the Jews. All of them at one point does perform terrorism act. So, it is not fair to associate Islam to terrorism as it should not be for Christianity and Judaism alike. Yes, there are disagreements within ourself as much as you would have in Christianity or Judaism in the period when its respective terrorist organisation exists.

it makes the statement look ridiculous and i am sure it is not in the interest of muslims. it seems to *me* patently obvious that muslims (like christians and jews) all seem to disagree with each other all the time!

I am sorry but this is entirely incorrect. Muslims don't disagree all the time. If you ask any Muslims, if Islam is peaceful - everyone will say yes. When new revert were asked why do you want to become a Muslim after all this news about Middle East and the violence. They said it is because it is peaceful, simple and logical.

could it not be that the oft-quoted surah "there is no compulsion"... might also refer to diversity of opinion within islam?

Islam is not as rigid as other religion. It is the way of life. What stated in the Quran, if it is both explicit and implicit will mean that is the mandatory adherents. However, there are matters that was mentioned vaguely, this is not because it is intended to divide the people, but more of tha encouragement for the people to investigate, research and opined based on the best evidence they can find. Thus, it encourages its follower to think and not just follow by the book. Diversity in Islam is not an issue as Allah did mentioned that we should seek knowledge and if there is differences, we should respect each other opinion. This is the virtue of a good muslim. They don't transgress into saying to other Muslims, you're wrong, or otherwise.

ma-asalama (with peace)

[Jeannot]

In the 17th century, the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants wiped out half to 2/3 the population of central Europe. Partly as a result of this carnage, Europe experienced the Enlightenment (also owing to the Scientific Revolution). As a result, toleration became a primary value. Maybe Islam needs an Enlightenment?? I'm thinking primarily of the Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Light

Yes, we can discuss about the differences in opinion on the current crisis. But, personally I don't think it will go anywhere. You will have your opinion and I have mine.

i think that's a very sad attitude. it presupposes that neither of us are prepared to be convinced. i would like to think that one of the points of a dialogue board is for people to get to know each other better - perhaps even to start trusting each others' opinions. i speak my mind here - i have no agenda other than my own personal beliefs, which have been shaped by experience and learning. my understanding of islam, the middle east and muslims has been likewise. unfortunately, it has recently been too often the case that muslims spout a "party line" - and anyone can do that. unless you are similarly open to the possibility of learning something you didn't know, there is very little point in your being here.

When I refer to the crisis in the Middle East, I am explaining that you can't look at the Middle East as an example of Islam.

right. now this is a regularly occurring difficulty; the muslim world simply isn't very "islamic", certainly as islam has been taught to me by muslims and as you yourself represent it as an idealised, perfect, system. in fact, nobody has yet shown me an example of a truly islamic society other than the one we know from the Qur'an and the hadiths - in other words, nobody since muhammad and his companions has managed it. certainly the states which purport to be "islamic republics" and kingdoms, such as iran, pakistan, sudan and saudi arabia, are pretty much anything but. i believe islam to be intimately connected with *social justice* and *moral uprightness* - but i see little evidence of this in the government of these states. certainly their shari'a courts are neither equitable nor free of corruption. don't get me wrong - i am not therefore saying that therefore "islam is x or y", just that nobody has so far got it to work. i am therefore forced to conclude that when muslims like yourself say that "islam is..." etc, the islam they are referring to is the theoretical construct and set of laws that they try to live by. am i right?

if so, then my criticism of specific muslims, groups and governments of muslims should *NOT* be construed as criticism of islam, but criticism of muslims. is that fair enough? therefore, the question ought to be, really, not "is islam peaceful?" (unless you're talking *strictly* in theological and legal terms) but "are MUSLIMS peaceful?" - which, of course is a different question entirely. both are fair questions but must be strictly defined. ok?

Why do you only refer to Islam and Muslim in regards to intolerance and violence?

because that is what we are discussing. the title of the thread is not "which is more peaceful, islam, christianity or judaism?" also, in reference to what countries do, see my point above. either "muslim countries" and organisations represent islam or they don't, in your view. which is it? if they do, then we can talk about whether their conduct, policies and behaviour are islamic or not. if not, then you are not entitled to consider the us or uk as being examples of "christian" behaviour, or israel as "jewish". you can't have it both ways.

i don't know where you're from, but in any case, as a citizen of the uk, i can certainly tell you about the status of christianity here. the country is *not* run as a christian country. political decisions are *not* taken with christian values and priorities in mind, because in europe and the us, religion and state are kept separate. if you're not taking this into account, you're failing to understand something very basic about the politics. it is, of course, true, that in the us there are very strong feelings about christian values held by about 70% of the population, but this does not mean that they get their way, nor does it mean that the values of the remaining 30% are ignored. the point is that decisions are mostly taken pragmatically and, even though the president or prime minister may have strong christian beliefs (and both bush and blair do) that doesn't mean they are able to put them into practice. it just isn't possible, because neither have that kind of unlimited power. a similar situation is the case in israel. israel, which i know well, is a *secular* state, which was set up as a *refuge* for jews and as a *nationalistic* solution to jewish oppression, *not* as a religious institution. although there are strong religious forces at work there, there are equally strong secularising forces, which resist the religious ones. it sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how israeli society actually works. what i can tell you is that what *israel* does is not the same as what *judaism* says ought to be done. therefore you certainly can't judge judaism by israel any more than you can judge christianity by the us or the uk.

Israel whom have been for the pass years bulldozing palestinian houses and illegally annexing lands for settlers? Leaving the Palestinian homeless? Isn't there intolerance in all this actions?

as you *well know*, or at any rate ought to know, the situation is hardly that simple. try not to ignore the actual history of the arab-israeli conflict in your search for rhetorical self-justification. if you need a reading list, i'll be happy to supply one for you.

You probably have not heard Muslims scholars who have clearly object the violence/suicide bombing etc.

i have. but i've heard plenty of eminent muslim scholars also claim that the violence was justified. similarly, as you ought to know, in the case of jews in particular, there are plenty of islamic authorities that claim that a) all israelis are by definition "settlers" and b) there is no such thing as an israeli "civilian". and, as you also ought to know, it is rare for an act of violence against a jewish target is not somehow justified in terms of the palestinians - as if it helps the poor buggers.

the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang after the World War II representing the Jews. All of them at one point does perform terrorism act.

except that all of these were DISARMED and DISBANDED and therefore prevented from acting on their own after the establishment of the state. if you don't know anything about how difficult and divisive this necessary act was, i suggest you read this article about the "altalena affair" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair - it is notable that nothing like this has happened in either lebanon or palestine, with the result that we are in this situation now with hamas and hizbollah.

I am sorry but this is entirely incorrect. Muslims don't disagree all the time. If you ask any Muslims, if Islam is peaceful - everyone will say yes.

light, i don't think you understand what i'm saying. of *course* they'll all say yes if you ask a high-concept, theoretical question. the question is what happens in *practice*. is X permitted? is Y action haram or halal? if you are maintaining that muslims never disagree, you must be living in an extremely homogeneous society. the muslims i know have a lot of very different opinions.

Diversity in Islam is not an issue

oh, come on, light. take off the rose-coloured spectacles. the picture you're presenting bears very little resemblance to the everyday reality that i encounter. why can't muslims in the uk agree on one representative organisation, for example? why do we have the mcb, the mab, mpac, the muslim parliament, the federation of british sufis, etc? and what about the ahmadis, the ismailis, the twelvers and so on? the fact is that all these people disagree on nearly everything, whilst all claiming that they agree about the Qur'an and the sunna. seems to me that there's something there that doesn't add up. in short, you guys are nearly as disunited as the jewish community!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Zaakir]

whether Y is halal or haram is told t us in the Quran or sunnah...some peopel try to find loop hholes so to speak in order not to follow everything..i cant say i am graet myself, every time i go to the toilet, eat, drink, go out, i dont say what im supposed to...
you also said something about not following properly i think?or along that effect...this life is ment to be like hell to the believers...it will get to a point where it will be like holding onto religion asif it were a hot iron rod...especially with todays society in this country being so anti religion and anti islam...Muhammad and his followers were great, yes they followed perfectly, things in there day would have been easier, to follow...as in islamic countries, btu it wouldnt have been easy for Muhammad s.a.w due to the wars and attcks he got off people.but who can you say follows judaiam like abraham a.s? would yu compare yourself to a prophet?also as i said people look for ways out, becasue of todays society...and the shaytan also....as for you sayin gabout shariah law...theer is a way which to follow, but again some people may want powr and change things accordingly to their wants..i dont know of anyone doing this, but it could happen..

[bananabrain]

zaakir,

as far as i follow your argument (which isn't very far) the problem is that the Qur'an and sunnah, like the Torah and the halakhah (jewish law) don't cover everything explicitly, as you well know. thus anything that isn't specifically identifiable (like laws relating to cars or cigarettes) has to be interpreted out of the Text. there are often disagreements. i believe two of the four schools, including maybe the hanbalis, allows the eating of shellfish whilst the other two don't. i am also talking about rules of conduct and issues of politics and economics. the fact is that both islam and judaism contain a large amount of "grey areas" in their primary texts which the commentators and subsequent legislators try and work out. it is there that the disagreements arise.

life is meant to be like hell to the believers...it will get to a point where it will be like holding onto religion asif it were a hot iron rod
sounds like fun! fortunately, judaism has a principle which states "you shall live by them" (the laws) which the sages interpret as meaning: live by them and not die by them. religious behaviour should be something that is achievable to everyone, not just an elite and if i know *anything* about muhammad, i know he was a human being, with real thoughts, feelings and limitations, albeit a particularly impressive and talented man, prophet or not. isn't that the point for muslims - that religion ought to be "do-able"? otherwise, you would (as it says in the "night journey" tradition) be making salat fifty times a day instead of five!

things in their day would have been easier to follow

zaakir, surely you aren't suggesting things were easier for the early muslim 'umma? they had a terribly hard time getting themselves established in the environment of jahiliyya in arabia.

but who can you say follows judaism like abraham a.s? would yu compare yourself to a prophet?

obviously i'm not comparing myself to a prophet. nonetheless, the beliefs, practices and actions of abraham are a daily guide to us; he instituted the morning prayer and during the morning prayer we study the story of the binding of isaac (ishaq). the point is, however, we can't know exactly how abraham did everything, but neither can you. we have to rely on our tradition, just as you have to rely on your own tradition. and both of us are also commanded by G!D to use our powers of reason and critical thinking.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Zaakir]

im not saying that things were easy for the early ummah, if you read the bit after you'd see taht...i dont know alot about islam as only been muslim for 4 months, so dont understand your meening of grey areas?im not sayinf islam isnt possible to follow explicitly, im saying in this age, i no many many muslim youths including myself who wathc television, listen to music, mix witht he opposite sex, dont read the Quran enough, but me coming from a christian family, things are dificult for me and i personally find somethings extremely difficult if you understand me?this is why i said that about religion, i wasnt just refering to islam, all religions, i know christains who never go to church, eat meat on good friday, dont forgive and forget, odnt give anything up in lent, i dont know any jews, a lot of muslims i know as i said , including myself, dont follow the sunnah properly, i mix with girls, i have a bank accoutn that gets interest, which im trying to stop...this is what i mean, a scholar said its going to be like holding a hot iron rod, in that it will be difficult to hold onto, becasue of the temptations of the shaytaan, the modern day society we are in...i hope you now understand what i meant

[bananabrain]

im not saying that things were easy for the early ummah, if you read the bit after you'd see that.

i read the whole thing. unfortunately your english is not the easiest to follow, so do excuse me, it's my first language but obviously not yours, so you are at a bit of a disadvantage.

i dont know alot about islam as only been muslim for 4 months, so dont understand your meening of grey areas

look, i don't mean to be patronising or rude or anything, but i think you need to learn a bit more about your religion before you start trying to speak in its name, because when you say "islam is this" or "islam is that", you don't come across as terribly convincing and, if you've only been a muslim for four months, it's not that surprising.

i no many many muslim youths including myself who wathc television, listen to music, mix witht he opposite sex, dont read the Quran enough

zaakir, if you think listening to music is forbidden in islam, then you are not being taught properly. fair enough if you want to only listen to religious music, but you are entitled at least to discover islamic religious music like the qawwali singers of pakistan, the most famous of whom is nusrat fateh ali khan. in fact, look here:

http://www.worldmusiccentral.org/art...60618114457197

this is an ISLAMIC MUSIC FESTIVAL (actually, i was at the launch party, which was at the UK foreign ministry, as i am involved in religious music) and the musicians are all muslims. i know that some (like some salafis, for example) say music is haraam but there are many scholars who say that it is halal.

again, i'm not a muslim, but i *know* muslims are allowed to listen to instrumental music of all types. don't take my word for it, but please check with some authorities. i am not a fan of al-qaradawi, but i know he at least permits it. some links may be found on: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...s+not+haram%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+not+haraam%22

please don't be hard on yourself. islam does not need more young people who are learning by rote and repetition. you can't just take one person's word for it. G!D does not want you to be a brainless robot.

i dont know any jews

well, i don't know where you live, but you are welcome to ask me anything you like.

was-salaam

bananabrain

[Zaakir]

english is my first language, but i hated the subject!i understand what you say about me speaking in the name of Islam, but i am doing in the sense that i would like to use what i do know, and becasue when i read these posts they increase my faith and strength in Islam, muslims are not allowed to listen to instrumental music really. nasheeds (islamic music) as you say is not haram, actual modern day music for example is haram, instruments are haram except drum beats. reasons for this are such as follows:
the music can get drilled in to your mind, and you think of the song music...right?so you remember the music more than the words of Allah.
personally, when i listen to music, sometimes the song replays in my head when i perform my salah...this is haram.
you said that i am not being taught properly...i only have a teacher for arabic, most of my learning comes from Quran and hadith...
therefore my teacher is Muhammad s.a.w...he once said that one of his missions was to destroy musical instruments..i do not know of any scholar that permits music, nasheeds, yes...music..no...then agian you are not a muslim, i am, i beleive music is haram, i dint see why that has anything to do with you, as i want to sacrifice music for Allah s.w.t and of course because He has forbidden it. why do i have to convince you anyway...im saying what i feel, you wont agree because you're a jew..i know myself so i dont care what anyone thinks...because only Allah s.w.t knows, and in the future we will all see islam is the truth

[bananabrain]

so, you reckon sheikh al-qaradawi, who, in his book "al-halal w'al-haram dil islam", says music is not haram, is wrong? i mean, i don't like the guy, he doesn't like jews very much, but he's generally considered fairly knowledgeable and authoritative in islamic law. and, either way, here we have a bona fide disagreement about whether music is allowed or not.

therefore my teacher is Muhammad s.a.w... Muhammad s.a.w...he once said that one of his missions was to destroy musical instruments..

oh, come on, zaakir. what sort of prophet hates musical instruments? what sort of religion hates musical instruments? this is crazy. so all you're allowed to listen to is religious songs accompanied by a daf? no 'oud? no qanun? what a miserable life you're going to have if you don't find a decent teacher. i mean, if you want to do this to yourself, go ahead, but really, it's so unnecessary. i know loads of really religious muslims who love and play all sorts of music and this seems like a really joyless, puritanical version of what can be a perfectly great religion.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Zaakir]

the pious muslims i know, do not listen to music, during the time they waste listening to music, they could be reading Quran, listening to Quran. maybe the muslim syou know are not very pious, but as i said in an earlier post, people try to find loop holes, for example having a beard in islam, many will say its not compulsory , but it is, the same with music, it is haram. why would a prophet want o sit and listen to music when he could be spraeding the word of god? i have told you listening to music, you remember the song and sometimes keep repeating it, and have an urge to hear it..i know when i hear good music i am like this, but how dare i be like this!? do i do this as much with the Quran, no...so i am giving an impression music is more important to me...if you dont understand that then i cant say much more. the Quran says

Luqman 31:6
And of mankind is he who purchases idle talks (i.e. music, singing, etc.) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah without knowledge, and takes it (the Path of Allah, the Verses of the Qur'an) by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment (in the Hell-Fire).

The hadeeth indicates that [musical instruments] are haram (prohibited), and condemns those who say they are halal (permissible), just as it condemns those who say that alcohol and zina are allowed. The aayaat and ahaadeeth that warn against singing and musical instruments are many indeed. Whoever claims that Allaah has allowed singing and musical instruments is lying and is committing a great evil. We ask Allaah to keep us from obeying our desires and the Shaytaan. Even worse and more seriously sinful than that are those who say it is mustahabb. Undoubtedly this stems from ignorance about Allaah and His Religion; it is insolent blasphemy against Allaah and lying about His Laws.

reading that, by a scholar, tells us that music is haram. is that enough evidence for you? life isnt boring without music...i have the words of my lord...why should this life be graet, its merely a short test, that has the same time period of about half a day in paradise