IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islam for non-Muslims
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Serious Question
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Serious Question

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Message
abuzaid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 13 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 163
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuzaid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2010 at 1:15am
Freedome of speech as explained and mentioned by west never existd in history and even today this is just an impression created by media.
 
'Freedom of speech is universal" is one of the most ridiculous and deceptive statement one can ever read or hear. "Freedom of speech" is a myth. No civilization can ever allow some individual to to abuse their fundamental values. it will be called treason. I guess belief in Holocaust is most fundamental value of western civilization and for the same reason denying or objecting to holocaust as explained is illegal in many of the western nations. It is true that not all nation put such restriction on speech, but nobody raise the issue of freedom of speech and humans rights in such matters. I can give you plenty of such example in which west put restriction on freedom of expression. I repeat, freedom of expression as claimed by west never existed in past and do not exists even now. It is just an impression created by propaganda.
For us Mohammed is center if our civilization and we won't accept anybody abusing him. We will definitely welcome objective, rational and meaningful dialogue. In reality this series of abuse and it persistence only proves that west completely fails to find flaw in the character of Mohammed PBUH and now relying on only abuses.
 
This is Abuzaid.. Seeks is busy nowaday and I am requested to give response to you.
Back to Top
drdoug View Drop Down
Member.
Member.


Joined: 04 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drdoug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2010 at 5:24pm
Thank you both so much for responding to my questions.

First of all, I just want to say that if I am coming off in any way/shape/form as disrespectful please let me know. That is not my intention. I find many extraordinarily admirable qualities about your prophet(PBUH), and to be perfectly honest I want to know if Islam truly is from God. The Quran claims to be the word of God, and your prophet is supposed to be the greatest example of how to live as God intended... so I feel it appropriate for me to be extremely critical of this claim and a moral imperative for me to determine if it is true. Many false prophets have made such claims and they continue to make them. The only way to get clarification is to state my objections and have them refuted.

Now back to the claims:
1. I still find this inadequate. Killing people who disagree with you is unethical. Stalin did that, as well as Hitler.... if your argument is sound IMO you do not need to resort to violence.   A sheikh I talked to told me that poets at that time were capable to rallying violence against communities, and thus the gravity of what she was doing was far greater than a simple poem. It incited violence against muslims on a grand scale. However, another man, an imam, told me that this event never actually happened. Imagine if I claimed I was a prophet, and then killed someone because they talked ill of me, wouldn't it reduce your belief in me just a little? Please, look at this from a non muslims perspective. Why could he not reason with her? Why not talk to her and debate with her? Why not just have her beaten or something like that.... since Mecca was now in control of muslims it seems to me that more options would have been available.

Also, as stated earlier, I have personally heard Muslims saying horrible things about the Pope, and on CNN i have seen interviews with others inciting violence against non muslims... why is it not justified to kill them? Seems to be the same thing.

I agree that the inability to deny the holocaust is a violation of free speech. The jewish lobby in the US is powerful, and crap like this tends to happen. However, I dont feel that it should be because the notion of holocaust denial is so silly that only the uneducated and/or fanatics would believe it anyhow. I also feel that the situation with the palestinians is deplorable, but that is the topic for another discussion.

Complete free speech very rarely does exist, but it does exist in some places more than others. Free speech is much more prevalent in the US then say Saudi Arabia, and just because it isn't always achieved does not mean that it should not be the ideal.

Please do not let this discussion degenerate into a tirade against the west.    I know we have our problems, as all countries do, but my questions are about islam. Proving someone else as wrong does not make your right. A belief should stand on its on reasons, ie: because X is wrong does not make Y right.

2. I still dont understand why sex with female slaves is allowed.
Thanks again,
Doug
Back to Top
haris30432 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote haris30432 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2010 at 4:30am

Peace,

2. I still dont understand why sex with female slaves is allowed.
 
Dr Doug...My understanding on this topic is that GOD does not allow casual sex at all and he never did whether it be with a free woman or with a  captive slave woman.And most importantly the verses are dealing with marriage not sexual relations.In 4:24 God prohibits marriage to a woman who is already married except with those women who have fled from their disbelieving husbands who are at war with the believers.This is what  "those who your right hand possess" means.And this is further explained in Surah 60:10.
 

In Case

of War

[60:10] O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

 

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!
Back to Top
abuzaid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male
Joined: 13 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 163
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuzaid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2010 at 5:24am
Dr. Doug
The point I want to make is completely different. I am not criticizing on what west is doing. I have problem with western standards itself. My objection on west is on the very ideology of western civilization. "Freedom of speech" is a principle developed in west in last few centuries and has never been universal. Freedom of speech in absolute sense cannot exist in any social entity. People have principles on which their society depends upon and it is not possible for any society to allow offending their fundamental principles on which society is founded.
For example read this..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4681189.stm

I reiterate, I am not criticism on what west is doing, I am not asking you to support this guy in the above news. What has happened in the news is absolutely as per western standard of nationalism? Problem lies in ideology itself. When west demand freedom of speech from Muslim world, its demand is absolute sense and when they apply the same principle for themselves, they keep some exceptions.

"Nation" is something west takes great exception to it. When it comes to "Nation" they can only give you limited freedom. While human life is considered sacred, taking and giving life for the sake of nation is a national pride. This is just because 'nation" is considered center of their collective existence.

Now, problem here is that in Islam, we do not believe in nation as believed in the west. For us, Islam is center of our collective existence.  Additionally, we are emotionally attached to Islam and all its icons. After God, Holy Quran and Prophet Mohammed PBUH are most central to our beliefs. Yet, we do not expect non-Muslims to accept or respect these fundamental icons. But, again if someone wants to insult and abuse them, then it is their responsibility to protect themselves.

Freedom of speech is a western principle, which bred in a specific condition in west when they defied against dogmas of Christianity. It may be very meaningful in that historical and geographical context. But it is absolutely meaningless to apply same principles on Islam. These principles are evolved in west as a result of oppression of Christianity.

Thus, to test legitimacy of Islam, “freedom of speech” is absolutely a wrong standard. I again say that, it is does not exist in absolute sense.

One can still come up with the doubt that what Prophet Mohammed PBUH did is a personal revenge and he should have avoided it to get rid of doubt that may arise in the mind future generation. But again, who is going to set the priority? He has other priority to show his followers how a Prophet has to be honored and you cannot come up with the hard and fast rule that he should have avoided it so that people won’t abuse him.

Existing western culture despite its great technological advancement is merely a small span of time in the known history and we do not know for how long this world is going to last till doomsday. So, sometime in future a person may come up with completely different ideology and may raisethe question….If Mohammed PBUH was really a prophet, why did he allowed others to abuse him?? Why did he have such a low self esteem?? It may look too weird to you know, but who knows how standards change in future. After all, most of the questions raised against prophet Mohammed PBUH today were not considered hot issues before 2 centuries. This is just because people have changed their standards. Islam do not come to qualify standards set by others, rather it gives its own divine standards.

 

It’s difficult for me to devote too much time for this forum, I hope other members shall contribute to other doubts raised by you. However, I still suggest you to reconsider your stand on justifying Islam based on western standards which are set in last 2 centuries.

My intention here is not to talk against west, my point simply here is that while trying to understand Islam, you need to consider the fact that western principles has some historical context and these principles are meaningful only in their context. Nothing that has come from west is universal and absolute in nature.


Edited by abuzaid - 09 May 2010 at 6:01am
Back to Top
Chrysalis View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2035
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chrysalis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2010 at 4:57am
Originally posted by drdoug drdoug wrote:

Thanks for the response.

I thought slaves were allowed to be taken in war? Wasn't one of muhammad's wives a former slave who had been taken in war?


Taking POWs as Slaves was the norm of the day (in 1400 AD). A pre-Islamic practice. Islam added controls & ethics to an existing norm - with the aim of eradicating/reducing slavery. Why? Again Political, Economic, Social factors of the time.

This is no longer the norm of the day. As you can see, slavery is no longer practiced. (might be exceptions in the world, am not aware). POWs are not kept as slaves anymore, even by Muslims - since the common practice of dealing with POWs has now changed. (Although Abu Ghuraib suggested otherwise).

Yes, one of the Prophet's Wives' was a captured POW. Lady Javairia (r.a). However, she was set free - and Prophet Muhammad married her as a free-woman. She belonged to a rich Jewish clan, who had the finances to pay her ransom (i.e. she had a way out) - yet she chose to marry Prophet Muhammad and convert to Islam.


Quote
I have even heard fundamentalist say things like "We are going to take your wives as war booty"


"Extremists" would be a more appropriate term. People say all kinds of things, especially when they are angry. Does not mean its true.

Also,
what about men. Sex with male slaves was not allowed, and I am assuming that they had needs as well.

Thanks,
Doug

There could be many plausible reasons:
  • Muslim women are not allowed to have multiple spouses at a time (=multiple sex partners). While men can have multiple wives. A Muslim women is supposed to have ONE spouse. That would be a husband - hence eliminates the option of a slave. (Women are treated rather exclusively in Islam compared to Men).

  • Islam puts community/family over individuals. A baby born to a Free Father would have better status in society, and considered a Free-Man. Whereas a baby born to a Enslaved-Father would not be given the status of a free man by society. The purpose here is to contain/reduce/eliminate slavery - not increase it. More babies born in captivity (if that's the correct term) defeats the purpose.
  • Unfortunately for women, the ratio of males to females is uneven, with females outnumbering men (due to various reasons). It has been so since ages. Hence, to balance the ratio, and ensure that every muslim has a legitimate sexual partner, it would make sense to allow Muslim Men to establish relations with female slaves. Rather than allow Muslim women to establish relations with male slaves. (Keeping in mind that the children need to be born-free and enjoy a privileged status in society)


Didn't mean to interrupt the others, popped in to respond to this quickly. Please carry on.




"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
Back to Top
drdoug View Drop Down
Member.
Member.


Joined: 04 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drdoug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2010 at 8:10am
That was an extraordinarily well thought out and reasonable argument. Thank You.
Back to Top
drdoug View Drop Down
Member.
Member.


Joined: 04 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drdoug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2010 at 8:14am
Originally posted by haris30432 haris30432 wrote:

Peace,


2. I still dont understand why sex with female slaves is allowed.

 

Dr Doug...My understanding on this topic is that GOD does not allow casual sex at all and he never did whether it be with a free woman or with a  captive slave woman.And most importantly the verses are dealing with marriage not sexual relations.In 4:24 God prohibits marriage to a woman who is already married except with those women who have fled from their disbelieving husbands who are at war with the believers.This is what  "those who your right hand possess" means.And this is further explained in Surah 60:10.

 


In Case


of War

<FONT face="Arial Narrow" size=4><FONT face="Arial Narrow" size=4>

[60:10] <FONT face="Times New Roman">O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.




I am sorry, I still don't get it. So sex with women is allowed even if you aren't married if their husbands are fighting against muslims? Every source, including islamic website, I have looked at interprets "right hand" as slaves... is this not correct?


 

Back to Top
drdoug View Drop Down
Member.
Member.


Joined: 04 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drdoug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2010 at 6:45pm
Please pray for me. I am trying very very hard to find the religion of God. I wish he would just show me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.