User talk:Truthspreader

This wikipedian has retired (atleast temporarily) because of work to be done in real life. I wish best of luck to all those wikipedians who are striving to bring a Neutral Point of View to Islam related articles and wish them best of luck. Though, if someone wants to contact me, I am still accessible through e-mail. Salaam, Shalom, and Peace!

Archives 1—2

[edit] Criticism of the Qur'an

Plz take a look here. Your insight will be very helpful(I,ve put a review request) . Additionally , whenever you get time , take a look at Dhimmi, & Jizya. Thanks. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for giving feedback at deletion page. Herald_reply 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 15, 2006 to Banu Qurayza

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 31 hours. William M. Connolley 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 202.43.227.235 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  04:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PBS

Yeah, i agree :) --Striver 12:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Smith : case closed

I saw the following excerpt in an article about Smith in "Entertainment Weekly", dated December 15, 2006, p.48 :

And even though Smith hasn't converted to Scientology - "I'm riding with Jesus", he says - he does cite Cruise as a role model.

So he is obviously still Christian. Thanks for your time and welcome back to Wikipedia! Mrbluesky 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi Truthspreader,

I have eventually decided to open us an RfC for User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:Jayjg. I have just started the page here [2]. Feel free to edit it. Here was my last try [3]. Like everybody else, I value my time and don't want to waste it. RfC takes time but it is just once.

Cheers, Aminz.

P.S. I see Beit Or just reported you for 3rr. You might want to check that out. --Aminz 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qurayza agreement

you may wish to check p.37 of Serjeant's analysis of the constitution of Medina where he quite clearly affirms the existence of an agreement signed between Muhammad and (only) the Qurayza just prior to the battle of the trench. he explains it in quite a lot of detail, four paragraphs to be exact, which is why i'm a bit reluctant to attempt transcribing all of that out. do check it out though. ITAQALLAH 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Banu Qurayza

You have been temporarily blocked again for 3RR violations on Banu Qurayza; see [4] When you return to Wikipedia, please use the Talk: pages for discussing proposed edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFI banned in muslim countries

You're saying the site is still banned in Government ISP's of Pakistan, but not in other ISP's? If its still banned in Gov ISP's then you should say that in the article.--Matt57 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you check this out: Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan. --Matt57 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think Ali Sina would lie and create a discussion with Khalid Zaheer? Second, if Khalid has said the site is banned, that means the site is banned. I'll reword the ban and put it back in.

"Secondly, Khalid Zaheer even hasn't put the discussion on their website, hence, we don't even have a secondary source to prove that discussion is even happening or not!"

--Matt57 16:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We can say stuff like "some internet users have reported being unable to access the site". You just dont want that there, do you. --Matt57 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was focused on Antisemitism related articles for awhile, but it seems that that article is also really in need of attention. Cheers, --Aminz 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi Truthspreader,

Would you please check if you endorse this [5]. Feel free to change it or edit it. If you would like to endorse it please sign here [6]

Before doing that, please note that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste."

Cheers,--Aminz 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you online? --Aminz 11:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please sign in your yahoo messenger. Thanks.--Aminz 11:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hi, regarding the RfC you certified, can you please add diffs showing your attempts to resolve the dispute? I can see only one comment from you, which wasn't an effort to resolve. As you know, both certifiers must have tried and failed to resolve things prior to the RfC being certified. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of trying to resolve the dispute means pointing out relevant policies and joining actively in the discussion. User:TruthSpreader was quite active and has many edits on the talk page. --Aminz 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to see diffs of him actively trying and failing to resolve the dispute, or the RfC will be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, I see you're continuing to edit the page. Could you provide diffs, please, of you trying but failing to resolve the dispute? They should go here. Without them, the RfC will be deleted. It should be deleted already as it was posted 48 hours ago, and these diffs must be supplied within 48 hours, so please respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Here is the quote I was talking about from Ibn Taymiyya:

"If…they [Christians] mean that the Qur’an confirms the textual veracity

[alfa¯z] of the scriptural books which they now possess—that is, the Torah and the Gospels—this is something which some Muslims will grant them and which many Muslims will dispute. However, most Muslims will grant them most of that."

As you can see, I have a lot of choices.

Not only do I accept the complete textual veracity of the Torah and the Gospels from a religous perspective, I would go further and accept the sincerety of Saint Paul. For not only my sincerety-meter affirms it, I view Paul as an influential person. Without God's grace, he couldn't have achieved what he achieved. --Aminz 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Please let me check with some academic sources and will get back to you soon. Cheers, --Aminz 23:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Watt has the following to say:

"In the account of Abraham's would-be sacrifice of his son (XXXVII, 102/100-107), the name of the son is not mentioned; and there was a fierce controversy among Muslim scholars over the identity of the son. At first most Muslims probably considered the “sacrifice” (d̲h̲abīḥ) was Isaac (cf. Goldziher, Koranauslegung, 79-81). This is explicitly stated of ʿUmar and ʿAlī by Ḳuṭb al-Dīn (Wüstenfeld, Chron. Mekka, ii, 37). A story is told of how a convert told ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz that the Jews had substituted Isaac (their ancestor) for Ishmael (the Arabs'). Actually the controversy came to be more concerned with Persian than withJewish rivalry for the Arabs (Goldziher, Muh. St., i, 144 f., Eng. tr., i, 135), since the Persians claimed descent from Isaac. Al-Masʿūdī (Murūd̲j̲, ii, 146 f.) quotes a Persian poet in 290/902 who boasted that his descent from Isaac the d̲h̲abīḥ was superior to that of the Arabs. Later representatives of the Isaac-party were Ibn Ḳutayba (Maʿarif, 18 f. ed. ʿUkās̲h̲a2, Cairo 1969, 30 f.) and al-Ṭabarī (Tafsīr on XII, 6 and XXXVII, 107; vol. xii, 86; xxiii, 46-9); they argued that God's perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in XII, 6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac. The other party held that the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (XI, 71/74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac. Although Ibn Ḳutayba, for example, had seen Isaac mentioned in the Old Testament, Muslim opinion eventually gave full endorsement to the view that the son in question was Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs (cf. al-Bayḍāwī on XXXVII, 102/101). In the works entitled Ḳiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ by T̲h̲aʿlabī (Cairo 1312, 48-60) and al-Kisāʾī (Leiden 1922, 150-3) the story of Isaac is elaborated along lines reflecting extra-Biblical Jewish tradition."

--Aminz 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say my own view ;) I have no particular view on this at the moment. I understand the verse but the Qur'an does sometimes go back and forth in time. The story of cow, etc etc. But honestly I dunno. I should think more about it. I don't think one should dismiss the other theory very quickly since there were scholars including Tabari who were supporting the Issac Theory. But I dunno to be honest with you. --Aminz 12:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't add Islamic dress template

It's silly. There are arguments about what parts of the body should be covered, and there are garments. It's the coverage that's Islamic, not the garment. Muslims have worn many many different kinds of garments. Are you going to claim all of them for Islam?

Claiming "turban" as Islamic is especially pernicious. Many people wear turbans -- Muslims, Sikhs, Arab Christians, Jews, etc. When stupid Americans think that the turban identifies a Muslim, they go out and kill Sikhs. Muslims in the US don't usually wear turbans, they'll wear a kufi if anything. But observant Sikhs wear turbans as a religious observance. You want to put them in the crosshairs?

I should see about getting the template deleted. It could get people killed. Zora 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmitude

Hi Truthspreader,

Can you please help with that article. I would like to add this to intro [7].

My argument is that WP:Lead says: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I opened a voting on Talk:Dhimmitude--Aminz 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context

Hi TruthSpreader,

Please have a look at this article [8] and the website in general. It seems that all the articles are written by university professors and experts.

Regarding certain verses in the New Testament, I found the following statement (on which I have no personal view yet).

When recourse is had to certain New Testament texts which appear to support an exclusivist Christian position these must be examined in light of the context in which they emerged. Statements attributed to Jesus such as his claim to be ". . . the way and the truth and the life" without whom there is no access to the Father (John 14:6) lose their exclusivist tendency when seen in the context in which they arose. A recent article by Professor Hugh Anderson, former Professor of New Testament in the University of Edinburgh, provides us with a scholarly counter to those who would invoke this text and others, for example Acts 4:12, in support of an absolutist position.

I think the article by Professor Hugh Anderson merits reading. University of Edinburgh is where Watt was from. --Aminz 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe all the sincere Christians who try to familiarize others with Gospels which is also the word of God deserve much praise and thanks. --Aminz 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, please have a look at [9]. It says about Deut 20:17 that it was not practiced after David. --Aminz 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that the majority of academic scholars do not believe that stories of conquests of promised land by Joshua actually did take place as it is recorded? It was much slower and peaceful. Conquest of promised land took a long time and was eventually accomplished by the rise of David. So, from an academic perspective, there is no need to assume that the bloody incidents mentioned in book of Joshua actually ever happened. --Aminz 10:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The above source continues that :"The themes of exclusivity and tolerance have played a unique role in the relation between Jews and non-Jews. Behind them stand the various strands of Hebrew history which depict God on the one hand as wiping out all who stand in the way of Israel's conquest, and on the other hand commanding Israel to do so." The existence of violence in some cases is not denied but I think the scribes should have exaggerated the bloodshed in the Bible (probably viewing the bloodshed as a sign of power and dominance). On one hand I shouldn't say that (by presumption of correctness of the text) but I like to contradict myself in this particular case. --Aminz 11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feminist Exegesis

What do you think of feminist exegesis? For centuries exegesis has been in the hands of men. They were mostly narrating the Hadiths. Did we have any famous early woman interpreter? I found a Feminist Torah Exegesis here [10] which is interesting. (the writer is a professor of religious studies) --Aminz 11:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the article, the feminist exegesis strategies are as follows:-)

Strategy one is: Notice women’s presence in the text. The second strategy is, notice women’s absence in the text. A third strategy is to critique texts from a feminist perspective and discover internal repair...A fourth strategy is to critique texts from a feminist perspective and offer explicitly external repair. You can give a whole sermon on something that is bluntly no good from our perspective in Torah, but then offer from the spirit of Torah, a repair of it from our perspective. A fifth strategy is, highlight a woman’s issue in a text, something that nobody ever saw before. And the sixth strategy is to highlight what we call women’s values. What are women’s values? Are there such values? Are they feminist values?

--Aminz 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting: <- strategy number 1

Rabbi Michal Shekel, we find out why:

Hagar gives God a name. Abram has never done this nor has anyone else. Throughout chapters of the Torah, Abram needs signs to substantiate his covenant with God. Hagar is somehow more accepting, more comfortable with God. Hagar accepts her encounter for what it is. She takes the initiative and she names God. What courage! Hagar names God “El Roi,” God who sees me. This is in response to God’s naming her child Ishmael, which means, “God hears.” In naming God, Hagar affirms that God sees as well as hears.

So, here we have the story of Ishmael, who in tradition we understand to be the father of the Arab people, the brother of Isaac, who’s banished along with his mother, Hagar. And this Torah commentator notices that Hagar says: I’m going to give you a name God. You who see me. And that’s the only time in the Torah, until that moment, that anyone had dared to name God. And it is the only time in the Torah, totally, that a woman names God.

--Aminz 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but at some level, women's interpretations of the passages doesn't necessarily match that of men. Men and Women have their own specific focus. --Aminz 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Houris are angels? I couldn't find any source on that. --Aminz 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But angels can take the form of human. Do you have any hard proof? --Aminz 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I was asking that is here [11] --Aminz 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Let me think about it. Cheers, --Aminz 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, do you have Ibn Ishaq and other primary sources? Watt says:"It is reported that as Sa'd was coming to Muhammad's presence, he made a remark to the effect that since he is about to die, he must consider above all doing his duty to God and the Islamic community, even at the expense of former alliances."

I would like to know where it is reported. Thanks --Aminz 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bro. --Aminz 13:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it puts is as Watt has put it, that would be better. Since we can save space for Watt. --Aminz 13:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the tag is removed, as if there is no dispute. At least a POV tag should remain. --Aminz 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existence of dispute in Antisemitism article

Hi TruthSpreader,

Hope everything is going well with you. As you know there was a dispute over the Antisemitism article.

Some editors are disputing the very existence of a dispute on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [12] and see if that testifies existence of some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Thanks. --Aminz 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Muhammad, have a look at this [13] The claims about Ibn Kathir and Muhammad al-Shawkani are of particular interest. Khaleel Muhammad is Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. Here is the interview [14]. He claims that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to him--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. He claims The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an.--Aminz 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

His argument is that in Quran "Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has written for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability." what do you think of that? --Aminz 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Qur'an only says that Jerusalem will be handed over to Muslims as it was given to Israelites in history", I can not see it in 17:1 "Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)." Could you please explain. --Aminz 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He says: "Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41). " --Aminz 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It is too technical. And his argument might be ambigious.

According to the biblical account, the next generation of Jews entered holy land (the first generation died in the desert). The context is of course asking Jews to fight to enter the holy land that God has written that for you. Ibn Kathir holds that this refers to a promise which Jacob way back gave. I don't know. Khaleel Muhammad thinks that if a promise is given to someone using "written", it has immutability. It is too technical. --Aminz 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article you recommended

Truthspreader, I looked at it and I disagree completely with the scholar. But I know you had good intentions. Happy New Year! Zora 05:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zina - prostitution OK but also death required

Hi, I am curious abou the apparent contradictions between: AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) 024.033 In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. ***But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),*** and "stoning can only be prescribed for someone who habitually commits fornication as prostitutes," from the Zina article, with the following used to justify stoning apparently with no regard to the context created by the of the rest of the chapter. Translations of the Qur'an, Chapter 5: AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. 005.033 YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; 005.034 YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. I am not accusing you of anything here - just wonder if we can find another POV to add to the article that takes a more (to my mind) logical course of reason. SmithBlue 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So you read this material the same way I do; Prostitution by slaves is OK but prostitution by free women deserves death? Or am I missing something? SmithBlue 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working through this with me. Whilst I dont agree with the rulings themselves or the interpretation of Quoran 005.033 it has been useful to see the internal consistency of what you quote. SmithBlue 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello - having read more about Qur'an, Chapter 5:

AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) 005.033 I come to realise its probably not the interpretation of it I disagree with but rather the translation. In English "to strive" is to work towards a definite conscious goal that is more personally important than any other consequence of my actions. If I strive to climb a mountain then I cannot have causing avalanches as more important to me than climbing the mountain. So in English it makes no sense to speak of a prostitute striving through prostitution to spread disorder in the land. Even with deliberate negligence of possible harm they do, they would still not be striving to spread disorder. I've looked at a few different translations and they all use strive and often also reference effort. Do you have another way of looking at this apparent mistranslation? SmithBlue 12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Truthspreader, I'm working on the [Namus] (honour) article. I understand that Namus is not mentioned in the Quoran but would like to know what Islam has to say about cultural practices that result in women being killed by their family. I am looking for an Islamic view of families who kill female members who lose the families honour - can you point me to something in the Quoran or a Hadith that addresses this? SmithBlue 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote used to support namus is "The Qur'an states, Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.^[1] Whats the worse case scenario if the woman still wont obey the man? Does this become a case of; "Qur'an, Chapter 5: 005.033 YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" ? SmithBlue 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you have been very helpful using your time to point me to very relevant information. Thank you. SmithBlue 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

can you join the discussion on Aga Khani [[Islamic Cults]

trueblood 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theses

International experts? What does that mean? It takes one strong-willed professor (the advisor) to get a thesis accepted. Arrow740 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a bizarre procedure. It is not the case here. What's the matter with Australian professors? Arrow740 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more articles on Islam

Hi there. I've just created some more articles on Islam and I was wondering whether you might be interested to have a browse on them and contribute to them:

• Prisoners rights in Islam
• Animal rights in Islam
• The Rights of Children in Islam

So, what do you think about this? Is there anything else that needs to be clarified or added?

--Fantastic4boy 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Children's rights in Islam

What's you opinion on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Children%27s_rights_in_Islam? --Fantastic4boy 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and modernity

Hi Truthspreader,

Please add that article to your watch list. Also, we have articles on Religious intellectualism in Iran and Religious traditionalism in Iran. Don't we need similar articles for the case of Pakistan? Cheers, --Aminz 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all the points you raised. There is a lot of material written about modernity and religous intellectuals stuff, many of which are secondary sources. What we can do is to put all of them together, compare them. That's a kind of research, though not original research. And I think that would be valuable. But we are all busy I know. Maybe in a couple of years, we would have comperhensive articles. I think it is important to *know* what we know.--Aminz 08:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mafia (game)

Have you ever played Mafia (game)? --Aminz 11:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that gives us a fresh approach to Qur'anic stuidies :P I seriously recommened you to play this game. IT IS FUN!!!!!--Aminz 11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Tin

Very Interesting! Since we have Mountain Sinai and City of Peace, it makes quite sense that "Fig and Olive" refers to places and to Jesus. Nice! Is Ghamidi the first who translates it this way? BTW, regarding "Fig is a village situated on this mountain", I am interested to know if this is also mentioned in the Bible. Thanks --Aminz 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoners rights in Islam

I acknowledge that in Islam prisoners are not only to be fed well, but also not to be physical, sexually and emotional - where can I get a credible source of information from regarding this? I read some document on prisoners that they are allowed to be tied up when they cause some kind of trouble in prison but I haven't got the article and I'm not sure whether I'm giving out the right information. I heard that they can be tied up. When is it that the prison guards are allowed stop the prisoners, hit them up and tie them up? --Fantastic4boy 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghamidi

Have you read his debate with Ali Sina? Arrow740 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very interesting reading. Ali Sina's responses could be more concise. If you try hard and use sufficient brain power, you can make any book make sense, but what does this mean? If you'd like we can discuss the points in the debate via e-mail. Arrow740 22:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an email exchange on this topic would be worthwhile as Ali Sina has already laid down the contradictions quite well. In general you always seem to use the liberal scholars as sources. This is presenting a minority view to the exclusion of other views. I don't want to have to struggle through difficult Urdu texts to post to wikipedia so I can't really balance this out, and I can't read any other Muslim language. I guess I could try to get English translations of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jawziyya and the like. Could you try to use those sources as well? I also have a question about Ghamidi, and about yourself I guess. You reject the hadith entirely? Arrow740 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But the Quran can't be understood without extra material because it isn't clear without the historical context, what was written when so you know what abrogates what and what's the final word on a subject, etc. If you reject the hadith and traditional tafsirs how do you know your interpretation is faithful? Arrow740 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas that Khalid Zaheer also reject Hadiths may not be totally but most of them. I cannot agree MORE with above post of Arrow that if you reject hadith then chances of getting misguidance increases. For example Ahmadi says that show where in Quran written that Muhammad in last prophet. When one show them Quranic Ayat then they translate it wrongly as "Seal of the Prophets" (superior of prophets) instead of taking as last prophet. Then they also reject Hadith. Hence one cannot have arguments with them any more. In Arabic one word has 100s of meaning (unlike any other language) hence if you do not see context and hadiths then you can go any way you like.... At LUMS we used to have much better people like Dr. Muhammad Ali Maud, Dr Haroon Atiq Babr and many others. Have you heard of person name Pervaiz (I am not sure about his name 100%). He used arabic dictionary and create a new translation of Quran that suits him. It is famous as Pervaizi Fitna. (He used to like in pre-patition India, I will try to find more info about him) --- ALM 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW Khalid Zaheer knows me and I know him. I had been LUMS student for four long years and got a chance to attend many of his lecture during that time. --- ALM 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can make any book say anything you want, as I saw a Muslim preacher on TV say recently. So what's your opinion on the (offensive) wars of the first Caliphs? Arrow740 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He was talking about the Quran. Militant Muslims interpret the Quran a certain way, and he was saying, well you can read those things in the Bible or even Shakespeare if you try. That seems to be what Ghamidi does as well, just with the opposite interpretation, and to do it he has to jettison some of the hadith. For example saying that surah 5 overrides surah 9 is a little hard to swallow, since sura 9 was the last surah Muhammad delivered. So regarding the early wars, you're saying that because the heads of state refused to become Muslim, God wanted the people who knew Muhammad, and only them, to wage war on their nations, killing and enslaving. The question is, what was the understanding of the generation of Muslims after Muhammad? Why did they continue to wage jihad? In fact this jihad continued for hundreds of years, until other powers in Europe and India had sufficient strength to push back. Saying that those wars were only allowed for the early generations seems pretty far-fetched as that is a modern idea that no one thought until the 20th century. Arrow740 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding abrogation, it is necessary as there are places where the Quran contradicts itself, there's a list here; some of these can be explained as mistranslations, but most can't, I think. For example, it says that wine "has some benefit," but in another place that it is "an abomination." There is no way for these two verses to be reconciled. Arrow740 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that wine has many many benefits (especially when taken in small quantities). However, when it has more harms than benefits. That’s why it is banned. Every thing has benefit. Having sex with multiple girls has benefits, eating pork has benefits but we have to see if benefit are more or harms. --- ALM 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask any good doctor he will say that wine has benefits if taken in small quantity. Or search google may be [15]. --- ALM 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's hardly an abomination. Arrow740 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you even know this Verse 2:219. It clearly say that it has some benefits and some harmful things. but harmful things are more than benefits. I doubt that answering-islam will have told you that because they are master in giving half picture of things. --- ALM 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Yes in fact it seems there are five verses on alcohol. The first says that strong drink is a sign of God's provision for humanity, the last says it is an abomination of Satan's handiwork. There is a discussion of all five here, though you might not want to read it. It says that there is wine in heaven as well. If you just say that the one about it being an abomination abrogates the other ones then there's no problem. Arrow740 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth is that Quran end drinking slowly because that society has drinking in it a lot. Things come in sequence so they can be better prepared slowly to change themselves. In start it was prohibited to drink and go for prayer and so on. Until it was totally prohibited. However, I do not see in that process that any verses get abrogated. All still hold and still it is prohibited to go for prayer while drunken. Still wine has benefits. Why it is required a verse to be abrogated, I never found that need. If there is a verse about Muhammad wives and his wives does not exist any more than verse still hold. We cannot apply it but why it is abrogated. I have attended lecture of some yacky people who do not accept Hadith and then abrogate all the verses of Quran that have objection from west. I simply hate them more than non-Muslims. --- ALM 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur! It is not that the verse is abrogated, it is just that the particular addressee of the verse is simply not in the world. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever property of wine existed that caused it to have some benefit and be a sign of God's providence for man exists both before and after the verse saying it was an abomination of Satan. I guess in Islam Satan's abominations can have some benefit, and be a sign of providence for mankind. This is in line with the theme in Hindu mythology that demons are only fulfilling their karma. Arrow740 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True but not as you said about Hinduism! There is nothing in this world which is 100% evil. An evil thing must have a good thing associated with it, otherwise no body will do evil. One only needs to see that a particular act has more evil or good. TruthSpreader^reply 06:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were to describe a sign of God's providence which provided some benefit, even if it were a net negative, I would not call it an abomination of Satan. Would you? The total abrogation view is the only workable one in my mind. Then you of course have to explain that. Arrow740 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I haven't conveyed my point properly. Even somebody steals, the good aspect is that the person is getting some thing to enjoy his life, but the bad aspect is that you are getting this benefit at the cost of the someone else's lost. This aspect dominates the good aspect. And hence stealing is considered bad. But when Satan wants to convice us, Satan always brings forth the good aspect and hides the bad aspect. This is how people trick their concious and do bad things. I hope it would clear the discrepancy. TruthSpreader^reply 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be very satisfactory if the verse were referring to the act of drinking, better yet the act of yielding to the temptation to drink, but it is referring to wine itself. Arrow740 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

When Islam prohibits something, it also gives some ettiquettes to save you from temptation. Just like fornication is prohibited in Islam, but Islam also expect people to adhere to certain code of conduct to save from unnecessary temptations in life which would lead to this result. Secondly, as ALM also mentioned, verse 2:219 is pivotal in this case, which prohibits all intoxicants, which is now for all times, but some verses, as ALM also mentioned might be related to slow and gradual prohibition. TruthSpreader^reply 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intercession

Hi Truthspreader,

I was interested to know what you think of the following discussion between God(or an angle, i dunno) and Abraham about destruction of Sodom (people of the Lut, the prophet). I think it is Intercession, isn't it?

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [e] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [f] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

--Aminz 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this in Muslim literature? Arrow740 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No! in Bible. TruthSpreader^reply 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, only God is in control. But intersession can be one of the means through which God enforces his will. Just as God gave us free will but at the same time we do what he decides. I feel prayer and intercession have many common elements. Anyways, thanks for your reply. Cheers, --Aminz 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, the main point I think is that as long as we are in this world, we should ask and pray to God and only to God. But in the hereafter, I think there is intercession, but as God has planned it. --Aminz 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Did Ghamidi already decided to put them in 10 categories or they turned out to be in 10? :) Interesting! The Tawrat article in EoI might also give us some information. Cheers, --Aminz 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi Muhammad,

Do you have any suggestion where it is the best place to add the following quote from Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, p.464?

"One who submits to the divine will is called Muslim. In the Qur'an, the word Muslim refers not only to humans but also to other creatures and the inanimate world. From the Qur'anic point of view, this is not surprising. The divine will manifests itself in the form of laws both in human society and in the world of nature. In Islamic terminology, for example, a bee is a Muslim precisely because it lives and dies obeying the shariah that God has prescribed for the community of bees, just as a person is a Muslim by virtue of the fact that he or she submits to the revealed "shariah" ordained for the religous community. In fact, the Qur'an maintains that "every animal species is a community like you", thus implying that God has promulgated a law for each species of being. From its beginning, Islam never made any distinction between what has generally been known in the Western tradition as the "laws of nature" and "laws of God." In principle, there is harmony between the laws of natural phenomena and the laws of the prophets governing human societies since both kinds of laws come from the same source: God the Law-Giver. In asserting such a view, Islam provides an illustrative example of how it seeks to establish points of convergence in the encounter of religion and science..."

I am going to sleep.

In general I think the article in EoS&R on Islam is very well written.

Anyways,

Cheers, --Aminz 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice story but it's very POV. When they do a compilation like this they probably find someone and just use whatever he says. The translation of 6:38 doesn't seem to be in the sense of the USC translations. Also the idea that the laws of nature are God's laws was of course a tenet of Western civilization, that's why monks were scientists and so on, and the great Western scientists said these things. In fact the Christian worldview gave rise to scientific revolutions while the Islamic one did not do so to nearly the same degree. The "People of the Book" became the People of Books while the Muslims did not. Anything trying to state that Islam is superior with regards to fostering scientific research should be omitted. Arrow740 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, I suggest you provide sources for your statements because most of them, to me, seems unfactual(based on what I've read). --Aminz 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Arrow740 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Truthspreader, Islam and science article is a good candidate; I was also thinking of Muhammad and animals? Rest of the article is also very interesting especially the way the article starts:

According to Muslim tradition, in 611 C.E. at the age of forty, Muhammad of Mecca received a revelation from God during a spritual retreat in a cave on Mount Hira outside the city. God's special envoy who brought the message was the archangel Gabriel. At Gabriel's instruction, the illiterate Muhammad recited five short verses that portrayed the spirit of the new religion. In this first revelation, Muhammad - thus by extension all humans- is called upon to know the unknown in the name of God, whose nature is to create things. Humans are then reminded of how, from their lowly animal origion, they became thinking and knowing creatures thanks to God's generous gifts of instruments of knowledge that are best symbolized by the pen. Knowledge is the supreme symbol of God's infinite bounty and the key to his treasuries. Through sacred knowledge-that is, knowledge through and for the sake of God-humans can attain salvation. In thus emphasizing the saving funtion of knowledge, Muhammad's maiden revelation as well as many other revelations that were to follow, clearly portrayed the new faith as a way of knowledge. As for Muhammad himself, as told by Gabriel, he had been chosen as the new messenger of God. Fourteen centuries later, Muhammad is widely regarded as one of the world's most influentual persons.

--Aminz 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, as I believe I've expressed before, you've displayed an uncanny knack for finding the most speculative, most POV, least informative, least concrete/factual passages in what otherwise might be good sources. These passages are literary criticism at its circular finest. Is there any evidence that this is the intended meaning of the passages discussed, or is just someone saying, you can read it this way if you like? It's not something believed (or even thought about) by a significant number of people, and so is not notable as a popular religious belief. If these ideas have a significant history among Islamic scholars, this would be notable. Who is the author?Proabivouac 07:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

lolz! Proabivouac, unfortunately, it is a famous theory in early and medievel Islamic societies. You should see the film, "Islam: Empire of Faith" by PBS, IMHO. TruthSpreader^reply 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If so, it should be presented as such. I only observe that the quotes Aminz has put forth say nothing about famous theories in early or medieval society.Proabivouac 08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you've already called this scholar [16] a sermon writer.--Aminz 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I labelled your edit a sermon because it assumed a stance of religious advocacy. What bearing has this upon the questions I've posed above?Proabivouac 09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You think I've taken passages out of the context. That's not a kind accusation. I'll email the article for you so that you can read it yourself. --Aminz 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sent. Now Proabivouac can explain us why the above quotes are "the most speculative, most POV, least informative, least concrete/factual passages in what otherwise might be good sources." --Aminz 09:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, Aminz, I must agree: the entire article is like that.Proabivouac 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the article all "speculative, most POV, least informative, least concrete/factual"? --Aminz 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is just an essay desribing Islam through his own lens of philosophical opinion.Proabivouac 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Islam

That wasn't a test. I'm not sure why the link was deleted as it is a forum that focuses exclusively on Muslim women. 68.76.80.120 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)modern_muslimah

[edit] Forum

It's "depository" and I wish that you had said that in your message to me or sent me a message saying that links to forums aren't allowed. I would have deleted it myself. Clear explanations go a long way.

[edit] Discussion continued

Is the list of themes complete? It has been my sense that the Quran has lots of commands to obey Muhammad and rejoice when he manages to subjugate others, and that list seems to prove me right. So the Ghamidi school seems to have reduced the objectionable content of Islam by ignoring lots of sahih hadith and saying that violent verses only applied to the people around Muhammad. I can't comment conclusively on the coherence of this approach, though I can say that it seems to be a new idea. That's not to say that Muslims haven't been getting it wrong since after the Companions died out, I guess it's possible. However Ghamidi still has the problem of Muhammad's own actions to deal with, and the belief that God would have those verses be effective even for a short period of time. In your view are the verses on making Jews and Christians feel subdued and killing polytheists no longer applicable? If you care to tell me I'd like to know why you think God would say those things at all. Arrow740 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So you seem to have justified Muhammad's brutality by saying that it was a harbinger of things to come. Even people who disagreed with Muhammad out of personal conviction or fear were killed and enslaved (and tortured) because they would pay the price for that at judgement day anyway. So you've pushed the barbarity all the way back to God; it was acceptable for Muhammad to behave that way because that's the way God is going to treat his creations on judgement day anyway. I'm sorry, but such a being is not forgiving, merciful, or compassionate. Arrow740 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you admit that it is possible to conceive of a God more merciful than the Islamic idea of God? Arrow740 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

God would be more merciful if he didn't damn anyone and instead gave every soul infinite time to achieve perfection. This is part of my conception of a perfect God. Arrow740 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what the hell is for. It is a place for purifiction. --Aminz 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow! If this would happen, as you describe, it can only happen with some being which doesn't have free-will and freedom. If we have a free-will (which is wonderful - and I hope that most of us would go to paradise to enjoy it to its fullest), then this world is a place to test that who is worthy of going there. Otherwise, God could create animals and send them in paradise. TruthSpreader^reply 03:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if Hell is temporary then there's no problem but then everyone's going to heaven eventually so what's the point of earth? Also lots of people don't make moral choices, like people who die as infants. Others are conditioned strongly by their environment and upbringing. Suicide bombers are often brainwashed from birth; we can't place full blame on them. Others are raised in more spiritual, charitable households and have a better chance to be good. The doctrine of Qadr seems to have some truth in it. There were definitely some people in the Hijaz who were going to reject Muhammad no matter what just because of the way they were raised, and they're damned. It would be better to give them another chance. Arrow740 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any branches of Islam that accept reincarnation? I know there were a lot of early Christians that did, like Origen. Arrow740 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"intrinsically, every human knows the basic ethics and has the ability to know about one true Diety." I can't agree with you there. Some people are just born without morals, like serial killers. People's level of morality and ethics are dependent upon birth, and the inherent ability to improve oneself with varies from individual to individual. Arrow740 04:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

See this [17]. My frined told me if Satan wanted to give a talk, he couldn't beat this guy. --Aminz 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also funny [18] --Aminz 09:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for your feedback! :) I still think it is hard to explain bad things in this world. --Aminz 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad, can you please listen to [19] from minute 53:40 to 1:04:00. And let me know what you think. Thanks --Aminz 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. --Aminz 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad, Would you please let me know what do you think of my comment on ALM take page, dated: "03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)", and what do you think of Pact of Omar? Thanks --Aminz 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad, I think you are commenting on a different edit. I mean this one: Much of these laws were later copied from Byzantium and Persian Empire legislation. Pact of Omar is believed by western historians to be produced later and attributed to Omar. And it can be explained completely based on the secular and cultural elements. Let me give an example to explain what I mean: Today many people kill animals and eat them. Assume that the science come up with a way to artificially produce meat. Well, people will eventually stop killing animals. Sometime later they will see killing animals as an extremely bad thing. Then, I am sure, some people will come and say. What? Prophet Muhammad slaughtered animals? What a terrible religion Islam is? And the critics will add it to the "Criticism of Islam" article. Now, still, we have to see how the Dhimmi regulaions were imosed. This article [14] from the Journal of Semitic Studies, Oxford University Press states makes the following point: "in spite of the existence of discriminatory laws against Jews and Christians, such as 'the Pact of 'Umar', the prohibition against learning Arabic and reading the Qur'an, or laws compelling Jews to dress in distinguishing clothes, they have rarely been applied. Hence, the status of the Jews as ahl al-dhimmah normally enabled them to lead safe and peaceful lives under Islam, only occasionally disrupted during the times of certain rulers or their vizirs, or when conditions in general began to deteriorate within the Muslim empire." Lewis states: "The usual definition of tolerance in pre-modern times was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." Those later Muslims who made up the Pact of Omar were men of their time. It would be strange to expect them to give us legislation we have now in 21st century.--Aminz 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, --Aminz 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it in reply to your comment: Unfortunately, this is true, as per the interpretation by most contemporary jurists, atleast to the best of my knowledge. --Aminz 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets back to the question of relative morality. Is something that is wrong always wrong, or is there no fixed right and wrong? Arrow740 04:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered on Arrow's talk page. TruthSpreader^reply 04:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] More information(From Dhimmi article Encyclopedia of Islam): It states that it is hard to find the precise nature of the rulings of early Muslims because "since the relevant texts have often been altered, and sometimes fabricated from the whole cloth, as a consequence of the differing concerns of Muslims and non-Muslims at later periods."

The article continues explaining the situation and regulation of early Muslim regimes: "Certain regulations have the temporary character of the demands made on a subject population by an army of occupation: dwellings, food-supply, intelligence, and security against espionage (it is as an example of this that we must understand the prohibition, on which later rigorists were to insist, of the wearing by Dhimmīs of Arab dress, since in fact the natives and the Arabs dressed differently). But the essential—and lasting—stipulation concerns the payment of the distinguishing tax or Jizya [q.v.], which was later to develop into a precise poll-tax, and which, expressing sub-jection, was to inaugurate the definitive fiscal status of the Dhimmī's; this was in conformity with the usual custom of all mediaeval societies where non-dominant religious communities were concerned. Precautions must have been taken to avoid clashes between different communities, which at first enjoyed such friendly relations that buildings could be divided between Christians and Muslims; but it was only in the amṣār that restrictions on the right to construct new religious buildings could already from that time be maintained. The preservation by each community of its own laws and peculiar customs, as well as its own leaders—this also in conformity with the attitude of all mediaeval societies—must have resulted in the first place from the situation as it was rather than from any formal decision. The autochthonous non-Muslims, who were often unaccustomed to bear arms, were only exceptionally called upon for military services." --Aminz 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pact of Omar

Muhammad see, there are striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes. Based on this Modern historians suggests that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. Modern historians hold that At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs. --Aminz 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. --Aminz 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How could these be justified? --Aminz 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

EoI states that it is hard to find the precise nature of the rulings of early Muslims because "since the relevant texts have often been altered, and sometimes fabricated from the whole cloth, as a consequence of the differing concerns of Muslims and non-Muslims at later periods." --Aminz 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this one. Thanks for the information! TruthSpreader^reply 05:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Aminz 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Ashura

Salam Alaykum. Please participate in this debate and write your idea:Talk:Day of Ashura#Rearrangement:POV or NPOV--Sa.vakilian 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please write your idea there.--Sa.vakilian 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

But worldwide domination is the goal of the umma and the weakness of the Muslim world is viewed as a temporary setback. However your ideas about emphasis seem reasonable. Arrow740 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you admit that Muhammad and his successors were warlords? Why would God ordain that his religion be spread (if only at the beginning as you claim) by violence? Other religions spread quite well without it. Arrow740 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, not "spread the religion" exactly but spread the control of the Islamic state. Converts would then be ensured through enslavement, being forced to pay special taxes, and having other restrictions on life. Why would God ordain that the state where his religion was the state religion be spread through violence? Moses and Joshua probably existed but the stories are largely made up, at least there is no evidence that they are true, see [20] this article. David is much more historical. Also all the Muslim warriors you mentioned were completely convinced that they were waging jihad, and I think they were right. This woman mentions it on Muslim TV here. But if you're the kind who gets upset at hearing opposing views you might not want to listen to it. I think it's strange how you're claiming that the majority of Muslims have been wrong about Islam, and Ghamidi's modern discoveries are the truth. Also maybe you could explain to me why you believe that "making partners with God" is immoral? Arrow740 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first thing is that you have to differentiate between the original religion, which is kept in Qur'an and Sunnah of the prophet and secondly, what the Muslims have exemplified. I am already aware of this fact that Jihad has been used to legitimize aggression, but that doesn't mean what Islam really teaches. Hence, History of Islam is not Islam, though sources of Islam i.e. Qur'an and Sunnah (which is essentially not hadith) did come to us without any flaw. And this is why, scholars today after 1400 years can say that Hijab was not part of Islam's early society. This is the aspect of Islam which I love. You've the distortions of history, civil wars took over the early Islamic society after the death of Usman (ra), but still religion is safe. Just as western Islamic scholars are skeptic of many hadith (not all) and especially reports about early Islamic eras, I am as well. And I can still watch the video, which you sent me and feel contented because I know that religion (which is in Qur'an and Sunnah) is not what she is talking about, but what she is saying about Muslim youth, it can be true to some degree.

Just a final note on scholars. Scholar himself is not a basic source of Islam. He is a secondary source. I as a Muslim, never took any oath in my life that I will follow any scholar or any school of thought. As a Muslim, I am liable to follow someone who (at least to the best of my knowledge) is following Qur'an and Sunnah. And I've found Ghamidi's opinion mostly correct and coincinding with the language, grammar, and style of Qur'an. I don't find a discrepancy in it. Rather, classical scholars should be asked this question which you asked me, that if Islam really advocates equality as per their understanding and Qur'an purports it strongly at different places, then how can there be so much difference between Muslims and Non-Muslims without any solid reason (rather I must say, you should ask contemporary Muslims). TruthSpreader^reply 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Monotheism is the basis of ethics. I don't know how you will disagree, as you are rejecting one God, who created you, and gave you all the blessings to enjoy this life and you are rejecting or making partners with Him, who don't have any role in the first place. Although, humans have excellent rationals for it, this is why idalotary has been practiced by humans, but they are unethical people because they are completely dishonest with themselves. And who can tell they are dishonest, *only God*. (note:if we would have a prophet at the moment, we might be able to ask him to ask the God about someone's heart condition, but because there is no prophet, hence no one can judge simply by his prejudice). TruthSpreader^reply 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad's ancestors were polytheists because they thought it was the truth. Same with the polytheists who opposed Muhammad. Arrow740 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Arrow! The story which we know so far, from Qur'an and traditions is that they were living in a very materialistic and brutal life style. Tribal warfare was a norm. Society was based on vigilantism. And tribes also had different Gods. How much they knew that it was wrong? only God knows, but I am pretty sure that after looking a peson like prophet, they would have known what is truth and and what is not. As prophet, who never took any training in warfare (but was able to bring the most sustainable change in this world) and whose pesonality is venerated for chrisma for honesty and fairness (as watt also mentions in the beginning of his book, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman). What critics of Islam portray about prophet is simply wrong because it is ahistorical. And even with their best efforts, a person with a little intelligence knows that how much truth is there. You can taunt anyone, take a very narrow perspective and forget more authentic ones, but my understanding so far is that if Islam is understood properly, it is a challenge to other religions intellectually. Its tenents are simple and straight forward. And as watt also says that it was simplicity and adaptability of Islamic society that made it a success. We know very little of first 100 years after the prophet. But the success of Islam shows clearly that it was a giant leap in human advancement. And lastly, the language of Qur'an still amazes people, and me and you know that western scholarship couldn't remain aloof from accepting prophet's honesty :) TruthSpreader^reply 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond via e-mail soon. Arrow740 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Islam/sandbox

Just to let you know, I prodded your temp article Women in Islam/sandbox since it wasn't edited since september 2006. Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic ethics

That's 3 reverts. Arrow740 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Any response to my comment?--Sefringle 05:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the list of positive aspects of the Islamic view on ethics is appropriate, but should be balanced with contrasts with ethics in other systems. Arrow740 06:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

though irrevelent now, that comment was dirceted at User:Truthspreader--Sefringle 07:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mizan

Please refrain from adding honorifics. Specifically, referring to Muhammad as Prophet Muhammad. Thanks, KazakhPol 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation at Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)

Mediation was requested a while ago, and Ive responded. None involved in mediation has responded however. I am requesting your presence at the article to resolve any disputes. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)