Ask the Muslim Guy

Thanks to all you sweet & wonderful folks for all your support and positive energy. It really means a lot. Thousands and thousands of blessings on you all. :slight_smile:

I promise I’ll get to the new questions as soon as I’m able; right now I’m running on very little sleep, had to go to work early this morning, got a lot of 12-hour days and 7-day weeks ahead.

You know, I’ve had to say this before and will have to say it many times again: every time some “Islamist” bad boy makes headlines, we liberal Muslims have to hear the same accusations: “How come no Muslims ever speak out against terrorism? Huh?” :rolleyes: <sigh> We’ve been constantly speaking out every chance we get for years now. The news media don’t report on it. Ask them for a change. The last couple messages from blue guy were so hostile in attitude that I feel doubt whether he will accept the call “Come let us reason together.” But I will try to provide answers anyway. Specifically, lots and lots of qualified Muslim scholars have denounced the Rushdie death fatwa as being incorrect according to Islam. The Qur’an’s verse 2:257 issues the well-known command: La ikraha fi al-din ‘There is to be no compulsion in religion’. On this basis there is no justification for the death penalty for apostates in the sources of Islamic law. The mullas who came up with that ruling in later centuries had no basis for doing so; therefore it must be rejected. This being the SDMB, I know citations are expected; I am going to come up with them, in sha’ Allah. Give me a chance to look around. Right now I need to get some rest. Thanks for being so understanding.

Blue guy, a friendly word of advice. If you really intend to have an intelligent discussion and fight ignorance instead of just trolling, it won’t help to use your ignorance as a bludgeon. I understand that most Americans haven’t yet received much accurate information on Islam; I’m not sore about that. I’m trying to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. But we’re here to fight ignorance, not turn it into an attitude problem. Thank you.

Welcome, Muslim Guy, and thank you.

One of my very best friends was born in Iran and lived there for the first 12 years of her life. Her family literally snuck out of the country in the middle of the night with nothing but the clothes on their backs when the Shah was exiled and the Ayatollah took control. She and her family became U.S. citizens and have been living here in the States for the past 20+ years. She is an extremely open-minded person with regard to acceptance of people of all faiths (her 3 year old son attends a Conservative Jewish pre-school!), yet for those who don’t know her personally, they may only look at her and see “Iranian” and jump to all the wrong conclusions. I fear for her safety and that of her son, though she assures me she’s felt no repercussions in the aftermath of this tragedy (so far). So for her sake (and the sake of all others like her througout the world), I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the erradication of ignorance that you’re providing here.

Now to my question… According to this article, “(i)n the Islamic Republic of Iran, lesbians and gay men risk the death penalty. Sex-change surgery for transsexuals is legal, but the recommended year of transition is skipped, because until the surgery is complete, you are considered criminally homosexual.” So I would like to know what the Qur’an says about homosexuality. Are the fundamentalist Moslems taking text out of context, or is homosexuality sinful according to Allah? For that matter, is it even mentioned at all?

You must have missed the 1998 pledge by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami not to seek to carry out the fatwa.

Just a minor question here- is it 2:257 or 2:256? (I don’t mean to be nitpicking; just curious if my source is misnumbered.)

Oh yeah, you’re right, it’s 256. I was at the public library internet station when I posted that and didn’t get a chance to get up and check it since the next guy in line was breathing down my neck waiting for his turn. Should have checked online before posting, didn’t think of that.

Afghan clerics issue bin Laden fatwa
19/11/1999
Muslim scholars supporting the Afghan opposition have issued a religious edict or fatwa declaring that the execution of the exiled Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden, would be legal under Islamic Sharia law.
similar stories

Call to outlaw death fatwas
05/10/1998
The Human Rights Commission in Pakistan wants a law to ban the issuing of death fatwas which it has branded a dangerous trend and an abuse of Islam.

Rushdie’s relief over fatwa move
23/09/1998
Author Salman Rushdie is said to be “cautiously optimistic” at the news the Iranian president considers the death threat against him to be finished.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ZdSkEZYsj3g:www.al-qiyamah.org/drumbeat_of_death/links/fatwa_links_(BBC).pdf+rushdie+death+fatwa&hl=en

Thanks, Jomo. :slight_smile: That’s sort of along the lines of what I was thinking of.

Muslim Guy, thanks for the thread and thanks for your answers: well-researched and clear of meaning.

This is a relayed question from another ML I’m on: if Muslims are required to pray at set times of day, how do people such as ER docs, police officers and the like - who may not be able to put aside what they’re doing at the time - handle that? Can they just delay until they’ve got a free moment or, since they’re doing good works at the time, does that count?

I too will welcome you to the board.

I have no questions at the time having studied the Qu’ran and by engaging in long discussions with a Muslim friend who is very knowledgable in his faith, as you are.

All I can do is say thank you for starting this thread.

Again, welcome to the SDMB.
And welcome back. Hope you had a good rest. I can imagine that this time has been very stressful for you.
My question isn’t strictly about Islam, but more personal in nature.
Aren’t you just a little nervous about your personal safety? Not only from bigots who would blame the tradgedy on all muslims, but also from those (few) fanatics who might take offense at your stand against them?
Peace,
mangeorge

Just want to add my shout to the thanks for starting this thread, and now onto my question.
I pretty much grew up around Muslims here in Cape Town (half the school dissapearing at lunchtime on Friday, I even got Eid presents) so I know most of the details of how it’s practiced here in South Africa, but I’ve just realsied that, growing up, I was unaware that there were many sects of Islam, and after I’d found out, I just never asked any of my friends, so perhaps you could answer:
What sect is prevelant here in South Africa? I know the original Muslims here were Malays, but there seems to be a strong militant streak too (witness the bombings of last year)?

<b>INTRODUCTION</b>

Hello Dopers. I have included an article below which consists of the sayings of some of the most famous and respected Scholars in the Islamic world. Note that the dates of these statements are prior to 11th September 2001 with many of them being many years old.

There were scores of Bangladeshi Muslims killed in the WTC building as there were hundreds of Pakistanis (New York has a very large Pakistani community, with a high percentage of professionals in different sectors) also killed, let alone Arabs of middle eastern origin, something which has not really been emphasised much in the media. Hence, this terrorist act was an attack on innocent Muslims as well as Non-Muslims.

<b>THE MAJOR ISLAMIC SCHOLARS SPEAK ON HIJACKINGS AND SUICIDE </b>

This brief article has been produced to get across the true position of Islaam and the people of Sunnah towards the evils of those who hold permissible the shedding of blood without just cause.

The sect behind such behaviour first appeared in the first generations of Islaam and this sect was responsible for the killing and murder of many Companions of the Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wassallam). Since then they have not stopped their evil and they have appeared with their ignorance and evil in every generation. It is upon the Muslims to recognise their evil and keep away from their false ideologies which are in opposition to the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Sahaabah.

(Please Read All & Distribute)
Bismillaah alhamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salaamu alaa Rasoolillaahi

<b><u>1. The Words of Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen Concerning Suicide Bombings In Palestine & Elsewhere.</u></b>

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen, may Allaah have mercy upon him, said in his explanation of Riyaadus-Saaliheen (1/165-166), whilst giving some points of benefit from the hadeeth of Suhayb, may Allaah be pleased with him:

"That Allaah¹s Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, “There used to be a king amongst those who came before you, and he had a sorcerer. So when he grew old he said to the king, ‘I have become old so send a boy to me so that I can teach him sorcery’…” ­ the hadeeth continues. (see Riyaadhus-Saaliheen, no. 30 for full text)

Fourthly: That it is permissible for a person to expose himself to danger for a matter of general benefit to the Muslims, because the boy indicated to the king the way in which he would be able to kill him, and which would lead to his demise, which was that he should take an arrow from his quiver… etc.

Shaikhul-Islaam (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, “Because this was a Jihaad in Allaah’s cause, which caused a whole nation to truly believe, and he did not really lose anything, since although he died he would have to die anyway, sooner or later.”

[<i>Editors Note: This incident, and the points deduced from it, are in reference to the slaughter and burning of a whole nation of people who refused to acknowledge the paganistic teachings of a particular king in history. The scholar here has made reference to the fact that when it is inevitable that one will be killed, it is permissible for a person to expose himself to danger which will lead to his death, in that particular situation - if there may be some benefit to be found for other people. The boy referred to in the story, indicated to the king the manner in which the king would be able to kill him. This led to his death, but in turn, the boys death, led to the winning over of the people of the king. In this case, the ruling for this is that it is not considered suicide - despite the fact that the individual exposed himself allowing himself to be killed. In Islamic Law, suicide is expressly forbidden and constitutes one of the greatest of sins. The above incident has been quoted to illustrate that in certain contexts, what might be considered to be suicide is actually not classed as suicide, and hence is an exception to the general rule. However, most importantly, what the scholar then goes on to explain (see immediately below) is that this scenario is totally different to that where people - without being in any danger themselves - tie explosives to themselves, or hijack planes and the likes and kill innocent people in the process. This would actually be classed as suicide - for there was no need for the person taking his own life (as he was not in a situation where he would be killed unjustly anyway) LET ALONE, his killing of innocent civilians. Besides, in the incident above, the boy sacrificed his own life, and did not endanger the life of ANYBODY else.</i>] End note.

The Shaikh continues…

<b>"But as for what some people do regarding activities of suicide, tying explosives to themselves and then approaching Unbelievers and detonating them amongst them, then this is a case of suicide ­ and Allaah’s refuge is sought. So whoever commits suicide then he will be considered eternally to Hell-Fire, remaining there forever, as occurs in the hadeeth of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, his saying, “And whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, then the iron weapon will remain in his hand, and he will continuously stab himself in his belly with it in the Fire of Hell eternally, forever and ever.” </b> (Reported by al-Bukhaaree, no. 5778 and Muslim, no. 109, in the Book of Eemaan.)

Because this person has killed himself and has not benefited Islaam. So if he kills himself along with ten, or a hundred, or two hundred other people, then Islaam will not benefit by that, since the people will not accept Islaam, contrary to the story of the boy. Rather it will probably just make the enemy more determined, and this action will provoke malice and bitterness in his heart to such an extent that he may seek to wreak havoc upon the Muslims.

This is what is found from the practice of the Jews with the people of Palestine ­ so when one of the Palestinian blows himself up and kills six or seven people, then in retaliation they take sixty or more. So this does not produce any benefit for the Muslims, and does not benefit those amongst whose ranks explosives are detonated.

<b>So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide (bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this necessitates entry into Hell-Fire, and Allaah’s refuge is sought and that this person is not a martyr (shaheed). </b>

(End of the Shaikh¹s words)


<b><u>2. Imaam Ibn Baaz on Hijacking planes and kidnapping</u></b>

<B>"From that which is known to everyone who has the slightest bit of common sense is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allaah.</B>

Likewise, from that which is known is that these crimes are not specific to any particular country over and above another country, nor any specific group over and above another group, rather it encompasses the whole world.

<b>There is no doubt about the effect of these crimes; so it is obligatory upon the governments and those responsible from amongst the scholars and other than them to afford these issues great concern, and to exert themselves as much as possible in ending this evil."</b>

Shaykh Ibn Baaz
Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unaa al-Aleem - Page 108-109

<b><u>3. Hijacking planes and ships</u></b>

"Question: There are some people who hijack a plane or a ship, and do so to apply pressure upon the country to which this plane or ship is headed. It is possible they threaten to kill the passengers, and in some cases actually kill some of them, until their demands are met. So what is the ruling about such actions, especially since such actions terrify the passengers?

Response: <B>It is upon (every) country to provide sufficient security to prevent the likes of these rebels from taking over (planes or ships). It is upon the (respective) country to provide every airline with security (whilst on their land) which is sufficient to resist any hijack attempts by the aggressors; just as they should also co-ordinate a full (passenger) inspection prior to (their) boarding. Thus, they should not permit anyone to proceed (to board) until after they have ascertained that no-one is in possession of weapons even if it be (a piece of) metal (bar or the like). In addition to this, some gangs force the aircraft to divert to another destination, so if there are (amongst the crew or passengers) anyone with sufficient physical training to overpower them, then the rebels’ plans will be destroyed.</B>

So there is no doubt that hijacking is a mistake, ignorance and falsehood. Further, it is a transgression beyond the limits causing terror to the passengers, and threatening them with that which they have no power to carry out, and Allaah knows best."

Shaykh Ibn Jibreen
Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unaa al-Aleem - Page 113

<b><u>4. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen on Attacking the enemy by blowing oneself up in a car</u></b>

Question: What is the ruling regarding acts of jihaad by means of suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy, whereby he knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this action?

Response: Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has killed himself (committed suicide), and as a result he shall be punished in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam).

[((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]].

And from that which is surprising, is that these people kill themselves despite Allaah having fordbidden this, as He (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala) says: {And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allaah is Most Merciful to you}, [Soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29].

And many amongst them do not desire anything except revenge of the enemy, by whatever means, be it halaal (lawful) or haraam (unlawful). So they only want to satisfy their thirst for revenge. We ask Allaah to bless us with foresight in His Deen and action(s) which please Him, indeed He is all Powerful over all things.

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unaa al-Aleem - Page 119

5. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen on Committing suicide

Question: What is the ruling regarding suicide in Islaam?

Response: Suicide is when a person kills himself intentionally by whatever means. This is haraam and regarded as amongst the major sins, and likewise included in the general statement of Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala): {And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him}, [Soorah an-Nisaa, Aayah 93].

And it is established from the Sunnah on the authority of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) who said: ((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)].

In reality, the one who commits suicide, generally does so because of his desperate situation, either as a direct result of an act of Allaah or a human being. So you find him unable to cope with that which has afflicted him, and in actual fact he is like one who is calling for help from the scorching heat of the fire. So he has progressed from that which was tough (bad) to that which is worse. And if he was patient, then Allaah would have assisted him in dealing with the difficulty.

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unaa al-Aleem - Page 120


<b><u>6. Shaykhul- Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (died 728H)</u></b>

The khawaarij are those who make the unlawful blood lawful. They declare Muslims to be unbelievers on accounts of sins they commit. They declare all the Muslim rulers to be disbelievers and call for revolution and rebellion and bloodshed. It is important to note here that the birth of “terrorism” in Islamic countries came as a result of the resurgence of this group, who held that the commissin of major sins necessitates exiting from the fold of Islaam. This sect (the Khawaarij) use the corruption and sinfulness of some of the Islamic rulers in order to justify rebellion and acts of killing and terrorism in order to effect change. Although this groups deviation does not expel them from Islam as such, the extent of condemnation and their subesequent punishment in the Hereafter has been mentioned by the Prophet Mohammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) in the most severe terms.

The Messenger Of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wassallam) said: “The (Khawaarij) are the dogs of Hellfire” (Musnad Ibn Abee Awfaa, Dhilaal ul-Jannah Fee Takhreej Ahaadeeth as-Sittah)

The Messenger Of Allaah (salallaahu alayhi wassallam) said: “If I was to reach them, I would slaughter them with the slaughtering of Aad (a nation mentioned by Allaah in the Qur’aan that He destroyed due to their evil)” [Bukhaaree/Muslim]

Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said,

“And the way, seerah, of the Muslims has never ceased upon this (methodology). They did not declare them (i.e. the Khawarij) to be apostates like those whom as-Siddiq (radiallaahu anhu) fought against. And this despite the command of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) to fight against them, as occurs in the authentic hadiths, and also despite what has been reported about them in the hadeeth of Abu Umaamah, collected by at-Tirmidhi and others [li] that they are “the most evil of those who are killed under the sky and how excellent is the one killed by them”. Meaning that they are more harmful to the Muslims than others, for there are none which are more harmful to the Muslims than them, neither the Jews and nor the Christians. For they strived to kill every Muslim who did not agree with their view, declaring the blood of the Muslims, their wealth, and the slaying of their children to be lawful, while making takfir of them (expelling them from Islaam). And they considered this to be worship, due to their ignorance and their innovation that caused to stray.”[/li]
Editors Note: [<i>The Khawaarij make no distinction between Non-Muslims and Muslims who fall into major sins and treat them both as legitimate targets for killing and murdering</i>].

Minhaj us-Sunnah 5/248.
[li] declared authentic by Shaikh al-Albaanee in Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhi (no. 2398)[/li]

<b><u>7. Imaam Ibn Baaz Concerning Those Who Partake In Bombings, Hijackings…</u></b>

Question: [What is the ruling] concerning Jamaa’atul-Jihaad (a group responsible for bombings and terrorism and other evils) and co-operation with them?

Answers Imaam Ibn Baaz: <b>"… they are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salaams (salutations) to. Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil. Since they are a fitnah (tribulation/trial) and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of the Devil (Shaytaan)!" </b>

{From the taped cassette (no.11), recorded in the month of Dhul-Hijjah 1408H (1987CE) at 'at-Tawiyyatul-Islaamiyyah.}

End.

Taken from http://www.salafipublications.com

**Muslim Guy **

To what extent are the dictates of what a Muslim is or is not permitted to do based on precedent? I ask becasue a justification for allowing a Muslim to kill seems to draw heavily from document actions of the Prophet -Allah bless and keep Him (another quick question …is it nesecary to add that at every mention of the name , even in the same text?) .

My source on the following is dubious in the extreme but it pruports to be from the handbook used by Laaden followers, in which he seeks to allay the concerns of a Muslim who is asked to kill hostages.

“The religous scholars have also permitted the killing of a hostage if he insists on withholding information from Moslems. They permitted his killing so that he could not inform his people of what he had learned about the Nuslim condition , number and secrets. In the Honein attack , after one of the spies learned about the Muslims kindness and weakness then fled , the prophet - Allah bless and keep him - permitted (shedding) his blood and said “find him and kill him”. Salma Ibn Al-Akwaa followed , caught and killed him”

This section also deals with interogation techniques etc. and cites previous actions of the prophet as justification.

So my questions…
Is there a law of precedence ? Is everything the Prophet may or may not have done considered , if not honourable , then at least permissible ? It seems that you make reference to direct quotes in many of your awnsers.

Would a follower of Islam be swayed by such arguments even if it were in the face of an action abhorent to any other moral code he might have?

I’ll post a link to the document and manuals if I get a moderators clearance…it contains very explicit information on bomb making and poison manufacturing techniques and could be considered dangerous.

Malaysia’s not much of a democracy. Dr.Mohammed Mahathir has been in power since 1981. You could point to Indonesia which just had an election that put Sukarno’s daughter into office.

Megawati Sukarno Putri was not elected gobear. The parliament threw Abdul Ramen Wahid out and appointed the Vice President as successor. Indonesia might generously be described as a fledgling democracy. It’s struggling.

Muslim Guy,

1.What do the Muslims think about the Gospels saying the only way to Heaven is a belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior?

2.Do Muslims belief in Muhammed is paramount to the entrance of Heaven?

  1. Do Muslims believe Jesus Christ rose from the grave?

Oops, my bad. I knew that Megawati had replaced Wahid, bu tI thought erroneously that it had been through an election. So, Bluesman is correct that there are no democratic Muslim countries.

Muslim Guy -

I picked up an English translation of the Qur’-an over the
weekend, which included a short biography of Muhammed before
the text.

The biography was written by a non-Muslim, and it stated
unequivocally that Muhammed made his living, after leaving
Mecca, by raiding trading caravans going to and from the
city.

Is that the official Muslim view on his life? If not, what
do they say he was doing that caused Meccan armies to attack
him? If so, how do Muslims assimilate this aspect of his
life with his being a great prophet and a mouthpiece of God?

I didn’t expect a thread like this in IMHO. Since I just found it, I haven’t read it all the way through. But, when I saw this

I had to reply. The Talmud says "He who saves even a single life, it is as though he saved the world."

I’m more sure than ever that if Jews and Muslims weren’t fighting over a tiny piece of land, we would live in harmony as the children of Abraham.

This might seem a bit silly, but what is the accepted spelling of the name of your Holy Book? I’ve seen a few different spellings, and I’m just wondering if there’s one that’s preferred, or if all of them are acceptible.

Thanks! :smiley: