01-24-08, 10:48 AM #61
Is thinking about doing good equivalent to thinking about doing something bad?
Is doing something good accidentally the same as doing something bad accidentally?
Is doing good deliberately the same as doing bad deliberately?
What about unintended consequences?
What about good intentions leading to poor consequences?
Equivalence is the Law [2:178-179]
01-24-08, 10:56 AM #62
Mandatory (prayer, almsgiving, fasting)
Recommended (informal prayer, urinating while sitting)
Neutral (apple or orange juice in the morning)
Forbidden (eating pork, fornication)
If one does disapproved or forbidden things, ever, but one believes, then one goes to paradise anyway? By perfect justice I meant that any wrongdoing would be punished. But it seems wrongdoing is not punished if one believes. Therefore there is no justice, but there is mercy. Is that how to look at it?
01-24-08, 11:20 AM #63Originally Posted by SkinWalker
And clearly, by not fulfilling one particular cults requirements and not do the same for the other cults would surely mean that ticket to paradise be revoked in favor of "The Subway to Eternal Damnation."
What vast and intricate rationale has been devised to deal with such a paradox?
01-24-08, 12:57 PM #64
You should remember that Fiqh is legal opinion utilised to make it easier for people to follow their religion. Fiqh does not and cannot replace the Quran. Moreover, it is not standardised and has a wide range of opinions on any single issue.
Fiqh today (IMO) is outdated and not in step with society, it needs a major overhaul by Islamic scholars. Plus, no Islamic society actually obeys Fiqh, the civil laws are set by political figures without considering what is required for the health and functioning of the society in the modern world.
So merely following Fiqh or on the other hand rejecting it, does not imply very much about rightness or wrongness of faith. e.g. there is a fatwa against female genital mutilation, does that mean that all those who still practise it are wrong because there is a fatwa against it? Is it wrong in and of itself? These are social issues rather than issues of faith and laws are meant to ensure social health, they are not determinants of faith.
01-24-08, 01:19 PM #65
A verse, regrettably, abrogated by Sura 9, which was "revealed" after it.
On the other side, what, pray tell, did Mohammed mean when he referred to "women taken by the right hand"?
You confound again race with slavery. Slaves were of many races. You are overreliant on the American example
I reiterate from Sura 4: what are women "taken by the right hand"?
It isn't a threat to Christianity historically, or in the present? What, Arsalan, is a "Copt"? Can you define the high point of Assyrian Christendom? What happened to them? What was the historical setting point of the jizya compared to the voluntarily paid zakat? What decrees were the Ottomans forced to in order to preserve their tax base? Why was their tax base shrinking? And so on.
Really? Old Shehzad seems to have forgotten that it is only in the islamic world where slavery still thrives - and, ironically enough, in both the poorest and richest parts of it.
And how gradual it has been: a mere 1400 years and still not quite finished. The veritable blink of an eye.
Yet: they did, and the islamic world did not, nor has it. In fact, the abolition of slavery in the islamic world appears largely to have been that forced by Western armies, such as the destruction of the Barbary pirates.
Except, of course, to be free.
Excuse me: you've mentioned Umar as exemplary before. Umar the Pillager? Umar the Destroyer? Umar who invaded and brutally subjugated non-muslims throughout almost his entire career? That Umar? I'm surprised that you call this man a hero. He doesn't appear to have been anything of the kind, but rather a brutal warlord.
are, just like in the real world, few and far between on these boards otherwise all that Arab history would contain in the history books would be mass murder, genocide and whatnot.
I suppose all the mentions of taking slaves in the Quran was meant to fool the haters, then.
Your ignorance on this matter is overwhelming. The role of religion in the abolition of slavery is quite well known. Please: no dissimilitude.
Yet the slaves of the OT and NT are all freed now, whereas slavery continues in the islamic world - and was, at its height, probably greater than that in the West, despite the smaller population of the Middle East.
01-24-08, 01:20 PM #66
Anyway, Ontopic again. All a Muslim can do is follow what is set out in the Quran. Believe in God, the Angels, the Prophets, pray, pay charity, do good deeds etc. That is the way to heaven.
01-25-08, 10:04 AM #67
01-25-08, 10:14 AM #68
Seems like though that there would be some punishment for all of the wrongs a person did, even if the good outweighs the bad. Allah is after all, just. Does this punishment come along the way to paradise?
01-25-08, 10:19 AM #69
01-25-08, 10:32 AM #70
01-25-08, 03:37 PM #71
Q 4: 3. And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
Q 4: 24. And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.
25. And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give unto them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
The cases in question involved a black slave
Going into all that would make the rest of this thread completely offtopic.
Unfortunately, slavery still exists in Benin, Togo, India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Mauritania, Sudan, US, Brazil, Europe, UAE and Burma.
Yes, it is unfortunate, that the Arabs have stopped heeding the Quran and teh Hadith regarding slavery. After the Khalifa-e-Rashideen the Arabs slowly started to revert to their pre-Islamic customs. Although there were still many examples of great Islamic civilizations.
Barbary Pirates lol. The only thing that they had to do with Islamic law was that they called themselves Muslims. Besides, isnt it strange that they started to operate right afte the Crusades? Some enlightened people might take that fact to show some kind of provocation
It is obvious you did not read what I wrote otherwise you wouldnt have said this. I have shown over and over that Muslims were exhorted to free slaves whenever they could. Whole tribes of slaves were bought and set free by the Muslims.
Ofcourse he wont appear anything of the kind to you. Youd rather term the expansion of the Muslim empire as invasion and conversion by force and attribute the most vile things to the Arabs of then.
Thank God people like you are, just like in the real world, few and far between on these boards otherwise all that Arab history would contain in the history books would be mass murder, genocide and whatnot.
In other words, equality.
On the contrary, Im not showing anything of that. What I am showing is that to atribute the freeing of the slaves to Christianity is wrong by the scriptures.
01-25-08, 03:39 PM #72
01-26-08, 08:37 PM #73
I almost forgot, there is also the tale of Sirat al Jahim (The Path of Hell, or the Bridge of Hell)
No idea of the origin (probably rose from the references to the Sirat al Mustaqim or the straight path or the Right Path in the Qur'an).
Anyway the Sirat al Jahim is the path above Hell, as narrow as a hair and as sharp edged as a sword. And if you're good, you get transport (horses, I think), across it. If you're bad bad bad, you have to negotiate it yourself. It leads to Paradise. Very Lord of the Ringish.
Has anyone else heard this?
01-26-08, 08:41 PM #74
01-26-08, 08:44 PM #75
01-26-08, 08:47 PM #76
01-26-08, 08:48 PM #77
01-26-08, 08:48 PM #78
01-26-08, 08:49 PM #79
01-26-08, 10:01 PM #80
And give the orphans their property and exchange not the bad for the good, and devour not their property with your own. Surely, it is a great sin.
And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice.(4:3-4)
The next verse you gave:
And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess. This has Allah enjoined on you. And allowed to you are those beyond that, that you seek them by means of your property, marrying them properly and not committing fornication. And for the benefit you receive from them, give them their dowries, as fixed, and there shall be no sin for you in anything you mutually agree upon, after the fixing of the dowry.
The next verse you gave:
And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours.
...so? Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.
And dispell your point.
The US and Europe, eh? Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.
You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?
Not really. Their ambassador made no reference to the Crusades, but only to the Quran. You may not call them muslims if you wish, of course: would you then turn over such people to justice, or defend their actions as "defense"? So far you're suggesting the latter.
And, I'm sure, by many people worldwide. You have a narrow conception of the legal status of a slave. I recommend 13-14th century England as an example; or indeed of any medieval period.
Well, as a non-muslim myself, I'm more interested in his vile actions towards us than your perception of him as a hero. Umar is widely known as an invader and occupier; there is really no doubt of this whatsoever. I think Umar would be surprised (and amused) to hear you opine he was some kind of peaceful Caliph.
Ugh. The belaboured humiliate. Every nation has good and bad: I merely ask you recognize that your good does not translate into everyone's good, much as others insist for our civilization, and which I readily accept.
Then it appears they took the central message of the Golden Rule and tried to apply it more liberally, rather than being weighted down with the ghost of literalist blindness. Would that everyone could be more humanitarian, and less legalistic.
Last edited by Arsalan; 01-26-08 at 10:08 PM.
By Hi5 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-10-09, 05:53 AMReplies: 18
By Atom in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-20-07, 07:05 PMReplies: 171
By charles brough in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-04-07, 02:16 PMReplies: 31
By Charles_Wong in forum PoliticsLast Post: 08-14-07, 02:26 PMReplies: 12
By Buffalo Roam in forum World EventsLast Post: 10-23-06, 06:59 AMReplies: 87