How do Muslims get into Paradise?

[S.A.M.]

It seems that Allah then lets wrongs and unrighteousness go unpunished. There is both good and evil in this world, does not Allah represent all that is good? Is Allah not perfect? But only Muhammad (pbuh) and the prophets are sinless. Everyone else falls short. Therefore to let people into paradise who fall short says Paradise is imperfect also. Or that Allah does not have perfect justice.

What is perfect justice?

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?

Put simply:

Equivalence is the Law [2:178-179]

[Revolvr]

What is perfect justice?

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?

Put simply:

Equivalence is the Law [2:178-179]

These are good questions. What are the answers from a Muslim perspective? As I understand it, in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) there are 5 categories of behavior:

Mandatory (prayer, almsgiving, fasting)
Recommended (informal prayer, urinating while sitting)
Neutral (apple or orange juice in the morning)
Disapproved (contraception)
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?

[(Q)]

Islamic beliefs are not the same as Judeo-Christian beliefs.

the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is one and the same (which it clearly is from any etic view of the mythology)

Certainly, an interesting paradox, especially when the "ticket" into paradise is at stake.

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?

[S.A.M.]

These are good questions. What are the answers from a Muslim perspective? As I understand it, in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) there are 5 categories of behavior:

Mandatory (prayer, almsgiving, fasting)
Recommended (informal prayer, urinating while sitting)
Neutral (apple or orange juice in the morning)
Disapproved (contraception)
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?

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.

[Arsalan]

Please don't characterize other posters as being ignorant: verily, you are the worst of copy-and-pasters.

Haha! Becuase I copy and paste quotes from people who DONT spread hate and ignorance, Im the worst Besides, I was going to summarise all my findings, but some posts on here made me rush it and skip the summarising.

A verse, regrettably, abrogated by Sura 9, which was "revealed" after it.

hehe, which verses in Sura 9 are you talking about? Please list them here.

On the other side, what, pray tell, did Mohammed mean when he referred to "women taken by the right hand"?

Give me the verse so I can look it up.

You confound again race with slavery. Slaves were of many races. You are overreliant on the American example

The cases in question involved a black slave

I reiterate from Sura 4: what are women "taken by the right hand"?

Once again, give me the verse in question.

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.

Going into all that would make the rest of this thread completely offtopic.

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.

Unfortunately, slavery still exists in Benin, Togo, India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Mauritania, Sudan, US, Brazil, Europe, UAE and Burma.

And how gradual it has been: a mere 1400 years and still not quite finished. The veritable blink of an eye.

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.

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.

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

Except, of course, to be free.

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.

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.

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.

I suppose all the mentions of taking slaves in the Quran was meant to fool the haters, then.

Which verses?

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.

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.

[Arsalan]

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.

[(Q)]

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.

Yes, but aren't you afraid of going to Christian hell?

[Revolvr]

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.

So I think I understand it. One is placed on a scale to weigh their goodness against their wrongs. Whichever weighs the most wins.

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?

[Revolvr]

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.

Different rights and wrongs have different weights on the final scale. The heaviest wrong is shirk as I understand it. What is the single most important righteous thing a Muslim can do? Is it belief or faith, or is it works - visible things like prayer.

[S.A.M.]

Different rights and wrongs have different weights on the final scale. The heaviest wrong is shirk as I understand it. What is the single most important righteous thing a Muslim can do? Is it belief or faith, or is it works - visible things like prayer.

There is no one thing, though some say that "iman" (to learn one's faith) is a step towards right "aqidah" (creed)

[GeoffP]

hehe, which verses in Sura 9 are you talking about? Please list them here.

hehe,

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.

It has a phrase about "permission of their folk", but this doesn't seem to have been put into practice from the Quraysh onward.

The cases in question involved a black slave

...so? Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.

Going into all that would make the rest of this thread completely offtopic.

And dispell your point.

Unfortunately, slavery still exists in Benin, Togo, India, Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Thailand, Mauritania, Sudan, US, Brazil, Europe, UAE and Burma.

The US and Europe, eh? Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.

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.

You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best,

Geoff

[GeoffP]

What about unintended consequences?

What about good intentions leading to poor consequences?

You seem more tolerant of such failures here than elsewhere.

[S.A.M.]

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?

[Kadark]

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?

I've heard a variation. Depending on your sins, the size of the "bridge" or pathway over hell will alter. For the righteous, it would be very broad and accessible, yet for the sinners it would be an impossibility to cross.

Does this version make sense?

[S.A.M.]

I've heard a variation. Depending on your sins, the size of the "bridge" or pathway over hell will alter. For the righteous, it would be very broad and accessible, yet for the sinners it would be an impossibility to cross.

Does this version make sense?

No idea, I actually heard this as one of the stories during a session of Qassasul Anbiya during a majlis.

Hmm your version sounds familiar too /racks brain cells.

[Kadark]

No idea, I actually heard this as one of the stories during a session of Qassasul Anbiya during a majlis.

Hmm your version sounds familiar too /racks brain cells.

Who knows. There's probably thousands of variations stemming from the original story. Nonetheless, they're all interesting.

[S.A.M.]

Who knows. There's probably thousands of variations stemming from the original story. Nonetheless, they're all interesting.

Yeah, you know any other ways to get into Paradise?

[Kadark]

Yeah, you know any other ways to get into Paradise?

How would I know? I'm just an idiotic Muslim, after all.

[S.A.M.]

My grandmother never told me all these stories.

[Arsalan]

hehe,

Let’s look at the verses in question shall we:

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)

Verse 4:3 tells us to treat orphans fairly. That is clear. Verse 4:4 tells us that if its not possible for a man to be able to take care of the orphans on his own he should marry. Here one of the special circumstances where polygamy is allowed is mentioned but in the same verse not encouraged. I suppose you are talking about where it says “your right hands possess”. In Arabic lexicon, the words translated to “your right hands possess” are also known as “wards” or “people in protected status”. It does not mean slaves or bondman or woman. But if you want to go down that route and orget the lexicon, this could apply to slaves because they are in a protected state, with everything provided for them and they are able to have their own house with their own family. Another thing this verse does is support the argument forwarded earlier about gradual abolition of slavery because it suggests marrying one of protected status which may apply to a slave and thereby freeing them from it.
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 expression of “such as your right hands possess” has also been in used the Quran with regard to those men and women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of the Muslims. The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives. For those prisoners there is the teaching which says free them either by favour or mutual exchange. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslim to abandon their religion, at the point of the sword and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemies took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women. Another reason being that when female prisoners were taken after war, their own nations and tribes did not accept them back resulting in a lot of homeless women who had nothing and no one to protect them and nowhere to go. That is why the Muslims were allowed to marry them. Ofcourse the verse says “marry properly” which means that the other rules regarding marriage i.e. consent applied.
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.

The verse one again supports the aforementioned argument of gradually abolishing slavery but mostly says that Muslims should restrict try and marry believing women.

...so? Why is the race important? Spell it out for me.

Its not important to me. I was talking about black slaves. You, im assuming, have a problem with “black”, not me.

And dispell your point.

The copts and the ottoman empire and yadayada have nothing to do with what I said. Islam presents a threat to Christianity because it takes the rational approach and destroys the faulty doctrines Christianity is based on. That is why it’s a threat to Christianity. That is why the Church had forbidden its priests from engaging in public debates with Ahmadis in india and Pakistan among other things

The US and Europe, eh? Does it have legal protection there, too? I note Pakistan, Sudan and UAE all made the list.

Aye they did make the list. As did Brazil. And others. And enslaving free men and women in Islam is not allowed. I thought id made that much clear...

You can, then, define a point between now and 700 AD when slavery was not part of islamic civilization?

Can you define a period between when Christianity and Judaism came to Arabia and 1800 when slavery was not a part of Jewish and or Christian civilization? Or can you tell me who else freed as many slaves in the period of the Prophet and the Rashideen as they did? Or any other people in that time who had a whole system in place to gradually abolish this from their society? A system so successful that at the end of the Rashideen all the original slaves had been freed in Arabia.

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.

Well you can research that for yourself. Many Barbary pirates were also former Christians who converted to Islam. Sounds to me like a bunch of moneyhungry people who would sell out their values for pieces of gold. Saying that they belonged to and operated because of a certain religion is pretty ridiculous. Pirates don’t have any such values.

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.

Haha, thats rich! Pray tell, what is the legal status of a slave? Also, about the medieval period, have you read the Decretum Gratiani? Also, how many people worldwide? There are lots of records of Muslims setting slaves free. Give me other records from that 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.

HAHA! Widely known! I lolled We are talking about the same Umar here right? The Umar who inherited an empire beset on both sides by the Romans and the Persians? The Umar who was hailed after freeing the Christians and Jews in Egypt by both of them? The Umar who non-Muslim kings and leaders wanted to impress with their fine clothing and found him sleeping among the beggars in the street? The Umar who divided up the empire into different administrations and put people from the areas in charge and gave them a form of selfdetermination? The Umar whose armies included Jews, Christians, Romans and Persians, who all fought for him because they were grateful to him and wanted what he did for them for other people? That Umar? I doubt it. Your probably talking about that mythical Umar created by the anti-Islamists who fail to recognize that the Islam state was indeed the target of its enemies and they wanted to destroy it by all means.

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.

But ive always accepted that in the periods after the Rashideen the Muslims lost their way. Most of the Caliphates after that had nothing to do with religion and were more interested in money and worldly matters and did horrible things.

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.

What is the Golden Rule?