How do Muslims get into Paradise?

lemme introduce nuance as a concept
the mughal incursion was initially exemplified by tolerance which then subsequently devolved into intolerance

what sweeping statements might one make about islam in light of that? is it a matter of interpretation? cherry picking shit to suit one's own disposition? or...whatnot?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just to clarify things..(1) Rich in terms of what? (2) Hindu's have always existed, there earliest origins can be traced to the ancient Vedic civilization,
Is it true moslems in India are still second class citizens dominated by the country's dominant religion?
(4) What is your stance on the disputed Kashmir region? Are you pro-pakistan on it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

life tends to get a bit mysterious tho
plans have a way of unraveling inexplicably
considering prior experiences can never hurt
it is the unpredictable social dynamic that history usually illustrates
ignore at your own risk

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a big difference from studying and learning from the past and using the past misdeads of others to beat innocent people of today over the heads. It simply is not relevant. It is like the Catholic belief in original sin. Someone very distantly related committed a sin, therefore you are guilty of that sin...makes no sense and is not relevant. I have enoubh with my own sins, I don't need to be taking on the sins of others. I am not Christ.

 

But isn't there some standard by which Allah judges people? Seems like "do your best" is a bit vague, or at least very open ended. Seems like if Allah is a perfect and just God, punishment would be sure to come to anyone who fails a perfect criteria. Wouldn't only the very best get to Paradise?

 

The basic theme of the Quran (from the very first revelation Read!In the name of your Lord or Iqra! Bi'ismi Rabbi!) is gaining knowledge.

There are guidelines for behaviour throughout the Quran, with some musts (like charity and truth), but most are just that, guidelines. To each according to his best (effort or understanding). Sacrifice is not a requirement nor is forgiveness of all and every wrong done, though they are recommended. Abstinence is not recommended nor is deprivation or suppression of the senses, but self control and discipline is. Its an easy religion to follow.

 

Its off topic, but can you guess why during the Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian soldiers (Hindus and Muslims) under the British went to the Last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar to lead them in the mutiny? And why the British had to exile Zafar after presenting him with his sons heads on a platter to quell the mutiny completely?

 

its pretty bovious that you guys dont want to understand what I want to say about slavery and Islam. Thats why Ill write a response and a summary from various sources regarding slavery in Islam and Christanity. Will take some time though cos Ive also got a presentation coming up.

 

This is exactly right. But of course pointing this out and somehow you're hate mongering.



RE: How do Muslims get into Paradise?

Here's the quick route: Spanish suicide attacks

The 10 who were kept in custody include eight Pakistani nationals and two Indian nationals who are Muslim.

Geee Pakistan again, go figure. Who are they under occupation by? What is their beef with the Spanish? Are the Spanish somehow harming Pakistan???

OR could it be their screwed up belief system offers more than enough carrots at the end of the stick? If one can justify 1500 years of selling human flesh then I suppose one can justly just about anything....

For the record. American and European slave trade was despicable, heinous and down right evil. ANYONE with 1/100th an once of compassion will immediately recognize that slavery as one of the worse evils perpetrated onto humanity. THEY'D certainly not try to tell everyione GOD accepts it AND if for some reason they didn't have the wherewithal to denounce it then they'd at the VERY LEAST not practice it themselves.

 

I get the bit about gaining knowledge and doing your best. But how does Allah differentiate between two people doing their best but one isn't near as good as another? Seems like Allah lets everybody in who claims to be a Muslim regardless of how they behave. Why would Allah let so much riffraff into Paradise? (not being critical here, just not getting it).

 

Because one can do no better than their best?

 

Er... you also find Orthodox Christians in Russia and the East in general.

This may have been apparent by the word "East".

Does the relative absence of Western, "Roman" Christians in the ME then conversely imply non-tolerance?

Please pick up a history book.

Best,

Geoff

 

Your not hatemongering. But you are ignorant if you only regurgitate what hate sites tell you.

Tssk tssk tskk Michael. I had honestly expected better from you. Can you give me a verse of the Quran which says that suicide bombing will get you to heaven? Are you still that narrowminded?

 

One of the most (intentionally?) misunderstood recent topics about Islam is its position on slavery. Some people on this board, who are not at all interested in learning or studying ANYTHING about Islam, proceed to copy and paste stuff from hate sites onto this board, and into their minds, and refuse to entertain any other thought, no matter how much evidence is provided against their view. The irony of it being of course is that they accuse Muslims of holding onto a wrong and tired old ideology while they continue to do it themselves. Let’s start off with looking at what the Holy Quran says about mankind:

From the subject of Islamic Brotherhood to which reference has been made in the preceeding two verses, this Surah proceeds to lay down the basis of an all-comprehensive, all pervading brotherhood of man. The verse, in fact, upon closer examination constitutes the Magna Carta of human fraternity and equality. This verse firkmly lays the axe at the false and foolish notions of superiority, born of racial arrogance or national conceit. Equality is the keyword when explaining this verse.
Let’s look at another verse:

Michael keeps asking me why I think Islam is the greatest religion. My post in that other topic gave him some concepts I found novel and enlightening in Islam. Ofcourse I disagree with this point of view that for something to be perfect it has to be novel and enlightening. But this verse is another thing which proves that the Holy Prophets message was not one of captivity and selling people like chattel, or “selling flesh” as the ignorant Michael put it after a post from the equally ignorant Q. This verse alone should be enough to prove that slavery as seen by some people on here is not the slavery mentioned in the Quran. Why? Would a slave be able to ask his freedom just like that and be given it in the image of slaves, created by the history of the Western world, that some people on here have? No
From a commentary of this verse:

Let’s look at a couple of sayings of the Holy Prophet:

An interesting fact is that the first call to prayer, a major honour, was given in 622 by Bilal -- a black slave freed by the Holy Prophet. About 1235 years later, in 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Dred Scott:

This, in a nutshell, illustrates the difference between the slavery in Islam and the ones the people on this board grew up with in their history lessons. Pot, kettle, black etc..
Annemarie Schimmel in Islam: An Introduction says:

Roger Du Pasquier in Unveiling Islam says:

Islam completely forbids free and innocent people and in the cases of female to have extramarital relations with them. We see that from the following verse:

The idea that slaves were used for any extra-marital affairs by Muslims is a lie and stems from the practice of the pre-Islamic Arabic society and especially by the Christians and Jews:

According to Saleem, and I agree, this argument that Islam allows this heinous form of slavery stems from the teachings of Islam which were introduced to gradually abolish the institution of slavery. Instead of researching why these teachings were given in regards to slavery and acknowledging that adherence to these teachings would have gotten rid of of slavery once and for all, some people, once again, show their true face when it comes to Islam. Somehow, no matter how, they will always attack its teachings regarding everything. They get a kick from it. Centuries of indoctrination against this “threat” to Christianity has done its work. Anyway, let’s move on. It was a gradual process because of abolition of this practice because of the society in which it was revealed. In pre-Islamic Arabia, and therefore in times of the Christian and Jewish and Pagan religions in Arabia, slavery was the norm and widely practiced and seen as ok. Slaves were in every household and treated like animals, beaten to death over the smallest of things. This was the time of Christianity, Judaism and Paganism in Arabia before Islam. Not coincidentally just as they were treated by their Western (Christian?) masters.
The only possible way to get rid of this institution of slavery was to adopt a gradual process of eliminating it. Immediate release of all slaves would have meant that a very large number of people who were dependent on various families would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves. It would create problems which the society was not ready for. How could that society cater for such a large population of recently freed people who had nothing? No institution was in place to help them, no welfare system or the like. Not to mention the old people that would be suddenly “freed” and thrown out into the street. How would they cope? What would they do? Did you guys ever think about that or does your thinking only go as far as “Badcancel it and don’t care about consequences”? They would become beggars and the like.
Shehzad Saleem presents an interesting idea and one which deserves some kind of recognition by all the haters here. He says:

Wise words you should think about. He goes on to list some of the measures Islam took in regards to eradicating this institution in a gradual scheme:

Wow, a “permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women”. How many other nations had that in that time? How many nations had this even a couple hundred years ago? Anyway, let’s move on:

A verse that is always cited by anti-Islamists is:

This verse, contrary to the popular belief among haters, lays down some important rules about the ethics of war during and after and deals a deathblow to slavery while doing so. First of all it says that when Muslims are engaged in regular battle, as cited in other verses in the defence of their faith, honour, lives or property, the Muslims are enjoined to fight bravely and relentlessly. Verses 8:13-17 shine more light on the behaviour of Muslims during fighting and they include no desertion. How different is this from a regular army? Does not a regular army, from any country, fight to the end when it is at war? And is desertion allowed? Unfortunately, many of the anti-Islamists don’t see this simple fact, but, just like the Medieval Church, are quick to misrepresent and or condemn things without studying them first. The irony...
Anyway lets continue to look at the verse in question. The part of the verse which is always cited by anti-Islamists to somehow validate their point is the 2nd part of the verse dealing with captives after the war. The verse says that prisoners are to be taken from the enemy, only after regular battle has been fought and the enemy has been decidedly beaten and thereby declares that regular war is the only reason for taking prisoners. How is this any different from the POWs taken by many armies nowadays as well? Ever think about that? But the verse goes on.

When the war has ended, the prisoners should be released, either as an act of favour, or on taking ransom or by mutual exchange. They should not be held permanently in captivity or as slaves. As pointed out by Muir, Zurqani and Hisham this verse effectively strikes at the roots of slavery, abolishing it completely and forever. The teachings in this verse were carried out by the Holy Prophet himself when he released the prisoners taken after the fighting had ended. Unfortunately, the haters don’t post any of those Hadith. I wonder why...
But they happily report the Hadith about the banu Quraizah. For those who don’t know about that event let me tell you. Or better yet, let me quote:

That is the story that the haters don’t post want you to see know when they post that Hadith.
But why did it take so long for slavery to end?

Gulen also has interesting things to say on the subject of slavery in Islam. He starts his essay off by giving the reason Michael and others only have 1 image of slavery:

Quite true. He also talks about the cruel treatment dealt out to black slaves by the Western Nations and then gives an extremely sharp insight into why the rest of the world laughs when the Western world talks about abolishing slavery:

He goes on to talk about slavery being abolished in these times but according to him the reason slavery is abhorred is not just because of the institution of slavery itself but because of the inhumanities which sustain it. You can abolish whatever you want but as he points out if you don’t abolish the attitudes that go with it then nothing is achieved. And history shows us that bragging about the abolition of slavery in the West is pretty futile seeing that:

The simple fact about slaves in Islam is that they were not treated as animals nor were they seen as inferior, as they were in the West. Many great people who were slaves or son of slaves rose to great offices and did great deeds. How many slaves in the West were treated like that?
Let’s look at another hadith which may clear up the reason why slaves were not seen as inferior to Muslims but were helped in every single way:

Would any Westerner have called a slave as Master like Umar, one of the greatest Muslims, did? Or let a slave pull his ear in public like Uthman did when he was the Khalifa? This is, and I cannot repeat this enough, the sole reason that slavery as viewed by Muslims and Islam is completely different and opposite to the slavery that the Westerners practiced and you read about in history lessons.

Wise words indeed. The fact is that Islam has forbidden capturing and imprisoning a free man. The following hadith supports this view:

But once again, you wont see any of the anti-Islamists posting this Hadith. Why? Because it is not available on the hate sites.
To finish off this part of my post, I would like to quote Kly the article "The African-American Muslim Minority: 1776-1900":

Let’s look at some more quotes you wont see the anti-Islamists posting:

If a Muslim beats his slave or slaps him on the face, then he must set him free:

Now let’s look at the treatment of slaves in the Bibl because some people think that it was Christianity that abolished slavery and that it does not support slavery. Apart from the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia it was abundant among every religious group there, especially Christianity and Judaism, there are some verses from the Bible which are “interesting”:

Salves in the Bible are not to be liberated but are to be passed down from generation to generation. Where is the idea about freeing slaves as we see in Islam? Interesting isn’t it?

The enslaved Africans were also Muslims. Which is one of the reasons that they were enslaved. The other reaons being that Africa contained great Muslim scholars and universities and ofcourse those were also plundered.

Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) justified human slavery on the basis of the 10th commandment. It places slaves:

In the end, you might want to read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm?once=true&

 

Moderator's Note: Please do not continue to post long diatribes of propaganda. They will be deleted. If anyone has any questions regarding this moderator note, please PM me. Metadiscussion in-thread will be deleted.

 

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

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

What, precisely, is the image of the slave in the Western world. Much is made of this supposed distinction. Yet, can Arselan distinguish for me the role of villein and serf, or of slavery and indentury? What was the history of slavery in 13th century Europe? What became of slaves in England during this period, say? Are you perhaps unaware of the purchase of freedom by slaves (either of land or body) in the Western world also? Your information on the subject appears to spring from a monumental ignorance. 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"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah - the evil idolaters.

It isn't a threat to Christianity historically, or in the present?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Proof please? Your comprehension of the legalities of slavery in Europe leave much to be desired.

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.

Did their 1400 years of delay amount to concern for their own posts in the ministry, then?

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.

I suppose all the mentions of taking slaves in the Quran was meant to fool the haters, then. Yet, as I've said before: slavery persists in islam, but not in other religions. Why is this? Are the Sudanese and Saudis reading the same Quran as you, or a different one? Do you realize also that your post, above, disagrees with your admission that slaves were taken of free men, since you prattle about the rules for doing so?

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.

Which ones? The ones enslaved by Arabs from the Middle East (a practice that continues today in the Sudan) or the ones enslaved by Americans? The answer: neither. You might argue the Sudan, I suppose. But where are your proofs for these statements? What great universities were pillaged in the slave-taking raids? Surely you must have some idea which these were.

Which is one of the reasons that they were enslaved. The other reaons being that Africa contained great Muslim scholars and universities and ofcourse those were also plundered.[/QUOTE]

 

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.

 

Aren't you deluded by beliefs in superstitions surrounding the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god? Shouldn't you already know the answers to these questions?

 

SkinWalker, I am bringing this thread back on topic so that we may understand Islamic thought on this subject. Islamic beliefs are not the same as Judeo-Christian beliefs. So lets please stay on topic.

Also if we ignore the off-topic posts on slavery, this thread has thus far been free of personal or religious attacks. Please take your prejudices and ad hominems elsewhere.

 

These are not ad hominem attacks since they are attacking the premises of your superstitions and not the person. Moreover, if we can agree that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is one and the same (which it clearly is from any etic view of the mythology) then we can also assume that the requirements for attaining any superstitious status, such as heaven/paradise (the same concept), would be similar or at least have a common progenitor in the evolution of their respective mythologies.

That you take offense to my etic perspective is your own problem. This is a science message board and religions in this forum should be treated scientifically and not simply accepted as "matters of fact" since, clearly, they are not.