(by the way, for others: more generally, fruits and vegetables are halal, rice, wheat, milk, etc are halal - the word 'halal' means permissible, it's not only about humane treatment of animals, and is not some extremely difficult thing to live by as rehman tries to mislead into believing)
What I was trying to say was that Zabiha meat may in some ways be considered more 'humane' in theory, but we have no proof that this is perfectly practiced in zabiha farms. We do have reason to believe that it isn't, however, because doing so would be both cost and time inefficient. You don't have to tell me the purpose of everything, I already know why zabiha is supposed to be considered more humane. Let's not get too carried away by this, this is not a main part of my discussion. It was just an example of some of the unnecessary obligations in Islam. I don't know where you live, but I live somewhere where I have to drive at least 15-20km to have access to any halal food, which granted isn't "extremely hard", but it is an unnecessary nuisance.
I'm not the one trying to mislead people, you're the one trying so hard to make people think there are no flaws in Islam when there clearly are, as I will continue to discuss.
People here do know that all non-Muslims are not evil or deserving of hell.
Ok, let me elaborate more on the word "non-Muslim". A "non-Muslim" is someone who doesn't believe in Allah/does shirk (i.e. believes he has a son etc), and/or doesn't believe in the Day of Judgement and/or Prophet Muhammad as the last messenger. zeinab94 has posted a verse that is very self-contradictory to the one I posted, but let's assume the other one was taken out of context. Even in this verse, it is necessary for the person to be 1) A Christian who doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God. 2) A Jew. What about Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Atheists? You really shouldn't need me to 'prove' to you the consequences of even the tiniest bit of shirk, or are you going to go and accuse me of refusing to accept your "clear" answers again?
And I'm not making assumptions, you said so yourself in your initial posts.
It would be nice if I managed to convince someone that Islam is a lie and they don't need to live in constant fear anymore, but this is not why I am here.
Similarly there r Jews who meet the same requirements,, and no doubt there r people of other faiths who also do the same,, for eg following the same fundermental principles as the Quran commands,,
The most fundamental of which is that absolutely no shirk is allowed. Which brings us back to where we started? What about people who do commit shirk, which is theoretically every single non-Muslim. What you and aliasghark are trying to do here is describing a Muslim and then saying he is in fact non-Muslim. Like a Christian that doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God, and follows all the fundamental rules of the Quran. Can he really be called a Christian then?
as for the story u quoted,, i have heard similar stories,, Allah created us and He wants us to cover our beauty,, you NEED to understand Islam better to understand that story,, Quran tells us that he made us Equal,, u have to also know that this life is a trial,,
Again, the brutal punishments aren't justified. The Quran doesn't in fact give men and women equal status. That comes from Hadith and other sources which obviously all come from 'dubious' sources.
"Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them.
Allah is Mighty, Wise." (2:228)
This is the Pickthall translation. Other translations put something like "in responsibilty" in brackets, again emphasizing that "scholars" just twist and interpret the verses any way they want that makes the raw text sound more justifiable.
"Men are in charge of women
, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other
, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart
, and scourge them
. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." (4:34)
You will not find a single verse where women are allowed to 'punish' their husbands in any way. This is the one of the clearest verses you can get from the Quran, I don't know how you can twist it and turn it into something that fits the situation.
Ignoring the rest of your silly comments for now:
So right on the first post, when no one else had posted, I've been refusing to accept rational discussion. Cheers to that logic.
Excuse me? Can you explain what you meant in this paragraph? It makes hardly any sense as it is right now.
Or do you refuse to make any sense out of it?
1) The western media thinks Islam oppresses women.
2) You refuse to shake hands with a women, by telling her "my religion doesn't allow me to touch unrelated women".
3) What is the logical conclusion a non-Muslim would make from this? (a) Islam really does give strange treatment to women (
Wow! I have always felt like I was being objectified when I shook hands with a man! Islam rules!
4) They will have a more negative view of Islam (provided you chose (a) above)
5) They will be less likely to convert to Islam (or stop believing Jesus is the son of God if they are Christian), hence more likely to go to hell.
This is only a problem when you are living in western society. In the Islamic community, the non mahram male and female do not shake hands and it is not expected for them to shake hands. And it hasn't been a problem for Muslims for at least a thousand year.
BTW, this is not just a problem with Islam. Even the hasidic Jews living in USA wont shake the hands of opposite gender. And if I am not mistaken even the Christian Amish don't shake the hands of opposite gender.
So, you think the problem is only with Islam?
And there are many Muslims who live in the western society. I obviously never needed to shake hands with a women when I was in Qatar, but now I live here and its the norm. I've also shook hands with Jewish women (sounds like I'm on a hand-shaking escapade).
No I'm not saying the problem is with Islam. My problem is with all religions.
EDIT: The information here on was edited on, I forgot to reply to the rest of the comments. I haven't changed any of the above.
- do you believe that Muslims should only stick to what is mentioned in the Quran, and not learn from anything from anywhere else?
What other choice to we have when every other source is 'dubious'?
in Islam we also believe that animals r important,, so in verse (27:18-19) there is a story to it,, Prophet Soloman AS was walking,, there was ants on the ground,, the main ant was telling the rest of the ants to go into their whole so the Prophet doesnt step on them,, then the Prophet smilled on what he saw,, because he would never step on Allah creation,, then he tells Allah to order him to be grateful for what he has,,
So this is just a children's fairy tale that didn't really happen as it was told, but in actuality it was just a bunch of ants moving around? The point is scientifically ants can't "talk", certainly not to people.
There are those who are learned enough and don't do the taqleed. They are not non-Muslims, as you claimed above.
To qualify for that, you don't just need to read a few things from here and there so that anyone can be exempt from taqleed. You have to dedicate your entire life to Islam, as the maraajas do.
I was under the taqleed of Ayatullah Sistani (who I'm sure you agree is one of the greatest Shia scholars, don't say this is another ridiculous source). I can't find a ruling for apostacy in his books, but I found this:
If they are serious and intend to slander Allah (s.w.t.), the Prophet (S), the Imams (a.s.), religion or school of law (madhhab) and persist in this.
The ruling upon them is death. (FM, p. 419)
This is in his book "Contemporary Legal Rulings", under Mueamalat (Part 8).
Rehman do you even know Arabic?
I can read, and write, and having lived in the middle east for some time, can also understand the basics. But what do you mean do I even
know Arabic? Is it ridiculous to be a Muslim and not know Arabic?
The point of the sentence you quoted was that rehman claims he wants answers to questions, but in reality refuses the answers we provide
No, the fact of the matter is that you think that every answer you provide is a "clear and rational" explanation to all my questions. When I provide a legitimate counter-argument, you say I refuse to accept rational discussion.
I don't want to talk about you specifically (and make it a personal attack), but more generally, there are a few other reasons I can think of why everyone is not a Muslim. The most easy one is - it can be that people haven't studied Islam more deeply than than the typical news soundbites (terrorism! cult! outdated! arabs! islamists! bin laden! evil! outdated! iran! bombs!).
I think the point he made was very valid, and you are just trying to escape rational discussion. He says he read the Quran cover to cover, and didn't find it particularly impressive or the ultimate answer to all of humanity's problems (which Muslims claim it is). What would be to go deeper than that? Read books of Ahadith? What about the fact that these all come from ridiculous sources? Books on commentary of the Quran? Is this not just one person's interpretation of the words in the Quran that can be twisted into an entirely different explanation by another person? The truth is the deepest one should need to go in the study of Islam is read it in its raw form. If it was really a book for all of mankind, it wouldn't need a philosopher to decrypt its code.
Edited by rehman, 08 March 2012 - 04:08 PM.