Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

[Closed/Review]I Am A Revert, Could You Please Help?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 4/5/2014 at 12:13 AM, baradar_jackson said:

Since CLynn has apparently taken his ball and gone home, I am going to pose a question to him to coax him back into posting in this thread:

I am assuming you are not Catholic. What is your stance on the Catholic Church's insistence upon making priests take a vow of celibacy?

Is the pastor or reverend at your local church, married?

Greetings Baradar_,

Yes, I believe man(or woman) comes closer to God when he is able to defeat the desires of the flesh.  The desires of the flesh are a distraction from the purity of communion with God.  I believe that the duties of a husband are a distraction from committed attention and devotion to God.  It is not possible to give oneself fully to God, and at the same time fully to family duties.  One or the other must give way to the other.  A man devoted to God, while at once being good and Godly to his family, is also at the same time selfish and reserved from them, due to his time given to God.  I think it is hard to divide the passions, so that neither one receives the fullness of devotion that they deserve, or one receives while the other is deprived of fullness.  

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.  (St. Paul, these were the things which Paul himself realized)

man can not serve both God and mammon(the flesh, the things of the world - this is not an exact interpretation but it has come to be my understanding)

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (the words of Yshwe)

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (the words of St. Paul)

10 His disciples say unto Him(Yshwe), If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But He said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.  (from the book of Matthew, the words of Yshwe)

and as St. Paul writes to the Corinthians:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[i believe this is where Muhammad gets some of his teachings from]

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

[again, some of Muhammad's teaching]

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn[with lust].

I believe these are the teachings from which the practices derived.

I see the benefits of both scenarios, which is why I do not reject, or have a problem with both observances of faith.  A man married may have better understanding of the trials of his flock... so while not as close to God, he is still able to be a good shepherd.  I think we need both... those who remain close to God, to guide those who remain close to mankind.

Salaam and blessings to you,

CLynn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Ali Musaaa,

It wasn't the op that I was responding to. It was your statement.

Examine your statement... examine your thoughts... examine your heart...

Why would you say do this to non-muslim female? Why not muslim female?

What does it say about your thoughts... your heart?

asalaam.

Because they disrespect non-muslim women. Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/5/2014 at 9:24 PM, PureEthics said:

Wow really? I find this post HIGHLY offensive. How can you generalize all of us? I see your spirituality has taken you far :no:

Greetings PureEthics,

Perhaps they only meant the one who posted the comment.

asalaam,

CLynn

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/5/2014 at 10:24 PM, eThErEaL said:

If I was generalizing then I would be included in there too. But about my spirituality (or lack thereof)... That is none of your concern. :).

It is my concern, for we are one. You are my brother as is mankind. We must care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^^^ Some muslim women should also be upset about this scenario we're discussing. I expect that, most strongly. Why? See, in this age, the educated young women share a secret mentality. They don't want their prized bulls going to free pastures, especially the educated and wealthier ones. Mutah and mutah with western women totally trumps their deathgrip over todays monstrous abomination of a ugly arduous contract absurdly misnamed "marriage", which was instead a pure covenant made by none but God when he wed Eve to Adam and is a hell lot more simple and human.

How will the women exploit their merits and the resulting high prices their husbands have to pay and obey their system if men instead hit the gold mine of mutah. Its like big oil's doom at the hands of solar power and water powered vehicles. Not only will they have to come down to earth but they will have to have more attractions like love and caring and servitude to the husbands. Oh my god, did I mention love and servitude? But oh well I am a chauvinistic man pig (and proud of it). No longer will sex be their bargaining chip. Because even after marriage, mutah will obsolete the method of training your husband by the tested and true method of sexual starvation and have him fall on his knees.

Do you see children how heinous a world we live in.

@magma: Bro you are correct and I stand by my observation. Isn't it simple? Of course a Catholic would absolutely hate mutah with the lamb, sheep, children and lost children of their flock. After the knowledge that God's religion is actually very, very simple and rather strictly nature friendly, made for our ease, all those men and women are never ever going to want to be a nun or monk! Do you SEE?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/6/2014 at 11:02 AM, Qa said:

@some, Let's not be so confrontational in our da`wa.

Here we see the clash of two approaches to God. In Christianity, sexual relations as a whole are seen as a worldly temptation that distracts one from the worship of God. CLynn said that one cannot be fully devoted to his family and to God at the same time. In Islam, devotion to your family is devotion to God. There is a recognition in Islam that sex is a lot like eating food, drinking water, and sleeping at night - it keeps people functioning. However, all things have regulations. I cannot eat forbidden foods, and I shouldn't eat/drink in excess. Likewise, sex is only had in controlled circumstances - marriage. In Islam, following these regulations is a form of worship of God, even if they benefit me in this life as well. While the Islamic approach is more "convenient" or even "natural", Christians see it as a lower state of mind. But Muslims would say here that celibacy is not a higher state of mind, because it cuts out a human need that Allah has instilled in us.

Can he have a different view without labeling one of our forms of marriage as prostitution?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 4/7/2014 at 3:56 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings Abu Hadi,

I only say how I see things.  I don't say it to offend.  Only to share a viewpoint.

It is no different than when muslims call Christians idolators or polytheist, because that is how they view things.

I only say my view, to say, do not judge the rest of the world, when you have your own ways of getting around things.  The difference is that those in other parts know that what they are doing is immoral... not a thing approved by God.  There are no excuses for it.  In fact I have come to think that it is quite possible, and likely, that this idea of mutah has been a contributing factor to decline of morality and ways that used to exist in the west.  From a western viewpoint, for one unfamiliar with islam, since they observe muslims with no qualms about not marrying, and having children without the benefit of marriage as defined by the state...

As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and the Galatians;

“A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty.

He wrote to the Thessalonians;

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

just as Yshwe Himself had taught;

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

  If others can do it, so can I, mentality takes over.

I am interested to know,

Where did the idea of mutah come from?  Did it come from qur'an?

Salaam and blessings,

CLynn

I guess that's a 'No'. Unfortunate, but not unexpected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/7/2014 at 5:55 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings Abu Hadi,

Would anyone apologize for their own personal view that Christians are idolators or polytheist's?

Aren't we each and everyone of us allowed to share our own views so that we may learn to understand one another?

I am sorry that you take offense to my view, but my view of the matter has not as yet, changed.

Peace,

CLynn

Do you have the answer to my question... Does the idea of mutah come from the Qur'an?

asalaam.

The difference is that Muslims don't run into a Church/Christian board and call them Prostitutes/Goons/Killers etc. or else they would ban them or kick them out of Church. But you go into a Muslim board/country and insult and then expect them to not respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/7/2014 at 5:55 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings Abu Hadi,

Would anyone apologize for their own personal view that Christians are idolators or polytheist's?

Aren't we each and everyone of us allowed to share our own views so that we may learn to understand one another?

I am sorry that you take offense to my view, but my view of the matter has not as yet, changed.

Peace,

CLynn

Do you have the answer to my question... Does the idea of mutah come from the Qur'an?

asalaam.

Theres a verse in Sura Nisa which talks about deriving pleasure (istamta'tum) from marriage; but theres been differing opinions over whether this is actually a reference to temporary marriage or just a reference to the general pleasures of permanent marriage. Shias are unanimous its about mut'a though. 

Both sunnis and shias agree it was legal in the beginning of the Prophet's ministry; sunnis however believe it was only a temporary thing (no pun intended) that was abrogated as muslims matured. We believe it was never abrogated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/7/2014 at 9:11 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings Darth,

You make comment about animal behavior in relation to 'non-believing'.

Would you please share thoughts on the following surah;

4:20  And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would ye take it by the way of calumny and open wrong ?

To me 'money' and 'women' do not belong in the same sentence.  To me, such a thing only degrades morality.

And if you can 'exchange one wife for another', how is this any different that going from one relationship to another, or what you call 'free sex'?  And even worse when it is for money.  Why does your god allow 'animal behavior'?

asalaam,

CLynn

This is talking about divorce and dowry. 

...im not sure whether you're saying divorce is animalistic. This actually discouraged divorce as you cannot take back anything from the dowry of a former wife. That's a good chunk of your money permanently gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I thought this was an open forum for discussion and exchange of ideas.

It clearly is. Therefore you have the Christian subforum, if you have something to complain about Muslim faith. There are other Christian brothers and sisters here as well, but they don't give advice on Muslim issues and if they criticize or get into dialogue they do it in their subforum. Same goes for Sunni brothers, and people of other belief. I don't go on a Catholic board and give advise to Catholics about how bad their faith is - I mean you should be restricted to the Christian forum when you have complaints - if you have something good to say - which was not the case in this topic - you can of course post elsewhere, but please do never give advice on Islamic Fiqh, especially not on a Muslim board, as long as you are Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/7/2014 at 3:56 PM, CLynn said:

I only say how I see things.  I don't say it to offend.  Only to share a viewpoint.

It is no different than when muslims call Christians idolators or polytheist, because that is how they view things.

First of all, this is nonsense. This is based on your own imaginings and perceptions, imposed upon one billion Muslims as a blanket truth.

It's like you calling me foul-mouthed and me responding by bringing up the US invasion of Afghanistan. These are completely unrelated issues.

Muslims, by and large, don't call Christians idolators or polytheists. And guess what: the marriages of Christians and the marriages of Jews are recognized as marriages in Islamic shari'ah. So for example, in Iran (or any country governed by Islamic law) if there are two Christians who are married to each other, they are not arrested for soliciting prostitutes. :wacko:

So your analogy is nonsensical firstly because it's not an analogy and secondly because it is not true.

And you have implicitly called a lot of women (of different religious backgrounds) [Edited Out]s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Also, I would like to add that those who call Christians polytheists are talking about those Christians, who despite having knowledge of things like this

http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396949326&sr=1-1&keywords=how+jesus+became+god

Still worship Jesus(a.s) as God (astaghfirallah and authobillah). 

This is a subset of Christians, and this really only applies to a small percentage of them. And we have evidence and logic to back up the claim that the Christians who do this, despite knowledge are engaging in polytheism

When you compare mutah with prostitution, you are making the assertion that women who do this (muslim and non muslim women) are engaging in prostitution although you have no evidence that mutah is in any way similar to prostitution, and you haven't brought any evidence, as usual, So this is slander against those women, some of whom are Christian. You owe those women an apology for slandering them, and since you believe in accountability before God(s.w.a), know that you will be held accountable for those words that you type, if not in this world than in the next. 

It is better for you if you make some attempt to rectify this act of slander. That is all I was saying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/8/2014 at 1:54 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings baradar_,

I agree, but there are a few who do see Christians this way, and I see that they are allowed to express their view even though it may be offensive to Christians to do so...

but as I said, I agree with you... I was not implying that all Muslims see it this way.  Thank you for letting me clear this up.

asalaam,

CLynn

CLynn, this analogy doesn't work.

You are taking a belief of certain Muslims toward Christians (and its supposed "acceptance") and using that to justify that your belief towards Islamic marriage as worthy of acceptance. Here is why it is wrong:

1) You are being too vague. You need to first point to where any of the Muslims here on SC have referred to Christians as idolators, and then also establish that such a view was "accepted." (i.e. were there a large number of people agreeing with him/her or defending the statement? Were there no people arguing against this point? etc...)

You have not done any of that. You just made this vague statement implying that Muslims are prejudiced and thus deserving of prejudice.

2) Completely disregarding #1... Let's imagine that Islam's (and Muslims') stance toward Christianity as one of complete and total rejection. Let's imagine that all of us Muslims reject Christianity as a divinely revealed religion, reject the past prophets, etc... (which is absurd to begin with, but let's just imagine this scenario anyway). That doesn't under any circumstance justify your statement.

Prostitution has a specific definition and parameter.

Temporary Islamic marriage also has specific definitions and parameters.

The former does not meet the requirements of the latter, and vice versa. No amount of Muslim prejudice that you assume exists, changes this undeniable fact.

If you were to come with reasons and evidences to support this notion, at least we could bring counterpoints. But you didn't. You just called it prostitution because you felt like it, and were not able to back it up. That's the problem here. And you can try to relate this to Japanese feudalism or the history of the US post office or any other irrelevant issues as much as you'd like, but that doesn't validate your initial accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/8/2014 at 10:06 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings notme,

In some ways yes.  Christian marriages used to require dowry too, once upon a time, before enlightenment.  Not so many generations ago women married for the money and shelter that a man could provide, because she could not provide it for herself... was not allowed to own property... and intimacy with her husband was a 'duty' that she performed.

asalaam,

CLynn

I am often lost for words reading some of your posts.  :no:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 4/8/2014 at 11:58 PM, CLynn said:

Greetings notme,

It sort of depends on how you want to look at it. Is it a requirement as in, of a purchase, or is it given as a gift of the heart?

Would it be just as pleasing to accept a proposal of marriage that did not come with a ring? I think if it is the marriage that is desired... if it is a matter of love... the ring is superfluous, i.e., unnecessary. I do not think that love should come with a price tag. With commitment, yes. With ability to provide, yes. But not with 'purchase price'.

asalaam,

CLynn

Ah, then you must be unaware that the mahr (dowry) doesn't even have to be physical. A woman can ask that her husband teach her to recite Quran or speak Japanese. She can ask him to agree to read French poetry with her daily or buy her a house or a diamond ring. Whatever the two agree on is a perfectly valid bride-price. It is a ritual gift, but that doesn't mean it can't come from the heart. Does that still sound like prostitution to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@CLynn: The verse you quoted is about dowry as someone already pointed out. Dowry is an ancient custom and yes indeed Islam did not replace it with a euphoric and super natural new thang designed according to your individual wishes. God has to think about everyone instead. Whats so wrong about there being "money and women in the same sentence" any way? Would you rather that there be no dowry (which is like a insurance and its amount can be set as per wishes of the woman)? Divorces happen. Would you rather that a divorced woman be left with nothing, not even bus fare or insurance money of an amount of her choosing, with which she can move on with her life? See how God is defending your rights and commanding to be polite with women:

4:19 O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.

4:20 And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

4:21 And how can you take it when one of you has already gone in to the other and they have made with you a firm covenant?

Now that is the one God, the author of Quran, the noble Creator, the Sovereign, free of your indecencies. Who are you any way to say anything, anything at all, when your god(s) in your book(s) permit manifest incest, beside intoxicants and everything? Really. 

Genesis 19: (King James Version~)

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Seriously, what do you know of morality or piety or righteousness or marriage or legalities of things. Don't get me started. I want to write a lot of things but I won't. Suffice it to say that it is a blessing that no daughter has to be like the bible's Lot's daughters. The bible, a book with 1900+ versions, tailored by pagan kings to their amusements. And that is exactly why you people are what you are today. Its your own fault and nobody else's. So I suggest you correct your bearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Greetings Darth_,

Thank you for your reply. You are free to choose what seems best for you.

Regarding Genesis that you quoted above...

Do you really think this is a thing 'God permitted'?

This is only a historical recording of the terrible ways in which the people behaved.

As far as your statement;

"exactly why you people are what you are today."

Wow. Really.

You have quoted a history from the old testament. God sent a new testament, and that is the testament that Christians are meant to follow. If they do not follow it, they are just like Muslims, or Jews, or anyone else, that does not follow their teaching. There are many like that in any group of people, no matter what religion they claim.

Peace to you,

CLynn

so god brought a book called the Old Testament for "Christians" to follow. Then later vetoed it and was like wait a minute im practically misguiding all the other Christians so here is the New Testament?

Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/9/2014 at 12:51 AM, CLynn said:

Greetings Darth_,

Thank you for your reply.  You are free to choose what seems best for you.

Regarding Genesis that you quoted above...

Do you really think this is a thing 'God permitted'?

This is only a historical recording of the terrible ways in which the people behaved.

As far as your statement;

"exactly why you people are what you are today."

Wow.  Really.

You have quoted a history from the old testament.  God sent a new testament, and that is the testament that Christians are meant to follow.  If they do not follow it, they are just like Muslims, or Jews, or anyone else, that does not follow their teaching.  There are many like that in any group of people, no matter what religion they claim.

Peace to you,

CLynn

Lot is a prophet and representative of God, not an ancient savage who practiced terrible things. Or do you really think he willfully drank himself to unconsciousness with alcohol served by his daughters? And God didn't send any more angels that time to warn him and protect him of incest? Its funny and probably written and added by a western sodomite monarch, ironic, that on one hand God, His angels and His prophet determine complete cleansing of a city the crime of its people being sodomy, and then a few hours later, that night, all is silent and okey dokey as incestual orgy takes place. What sort of blasphemy and illogic is that. You think that is right? Of course you are full of explanations. Its what you do. And I have many more issues I would rather not bring up for the sake of respecting decency in this community discussion forum and knowing better, I'm not even going to debate and bring up all the pornography in your bible and present statistics about your people. It would similarly be in vain if I post a recent news article that the US catholic church paid 3 bn $ for the sexual adventures of its employees during 2004 to 2014. You have never ending excuses to every thing, and I have better things to take care of. I've made my point. Those sitting in house made of glass, especially a really thin glass that can break on its own with the passing of wind, do not throw stones at others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...