skyfacts
Blocked
Types of concepts our ISLAM teaches us.
>DEEN ME KOI JABBAR NAHI.
>Teach NAMAZ to your son when he got 7yrs of age. And punish him physically by not offering NAMAZ when he got 10 yrs of age. (Narration of a HADEESE MUBARAKA).
Borai ko hath se roko ,nahi, tho zaban se roko,agar ye bhi nahi ker sakthy tho dil me usko burai kaho,k ye iman ka buhut kamzor darja he..(Narration of a HADEESE MUBARAKA).
Pl comment on these concepts to get a final result of this CONTROVERCIAL ISSUE.
IJay
member
Well its up to you
you can see half glass empty or half glass full!
APP_KA_BAAP
Member
yaar i think we dont have to discuss it.
first its a hadees and second we are not muftes.
all i belive that if islam says "NO" to some thing, then its a no.
NNL
member
then how will u learn Islam
Guys we need to study and understand Islam and Quran. It is our duty to understand on our own. Dont leave the Deen to the Mullahs.
The first people to believe in Islam learnt every aspect of Islam they didnt leave to a few people. to tell htem.
the only reason we are in a miserable state is that we have left the Deen for the Mullahs.
to be honest, the above mentioned ahadees e mubaraka are not for external elements of islam....cause if you beat someone to make salat, the person wont do it internally and in quran, those who do salat only externally are cursed in two ayats....
so my understanding is that, this hadees refers to internalization of imaan....but unfortunately the so called bad people of islam whom we call molvi's they use these ahadees to generate support for physical violence...
my understanding is totally different of these holy words...I belive if a child of age does not start internalizing energies called iman, then a bit of , a tiny bit of toughness has to be shown....
Mulla!
I might be wrong in my understanding so do not go mad at my understanding and try to see it in the light i am seeing things..
skyfacts
Blocked
DEEN ME KOI JABAR NAHI ,LAIKIN ISLAM ME HE.
DEEN MAY BE ANYONE(hinduism,islam,christianity),BUT ISLAM IS THE ONE OF SUCH DEEN.
DEEN MAY KOI JABBAR NAHI,means
that dont try forcefully to turn any one from his deen towards ISLAM.(deen means not only islam,deen means any religion in the world,hinduism,islam,christianity,they are all DEENS).
But as it is clear from above that JABBAR AND PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IS IN ISLAM.(TO OBEY FRAIZ OR SUNNAH OR FOR CRIMES).
ucsher
Member
A RELATIVELY BIGGER EXAMPLE OF JABBAR!
In islam if a non-muslim converts to islam (using his free will,logic, intellect) and then converts into some other religion (using the same principle) he is wajib-ul-qatal and in fact hazrat umar (MAY GOD BE PLEASED WITH HIM) even killed a person for the same reason
Now what i can't understand is that you never mind (in fact you encourage) when a person uses his free will and logic to enter into islam but once he is in islam you actually put a restriction on that very CHARACTERISTIC (i.e free will and logic )of his which was actually the means of getting him in to islam in the first place!
Moreover, you are so strict & stubborn about the whole thing that you don't even hesitate one bit to declare that person "wajib-ulqatal"
now what is it if not double standards & a typical example of "might is right?"
NNL
member
OK i wont ask you questions which may bring you to say something that you might regret. (i.e regarding Hazrat Umar RA decision.
Just one question
What exactly do you know about the Punishment of an Apostate?
how
Why
When
Fahim23
Member
That is very intresting topic to discuss. For the sake of discussion I would also like to ask following question.
1. Is it ok to force the child to take medication.
2. Is it ok to force the children and punish him/her if he is not going to school.
3. Is it ok to force/punish the children to offer prayer?
I think explaining first two questions and convincing even to children is easy. But you need faith to convince others or be convinced that if you are praying you will be rewarded in after life.
In my knowledge prophet PBUH never hit slap or hit any child. And I don't support slapping the children but I support to force them to do good things by other means like cut in pocket money, hug n kiss boycott etc!
ucsher
Member
@NNL
why don't you enlighten me instead of asking a question in reply?
ucsher
Member
The Problem of the Apostate's Execution from a Legal Perspective
To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record. All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.
Some people have been influenced by the so-called enlightenment of the present age to the point that they have opened the door to contrary thoughts on such proven issues. Their daring is truly very astonishing. They have not considered that if doubts arise even about such matters which are supported by such a continuous and unbroken series of witnesses, this state of affairs will not be confined to one or two problems. Hereafter anything whatever of a past age which has come down to us through verbal tradition will not be protected from doubt, be it the Qur'an or ritual prayer (namaz) or fasting (roza). It will come to the point that even Muhammad's mission to this world will be questioned. In fact a more reasonable way for these people, rather than creating doubt of this kind, would have been to accept as fact what is fact and is proven through certified witnesses, and then to consider whether or not to follow the religion which punishes the apostate by death. The person who discovers any established or wholesome element of his religion to conflict with his intellectual standards and then tries to prove that this element is not really a part of the religion, already proves that his affliction is such that, "You cannot become a kafir (infidel); since there is no other choice, become a Muslim" (kafer natavani shod nachar Musalman sho). In other words, though his manner of thought and outlook has deviated from the true path of his religion, he insists on remaining in it only because he has inherited it from his forefathers.
A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the "mawlawis" (religious leaders) on their own.
God Most High declares in the Qur'an:
But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief -- Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]
The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2]
B. Proof from the Hadith (Canonical Tradition) for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate
After the Qur'an we turn to the Hadith. This is the command of the Prophet:
1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him.[3]
This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.
2. Abdullah ibn Masud reports:
The Messenger of God stated: In no way is it permitted to shed the blood of a Muslim who testifies that "there is no god except God" and "I am the Apostle of God" except for three crimes: a. he has killed someone and his act merits retaliation; b. he is married and commits adultery; c. he abandons his religion and is separated from the community.[4]
3. Aisha reports:
The Messenger of God stated that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim other than for the following reasons: a. although married, he commits adultery or b. after being a Muslim he chooses kufr, or c. he takes someone's life.[5]
4. Uthman reports:
I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three situations: a. a person who, being a Muslim, becomes a kafir; b. one who after marriage commits adultery; c. one who commits murder apart from having an authorization to take life in exchange for another life.[6]
Uthman further reports:
I heard the Messenger of God saying that it is unlawful to shed the blood of a Muslim with the exception of three crimes: a. the punishment of someone who after marriage commits adultery is stoning; b. retaliation is required against someone who intentionally commits murder; c. anyone who becomes an apostate after being a Muslim should be punished by death.[7]
All the reliable texts of history clearly prove that Uthman, while standing on the roof of his home, recited this tradition before thousands of people at a time when rebels had surrounded his house and were ready to kill him. His argument against the rebels was based on the point of this tradition that apart from these three crimes it was unlawful to put a Muslim to death for a fourth crime, "and I have committed none of these three. Hence after killing me, you yourself will be found guilty." It is evident that in this way this tradition became a clear argument in favour of Uthman against the rebels. Had there been the slightest doubt about the genuineness of this tradition, hundreds of voices would have cried out: "Your statement is false or doubtful!" But not even one person among the whole gathering of the rebels could raise an objection against the authenticity of this tradition.
5. Abu Musa Ashari reports:
The Prophet appointed and sent him (Abu Musa) as governor of Yemen. Then later he sent Muadh ibn Jabal as his assistant. When Muadh arrived there, he announced: People, I am sent by the Messenger of God for you. Abu Musa placed a cushion for him to be comfortably seated.
Meanwhile a person was presented who previously had been a Jew, then was a Muslim and then became a Jew. Muadh said: I will not sit unless this person is executed. This is the judgement of God and His Messenger. Muadh repeated the statement three times. Finally, when he was killed, Muadh sat.[8]
It should be noted that this incident took place during the blessed life of the Prophet. At that time Abu Musa represented the Prophet as governor and Muadh as vice-governor. If their action had not been based on the decision of God and His Messenger, surely the Prophet would have objected.
6. Abdullah ibn Abbas reports:
Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was at one time secretary to the Messenger of God. Then Satan seized him and he joined the kuffar. When Mecca was conquered the Messenger of God ordered that he be killed. Later, however, Uthman sought refuge for him and the Messenger of Allah gave him refuge.[9]
We find the commentary on this last incident in the narration of Sad ibn Abi Waqqas:
When Mecca was conquered, Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abi Sarh took refuge with Uthman ibn Affan. Uthman took him and they presented themselves to the Prophet, requesting: O Messenger of God, accept the allegiance of Abdullah. The Prophet lifted his head, looked in his direction and remained silent. This happened three times and he (the Prophet) only looked in his direction. Finally after three times he accepted his allegiance. Then he turned towards his Companions and said: Was there no worthy man among you who, when he saw me withholding my hand from accepting his allegiance, would step forward and kill this person? The people replied: O Messenger of God, we did not know your wish. Why did you not signal with your eyes? To this the Prophet replied: It is unbecoming of a Prophet to glance in a stealthy manner.[10]
7. Aisha narrates:
On the occasion of the battle of Uhud (when the Muslims suffered defeat), a woman apostatized. To this the Prophet responded: Let her repent. If she does not repent, she should be executed.[11]
8. Jabir ibn Abdullah narrates:
A woman Umm Ruman (or Umm Marwan) apostatized. Then the prophet ordered that it would be better that she be offered Islam again and then repent. Otherwise she should be executed.[12]
A second report of Bayhaqi with reference to this reads:
She refused to accept Islam. Therefore she was executed.
Islam is a very much like an opiate, which is a drug. And it is an extremely potent one. At a low dose, it may look innocuous and benign. But in overdose, it could bring catastrophe to human civilisation.
This drug is administered to the children when they are at very tender age. Most addicts of this drug never escape from its tight grip. The only victims who detoxify themselves are those who, at a later part in their lives, come in contact with other philosophical ideas like secularism, freethinking, atheism, etc. But it is not that simple for the Islamic drug addicts to free his /her mind and accept other ideas so readily which, for believers of other religions is so easy to do. The reason for this is that to release oneself from the bondage of this terrible narcotic, one must die. This is the terrible price one has to pay to get hooked on Islam and later trying to free himself/herself from its bondage.
ucsher
Member
@peterpan73
that's some metaphorical knowledge that you are dishing out here!
though i would have loved it had you been more argumentative in your approach rather than just giving such sweeping statements! ;)
Fahim23
Member
@peterpan
Normally I like your posts but I think this time you get carried away by something. Free thinking, reasoning and logic are not discouraged by Islam. On the contrary IMO Islam is probably the only religion which succeded in making scientific approach part of human faith.
Beside philosophical ideas and free thikning are not peculiar to only Secular or atheist minds.
"Everything" not just religion in Overdose is dangerous.
skyfacts
Blocked
@peterpan773
You are right theoratically as for as Islam is concerned.
Sayings of the ISLAM are,
MOMINO ISLAM ME POORY POORY DAKHIL HO JAWO.
DUNIYA MOMIN KA QIAD KHANA AUR KAFFIR KI JANNAT HE.
MUNAFIQ concept is the same as they accept some of the rules of islam and remains against the remaining rules.
The concept of the SHIDDAT PASANDI AND AITIDAAL PASANDI MAY ALSO BE LOOKED IN THE SAME.
ITS OPEN CHOICE WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE INTERNALLY IN ISLAM.
NNL
member
@Uscher my friend i asked you cos i wanted to know from whether i have to start from begining or not. My apologies if you found that a bit offensive wasnt the intention.
Clarification of the Original Law Regarding Apostates.
An Apostate who is deemed to be punishable by Death should have completed the following conditions.
1. He or She PUBLICLY DENOUNCES ISLAM after converting to Islam.
2. After given 3 days of consideration and all the questions raised by him be answered by the Leading Scholars still dont satisfy him.
3. If the Apostate wishes not change his stance and also keep up his public denouncement of Islam.
4. Apostate refuses to obey the laws of the State.
Misconceptions Regarding this Law.
1. The biggest or the main Misconception of this law is that its applicable everywhere. NO THIS LAW IS ONLY APPLICABLE IN AN ISLAMIC THEOCRATIC STATE where all the LAWS ARE BASED ON SHARIA. THIS LAW DOESNT APPLY TO APOSTATES LIVING IN NON-ISLAMIC COUNTRIES. ie. US, EU even Pakistan and Bangladesh. ( the only example where it can be applicable is KSA kingdom of Saudia Arabia.
2. The second biggest Misconception is that EVEN WITHIN THE ISLAMIC STATE THE APOSTATE WILL BE KILLED IF HE CHANGES. NO HE WONT BE KILLED. If he keeps this matter PRIVATE and not public he/she will be left alone. His/her change in religion if is not made a public issue and kept a private one then the State has no right to interfere in his private matters.
3. The problem that Non-Muslims have with the law of apostate is that there is no freedom. What they refuse to see is that AN ISLAMIC THEOCRATIC STATE the punishment of an Apostate is very much similiar to the punishment they have set up for a murder, robbery, serial killer or rapist.
Their argument to the above is that they can change those laws and we cant. Yes we dont change laws decreed by Allah SWT cos they have done that and look where they have landed themselves in.
Following Simpleton Muslims
Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.
MAy Allah (SWT) forgive me for my mistakes if i have made any in reproducing His Words.
NNL
member
Muslims always recheck the sources quoted by others as there is a whole lot of misinformation on Islam on a lot of websites.
NNL
member
Moreover the Critcs of the Muslim Apostasy Law need to be reminded that this Law is not only within Islam its also in Judaism and Christianity.
For references check Talmud and Bible.
ucsher
Member
Bro have you even read all those hadiths that i have quoted ?
Did any one of those incidents give you a slightest of idea as to whether there was ever even an attempt of taking in to consideration facts like THE ONES you have mentioned?
the only margin of error i see IN ALL THOSE INCIDENTS is that couple of them were given a chance to repent and regret their deeds (which is only a superficial thing or a black mail to be honest knowing that if a person won't do that then his/her life ends there and then)
for all i know repenting, feeling remorse, regretting something is completely and utterly an individualistic thing which takes place in an atmosphere where no other factors but one's conscience convinces an individual to re gain (do over) something that one relinquished previously!
WHEN ONE'S LIFE IS AT STAKE ALL ONE CAN DO IS A COMPROMISE, CALLING IT REPENTANCE OR SOMETHING ELSE WON'T CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WHOLE THING!
NNL
member
Did you pay attention to what i have written. IF the apostate had kept the matter private then He Muhammad SAW would have left him alone. ? Dont you think that ?
Do you think that we should not obey the Word of Allah and His Messenger SAW
Have you covered every aspect of the matter before making the assumption and making an Accusation on the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that he blackmailed people ?
Astaghfir-ullah
My friend the site from you have done a copy/pasting job is an anti Islamic site. But thats besides the point.
Do you question the Law itself ?
Do you hold the opinion that this Law of Allah is unjust and question the Judgement of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on his applying the law.
Are you questioning the Ways of Muhammad SAW
Which brings me to my final question
Are you even a Muslim.
THe final question had to be asked cos i m a bit shocked and confused here. Even after understanding and reading all the authentic sources you made the following opinion "the only margin of error i see IN ALL THOSE INCIDENTS is that couple of them were given a chance to repent and regret their deeds (which is only a superficial thing or a black mail to be honest knowing that if a person won't do that then his/her life ends there and then)" And you deem it as blackmail.
that was the shocker for me.
If you feel that the law is unjust then read the para i wrote
IF you feel that the law is against the "modern society" Then you need to know that Allah SWT's laws dont need to adapt to Society but its vice versa.
For me the Quran and Ahadiths are enough to conduct my life and society.
ucsher
Member
@NNL
[[[Do you question the Law itself ?
Do you hold the opinion that this Law of Allah is unjust and question the Judgement of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on his applying the law.
Are you questioning the Ways of Muhammad SAW
Which brings me to my final question
Are you even a Muslim.]]]
Why?, because a muslim can't call it as he/she sees it?
what's the point of having these good for nothing debates when all we are eventually gonna end-up doing is to question each others religious loyalties?
Either just simply accept the fact that any religion is a set of codes which one has to follow blindly and that islam is no different & you and me will be even... OR... stop being hell bent on proving islam and its laws logically and rationally.. because at the end of the day the best you gonna end up with is giving fatwas about people's religious loyalties like you did here!
The mere fact that you are resorting to sentimental questions like "are you even a muslim?" shows how badly your case would be exposed if you are fighting it on some inter-religious forum!
what are you gonna tell them if for instance they ask you a simple question like i did? ...that a muslim is not supposed to elaborate on islamic laws after a given point and once the going gets tough?...or that only a muslim can understand the islamic laws?
and btw i am a muslim ..its just that i happen to be a bit more curious & courageous for an average muslim who keeps going in circles calmly & blindly... just like a kohlo ka bail!
;)
@ucsher
After reading NNL posts, all I can say is
" Morality is doing right,regardless what you are told
Religous dogma is doing what you are told, no matter if it is right".
ucsher
Member
@peterpan
are you even a muslim?
;););)
@fahim.
My appologies. That was a bit too much.
NNL
member
@Uscher
Yes a muslim can have issues with his religion he can asks questions. But Should a person who claims to be a Muslim, go far as calling Muhammad SAW and His Companions (RA) as blackmailers is a bit of a stretch dont you think ?
Calling as it is with respect would have been a Muslim way.
Yes, My sentiments did get involved when i read your reply. Cos for me its quite impossible for me to believe that Muslim can imagine Muhammad (SAW) or his Companions to be a blackmailers. I could understand an atheist or christian making such an statement but for a Muslim that was a bit way too out there. Therefore i asked whether you were a Muslim. (as a basis to understand where you are coming from)
Insha Allah I can still explain to you the logic and the rationale behind certain things in Islam ( which i have studied myself though i m not a religious scholar or studying to be one) I have studied my own deen to weed the most of the misconceptions created by current Maulvis.
I too have questioned many traditional things and have studied them under the light of Islam and searched for the relevant authenticated texts.
I usually try to not to be an apologist and refer most things to scholars when asked in certain matters for detail and definitely try not label ppl as APostates or Kaffirs or infidels cos that aint my job. Plus its also forbidden by Muhammad (SAW) to label people as such. If you felt that way then it wasnt the intention.
The intention of the question ARe you even a Muslim was cos if you were then Calling the Prophet and Companions as blackmailers would not have possible even if you are way out there in the far left
So your question was quite simple but you next comment about it was shocking hence the fervor on my part.
I will try to explain the law as much as i can as i have understood i may be incorrect in my approach or in my conclusion but i will give it my best shot.
@peterpan lol Morality as you know it almost derived from Religious Codes.
Ironic aint it.
skyfacts
Blocked
peterpan773
All i can say is that just a little knowledge of islam may lead you towards some crises like that. To understand a religion or even a man made law some other necessary social knowledge must also be to equip with.
By looking through some of the laws i must agree that ISLAM may be looking to you having some brutal concepts.But in reality the case is not the same.And a little in more depth knowlege you will be happy with ISLAMIC concepts.
First time here let me share (some of the) facts about swat here,
Due to a VISITOR'S heaven people from different parts of the world used to come in swat for visite,and you must know that all the visitors have different (NEEDS),and alsoPAKISTAN FILM INDUSTRY was the one major contributer of making so much (GUND) in swat during previouse years.
This was totally unacceptable in a society like swat at such a large scale and the central Govt had tried to remain swat like a heaven for the outsiders visitors.
The swat became a place to provide raw material,to film industry,dancing videos,local drama,s mujra's and things like that ,and it was becomming LAHORE gradually.and this became a cancer for the locality.
Every one tried hard to stop this,but at last they took arms,and the situation is now at peak.
I must say that,that type of people mostly sent with tablighi jamaat(May be you ppl have some information),very few of the people leave Pakistan and the remaining were killed by cutting thier throats.
May be your fact records will be updated to a little.But some facts still now to wait for.
The situation of LAHORE as i mentioned above may be acceptable to many roshan khayal PAKISTANI.but is TOTALLY,TOTALLY,and i must say it again TOTALLY against pashtune's ISLAM.
Bath kahan se shoro ki thi kahan nikal gayee.
ppl try to understand the facts.
Fahim23
Member
@peterpan
very thoughtful sentence ...
" Morality is doing right,regardless what you are told
Religous dogma is doing what you are told, no matter if it is right".
I tend to agree with you because at common level most of ppl shy away from using their brains every time they want to do something. They prefer to be dictated by some one or something and religion dictates them with the purpose to achieve greater good. However in the process, depending on the circumstances and individual's judgment. At times wrong judgments are implemented at wrong times because after all its all about individual's judgment!
I think this is where religion becomes dangerous. Those who blindly take their own judgments as God's command often end up destroying themselves and ppl around them.
Otherwise religion is the single biggest thing which complements "Morality". I hope you would also agree that its after life concept has played Significant role in establishing and strengthening moral values.
But like you said I being a Muslim also think that Morality is in-built in the nature of of Human being , while religion has to be adopted when you start thinking. So it is not necessarily derived from Religion. Even kids have the sense of truth and lie and right and wrong while may be they have no clue about Religious injunctions.
ucsher
Member
@NNL
"which is only a superficial thing or a black mail to be honest knowing that if a person won't do that then his/her life ends there and then"
YES I USED THE METAPHOR OF A BLACK MAIL TO DESCRIBE THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF DECLARING SOME 1 A PAGAN, BECAUSE GUESS WHAT?, THIS IS THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO ANY SANE AND UNBIASED MIND!! (THOUGH THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT MOST OF THEM DON'T CALL IT AS THEY SEE IT PROBABLY BECAUSE UNLIKE ME BEING "RELIGIOUSLY & POLITICALLY CORRECT" IS THEIR PRIORITY IN A RELIGIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE SOCIETY LIKE PAKISTAN!)
BUT DID I CALL (GOD FORBID )HOLY PROPHET (P.B.U.H) A BLACKMAILER AS YOU HAVE TRIED TO SUGGEST A COUPLE OF TIMES?....NOT AT ALL!
YOU ARE JUST IMPLYING IT & HENCE EXAGGERATING THE WHOLE THING JUST TO PROVE THAT I AM SOME KIND OF A HATER OF ISLAM AND (GOD FORBID ) HOLY PROPHET (P.B.U.H)
THE FACT THAT YOU START DIVERTING THE WHOLE DISCUSSION TOWARDS MY PERSONALITY , AS WELL AS, SUDDENLY START IMPLYING THINGS THAT I NEVER SAID IN MY WRITINGS JUST SHOWS YOUR PREDICAMENT ON THE LOGICAL GROUNDS AND NOTHING ELSE!
ucsher
Member
on MORALITY ..@nnl, fahim & peterpain
the way i see it....Although most of the religions (vehemently) use their MORAL "facades" to attract you towards them, yet its funny how quickly all their morality changes in to sheer enemosity once you try to see the world from a view which is a bit different to them!
The mere fact that the main focus of attention of all religions are their own followers make them biased..and i wonder how much of morality can an entity (religion), which it self breaks one of the most strongest pillar of morality by being biased, can PROPOGATE??..
So yes although all the religions try very hard to give a moral impression about them YET (& ironically enough) their very nature is not very moral at the first place!..if you know what i am trying to say !!
Fahim23
Member
@uscher
It is not the religion ... it is the individual's attitude which keeps on changing for his/her benefit. Whatever you believe in be it religion or other idealogy you are ought to be biased towards that. It is the natural coarse of consequence.
I think although all the religions try hard to give a moral impression but their follower's nature is not very moral and hence you see diversions and double standards of indivduals in the name of religion.
Religion, is a sedative and tranquilizer.
There are phases of human age and life where one feels better with a certain potency of prescription of Faith.
One should not be forced to take a tranquilizer to make him addict, if his/her physical condition and chemistry doesn't need any medication.
A medication is to keep alive, not to kill.
@Shiekh sahib,
i think...it depends.
some take it as a tranquilizer ...some as bullet ...
some as dagger ...some as a precious gift ...
some as a reward ...some as a punishment .
you can use fire to burn the house or to lit the house.
i use religion to lit my heart up.
lit my life up.
give me a ray of hope ...when i am at utmost disappointment.
that there is still some one ...who loves me and cares for me ...no matter how dis obedient may i am to him....
he is a savior...he is merciful and most resourceful too.
Taliban and their supporters are using religion to burn the house ....
simple analogy.
more than this ...
i am 100% sure ...
and i believe ....
religion is a psychological need of human being.
that's the reason...different philosophies came and disappeared but religion is the most oldest ideology ...that never been disappeared since the world has came into being .
usman1423
member
May Allah Guide us to right path.
ucsher
Member
@All who have used different metaphors to describe religion
Am i correct in getting this impression that to all of you see religion more as is a choice rather than a necessity?
At least the way you talk about it gives this impression!
1. I guess, if not wrong, 25% of World's population is alive without religion.
2. Out of the 75% population, who believe in and follow a certain religion and faith, 90% are no-practicing.
3. Religion is not an end in itself, it is a mean to achieve emotional and psychological satisfaction, where and when needed.
ucsher
Member
@javaid shiekh
emotional and psychological satisfaction??..yeah tell me about it!!!
but then again...as they say..some people never get satisfied..perhaps we are one of 'em!
skyfacts
Blocked
But if your doctor suggest you a high dose of a medicine at certain bend of your life,
If you are not agree, you have the choice to search for another doctor,with more perfect dose according to your CHEMISTRY.
That was the option for yvanne ridley a british journalist and she is using high potency and is committed to use it for the rest of her life.
skyfacts
Blocked
I wonder sometimes that some of the people, describing different aspects of the religion admits that he is not so religious or saying that he has jus a little knowledge about ISLAM.
MORALLY, WHETHER THEY SHOULD GIVE OPINION UPON SUCH BURNING ISSUES OF THE DAY, OR THEY SHOULD BE SUGESTED SOME OTHER SHOWBIZ LIKE TOPIC FOR THIER (ZEHNI AYYASHI).
WAQTE DUA HE DOSTO.REALLY........
@NNL
@peterpan lol Morality as you know it almost derived from Religious Codes.
Ironic aint it.
Really??????
Where did Chineese get their morality from??????
Religious people believe that morality comes from religion and when religion loses its grip, people will become immoral. Is morality a product of religion? Are irreligious people immoral?
skyfacts
Blocked
Yes ,
As for as muslims believer concerned,pls if you can have statistics from history that how the islam believers and other religions treated the local population after wining war against.
This is just one example and you may have the clear picture.
Initially it was just religion which taught you many things,than people divided into many religions but with more or less the same moral characters.
ppl practically following any religion will believe and abide by the moral values his religion teaches,
BUT,only islam has given you inch by inch coverage of all the human,moral grounds and socio culture....
NNL
member
@ Peterpan
Chinese people religion = Taoism + Buddhism
Without going into details of differences of Morality and Ethics. Almost every civilization has had a set of its own moral codes and moral codes have evolved from religion.
Morality can be seen as a combination of what the people think is good life. Religion or a beliefs have been the source of giving an idea of "ideal life"
Fahim23
Member
@uscher
I don't think religion is merely a choice. Somehow ppl find a need to ask certain questions like:
1- "Who created everything"
2- "Why we are here"
whose answers are found in Religion. Now there is another "force" if I may use this terminilogy called "Science" which is attempting to answer these questions.
@JS
The way we celebrate when there is child birth, the way we marry, the way we make our funerals, and when we get sick or ill the way we pray. Don't you think it makes majority of humanity "Religious"? These are pure religious rituals nothing to do with Economic or Moral values.
Beside the other major fraction of Religion that is "Morality" is practiced or at least believed by I would say 90% of ppl. Like truth, Charity, alms, rule of law, love and affection for poor, disabled, animal, etc. In my experience the majority of ppl who gives charity do it in the name of religion.
So how can you say 90% of human beings with religion are non practicing? Are you saying because they don't go to church or pray 5 time or don't fast?
@Peterpan
Morality comes from conscience. Quran also give the example of two personalities "Hakeem Luqman" and "King Zulqarnain" who were not prophets but were the people with "Saleem Fitrat (Good nature)". Religion complements it and attempts to establish it as rule of law.
I heard one scholar saying that the basic nature of human being is strikingly similar. Never in the thousands years old history of human kind we have witnessed a human being saying "Please be un fair with me, or deceive me, etc".
@Everyone
What do you think of "Science" with overdoze. Do you think that if our attitudes towards science is not right it can result in the complete elimination of human race? Like Religion??
BTW i dont understand one thing. If some one starts some thread regarding some thing very particular to one religon howcomes the whole debate turns into religion, morality, women rights, atheism etc.
Please dont corrupt every thread with the same lectures, request admin for one thread which is sticky and in that abuse all the religions only once and then just dont pollute every other thread.
The discussion was about Islam, that what is the view point of islam for JABAR but no one is talking about it and you could trace who has polluted this thread.
@Fahim
1.Hakim Luqman is not mentioned in Quran.
2.Zul Qurnain is an interesting personality mentioned in Quran. Many Scholars regard Alexander the Great to be Zul Qurnain. See Allama Yousuf Ali Commentry on Quran.Problem is He was a pagan.
Others say he was Cyrus the Great.
Who was Zul Qurnain ????? It’s a mystery.
@NNL
Taoism and Budhism started around 550 - 600 BC. They are not recognized by historians as religions.
Budhism is Agnosticism. There is no concept of God. Dao, Cofucious were great teachers. They never claimed divine revelation. Ancient Chineese practiced folkloric beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion
Similarly in South America there have been Inca,Olmec,Maya,Aztec civilizations with no revealed religion. There was no divine intervention to stop the infanticide which was a norm of the time.
@NNL
A big portion of our morality is part of our instinct.Incest for example is not condoned in any society whether religious or not.
Let us take another example: Slavery. Is slavery immoral? Slavery was practiced for centuries even by very pious people. Prophet of Islam had slaves. Was he immoral? If yes; why should we follow an immoral person and if no; why should we condemn its practice?
What is immoral? Your answer to this question depends on who you are and what is your own personal standard of morality.
We have to distinguish between those moralities that harm the society and those that do not. What harms others must be called unethical and discouraged. Slavery, for example, infringes upon the freedom of another human being. Therefore regardless of whether a society or a culture sanctions it, it is an unethical practice. 1400 years ago it was not immoral to have slaves. But slavery is ethically wrong and that transcends time
Religious morality does not seem ethical any more. And what we consider to be moral is not so for religions. Polygamy, slavery, marriage with the minors, etc are not immoral in Islam.
Islamic ethics does not concern itself with right/wrong, good/bad but with Halal and Haram . In fact Islamic ethics is an oxymoron. Islam is not concerned about ethics at all. The discussion of ethics is alien to Muslims "philosophers".
Ethics enjoin that the violation of the rights of any human being is wrong. This is not the case in Islam. Islam does not regard as full human beings those who are not Muslims and hence their rights are not the same as the rights given to Muslims. Women in Islam also do not have the same rights as men. In Islam it is the Sharia that dictates what is wrong and what is right.
Ethics has little to do with religion
Ethics is derived from human conscience and the Golden Rule. Any reasonable person is capable to distinguish the right from the wrong using the Golden Rule as the parameter. This is not the case in Islam. Right and wrong in Islam are based on what the Prophet said and did, and not on what ethics dictate.
Here is the point we are discussing on this thread.
Islam concerns itself with "sins of conscience". Ethics does not prescribe any punishment for such "sins". Individuals in ethical societies have the freedom of thought and actions. you are free to think, say and do what you please as long as you do not harm others. In Islam such freedom is nonexistence. You would be punished and even brutally executed if you criticize Islam, or apostatize.
There are certain prerequisites and needs for the survival of humanity.
Biological, spiritual and materialistic combination of a human being needs food, shelter, recreation and some more additional items to make life comfortable and attractive.
These requirements propelled the humanity to struggle for inventions and discoveries.
The image and concept of God, which provided the base of religion, is also a creation out of human necessity.
Religion is one of the parts, which could help to make human life attractive when combined with other parts.
Revivalist
member
I believe unless we have clear bases upon which we can decide what is moral and what is immoral or what is good and what is bed, it will always be relative terms. Hence if we are really interested in searching out the truth we need to scrutinize the bases of all these Major isms, philosophies etc we have. Otherwise it would be like the definition of terrorism, as anything that goes against western interest and their ideology as well as foreign policy is called terrorism. So my hero is your terrorist and vv. We need to define the bases first and agree on it then move forward.
As for as Islam is concern it has the strongest bases upon which the whole system is based;
1-The existence of the creator, with definite proves
2-Quran being the words of Allah (saw), with definite proves
3-Muhammad (Saw) as a massager of Allah (swt), with definite proves.
However if you analyze any other system, ideology and isms you will find all of them based of falls assumptions and reactionary situations which gave birth to that specific ideology.
Lastly about the topic I would say that the issue of compulsion in religion is in the context where Muslims are not allowed to force some one to accept Islam. However it is obligatory upon Muslims to enjoin people to towards good and forbid them from evil and only this makes us Muslims the noble Ummah that has been erected for the humanity by Allah (swt), to take the massage of truth to the whole of humanity.
Regards
NNL
member
@ Peterpan
Ethics enjoin that the violation of the rights of any human being is wrong. This is not the case in Islam. Islam does not regard as full human beings those who are not Muslims and hence their rights are not the same as the rights given to Muslims. Women in Islam also do not have the same rights as men. In Islam it is the Sharia that dictates what is wrong and what is right.
Can you elaborate on how does Islam does gives partial treatment to non Muslims and the same goes for women rights.
Thanks
You must log in to post.
