Is there anyone willing to tell me if they agree that under the sharia, a menstruating nine year old female is an 'adult', or not?

Happy Ramadan.

Ramadan Mubarak everyone!

Who else will be fasting this month?

me in shaa' Allaah

RamaDaan mubaarak

alhamdulillaah i have 1 week holiday in the first week of RamaDaan.

Happy Ramadan.

Ramadan is like a special guest that comes to ur homes once a month, no funny business around Ramadan.

You are trying to relate a 9 year old female of about 1400 years ago to a 9 year old of today.

Think outside of the box.

You can not draw a trend for 1400 years based on data that barely fill a fourteenth of that amount of years.



I did answer those questions many times - you just can't hack it or you are in denial.



I already did more than 3 times explicitly but it is so clear that you are in denial. Do you actually read what I write?

Because if you did then maybe you would think twice about posting questions I have already answered.

If you truly do not think I answered your questions (which I clearly did) and you think I am not good enough, then why don't you go to the Islamic forum www.talkaboutislam.com/forums and ask them what you asked me?

If you will say you will get the same answer as me then what makes me not good enough? and if you say that they are not good enough for you then who is? Yourself?

you want to ask yourself and answer yourself?

I don't think you are used to being answered by anyone - you just don't hack it at all and the evidence is clear here on these pages of AF.

Ramadan Mubarak to all my ukthis and akhis. May Allah (SWT) accept our fasts, sadaqah and prayers.

Utter nonsense. You have no credible scientific evidence that girls 1400 years ago somehow 'matured' any sooner than today. You have not even credible inferences that Aisha was menstruating at the time of consumation of marriage.

====
Muslim websites have a habit of banning those who posed difficult questions about their religion. I have my own experiences. Bottom line is that even your nonmuslim supporters have seen how you have failed in this discussion.

^Try the forum www.bismikaallahuma.com. I have seen the same non-muslims(one of them has an avatar of Mr.Burns) debate at this forum since 2003 and they ask some tough questions.

If u think that this forum(bismikaallahuma) is gonna ban u too coz its an Islamic forum, then it's ur ego that's the problem.

Over there, I (kikaida01) debated with a moderator called 'Prince Zed' who believes in geocentrism and the mental gymnastics this idiot displayed is nothing short of astounding. Not all of the muslim forum do ban people for asking difficult questions about their religion, but enough of them do so that a nonmuslim should be cautious about the muslims' claim to respect free speech. Nevertheless, no matter where the subject is debate, the essence of the subject is still the same. If Christianity is not off-limit here, why should Islam? Care to pick up where the muslims left off? Or are you saying that somehow Islam deserves special status that would exempt the religion from being critically examined? Let me guess, it is part of the chic US-hating crowd that elevated Islam to such exalted status.

I can't even see the value of this discussion about the age of a girl. Can anyone else?

What a visceral reflex to dwell on sex. There's absolutely no intellectual nor spiritual content in the discussion.

Why should it not focused on sex when the religion itself offered its male followers 72 virgins in the afterlife?




You really are a sad case of a human being, let alone a modern 21st century woman.

There u go again, getting on your high horse of moral superiority.

U may not subscribe to the idea of 72 virgins in the afterlife, but the idea sure tickles you enough to go on and on about sex in Islam ad nauseam. I don't see any intellectual content from you whatsover on the subject.

What is there to a religion where it appeals to the basest of human impulses? Let me guess...evolutionary psychology?

Happy Ramadhan my fellow AF-ers! May Allah accept all our efforts and good deeds in this holy month. And may we always continue to strive to follow the path towards enlightenment.
-----

Concerning the ayat 9:73 "O Prophet! strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites and be firm against them, their abode is Hell--an evil refuge indeed"

Allah commands the Prophet (PBUH) to be firm and strive hard against them. How did the words "firm" and "strive" translate to "kill"?

following verse 9:74:

"They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy. And they did it after accepting Islam, and the meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out; this revent of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which ALlan and His Messenger had enriched Them! If they repent, it will be best for them; But if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter; they shall have none on earth to protect or help them."

in this verse it is not the Prophet (PBUH) or any human who will punish them but Allah.

ayat 10:99

" If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed--all who are on earth!
Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!"

this ayat specifically addresses the issue of compulsion in religion, be it to continue being a Muslim or converting.

tafsir:

If it had been Allah's Plan or WIll not to grant the limited Free Will that he has granted to man, His omnipotence could have made all mankind alike: all would then have had Faith, but that Faith would have reflected no merit on them. In the actual world as it is, man has been endowed with various faculties and capacities, so that he should strive and explore, and bring himself into harmony with Allah's Will. Hence Faith becomes a moral achievement and to resist Faith becomes a sin. As a complementary proposition, men of Faith MUST NOT be impatient or angry if they have to contend against Unfaith, and most important of all, they MUST guard against the temptation of forcing Faith, i.e. imposing it on others by physical compulsion, or any other forms of compulsion such as social pressure, or inducements held out by wealth or position, or other adventitious advantages. FORCED FAITH IS NO FAITH.
THey should strive spiritually and let Allah's Plan work as He wills.

If there are any Hadiths or works outside of the Qur'an that contradicts this, then as Muslims we should always follow the Qur'an.

-----
I hope this is a helpful addition to the debate on Islam's position on Apostasy.

As a Muslim I welcome any debate/inquiries about my religion. I would hope though that the person who inquires about my religion do so because of sincere curiousity and not out of the desire to belittle it.

No one here truly knows more than the other, as we all only have faith that the belief we embrace (be it that there is God or there isn't, or belief in Christianity or Judaism or that all religion is ridiculous) is the one that will lead us to the Light (if an Afterlife truly exists).

Salam

Happy Ramadhan to you too!

Menstruation, to many, signals the coming of womanhood. Our bodies begin to change and evolve more into a womanly body (with curves and breasts) that can prepare us for childbirth and less like the body of a child (though in many cases, curves and breasts come later for those of us who have begin menstruating).

So it can be said that a girl of 9 who already started her period is an adult. She can give birth, though her reproductive system is not as mature as a woman of 21 and would give her a problematic pregnancy. She can have a decent sized bosom (a girlfriend of mine at age 11 was already wearing a C-cup). Unlike her peers who have not yet menstruated, she has to already deal with PMS (those horrible moments before your period begins), wearing pads, and protecting herself from the possibility of getting pregnant.

Though her body is beginning to mature, her faculties/senses/psyche may not yet be in line with the maturing process of her body. Thus in many ways, a 9 year old menstruating girl is still a child.

To quote Britney Spears, these group of girls are "not a girl but not yet a woman".

In Islam, "akil baligh" (the moment when a child begins to be gntrusted with similar responsibilities like the adult: Fardhu 'Ain and Fardhu Kifayah (compulsory acts in Islam) ) begins at puberty age or the onset of puberty (in girls, when she begins to menstruate). " It is from puberty, akil baligh, that our children begin to live as the Vicegerents of God on His earth - earning His blessings, or shrivelling under His wrath...Akil baligh is a profound state that comes to our children for merely being human, Muslim and trustees of the high traditions of Adam a.s. It is indeed a privilege for only in puberty will our children earn the opportunity to receive His Blessings in his or her capacity as an individual. And only with akil baligh will his supplications for God's Mercy for his parents become validated.. ."
(source: http://www.zawaj.com/articles/human_potential.html)

As for the issue of the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet, I did not find any references to her age in the Qur'an (but I may not be looking correctly, if someone did find it please do inform me) so basically all our sources for her disputed age is the Hadiths or other historical writings of the companions of the Prophet or other figures from that time in history (which may or may not be entirely accurate).

Here is a good argument, atleast from my perspective it gives a pretty reasonable explanation, about Aisha's age:

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

" Determination of the true age of Aisha

It appears that Maulana Muhammad Ali was the first Islamic scholar directly to challenge the notion that Aisha was aged six and nine, respectively, at the time of her nikah and consummation of marriage. This he did in, at least, the following writings: his English booklet Prophet of Islam, his larger English book Muhammad, the Prophet, and in the footnotes in his voluminous Urdu translation and commentary of Sahih Bukhari entitled Fadl-ul-Bari, these three writings being published in the 1920s and 1930s. In the booklet Prophet of Islam, which was later incorporated in 1948 as the first chapter of his book Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, he writes in a lengthy footnote as follows:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.” [4] (Bolding is mine.)

To facilitate understanding dates of these events, please note that it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

Later Research

The famous classical historian of Islam, Ibn Jarir Tabari, wrote in his ‘History’:

“In the time before Islam, Abu Bakr married two women. The first was Fatila daughter of Abdul Uzza, from whom Abdullah and Asma were born. Then he married Umm Ruman, from whom Abdur Rahman and Aisha were born. These four were born before Islam.” [5]

Being born before Islam means being born before the Call.

2. The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” [6]

(Go here to see an image of the full entry in Urdu.)

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H. So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah. It would place her year of birth at four or five years before the Call.

3. The same statement is made by the famous classical commentator of the Holy Quran, Ibn Kathir, in his book Al-bidayya wal-nihaya:

“Asma died in 73 A.H. at the age of one hundred years. She was ten years older than her sister Aisha.” [7]

Apart from these three evidences, which are presented in the Urdu pamphlet referred to above, we also note that the birth of Aisha being a little before the Call is consistent with the opening words of a statement by her which is recorded four times in Bukhari. Those words are as follows:

“Ever since I can remember (or understand things) my parents were following the religion of Islam.” [8]

This is tantamount to saying that she was born sometime before her parents accepted Islam but she can only remember them practising Islam. No doubt she and her parents knew well whether she was born before or after they accepted Islam, as their acceptance of Islam was such a landmark event in their life which took place just after the Holy Prophet received his mission from God. If she had been born after they accepted Islam it would make no sense for her to say that she always remembered them as following Islam. Only if she was born before they accepted Islam, would it make sense for her to say that she can only remember them being Muslims, as she was too young to remember things before their conversion. This is consistent with her being born before the Call, and being perhaps four or five years old at the time of the Call, which was also almost the time when her parents accepted Islam."

---

So who really does possess the truth about the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage? Which argument can we accept? If we accept one and not the other, does that mean that the one we believe is undoubtedly the one more valid and without fault? And all other arguments/inputs/research is wrong?

as for the 72 virgins, here is an interesting article I found while yahoo-ing the term:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0...,631357,00.html

"This naturally leads to the most fascinating book ever written on the language of the Koran, and if proved to be correct in its main thesis, probably the most important book ever written on the Koran. Christoph Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, available only in German, came out just over a year ago, but has already had an enthusiastic reception, particularly among those scholars with a knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin, Potsdam, Erlangen, Aix-en-Provence, and the Oriental Institute in Beirut.

Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly. Similarly, the immortal, pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.

As Luxenberg's work has only recently been published we must await its scholarly assessment before we can pass any judgements. But if his analysis is correct then suicide bombers, or rather prospective martyrs, would do well to abandon their culture of death, and instead concentrate on getting laid 72 times in this world, unless of course they would really prefer chilled or white raisins, according to their taste, in the next.
"

If you were in a forum that I was in charge of, I would ban you not because of the supposedly "difficult questions you ask" which time and time again I repeatedly answer - but because you do not hack the fact that I do answer and hence you dwell on things that have already been answered because you can not accept that fact that they were answered.

That is because if they are answered, you are cornered.

They were answered - and you were cornered and I know and the audience knows because it is all written. But I think you are the only one pretending not to know.

Thank you for showing your true face. You are wrong about 2:256 which you claim is about dhimmis and I will show you how you are wrong. I will do so at my own convenience.

So you disagree with samsparky, a muslim, that even though a female can be in her menstruation cycle, she can still be considered a 'child' in other non-biological ways?

We can get to the rest later.

Verse 9:74 seems to be a standalone explanation of what Allah will do in the afterlife. It does not seem to have any relations, other than theological, to 9:73. So what/who exactly is Muhammad supposed to strive against if not apostates as examples to other believers about apostasy? How did 'be firm' and 'strive' translated to kill? Why do you ask that of us kufars? Did we remind Iran's Khomenei of his neglect to persecute apostate and writer Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses? No, we did not. Khomenei is a Shi'a muslim, not a Christian or an atheist, but a muslim. His death fatwa for Rushdie was based upon Quranic exegesis, not of some personal vendetta or slight against Iran. It is a typical misdirection tactic of muslims to place the burden of interpretations of the Quran on the shoulders of the nonbelievers when they are not able to reconcile the contradictions in their religion such as...So what was the justification for the murder of an apostate, according to Mu'adh? No justification at all, only that it was a 'verdict of Allah and His Apostle'.

So please answer my question...

IF THERE IS TO BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, WHY SHOULD THERE BE COMPULSION TO REMAIN IN RELIGION ?

So there we have it, you are only looking for the basest of human impulses in the words and teachings of spiritual text of the Qu'ran.

What a hangup you've got about sex! Did u say you were an ex-Christian? You may be a professed athiest today but you've sure got that characteristic guilt of the Original Sin hardwired in your brain!!

Go on pot-shooting around for sex and virgins in the Qu'ran. I would be more intrigued if you could tell us something more useful instead, but what the heck, you are only a guy who's avvy says it all about his sole preoccupation in life...

Oh, btw, I got that from evolutionary science in case you are wondering which hadith gave me that notion.

Oh I forgot the other base impulse that is just as riveting for you in the Qu'ran : Compulsion under the Sword. Come to think of it, you were an ex-Military man too..

Howabout trying out to be an ex-Athiest next? Let's see, howabt becoming a sadhu? The girls will flock to you...

No i'm not wrong - if you claim that I am in that then you are claiming that Imaam al-Maatureediyy is wrong and that you know the interpretation of the Qur'aan better than he does. And that is a claim that you can not afford to make because it is well known who knows the Qur'aan better.

Only when it involves nine year old girls...er, I mean...nine year old 'adults'.

Your emphasis on samsparky being a Muslim like myself seems to imply that as Muslims we are not able to have different opinions/disagree. Should I as a Muslim always be in line with other Muslims, all the time, no matter what?

As a woman and a mother, I do not think that a girl of 10 is a 'complete' adult even though she has started her period. In Islam once a girl begins her period she is considered mature enough to be able to follow the compulsory acts such as praying and fasting, this, in our religion, is the start of when an individual is accountable for her/himself and to many this is a welcome privilege. Somewhat like turning 16 and given the privilege to have a driver's license.

As for the rest, if a Muslim disagrees with the supposed age of Aisha when she was with the Prophet and has found reasonable evidence to prove otherwise, why do many non-Muslims continue to embrace that belief? and strive to prove that the supposed age IS the correct age of Aisha?

If there is disagreement even amongst believers of Islam and discrepancies with the evidence provided, then who really possesses the "truth" about Aisha's real age? Is it the non-believers like yourself?

the fact that 9:74 follows 9:73 is because there IS a relation. If we just cut off portions of a paragraph because we deem them to be unrelated, though the fact that they are part of a paragraph shows a relation, then we will not be able to fully understand what is the meaning behind the paragraph and the separated sentence will be taken out of context.

Allah asks Mohammed to be "firm" and "strive" against the Unbelievers and Hypocrites and in the next verse Allah proclaimed that HE will be the one that punishes them for their actions. He did not call on Mohammed to "punish them with a grievous penalty" ("griveous penalty" taken to mean something more severe than "to be firm and strive against them") which so many have done in this world today. They have taken it upon themselves to "punish" Unbelievers and Hypocrites with a "grievous penalty" (i.e. death/torture etc.) when it is not in their place to do so, according to the Qur'an and Allah.

This is an example of someone taking the sentence out of the paragraph and using it for their own means. If anything in the Hadiths contradicts the Qur'an, as Muslims it is imperative for us to always follow the Qur'an. As the Qur'an is the Word of God and the Hadiths the word of man.

"Jihad" which many translate to "strive" does not always mean to kill or to use violence. The biggest Jihad in a Muslim's life is the 'fight against his own self'. The ayat of 10:99 further shows that Allah does not want us to force someone into submission (or even maintaining their religion) as faith that is forced is not 'true faith'. And will eventually wreak havoc and destruction. If Allah wanted everyone to be Muslims then He has the power and will to do so, but He does not so why should we, mere humans, push everyone to be Muslim? So this verse is also in line with your question and hopefully clarifies the Qur'anic stance behind punishment for apostasy.

If Allah can be All Merciful and All Forgiving, then why can't we?

And if I choose to follow the verses in the Qur'an more than say the Hadiths, with regard to apostasy, does that mean then that I am not following Islam accordingly? And the extremists are the right ones? Thus my argument is without substance?

That is an inappropriate question to ask a kafir. As a non-religious person who respects basic human rights and freedom of expressions, of course my answer would be that you may have differences of opinions. But all too often religious people demands unity, even at the expense of truth and honesty, when confronted by a nonbeliever. But it is good that you disagree.

====
Now we are getting somewhere. It is still amazing to me, a man, that any woman like samsparky can be so brainwashed that she would deny reality and be so dogmatic. I mean, I am NOT a woman and have no children of my own (yet), and yet I can see that a nine, ten or even 14 year old girl should not be considered an 'adult' despite biological imperatives. I agree with your driver's license analogy. A young person should have measured access to adult privileges as long as they can demonstrate reasonable maturity in handling some 'adult' responsibilities. But how do you feel about me, hypothetically a muslim, approaches you with a marriage proposal to your nine year old daughter?

Further, according to Islam, first emission of semen means a young boy can be considered an adult. That can and have been as young as nine, even though we know that generally girls enter puberty sooner than boys. Marriage, sex, pregnancy and childbirth we adults have considered to be reserved for 'adults', do we not? So if a nine or even 14 year old girl can be married off, basically -- Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed -- do you believe that your ten or even 14 year old son should face me, a (former) soldier, in war? After all, is not defense of one's beliefs, family and country a very 'adult' act?

====
Even a muslim must eventually defer to an authority in Islamic matters some time. So far I have seen no definitive declaration by any accepted Islamic authority figure to say that scholarship and exegesis have determined Aisha's age at time of marriage and consumation of same is <X> years old. Religion and believers defined each other and you cannot deny that reality. If there are sufficient number of muslims who believes Aisha was a pre-teen wife to Muhammad, and religion and many of their ideas are as nebulous as they are, who are we kufars to deny majority rule? In this instance, the Catholic notion of 'papal infallibility' is actually a benefit since there is an authority figure to say <something> is or meant this or that. What we kufars have seen so far in Islam is basically duelling hadiths, sahih and non-sahih. And muslims like yourself lamely dismissed acts by saying the same old 'out of context' excuse or something to that measure.

====
I never said there were NO relations. I said the relationships between 9:73 and 9:74 is mainly theological in the sense that Sura 9, Bara'ah or Ultimatum, is mainly about how Allah deals with people, believers and nonbelievers. Suras 9:73-79 can be taken thus......If 9:73 is taken as a standalone commandment, there is nothing in 9:74 to forbid it, nor the rest of the paragraph. The entire paragraph seems to be expressing contempt for apostates.

====
A 'grevious penalty' is sufficiently specific in trying to convey a type of punishment in a situation where punishments are expected -- a violation of a rule -- and apostasy is a theological equivalent of treason. To be firm and to strive 'AGAINST' is an entirely different category of exhortation in that it is meant to be general in describing attitudes and actions to a behavior that is considered the most heinous of betrayal. A 'grievous penalty' would be what a judge, an official, would prescribe to the government. To strive AGAINST is what EVERYONE should do.

====
But if there are sufficiently numerous muslims to accept such an interpretations, we kufars have no choice but to believe such is interpreted. Muslims love to point out high profiled Western converts such as British singer/songwriter Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, as to the greatness of Islam. Stevens/Islam approved of the death fatwa on apostate and writer Salman Rushdie. Do you approve of such a fatwa? I hope that you would not be so cowardly like samsparky and her nonmuslim admirers have been about this question.

====
That means there is a 'margin', so to speak, where jihad can be qualified WITH violence in its meanings and applications. Thank you for admitting that.

====
What Allah is or does in the afterlife is not the point. What his followers does in THIS life is.

====
You should know by now that human natures tends to give credence to what is the 'loudest', the most 'obvious' or the most visible. Again, by asking me this question, you are placing the burden of interpeting the Quan and Islam back upon our shoulders. We are NOT muslims. We may be willing to give you a voice in explaining your religion, but that does not mean we have the right to shut out other voices in your camp. After all, what good is 'freedom of expressions' if we allowed only those we like to speak? Your 'extremists' or 'radical' Islamists are YOUR theological and societal problems. Unfortunately, we cannot deal with the theology but only with the societal issues.

Let me clarify my a part of my post for the moment, as I do not have much time online since my baby's acting up. :/

My definition wasn't entirely correct. I apologize for that. What I meant to say was that Jihad does not only mean "waging (physical) war". which to many means using violence and resorting to killing individuals. Even during war, there is an ayat (I don't have much time now to find it though) that calls for us to not transgress the limits, such as killing the elderly, women, or children. Considering how the terrorists do not care who becomes their victims, then they have transgressed the limits put forth by Allah.

So I hope this clarifies things, if not don't hesitate to inquire further.

I love teh smell the Jihad in the mornin.

To recap for interested readers...

This is sura 2:256...http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm
...Accepted English translations are......samsparky declared that the above verse has to with dhimmitude. For those readers who do not know what is a dhimmi, here are just a couple resources for understanding this Islamic concept...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
http://www.dhimmi.com/

Basically, a dhimmi is a second class citizen that is just one grade above a slave. Muslims love to trumpet how nonmuslims are allowed their freedom of religions, but here are just a few examples of oppressions that have been whitewashed: Dhimmis cannot build their places of worships higher than the muslims' mosques, or decorate them more ornately. They are forbidden to prosyletize. Their words in courts can be considered worthless on the whims of the muslims judges. They have to cross to the other side of the street at the approaching muslims. They have to give shelter to muslims for up to 3 days. They have to pay a special tax -- the jihzya -- and failure to pay result in only two choices: convert or die. They may have to wear distinctive items of clothings identifying them solely by their religion, very much like the Nazis did with the filty Jooz. They were at one time forbidden to ride horses and had to settle for donkeys. In short, dhimmitude is about physical, societal and psychological submissions to the muslims whenever Islam is the dominant political force in an area and whatever rights and freedoms they may enjoy, those rights and freedoms can be taken away at will by the muslims.

Sura 2:256 has nothing to do with dhimmitude....Return to http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm, and http://www.qurantoday.com/BaqSec32.htm will provide the common accepted English translations, it is not that difficult to see that the context of 2:256 should be viewed as from 2:243 to 2:257. These 15 verses serves as a lesson on what a muslim should learn from the the filthy Jooz on how to receive the bounties of God and responds to God.

These 3 verses tells the muslims that for every 'loan' of righteousness and piety, Allah will return them many folds when they strive (fight) in the cause of Allah.

...And here (2:246) is the beginning of the lesson from the filthy Jooz...

...From these two verses the muslims can see the filthy Jooz dispute the appointment of a leader.

...From these four verses, the muslims can see that the majority of the filthy Jooz failed the test God put in front of them and the few that passed, may be they are not as theologically 'filthy', is too few to face Goliath and the other soldiers (2:249). In 2:251 the muslims sees that puny David, one the less filthy Jooz who passed the test, is rewarded by God in that he killed the giant Goliath with one stone. And of course, later God rewarded the faithful David with a kingship.

...From these three verses, the muslims are exhorted to remain faithful in their religion, using Jesus as example on how the filthy Jooz, despite given signs and miracles, continues to disobey God. Even though God has the means to COMPEL faith, He does not do so and would allow people to make their decisions and enjoys or suffers the consequences.

...So here we have it...The final lesson from the filthy Jooz is that no one COMPELLED little David and the few others to fight in the cause of God against Goliath and other enemy soldiers. Verses 2:243 to 2:257 is a theological lesson in faith despite what the world may set in front of a muslim. Allah can COMPEL anyone to become a muslim and strive (fight) in His cause, but He does not do so.

samsparky, a muslim, does not know what she is talking about when it comes to 2:256. The verse has nothing to do with dhimmis.

samsparky, a muslim, does not know what she is talking about when it comes to 2:256. The verse has nothing to do with dhimmis.

So the problem of this ONE of many contradictions remains. Verse 9:73......http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscr...Ayat/9/9_73.htm...Is an exhortation to Muhammad to persecute apostates, or at least adopt a hostile attitude towards them.

In a Bukhari hadith, we see......A muslim leader ordering the murder of an apostate.

The question remains unanswered or unexplained:

IF THERE IS TO BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE COMPULSION TO REMAIN IN RELIGION ??

Once again - lack of receiving the knowledge from a person in the chain of knowledge leads you to mistranslate and misunderstand.

There is a difference between God's Eternal Will and God's Order.

Everything that happens is by the Eternal Will of God. That means He Destined all what happens - from good, evil, belief and blasphemy. Had He not Willed for these to exist, they would not have existed - because if something happens and it is not by the Will of the Lord of the Worlds that is an indication of weakness --> weakness and Godhood contradict each other.

whatever Allaah willed to be shall be and whatever Allaah did not will to be shall not be.

Abu Daawood related that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم taught some of his daughters:



This means that everything that Allaah willed in eternity (no beginning) to happen must happen in the way which Allaah eternally knew and at the time at which Allaah eternally willed for it to occur.

That which Allaah did not will in eternity to happen will never happen.


Should an entire nation come together to inflict a harm on you that Allaah did not will to happen to you, it will not be able to harm you.

Likewise, should a nation come together to benefit you with a certain matter that Allaah did not will in eternity for you to benefit from, it will not be able to do so.

This also is among the fundamentals of the proper belief.


لا حَولَ ولا قوَّة إلا بالله

This is a statement that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم taught us to say.

As Abu Ya^laa al-MawSiliyy related, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم explained this statement to mean: “Without Allaah’s protection no one can evade sinning, and without Allaah’s help no one has the strength to obey Him.”

لا حول عن معصية الله إلا بعصمة الله ولا قوة على طاعة الله إلا بعون الله

This does not mean that the person has no will and is like a feather in the wind because that would contradict the Ayah: {وَمَا تَشَاؤُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ} because in this Ayah Allaah attributed will to the humans.

The human does his deeds willingly and under the will of Allaah.

Imaam Ali said what means: Destiny is a matter between 2 matters - not jabr and not tafweeD.

jabr = being forced to do things involuntarily
tafweed = to do whatever you want without being under the will of anyone else.

So the human does his deeds willingly and under the will of Allaah.


So you see nomad - this refers to destiny - you clearly were out of context.


Allaah said:

قُلِ اللّهُ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

Which means: Say Allaah is the Creator of everything.

Every creation that exists, be it among entities or deeds, from the fine dust to the ^Arsh, and every movement, rest, intention, and thought of the slaves is created by Allaah.

Allaah said:

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

Which means: Allaah created you and what you do.


Things become existent by Allaah's Will, Power, and Destining, and in accordance with His eternal Knowledge,

Allaah eternally knew about His creations and eternally He willed for them to exist.

Allaah is the Creator of everything.

Allaah said:

هَلْ مِنْ خَالِقٍ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ

which means: [No one is the Creator except Allaah].


An-Nasafiyy said that if a person hit glass with a stone and broke it, then the acts of hitting and breaking and the state of being broken were created by Allaah.

The slave only acquires the act.

Allaah is the only One Who creates.

لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَعَلَيْهَا مَا اكْتَسَبَتْ

Surat al-Baqarah, Ayah 286 means: [Every individual self will be rewarded by Allaah for the good deeds it acquired and will be accountable for the sins it committed].

"The slave acquires his act" means that he directs his will and intention towards doing a particular deed, then Allaah creates that deed. Although the directing of the will and the doing of the deed are created by Allaah, still the slave is doing the directing and the deed--therefore he acquires his act. Hence, if someone runs intentionally, the fact that his intention and his running movements are created by Allaah does not negate that he is the one running intentionally, and thus, that he is accountable for his running.

Allaah said:

{فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ قَتَلَهُمْ وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ رَمَى}

The killing and the throwing mentioned here are attributed to the slaves as acquisitions but attributed to Allaah as creations.


Saying that Allaah is the Creator of everything, including the intentions of the slave, does not mean that the slave does not have a choice.

The slave has a choice; however, his choice is under the Will of Allaah.

His choice does not reach to an extent that he creates his own actions.

Rather his own choice is a creation of Allaah and is under the Will of Allaah.

Now,

God Destined that there will be Paradise for the believers & hell for the disbelievers.

The reason why there will be Paradise for the believers & hell for the disbelievers is because God ordered the humans and jinn to worship Him.

Allaah said:

wa maa khalaqtul jin-na wal insa il-laa liya^budoon

which means: [Allaah has created jinn and mankind, only to order them to worship Him.]

He gave the humans and jinn something called kasb which means acquiring acts. It is when the person directs his will towards something then God creates it. For example, if a person directs his will towards picking up a rock and God creates that action for him (that is the person is made able to pick up the rock) then that person has acquired that act - picking up a rock.

So the people are accountable for their acquisition. That is what is meant - it refers to that the people are not feathers in the wind, they acquire deeds by their will - they are not forced without a will. They eat, drink play voluntarily using their kasb.

This point is very different to the point you were trying to make using the Verses you found and thought you could use for your purposes. You thought you could use them for your purposes because you thought that no one keeps track of the correct meanings as passed down by the Prophet to the Companions and so on until our time.

The meanings are passed on and those who get it from that chain will know when nomad is mistranslating or not.

Part of the chain is Imaam al-Maatooreediyy who explained the meaning of "no compulsion in Religion".

What the hell does this has to do with 'no compulsion in religion'? Sorry, but you have failed again. Your imam either is not a very learned imam or that you have given him incorrect information or that he twisted 2:256 out of its proper context.

it's such a time wasting talking with people who don't like something... unless he/she pays attention open-mindedly...

I am telling you that the Verse you got "no compulsion in Religion" from is explained by Imaam al-Maatooreediyy, one of the leaders of ahlussunnah which all Muslims on the correct path acknowledge. His creed is the same as hundreds of millions of Muslims.

The explanation given for this Verse is that it refers to not forcing the dhimmiyy who pays the tax to the caliph to embrace Islam.

It has nothing to do with the current situation of today because there is no caliph.


At this current situation and time and at all times, Muslims are obligated to spread the knowledge about Islam and to encourage non-Muslims to believe in the Creator of them and the whole world.

The Muslims must give the non-Muslim this information and the proof for it if that is what is required to save this person from dying on a state which will lead them to dwell in Hellfire forever.

Prophet MuHammad was the reason for many people to embrace Islam by his manners, by his presentation of proofs and the signs of Prophethood and by his justice.

For example, I mentioned a story previously in this thread where once the Prophet MuHammad was sleeping and a blasphemer came to him and put the sword on him and said, "who will protect you from me?" The Prophet said: "Allaah". The sword dropped from the person's hand and Prophet MuHammad picked it up and said: "And who will protect you from me?" The man gave himself up. The Prophet let him go. The man went to his people and said: "I have come to you after having met with the best of men." He and his group embraced Islam.

Many stories such as this are Islamically verified and taught as being what the Prophet did. That proves that in Islam the suitable technique to save a person from hellfire is the one which is used.

The way that achieves the intended aim is the one which is taken.

If friendship will save a person from dying on a state of blasphemy then by all means the Muslim must befriend non-Muslims and educate them about Islam. That is fulfilling the right of the friend. Otherwise how would I be someone's friend if I do not tell them about Paradise and the path to it - to believe in God and the Messengers of God.

And I telling you again that ANYONE can read my explanation of what is 2:256 and how it relate to the preceding verses can see that YOU are wrong. I do not care what imam tells you what, he is not here, YOU are and YOU are wrong about your own 'holy' book. I have no interests in the rest of your drivel.

All what your explanation says is "no compulsion in Religion"

I am telling you what it refers to. It refers to not compelling the dhimmiyy who pays the jizya to the caliph to embrace Islam.

I gave a lot of details on this in the previous post.



Many of the Verses you mentioned were taken out of context such as the Verse I explained to you in my previous post which actually referred to destiny and was completely off topic from what we were talking about.



I don't think that even YOU can see I'm wrong.

It doesn't matter how many times you SAY someone is wrong, it doesn't change whether or not they are wrong.

Every time you accuse me of being wrong you do so without a proof or with a proof that I end up showing is invalid.



That really is silly. The knowledge of the Qur'aan came from the Angel Jibreel who taught Prophet MuHammad who taught the Companions who taught their followers and so on until the Imaams of today.

If you don't care what an Imaam tells me then obviously you are not interested in knowing the meaning of the Qur'aan as taught by the Prophet. Rather you are more interested in making your own meaning and claiming that the Qur'aan contradicts itself.



It doesn't matter who is here. If they received the Religious Knowledge from the chain that leads back to the Prophet then they will be saying the exact same thing about the meanings of the Qur'aan.



A sad claim from a sad person who claims to know the Qur'aan and yet rejects the sayings of top scholars like Imaam al-Maatureediyy about it.

Just for your info, Imaam al-Maatureediyy is from ages ago, and as I already mentioned his creed agrees with the creed of hundreds of millions of Muslims.

So who are you to come and say that a Verse in the Qur'aan has a meaning contrary to how he passed its explanation on from the Prophet.


I don't know how long it is going to take you to get over yourself and read the threads properly.

I highly advise you to get someone else's opinion on whether or not you actually read my posts and reply to them rather than repeating your own posts when they are already refuted.

Little girl, you have refuted nothing. Anyone can see that I have explained 2:256 in context with previous verses and the entire chain has NOTHING to do with dhimmi. You are wrong, and if that includes the imam who told you what to say, then he is wrong as well.

As far as I am concerned, I have proven my points and disproven yours.

I have received 1 pm so far telling me that nomad does not want to listen.

If anyone (other than nomad) feels that there is any question I have not answered then say so and I will answer it.

I'm giving about 1 week for anyone (other than nomad) to ask any question about this topic, then I want to post RamaDaan topics.

Like I said, you have neither disproved nor refuted anything. One lousy PM does not make a validation. Your imam have pulled a fast one and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Hmmm, now another ignorant sucker come to the fore.

Well, well, gonna have a busy weeks ahead this Ramadhan, samsparky, & Happy Ramadhan.



That Muslim man lived a very good life indeed. Ohhh, in India, some parts of Asia, some parts of Africa, even aborigine peoples thru-out the world, 14 yrs ol is a normal age for girls getting married or hitched.

My grandma was 15 yrs ol when she's married my grandad & happily loving him. You're saying ....




Yadda, yadda, yadda ...

In the West, the sky-rocketing divorce rates, illegitimate children borne outta wedlock, legalisation of same-sex marriages made a mockery to marrige institution.

Paedophiliacs cases skyrocketed in Asia when affluent, Christian-western suckers come down for a little sex jaunts with minors. Paedhophiles are mostly white, Christian males. You're saying .....



A woman can filed for a divorce if a husband leave her for straight 3 months with no economic dependencies, or if her husband is disabled in some ways (impotent, insane etc) through a Qadi. Its called fasakh, if Qadi found the calims justified , he will grant divorced. Woman can filed for annulment through khuluk, where she returned back the dowry / mahar (given by her husband during their wedding) to her husband. You're saying .....

Are you jealous of the ol' prosperous man?



She is. In Malaysia, once the wife gets her dowry, she went for a shopping spree.



Beaten? Now's that is domestic violence. Report to the police to take action.

Majority of Muslim women filled in every universities in Muslim world, outnumbering Muslim males. This is a FACT in Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE.

Educated wise Muslim women simply hoard her dowry to investments, or simply kept 'em in banks. You're saying ....



Man ... you're jealous of him ...



Issue, what issue?



The point is?



Apart from he is a robust ol' man enjoying life. Hell, most Muslim man stay faithful to one women, but Al-Sayeri. Well, happy Ramadhan to him, may Allah blessed him with many children!



Al-Sayeri did in accordance to Islam. He is wealthy & have capability to support his 4 wives , eventhough he regularly changes 'em with new ones. Now, what is your problem, really?

As for Aisha, prophet Muhammad come to her as a husband when she is 14 yrs ol. A normal age to bear children at that time. Furthermore, those time even in pagan & later Christian Europe, marrying babies to adults is normal & accepted as the norm. You're saying.....



Of course, we don't even admire you too, you little twerp!

She has her believe & faith, you godless fool. Your secular West accounted degenrated culture of pedhopilliac, drug abuse, crime-infested, Satan-worshipping, deviant & suicidal sects, liberal sex that devalued marriage institutions, untold numbers of illegitimate childs, teenage pregnancies ... women are degraded to the point of legalising prostitutions, young undreaged girls frolicking with free sex & illegal abortions, young men abusing drugs, kids that demeans their parents, adults that ditched their ol' folks ... need I say more?

You're once religious person, & now you don't, so that's your issues. Your religion do not require you to be close to god by praying 5 times a day. How would you know a Muslim lifestyle? Are you a Muslim once?

Keep farting, ol' coot! Your line is stale as your brain.



Unicorns ... gnomes ... elves ... those could very be djinns that have such abuilities to appear & led ignorant humans astray. There, logic to ye ...



Not all Jews are evil. Some are honest to goodness folks, especially liberal Jews. We just hate Israelis who seems nothing better to do than trampling Palestinians.

Sure, Jews control US. Through whom, US Senate & the President. Through their p[owerful lobbyists that practically dictated American policies ... You're saying ....



Yap, yap, yap, yap .... yap away, bub. You simply can't accept the FACT we Muslim accept one God, rejects others, giving back Jesus status as a noble prophet much like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses & Muhammad. What is your problem really ... middle age crisis?




Thor, Odin, Mithras, Quetzacoalt, Zeus are merely ancient gods or demigods rejected by Christianity, Jew & Islam. You're saying ....



How to control the world ... control the biggest, meanest Super Power. Which one is that? USA. Who're helpless when Israel stocked nuke arms, but giddy when poked by Israel concerning Iran's nuke ambition ... you're saying?

The more secularized a government, the less able a religion can oppress the citizenry. This fact seems to have escaped you and this is common among those who are excessively religious. They are not able to see the necessity of a line between state and religion in order to have a just society. Lebanon is not as free as Australia, free in the sense of civil liberties. Without the sizable population of Christians in Lebanon, to the point that a political office is guaranteed for them, Islam would overrun Lebanon and the women of Lebanon would be like that of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. For Lebanon, the office of the Presidency MUST be reserved for a Christian, the Prime Minister MUST be a Sunni and the Speaker of Parliament MUST be a Shi'ite. This is a weak form of government and a barely functional democracy. Civil liberties are not morally ingrained. In these Islamic countries you speak so highly of, can women apostate without being under some form of death threats? No, they cannot apostate (murtad). Here is a letter, from a Lebanon Islamic authority, regarding [i]murtads...So a male murtad can be put to death but not a female murtad, some consolation for your gender, I supposed. In this, it is highly unlikely that the civil authorities in Lebanon will prosecute or even investigate the killer of a murtad for in doing so, this weak government could incur the wrath of both Sunnis and Shias. Yes, of course, a woman in Lebanon can have a university degree and hold a well paying job, but if she examine her life, her intellect and her spirituality and decides that Buddhism is more appropriate and apostate, she can be imprisoned or even put to death in Lebanon. You call this civil liberties? You say that I am critical of Islam, specifically regarding women, based upon my ignorance. I would say you are naive about women under Islam based upon your own ignorance despite the fact that you are a muslim and I am not. I do not need to be a muslim to recognize religious oppression when I see it.[/i]

Islam is not only reserved for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon. Islam is all over the world. Islam is not limited to Arabs, it is embraced by every living racial identities in the world. You're saying?

It is only your opinion that I am refuted. I did predict that you would deny any possible peer-pressure. There is no way for me to know with 100% that you practice your faith without considering some measure of peer pressure, just as there is no way for you to know that I am what I am because of peer pressure as well. But it is an accepted psychological analysis that peer pressure plays an important part in our lives. Peer pressure, aka approval, compels us to excel, to conform to certain standards, to obey the laws and yes, to gain entrance to heavens. I am positive that if you read your Quran you will find passages in there that exhort muslims to 'support' each other in faith.

Let Sam be with her conviction in Islam. Her Quran is her guidance. She is staunch in her beliefs. I am positive you're nothing but trying to subvert her against her beliefs. You're propagandist, manipulative little bug. Do your missionary elsewhere.

So you feel that as a muslim, you hold divine right to call people 'evil' as you see fit, especially if they disagree with you. I am not offended, actually. I have come to realize that this is nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism by religious people.

We don't. Allah do. But when we see a killer killing an innocent man, he is certainly evil. I've come to realised that your passionate goading is nothing more than perverse desire of an provocateur. Lame ... lame ...

Wrong. We know that writing and its associates are artificial constructs. We do not know but can only infer at best that the universe is also an artificial construct. For all we know, and evidences so far support the hypothesis, is that natural laws enabled the universe to be as it is today. Nothing miraculous about it.

How do you know? If men can create machine, who creates men?

That is an argument of the brainwashed and full of logical fallacies. I no more and no less than you or anyone here have any experiences with jinns and angels or gnomes or elves. And from what basis can you categorically declare that gnomes and elves do not exists? Because you simply made the statement -- No one in the world believes that gnomes and elves exist. -- and that should be the end of discussion? You are insulting the intelligence of the participants here. I could say that when I was in Ireland I saw a leperchraun and other Irishmen have reported they have seen these creatures as well. How do you that is the truth?

I've had personal encounters with djinns before. Do I need to bare all? Hell no. We accepts its existences, they lived in their world, we in ours.

On behalf of most people here I thank you for calling us 'evil' people just because we are not muslims. Or is it that because I am not one of the fawning admirers in this discussion and that I have posed difficult questions that I have earned such a label? So how many of these fawning admirers converted? None? Well then, do they not qualify as 'blasphemers' also?

Hardly. Tangawizi is not a muslim, but we didn't call her evil. Its your assumptions. But you do, certainly with evil intention.

This is just too funny.

Where's that tickle bone?

Not interested in conspiracies.

We don't give a darn ...

You are making nothing more than assumptions about the godhood that are no more or less valid than that of the Christians regarding their definitions of what is the godhood. Take the molecule H2O for example. Most people would call it water, but in truth 'water' is only one state of this molecule, the other two physical states are 'ice' and 'steam'. So if the molecule H2O can have multiple physical states and if you believe that all are created, then how can you place limitations on what physical states God can possess? If God created H2O to have 3 possible physical states, would it not make sense that God himself is much more capable and can have any form or bodies of any size He wishes? Your contradictions are so glaring.

Monotheism existed with one God in mind. Now, we've 3 in 1 God concept from Catholicisms & Orthodox Christianity. Hmm, 3 in 1 ... much like pluralistic Hindu beliefs though. Jews are far more credible monotheists with one God, Yahweh.

And yet the religiously minded have no problems at all calling people they have never met 'evil' or that we are going to hell.

You do ...

I can assure you, your time will not be wasted. I have my own copy of the Quran, the hadiths and other commentaries to challenge you. You can do what most muslims generally do, absent any insults but unable to face tough questions, you can cry to the moderators that I have 'offended' your Islamic sensibilities and request my expulsion from a supposedly 'free speech' environment.

Fear not, I'm armed with only logical mind Allah has bestowed to me. Now, you so called intellect twerp, why don't head down to the truereligion.org forum & debated your way with our resident alim & knowleagable Muslims. Need you pestering us lesser Muslims with your ramblings. Where's the fun in debating 'eh?



You fond laughing to others ... Now, this is a real laugh from me laughing on you ...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

How's that?

Scoot away ... twerp ....

Hey Sam, let us ignore the twerp shall we?

Hmm, where do you gonna celebrate Eid ul Fitr? Oz?

By the by, if the twerp posted again challenging you, ignore him. Re-route him to Thetruereligion.org forum. Let him duked it out there with alim Muslim there.

Just to make a last and final point, protoculture, let's give the remaining 6 days and see if anyone has any questions for us.

If they don't, we win.

If they do, we will answer them and we win


By the way what is Oz ? lol

Does that mean Australia?

And since you are from Malaysia - I wanted to ask if you have heard of the book called sullam at-tawfeeq for Abdullaah ibn Husayn ibn Taahir al-^alawiyy (referring to him being from the offspring of Imaam Ali).

I'm guessing the "no compulsion" addressed in 2:256 means that there is no direct or immediate punishment following a mortal's decision to not believe in the religion. However it stresses on the fact that it is part of the mortal's destiny (which is willed by the deity) to fail at some point. In most/all scenarios, such justifies the physical actions being used to achieve the non-believer's demise since it is all part of the blueprinted future yielded, or willed by the deity.

The compulsion argument surrounding Islam share the same philosophical implications as the debatable contradictions evident in Christianity, and indeed in many other religions as well. Compulsion or more specifically speaking, the notion in the freedom of belief may induce very different theoretical reasonings depending on the individual's own background belief. For example, whether the person believes in fate, destiny and/or the existence of overruling entity controlling the universe would moreorless affect his/her standings on the issues regarding the compulsion for belief, or similarly, the baser opinion on freewill.

Being a non-believer of destiny, but also an inclined non-believer on freewill, I think the notion; the compulsion to believe in any particular religion cannot EVER be fully accepted in any general context. It is because for many different individuals, compulsion is defined with a much greater theoretical implication. (Though I understand it is relative. An idea can be considered to command greater signficance and thus greater theoretical implication just by the virtue of being in the absence of other types of ideas.) Freedom of belief to me means that we may believe in whatever we want without being compelled, either through the anticipation of future punishment or failure, to sustain the alternative.

1) No, the Verse 2:256 does not refer to there being no punishment for disbelief. Otherwise this would have contradicted the other Verses in the Qur'aan and sayings in the Hadeeth.

The Prophet, Companions, and their followers who carry the knowledge of the interpretation of the Verses and Hadeeths obviously know their meanings.

The interpretation of 2:256 as passed on by the chain of knowledge is that is refers to not compelling the thimmiyy who pays the jizya to the caliph (when there is one) to embrace Islam.

Many scholars mentioned that interpretation in their books and I gave one of them - Imaam al-Maatureediyy.

2) The Muslims are not allowed to make up punishments. The rules of the Religion are clear that in the absence of a caliph, the punishments he enforces as a deterance for committing crimes are not to be carried out by lay people or others. Only in the presence of the caliph does a person receive the punishment for their crime.

3) In Islam, a person can not be happy with a sin/crime. To feel happy about a sin is a sin. Also to feel happy that someone else is sinning is also sinful and immoral - how can you feel happy that someone is taking the path to hellfire? That is why if a Muslim found a non-Muslim, he wishes to guide him or her to the right path and show them the way - not leave them in their path to hellfire.

God gave the humans a will which is under His Will. That means people do their deeds willingly under the Will of God. God created everything - Paradise, Hellfire, belief and disbelief. He Ordered the humans and jinn to worship Him. If they do they will go to Paradise and if they don't they will go to Hellfire. That does not mean that we do not try to help the non-Muslims around us - we help them because we do not know which ones of them will have a locked heart and be doomed to hell and which ones will have an open heart and be guided to the path of Paradise.

4) If believing whatever you want is correct then those who steal other people's money and consume it might claim to be believing whatever they want, those who occupy people's homes unrightfully might claim to be ok because they are believing what they want - that they are ok.

Didn't pinochet believe what he wanted?

Didn't hitler believe what he wanted?

Do you allow such people to destroy the world because they are believing what they want?

That is just silly and chaotic.

Salaam sam and freefallz,

I believe the position of human Will versus divine Destiny has been one of the most discussed subjects in Islamic theology.

Some Islamic theologians argue that since man's actions belonged to God, he or she cannot have the freedom of choice, and therefore, cannot be kept responsible for his or her actions. This idea was named as Jabr (compulsion), and those who accepted it as Jabri. On the other hand, those who favoured the freedom of choice (ikhtiyar), which is in contrast to the idea of compulsion, asserted that man has unlimited freedom of choice; and with this assertion they had finally arrived at a point of rejecting the divine Destiny.

I am no expert but have a passing interest in Sufism. Sufist philosophy and spirituality is the Zen of Islam. One of its founders is Mevlana Rumi, and his writings have touched upon this subject of human Will versus divine Destiny. Rumi never states his position clearly like a dogma, but when you look at his thoughts about the freedom of will and compulsion (jabr}, he never supports the two extremities but favours a moderation. By so doing, on the one hand while he is accepting the freedom of choice for man, on the other hand he accepts the existence of the divine Destiny.

I quote two anecdotes from a Rumi site:



The first anecdote is reminiscent of the tradition of hindu or buddhist who give up their secular bonds to take up the life of the spiritual vagabond. The story of the Sultan is quite similar to Siddharta Gautama giving up his princehood to be a wandering medicant and then monk. The second anecdote is a zen classic koan of If you meet the Buddha, kill him. A profoundly difficult insight for most literal minds to grasp.

Most muslims who adhere to the Sunni sect do not accept Sufist thoughts and teachings. I would imagine Samsparky, you have been taught to accept the idea of Jabr which argues that since man's actions belonged to God, he or she cannot have the freedom of choice.

But I would encourage a read of Sufism when you have some time to gain an insight of how Islam had evolved its own spirituality that is no different from the insights gained by other spiritual teachings such as those taught by the desert fathers or zen buddhists. This spiritual destination basically come down to this :

There is no zen, nor islam, nor christianism nor buddhism. The truth is the same for everyone, whether we want it or not. This type of complications have been created by humans. They have created sects, religions and churches, to manipulate people and to dominate them through fear and guiltiness. But, when we speak of the soul of zen and the soul of Islam, they are exactly the same, because God is unique and everything at the same time. So, from thsi point of view, there is no one who could distinguish one self from the others.

No you've misread my comment. I said there won't probably be any immediate punishment resulting from disbelief. NOT that punishments do not exist.

I don't allow such people to destroy the world but neither do I possess the right to impose restrictions on their own beliefs. If their beliefs lead to chaos and inefficiency, then the laws of nature (the laws encompassing all physical, social as well as natural phenomena) will punish them for what they've chosen to do. It is not a question of me permitting or allowing the other party to uphold a doomed belief, for I have no jurisdiction and responsibility over someone else's thoughts UNTIL the ACTIONS commited by that individual (or expected actions) begin to threaten my own physical and mental state, such as he/she wanting to destroy the world aka my living environment. IF that happens, then I am compelled by my natural instincts (for the better of survival) to undermine the individual whenever, and wherever possible. This is ultimately reflected in the laws of nature (because I am just a small participant in nature's big picture, if I cannot put an end to the discomfort caused by another's wrongdoing, someone else or something else will... it is merely a matter of time; ie through the course of nature).

In addition, if you personally believe that the freedom of belief is erroneous or flawed. Then the "no compulsion" for religious belief is clearly the wrong message. Instead we should all BE COMPELLED to embrace religious beliefs.

Well, the theology of islam has been split into two major schools, one that is for divine Destiny and compulsion (jabr) and the other, total free will. Here's a thing that's little understood.

My ishmaili neighbor tells me that apostasy is not subject to Hudud law (Islamic punishments). The punishment for apostasy is in the hereafter. Allah is the sole judge of the apostate. Not a caliph or an imam like the Ayatollah. It is a shame that in light of this ignorance about Islam, quite a number of Muslims who have become frustrated with the decadence of western life and the perceived immorality of their lifestyle have opted to follow a system that bears more in common with Hitler's totalitarianism and Stalinism than Islam but yet still call their political ideology, Islam.

I am sure most practising muslims who realise this difference and belong to the latter school would see through the intolerant deceptions of folks like the ayatollahs. For if they understand the role of Islam, they will realise that while Islam is not confined to the mosque or the fatwas of an imam, it cannot, must not and will not be imposed upon the people without their choice.