Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[SchiZo]

Banjo

I don't think it really means any of those things. I think it just means that if the overwhelming majority of muslims agree on something then that will probably not be in error.

If 99% of muslims agree on a particular point and 1% disagree then, according to ijma, the 99% will be right and therefore it is safe to base a legal principle on it without fear of that principle being wrong.

Ijma is basically the consensus of muslim jurists during a certain time period, which forms the law. It does not necessarily mean that muslims will never get it wrong.

That hadith means that the whole ummah will not be misguided totally. i.e. there will always be a number of people/group that will be following the correct way, and preserving His religion.

Remember that we are talking law here. Law doesn't really get involved in warnings. Everything happens for a reason - if four witnesses are required then four witnesses are required. You may be correct that this would act as a warning in some way but we aren't really interested in this aspect of it. What we are interested in is the actual legal consequences of things.

From a religious angle, warnings are relevant. From a legal angle, they're not. This verse does, of course, have a religious context to it but it also has a legal context to it. We are interested in the legal aspect because the verse is used as a basis for islamic law.

Law (even islamic law) is a separate thing to religion. It is a study field all of it's own. Punishment is usually a better indicator as to the seriousness of a crime not evidential standards. For example, in islamic law there are certain punishments laid out in the quran - these are usually quite serious punishments (amputation, flogging, banishment etc) and they all attach to specific crimes.

I did state that the punishment of flogging was the indicator of the seriousness of the crime, not the evidential requirement.

While you want to isolate and only view the legal aspect, that would lose alot of the meaning and purpose. You have to keep in mind that this pertains to muslims, and the muslims must be a majority of the population in the country they reside if they are going to get an Islamic state. So the religious aspect of it is also very important.

So the four witness rule must be there for some other reason. At least, for some additional reason to just being a warning. The only other reason possible is as an evidential standard.

The punishment details are a warning, not the witnesses rule. The 4 witnesses is required if a 3rd party is launching the charges. A spouse can also launch the charges and the 4 witnesses rule does not apply.

It happens, but hardly ever. Certainly not often enough to warrant getting a mention by God in his (very short) holy book. All the other things that get specifically banned in the holy book are big things that happen all the time - robbery, adultery, etc.

Sex in a park or public place is not mentioned explicitly in that verse, but it can be derived from that.

You would be surprised how often it does happen. I have seen it myself many times lol. Most often it is at the beach, or park... sometimes on the side of a hill. You can read some accounts of people having a romp in public, if you look online.

Not only that but what you are saying is that the quran bans public sex in a park but ignores rape. Rape is a very major crime. It has always been with us (unfortunately). For as long as there have been men and women, there has been rape. If your interpretation is to be believed then the quran makes a big issue out of banning something minor (that never happens anyway) like public sex in a park and ignores something major (that happens all the time) like rape.

It does not ignore rape. Taking a woman against her will is a major sin. Rape can be put under the Fasaad fi al-ardh category, which has a wide range of punishments, such as a painful death among others, which I mentioned in my earlier post.

The punishment is left to the ruling body, due to the varying severity of the crime. Just as homosexuality is punishable, it does not outline the punishment, but leaves it to the state to decide what is reasonable.

Also, it seems to be saying that full sex in front of three witnesses is ok but full sex in front of four witnesses is a no no.

Your interpretation doesn't really solve the problem, it just kind of shifts it onto a different offence. We still have the four witnesses problem, just relating to a different offence. What's the big deal about four witnesses? What can four witnesses prove that three witnesses can't?

I understand what you're saying, but zina is not a [serious] crime like murder.

4 witnesses to protect women from false charges made by a 3rd party.

The punishment is a warning/deterrant to dissuade people from taking part in the act. Atleast publically. If you want to have sex inside your own home, fine... you can do that, but if you get pregnant or cause problems for the state, and get caught, then you get punished. Homosexual intercourse is also banned in Sharia, and the same can apply, i.e. do what you want inside your house, just don't go out to flaunt it. Keep private matters where they belong.

I'm not defending adultery. Of course it is wrong. I'm just questioning whether it is the place of the state to have official punishments for it. I think it's best left as a private matter. When an adulterer gets caught they suffer punishment anyway in terms of social disapproval, spousal problems, family problems, possible divorce, personal guilt etc. There's no need for the state to get involved.

Well adultery will most likely cause personal punishment like guilt and spousal problems, yeah, but fornication is different.

Besides, its not all about punishment. If the offender is truly repentant and asks for forgiveness, s/he should be forgiven.

Another point I would make (although you would no doubt argue with this) is that polygamy creates a situation where adultery is more likely. In the muslim world, a married man is allowed to take some young girl out for dinner, to the cinema, whatever as long as he doesn't have sex with her. He can date a girl with a view to marrying her.

Banning adultery but allowing polygamy creates an imbalance. It creates a situation where adultery is more likely to happen because it allows the man to take young girls on romantic dates even when he is married. In a monogamous society, the man has no reason to take young girls on romantic dates at all. Polygamy puts temptation in the way of the man.

That is false. Men and women are not allowed to date like that. When would-be couples meet they must be in the presence of a mahram (guardian/relative).

 

[banjo]

Schizo:

Ijma is basically the consensus of muslim jurists during a certain time period, which forms the law. It does not necessarily mean that muslims will never get it wrong.

That hadith means that the whole ummah will not be misguided totally. i.e. there will always be a number of people/group that will be following the correct way, and preserving His religion.

Hmm...not sure I quite agree with you there.

I don't think it means that there will always be a certain number of muslims following the correct way, otherwise how could you base a law on it?

Suppose this group of muslims who are following the correct way were some small little-known tribe in a forgotten corner of Africa? How could islamic law then use ijma as a basis for law? Ijma is one of the sources of islamic law. I think it means that if a large number of scholars (and muslims generally) are able to reach a consensus on a particular point then that consensus can be construed as being the correct islamic interpretation.

Therefore it is safe to base a law on that consensus. If it meant what you say then it wouldn't be possible to use the principle of ijma in a practical way - to use it as a basis for a particular law.

I think it has to mean more than what you say otherwise it wouldn't be of any practical use. But, in any case, I don't think this is all that important a point. It doesn't really have anything to do with my main argument in this thread so I don't see the need to get too bogged down by it.

Sex in a park or public place is not mentioned explicitly in that verse, but it can be derived from that.

You would be surprised how often it does happen. I have seen it myself many times lol. Most often it is at the beach, or park... sometimes on the side of a hill. You can read some accounts of people having a romp in public, if you look online.

Yes it happens but it's hardly a major public menace. I think I've seen it happen once in my life - a couple of horny teenagers waiting at a bus stop decided to go down some side road and go at it, I happened to walk past.

Are you saying that this verse in the quran is intended to stop that kind of thing? You must be because it can't mean anything else.

I understand what you're saying, but zina is not a [serious] crime like murder.

4 witnesses to protect women from false charges made by a 3rd party.

Yes but there will never be four witnesses so what's the point of the verse?

The punishment is a warning/deterrant to dissuade people from taking part in the act. Atleast publically. If you want to have sex inside your own home, fine... you can do that, but if you get pregnant or cause problems for the state, and get caught, then you get punished. Homosexual intercourse is also banned in Sharia, and the same can apply, i.e. do what you want inside your house, just don't go out to flaunt it. Keep private matters where they belong.

If something is wrong, it is wrong. Islam frowns on adultery and homosexuality. You seem to be saying that islam is saying that adultery and homosexuality are ok as long as you don't get caught. This seems to be a dodgy position morally. Either adultery is wrong or it's not. You can't say that it's ok as long as you don't get caught.

That is false. Men and women are not allowed to date like that. When would-be couples meet they must be in the presence of a mahram (guardian/relative).

Even if there are restrictions on how married men may date women, the fact is that married men are allowed to date women. The fact that this exists at all encourages adultery.

Maybe not all muslims are quite so fastidious in following strict islamic guidelines with regard to guardians etc. Maybe the woman's guardian is a close friend of hers who is cool with turning a blind eye if the woman wants to get it on. Maybe the woman doesn't have a suitable relative because she comes from a small family.

Maybe this, maybe that. The bottom line is that if you didn't allow married men to go on dates at all then there would be no need for guardians because the man wouldn't be playing the field any more after he has got married.

I'm not a woman but if I was I would hate the idea of my husband constantly keeping an eye out for the next bit of hot stuff to come his way.

 

[SchiZo]

I don't have much time, so here is a short and quick reply....

1. Ijma is basically forming a law, when most agree on a given principle. It does not mean that they can't be wrong about it. All great scholars of past have said that if you see a mistake or somewhere I have gone wrong.. don't follow it. You were initially arguing that because some countries have 4 witness rule for rape, that it is somehow correct. But that is not true.

2. I have stated why there is punishment for Zina numerous times in the previous posts. Some of which are public decency, STD's minimization, unwanted pregnancies, burden on the state etc.. read back you will find them.

3. You state it is pointless because you think 4 witnesses are needed in all cases.... which is not true. 4 witness rule only applies if it is a third party launching the charges. the husband/wife doesn't need 4 witnesses. if a woman is pregrant and not married, then that is proof. if there is video tape then that is proof. the 4 witness rule is a guideline, to prevent 3rd parties launching false charges and staining an honorable and pious woman's reputation.

4. Homosexuality is wrong. It is punishable by the state if you flaunt it in the public. However if you do it inside the privacy of your home, then it is between you and God, not the state. That was my point.

5. Dating is not allowed in Islam. I don't know where you got that from. There are some exceptions to that rule, but even then, your argument is flawed. Talking to a possible candidate is OK aslong as the girl is accompanied by a mahram, but if that mahram is going to turn a blind eye, then that is his problem, and it is between the parties involved not to get up to any frisky business. It is expected of the muslim believers, if they want to go against it, thats fine, its between them and God. a sincere muslim will not get physical, and a non muslim... well it doesn't apply there does it..

a muslim is commanded to marry only one wife. it is only in certain circumstances that he can marry more. a sincere muslims doesn't go around oogling other women, it is against his faith, as God commanded to lower your gaze.

so I don't know where you are coming up with this stuff, but its amusing.

 

[banjo]

Schizo:

1. Ijma is basically forming a law, when most agree on a given principle. It does not mean that they can't be wrong about it. All great scholars of past have said that if you see a mistake or somewhere I have gone wrong.. don't follow it. You were initially arguing that because some countries have 4 witness rule for rape, that it is somehow correct. But that is not true.

Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly enough. Maybe I've not been precise enough. I'm not arguing that because some countries use the four witnesses rule then that is somehow correct. I agree with you - these countries are almost certainly in error (even from an islamic perspective).

And I'm not saying that if most agree on something then they cannot be in error.

What I am trying to say is similar to what you are saying but slightly different. But I don't think the difference is all that important so it's not worth arguing about.

I agree with you that ijma means that will always be truth hidden somewhere in the islamic community. However, in order to make any practical use of this concept (ie in order to be able to use it as the basis for a legal principle) we need to be able to find this truth.

Finding this truth is a difficult thing. Who knows where it is? We could have a philosophical discussion for hours on the subject but it wouldn't get us anywhere on a practical level.

Law needs a practical level in order to be able to work. This is something that all types of legal systems have in common (even islamic law). The Truth, on a metaphysical level, can be a hard thing to define. Defining truth on this level is very interesting and can lead to absorbing conversations but it's not much use to law. Law needs clearly defined truths.

Therefore, in a legal sense, ijma has to mean something. It has to mean something definite, something that can be used. The most obvious way to extract meaning out of ijma is to say that you add together the consensus of the most eminent scholars and the general feeling of most the umma and call that "The Truth".

Of course, it may not really be the truth. It may not objectively be "The Truth". It's possible they were wrong. But in order to function on a day to day level we have to reach a working definition of what is generally considered to be "The Truth" at any one time.

The consensus of scholars would seem to be the most effective way of determining what is currently considered to be "The Truth".

But only for legal purposes. Remember legal purposes are different to metaphysical purposes or religious purposes or philosophical purposes. Legal purposes need to have something definite to attach to, even if it is only the temporary opinion of most scholars.

This may have flaws but it's the best we've got. You can't base law on vague metaphysical or religious discussions because they don't reach any firm conclusions.

So I think I'm pretty much agreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that I didn't mean what you said I meant.

2. I have stated why there is punishment for Zina numerous times in the previous posts. Some of which are public decency, STD's minimization, unwanted pregnancies, burden on the state etc.. read back you will find them.

Yes but I'm not talking about the punishment, I'm talking about the four witnesses. Forget about the punishments. What is the crime which requires four witnesses?

3. You state it is pointless because you think 4 witnesses are needed in all cases.... which is not true. 4 witness rule only applies if it is a third party launching the charges.

What charges? What crime did they commit that requires four witnesses to prove it? Can't be just straight adultery because there will never be four witnesses.

the husband/wife doesn't need 4 witnesses. if a woman is pregrant and not married, then that is proof.

Not necessarily. With the advent of things like artificial insemination and so on, pregnancy can be no longer taken as an prima facie indicator of extra-marital sex. I think most muslim countries take this view nowadays.

the 4 witness rule is a guideline, to prevent 3rd parties launching false charges and staining an honorable and pious woman's reputation.

It can't be a guideline for the reasons we've discussed in this thread:

- it's not a warning. We both agreed that the punishment sections of the relevant verses are the "warning" sections. Punishments are warnings, evidential standards are legal things.

- if the verse carries an evidential standard of four witnesses then there must be a crime to which this standard is attached.

- the crime can't be adultery because you will never get four witnesses and it can't be rape because you will never get four witnesses so it can only be public sex in a park.

- it has to mean something. It can't mean nothing. It's the word of God for God's sake. You reduce it's meaning to almost nothing while in Pakistan they extend it's meaning all the way up to rape.

- They may be going too far in one direction but if one goes in your direction then you have to believe that God gave us one short holy book packed to the brim with essential instructions and found time to make a really big deal over banning full sex in a public park in the middle of the day - possibly one of the least common "crimes" ever known to mankind.

- is it any surprise that some countries try to give it a bit more teeth and extend it to include much more serious crimes? God obviously thought it was pretty important - important enough to specifically ban anyway.

5. Dating is not allowed in Islam. I don't know where you got that from. There are some exceptions to that rule, but even then, your argument is flawed. Talking to a possible candidate is OK aslong as the girl is accompanied by a mahram, but if that mahram is going to turn a blind eye, then that is his problem, and it is between the parties involved not to get up to any frisky business. It is expected of the muslim believers, if they want to go against it, thats fine, its between them and God. a sincere muslim will not get physical

All this is great but there's a slight flaw. You keep saying "a muslim will do this, a muslim will do that..." as though all muslims are completely perfect human beings. As though they all obey these rules. Yes a muslim SHOULD behave appropriately but not all muslims are perfect.

Some may fall prey to temptation like anyone else. Allowing polygamy removes one very major obstacle to temptation. A western guy thinks..."Well, she's hot but I'm married so it's look but don't touch", a muslim guy thinks..."Well, she's hot but I'm married, but so what? I can date her (appropriately) for a month or two and then marry her and get my shag then.."

Islam removes the barrier - it makes married men have real designs on other women after they are married. Not just harmless fantasies - they really can go after that new woman in their lives and attempt to shag her. They just have to go through the boring formalities of wooing and marriage first.

And when they get bored with her, they can go look for another one - hey, they're allowed up to four. And if they keep divorcing them along the way so that they never go over the four mark they can pretty much never stop wooing all their married life.

Yes, a man is commanded to marry only one wife but he doesn't have to stop there if he doesn't want to. And the circumstances you refer to are that he has to spend equal amount of time with each wife and treat them all the same. As long as he thinks he can comply with these strictures then he is free to keep marrying and dating other women.

a sincere muslims doesn't go around oogling other women, it is against his faith, as God commanded to lower your gaze.

Yeah right and male muslims NEVER oogle women in real life. I know that you think Islam is great in theory but just doesn't get implemented properly but I think you also need to temper some of your views with reality checks every now and again.

 

[Mohsin]

Regards to all.

Banjo, before I could get into more discussions with you, can you please answer these question for me, real short real simple, what are you? I mean, you are not following any religion, that is evident and you yourself said that, so where do you fit yourself. Also, what do you think you will be in future?

 

[banjo]

Mohsin:

Banjo, before I could get into more discussions with you, can you please answer these question for me, real short real simple, what are you? I mean, you are not following any religion, that is evident and you yourself said that, so where do you fit yourself. Also, what do you think you will be in future?

I was brought up catholic but now I have no religion. I'm not an atheist though, I think there could well be a God. Atheists think that since there is no proof of God then the most logical position to take is to believe that there isn't a God. I don't see the logic in that argument. If there is no evidence of God then all that means is that EITHER there is no God OR God has chosen not to leave any evidence.

Assuming there is a God then there's only two choices - either God speaks to us or he doesn't. Either choice is equally likely. Religious people think he speaks to us, I think he doesn't.

The reason I think he doesn't is because religion seems to be a pretty inefficient way of getting his message across to us. If he's going to speak to us, why doesn't he just write his message across the sky in fire every hundred years or so.

I don't see the point in whispering in some prophets ear every thousand years or so. And every time he does whisper in a prophets ear he creates an entirely new religion. Some of these religions don't even exist anymore eg Zeus or else they hardly exist eg Zoroastrianism.

If all these religions followed on from each other in some kind of natural progression then there might be an argument for saying that God is gradually bringing us on. He gives us a new religion every so often when he thinks we are ready for it. But I just don't see this progression. All the religions are completely different from each other. I know that islam sees itself as the culmination of a religious journey that started with judaism and christianity but I don't see this. Islam is more like judaism than christianity so I don't see it as the next step after christianity. And anyway I think that you need to include ALL religions in this progression not just judaism, christianity and islam.

I don't see any progression just lots of different religions. Some religions, like sihkism or bahai, claim that all religions are equally valid. That they are all right. Whilst I admire the attempt of these religions to diffuse religious argument I have to disagree with them. All religions are equally wrong not equally right.

Maybe one day, christianity and islam will be overtaken by some new religion and vanish. If there really is a true path that God wants us to follow, why doesn't he just tell us what it is and stop messing around with all these prophets?

Therefore I've formed the conclusion that no human being that has ever walked this earth has ever spoken to God. Not Abraham, not Moses, not Jesus, not Mohammed, not anyone.

God has never spoken to us. Doesn't mean he doesn't exist just that he's never spoken to us.

If you ever study philosophy you see that there are three axioms, three things that we actually know for sure. These things are:

- Existence exists
- The law of identity
- Consciousness

Beyond the axioms, nothing matters. Everything else is just fluff. I like to think of myself as living on an island. The Island of Things We Actually Know, Axiom Island.

Surrounding this island is a vast sea of unknowns. Religion is out in this sea because even if one of the religions is true, we can't know that for sure. So I stay on the Island. Things can get pretty boring here on the island but it's home and I like it.

Sometimes I may do some fishing off some of the rockier coasts of the island but that's only out of interest. I make sure I never get pulled in by a big fish.

I watch other people set sail from the island and go off in search of truth. They swear that the truth is out there but they need to cross the sea to find it. I'm always interested in what they find out there but I'm sceptical that they will find the truth. The sea is so big and they don't even know which direction to go in, they don't even really know that the truth is out there they are just going on a hunch based on what other people have told them.

I don't trust other people. ANY other people, even if they are so-called prophets. So I stay on the Island of Things We Actually Know because at least there I know I can't be wrong.

Sorry about that extended island metaphor, I probably carried that on for too long but I kind of liked it.

 

[Avinash]

Re: Misconceptions and queries about Islam

Namaskar Banjo,

He gives us a new religion every so often when he thinks we are ready for it. But I just don't see this progression. All the religions are completely different from each other.

Are they really that much different from each other? Aren't you focussing on the theoretical and practical differences rather than on the practices and ideas which they have in common?

I don't see any progression just lots of different religions. Some religions, like sihkism or bahai, claim that all religions are equally valid. That they are all right. Whilst I admire the attempt of these religions to diffuse religious argument I have to disagree with them. All religions are equally wrong not equally right.

Why do you think that they are equally wrong?

Maybe one day, christianity and islam will be overtaken by some new religion and vanish. If there really is a true path that God wants us to follow, why doesn't he just tell us what it is and stop messing around with all these prophets?

Maybe God responds to people on an individual basis? When your longing for Him grows large enough, He will surely show you the way. I'm not implying though that it should be within this or that religion. Perhaps you need more time until you find out.

I like to think of myself as living on an island. The Island of Things We Actually Know, Axiom Island. Surrounding this island is a vast sea of unknowns. Religion is out in this sea because even if one of the religions is true, we can't know that for sure. So I stay on the Island. Things can get pretty boring here on the island but it's home and I like it.

I think your starting point is fine. If there is a connection between you and God, then surely it will be a direct connection to your small island and not through some priest or some religion claiming it has the "only truth".

I watch other people set sail from the island and go off in search of truth. They swear that the truth is out there but they need to cross the sea to find it. I'm always interested in what they find out there but I'm sceptical that they will find the truth. The sea is so big and they don't even know which direction to go in, they don't even really know that the truth is out there they are just going on a hunch based on what other people have told them.

How can you be so sure that all of them are doing so "on a hunch based on what other people have told them"? Perhaps some people have genuinely felt that God called them to walk a certain path.

Sorry about that extended island metaphor, I probably carried that on for too long but I kind of liked it.

Its rather a nice metaphor, only IMHO the island is even smaller than you think because the only island you can be sure about is your own feeling of existence (and even that could turn out to be a dream ). If you want to find God, you should start from the island itself because He is already there on/in the island.

 

[Mohsin]

Regards Banjo.

Nice to hear you philosophy, now its my turn . I derived it from what I think and learned and it cannot necessarily be true.

Semitic religions, especially Islam believes that God is perfect. May be every one will say that, but the thing is that we believe that God always remains perfect. I mean, to send His messages to the people, God sends messangers/prophets from among these people. On the other hand, many non-Semitic religions, i.e. the Aryan religions, especially Hinduism believes that God himself comes down to the earth, taking a form to deliver His message. Christianity has got a touch of this thought as well. The thing that I find wrong in this philosophy of God coming down to earth taking a form is that, why would God do it. I maen, God is perfect, why would God take an imperfect form and thus, in a way, not be God any more. I mean, many Christians believe in Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) as being God, but we all know that he(P.B.U.H) was a human, and even had to suffer a lot. Many Christians also believe that he(P.B.U.H) died on the cross. CAN GOD DIE? It seems plain illogical(no offence if taken by any). I do understand and believe that God can do everything, but God cannot do anything that will not make Him God any more. I think you understand what I am saying. This is one point why Islam tends to not to be like Christianity. The part that says Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) as born as a son of God, sorry, but I cannot accept that. Why would God need a son? If you say what you say because Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) was born of a virgin birth, i.e. without a father, then Adam(P.B.U.H) was without a mother and a father. It is not difficult for God to create a person, God can do that easily.

The part when you say that why don't God just write His message across the sky every few hundred years or so, I would say, its God's will. God did perform many big miracles. We cannot go back in time to see them, but we can confirm a few of them with the help of the archiological discoveries. The part when you say that some other religion will come and overtake Christianity and Islam. I don't care about that. The Qur'an says it clearly that Islam is complete and there will be no more prophets. Something that the Bible did not do, and you know it.

So, if you are a rational person, you will rethink about you conclusion. You just cannot deny everything. About your story of an island, its a fine story, but I personally would encourage people to think and search for truth. You say that you are satisfied with what you know, you are not. Believe me several questions may be haunting your mind whenever they arise, you may find it easy to just simply deny them, but you cannot do it to all of them all the time.

 

[Mohsin]

A few points about polygamy, the theory part that is, something that even certain Muslims tend to overlook and non-Muslims do not know about them, a large part that is.

Firstly, no religious scripture says marry only one. The Qur'an puts an upper limit of four, but also says that if you cannot do justice, marry only one. Something I found in an artical that it was several hundred years later that the followers, i.e. the Christian Church and priests of other religions restricted the number of wives to one. Even several prophets had more then one wife including prophet Solomon(P.B.U.H) and even Abraham(P.B.U.H). A Jewish Rabbi, Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against Polygamy. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

Now, for the other part. This I learned from a lecture given by a Muslim lady. In polygamy or should I say Polygyny as Polyandry is not allowed in islam, it is not always the man who benefits. Odd, but lets analyze.

1. It is upto the husband to provide for the wife and the children, i.e. the financial duties are totally on the husband. If wife wishes to work, she can, but she need not to spend a single penny against her will. So, man is going to provide for say one wife, two, three, four. It is not easy is it?

2. In almost all the cases, there are bound to be new relatives, like father-in-law, mother-in-law, e.t.c. One wife, one group of relatives, two wives, two groups, three for three and four for four. It is not easy is it?

3. On the day of judgement, a woman will have to answer for only herself and her children. Man however will have to answer for himself, his wife and his children. More the wives, more to answer for. It is not easy is it?

Lastly, you will have to accept, the female population is more then that of male. By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females. During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers. In some backword nations, there is an evil practice of abortion of female foetuses and thus the population is somewhat same, but in many countries there are more women then men. I have some stats from an artical, they are rather old. I will paste a section here.

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males. Now concider this, if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than seven million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (not concidering that America has several million gays, if you do that, the rate increases very highly). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband. Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes (a harsh word)'public property'. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first. Islam does not allow homosexuality so lets not even concider it as an option. But there are some people who are smart, and might say that... ‘I would prefer my sister remaining a virgin’. Believe me, medical science tells us, that a man or woman cannot remain a virgin, throughout his/her life. It is very difficult, because daily, sex hormones are being liberated in the body. Also keep in mind the cases of fornication and homosexuality between the people of churches.

So, polygymy is something which is difficult(in Islam), but also a bit important. If a Muslim does not concired the conditions that he would have to satisfy for polygymy, it is a matter between him and God. It is his problem and he is wrong.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Eh, its still just relegating women to property.

 

[kkawohl]

The Qur'an says it clearly that Islam is complete and there will be no more prophets. Something that the Bible did not do, and you know it.

The Qur'an, Bible, Torah and ALL "Holy Books" were written according to man's fallible mind interpretations of their spiritual interactions with the Spirit of God & because of that, "intelligent" people do not take these writings literally.

Allah/God is not restricted by man's fallible interpretation as to when or whether God is allowed or not allowed to send more prophets or messengers; but on second thought, prophets are no longer necessary, so if you wish to claim Muhammad as the last prophet, so be it. There will always be more "messengers" of Allah/God as long as this world exists.

 

[bananabrain]

thanks kurt for charging in again and correcting us so that we all know what's *really* happening.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mohsin]

Regards to all

Eh, its still just relegating women to property.

Seriously, why do you say that?

thanks kurt for charging in again and correcting us so that we all know what's *really* happening.

You know, I was really expecting something like that from Kurt for myself, the charging in part. .

"intelligent" people do not take these writings literally.

So you are saying that intelligent person cannot be religious.

Allah/God is not restricted by man's fallible interpretation as to when or whether God is allowed or not allowed to send more prophets or messengers; but on second thought, prophets are no longer necessary, so if you wish to claim Muhammad as the last prophet, so be it. There will always be more "messengers" of Allah/God as long as this world exists.

You say what you have to say, but I will continue to say that the Qur'an is a word of God, revealed to Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). As for the Bible, I believe that it was revealed, some parts, but got curropted. The part where you say that there would be more prophets as long as the world exists, well, Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) is the last messanger of Allah(the Almighty God), and the world is going to end. The signs of the last day, some coming true, is a topic that is pretty well known among the Muslims, but you will always do what you do, disagree.


My question to Kurt, how long did it took to derive or make up or know the story/concept of God that you have? Contradicting with the Qur'an, with the Bible, hey, where did people get the concept of God, the angels, the souls and spirits e.t.c.? Also, try to be to the point, it helps a lot.


If there are any Muslims here, I will suggest them to stick with the Qur'an, as it really helps not getting into some really really odd theories and stories. May be they already know that. .

 

[kkawohl]

So you are saying that intelligent person cannot be religious.

My question to Kurt, how long did it took to derive or make up or know the story/concept of God that you have? Contradicting with the Qur'an, with the Bible, hey, where did people get the concept of God, the angels, the souls and spirits e.t.c.? Also, try to be to the point, it helps a lot.

Esteemed Mohsin,

I stated, "The Holy Books" were written according to man's fallible mind interpretations of their spiritual interactions with the Spirit of God & because of that, "intelligent" people do not take these writings literally”.

When religions are used as a force for shaping and manipulating society it does not mean that its spiritual and altruistic effects are negated but it nevertheless is a manipulation of the masses for selfish or political reasons. Attempts at controlling society by using Allah/God as an authoritarian figure or as an angry patriarchal Concept of God has historically always had the indirect dire consequences of motivating peoples desires to please this deity to a point where they will indiscriminately fight and die for that cause. The common man is thereby used as a tool for the political enhancement of the manipulator.

When the truth behind the concept is known, only then can one accurately judge the concept. Spirituality is an interaction of man’s spirit with the Spirit of God. This interaction was often expanded upon by followers who added their own interpretations and gradually the original message was skewed to meet the agenda of the newly formed religion. The complexities, histories, and practices of religions have always been used to indoctrinate and keep new members from questioning the composition of the God that religions have created for the masses. True spirituality and a true God is self-sufficient and requires nothing from mankind. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality.

Preaching about “signs of the last days” and “the world is going to end” is another way for preachers to frighten the masses, elevate their own standing in a community, and brain-wash the gullible. Allah/God never has, and never will meddle in the affairs of mankind.

Moshin, you asked where I got my concept of God.
Please see http://www.near-death.com/forum/nde/001/14.html

Also, I am not contradicting the Qur'an, Torah and the Bible. Contradicting means denying, refuting, opposing. I am denying, refuting or opposing the “Holy Books”. I stated that they should not be taken literally. They were the translations (often superstitious) of Messengers of God who interpreted their spirit’s interaction with the Spirit of God according to their mind's conditioning.
The Ultimate Truth is indecipherable by the human mind and can only be divulged to the spirit which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and belief. Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham, Moses, etc. are alive today as spirit and they are now a part of Allah/God.

The goals of ALL religions are the same; a deserved, appropriate, just finale. God wants nothing from man…but it is necessary for man to lead a “righteous” life so that his “clean” soul can unite with God upon the body’s demise. Many religions today have become the culmination of their own dogma and politics and are often something other than spirituality.

Namaste,

Kurt

 

[Mus Zibii]

Seriously, why do you say that?

Because its set up like a merger. Not that polygamy is much worse than the state of marriage in general. But taking wives is like a notch in the belt. Look how many I can afford, look at my legacy. Its about as intimate and natural as a burqua. Its posturing.

 

[banjo]

Avinash said:

Are they really that much different from each other? Aren't you focussing on the theoretical and practical differences rather than on the practices and ideas which they have in common?

It's true that they have things in common. But they also have differences and these differences don't progress on from one another. To give a (probably really stupid) example:

Circumcision is essential (judaism) ---> circumcision is unnecessary (christianity) ---> circumcision is essential again (islam)

Circumcision is either essential or it's not. Why doesn't God just tell us which it is instead of saying one thing one minute and the exact opposite thing the next minute?

And this is just the judaic religions - judaism, christianity, islam. Since we don't know which religion is correct, we have to assume that ANY of them could be right and so we have to consider beliefs such as those of the native American Indians, and the aborigines, and all the different African tribes, and everyone else.

Just because some of these religions are small doesn't mean much. There's only 14 million jews in the world so thats a pretty small religion in numerical terms. Yet no one would deny the powerful effect that judaism has had on the world - two major religions define themselves by reference to it.

So all the small religions are as valid as the big ones (potentially). Size is not necessarily an indicator of likeliness of being correct.

Once we start taking into account ALL the religions of the world then the differences between them become so big that it seems likely that either one of them is right and the rest wrong OR they are all wrong. There isn't any real progression from one religion to the next just different manifestos. To give another example:

Drinking is ok in moderation (judaism) ---> drink like a fish, God has no problem with it (christianity) ----> do not drink at all under any circumstances (islam)

No progression. It went from moderation to no problem to a complete ban.

Why do you think that they are equally wrong?

Either one of them is right or they are all equally right or none of them is right.

If one of them is right, why do the others exist?
If they are all equally right, why do they sometimes say opposite things?

The only one of the three options that fits the facts is that none of them are right. This would explain why they all disagree with each other - because they are all just random strings of letters which generally reflect the social mores of their birthplace or their founder.

And it would explain why so many of them exist - because anyone can start a religion. All you need is your very own prophet with a big mouth.

Hell, I might start one myself just to prove it can be done. I would make my religion into the biggest religion in the world and then, just when it was at it's peak, I would do what no other prophet has ever done before - I would announce that my religion was a crock of **** and that I just made it all up.

Hopefully, this would destroy all the other religions in the world as people realise they've been had. But probably not.

Maybe God responds to people on an individual basis? When your longing for Him grows large enough, He will surely show you the way. I'm not implying though that it should be within this or that religion. Perhaps you need more time until you find out.

Don't understand why me finding the way is dependant on my longing for him being of the requisite size???

Exactly how big does this "longing" have to be? Until you get desparate enough that you will consider anything?

Anyway that's a bit of a selfish viewpoint - me going on a personal journey in search of God. I don't care about me - what about the rest of humanity? We are all part of creation. The heathen is as much God's creature as the believer.

In the larger scheme of things, me as an individual only matters to me (and God). What about everyone else who believes wrongly or doesn't believe at all? I'm alright Jack so **** them?

Nah, I think the "true" religion would have to be believed uniformly all around the world by all humans. And the only way to accomplish this would be for God to write his message across the sky in fire every hundred years or so.

Or at least do it in a way better than the way he is currently employing. Which isn't working.

Sorry God, I don't mean to annoy you but, when you find time, could you explain yourself a bit more clearly? You're causing a bit of confusion down here.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I don't know about Jesus, but I like the gospel of Banjo here.

 

[banjo]

Mohsin said:

I do understand and believe that God can do everything, but God cannot do anything that will not make Him God any more.

I don't understand your logic here Mohsin. First you say that God can do anything but then you say that there is something that God cannot do. If God can do anything then he can do anything (including taking on human form if he wishes).

The part that says Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) as born as a son of God, sorry, but I cannot accept that. Why would God need a son?

Beats me, I don't understand it either. But then who are we to question God's actions? God does whatever he wants even if we don't understand the reasons for it.

The part when you say that why don't God just write His message across the sky every few hundred years or so, I would say, its God's will. God did perform many big miracles. We cannot go back in time to see them, but we can confirm a few of them with the help of the archiological discoveries.

Well, we can't really confirm any miracles by archeology. All we have are written records which may or may not be true. As you say we can't go back in time - so why doesn't God give us a big miracle every hundred years or so? Then there would be no argument.

The part when you say that some other religion will come and overtake Christianity and Islam. I don't care about that. The Qur'an says it clearly that Islam is complete and there will be no more prophets. Something that the Bible did not do, and you know it.

Actually not all muslims are fully convinced that Mohammed will be the last prophet. Some leave the door open to future prophets. And anyway, even if islam does say that Mohammed is the last prophet, so what? This doesn't prove islam is right.

I don't think this is a big issue in christianity or judaism. Judaism says that there will be more prophets whereas christianity takes no strong position on the subject.

So, if you are a rational person, you will rethink about you conclusion. You just cannot deny everything. About your story of an island, its a fine story, but I personally would encourage people to think and search for truth. You say that you are satisfied with what you know, you are not. Believe me several questions may be haunting your mind whenever they arise, you may find it easy to just simply deny them, but you cannot do it to all of them all the time.

Well I never claimed to know everything. The exact opposite in fact - there are lots of things that I don't know. I just don't think it's possible to know all the answers so you have to just accept those few things that we do know.

I know that I am here, I know that I am conscious and I know that I am a different thing from you or from my dog. That's about all it is possible to know, everything else is just meaningless speculation.

1. It is upto the husband to provide for the wife and the children, i.e. the financial duties are totally on the husband. If wife wishes to work, she can, but she need not to spend a single penny against her will. So, man is going to provide for say one wife, two, three, four. It is not easy is it?

The financial duties are only totally on the husband according to islam. So islam creates it's own problem once again. If you don't have rigid rules about what duty lies where then you don't have the problem of how to make that system work.

2. In almost all the cases, there are bound to be new relatives, like father-in-law, mother-in-law, e.t.c. One wife, one group of relatives, two wives, two groups, three for three and four for four. It is not easy is it?

So don't it then. Islam creating it's own problem.

3. On the day of judgement, a woman will have to answer for only herself and her children. Man however will have to answer for himself, his wife and his children. More the wives, more to answer for. It is not easy is it?

Yes but if you jettison all this islam baggage then you will start to realise that there isn't actually any evidence that there will even be a day of judgement. But even if there is one then you have no way of knowing that it will be an islamic day of judgement, maybe it will be a judaic one or a christian one.

In any case, this is just islam creating it's own problem again. Islam creates the system whereby a man has to answer for all his wives. Islam created this system therefore islam created the problem. Ditch islam and the problem goes away.

Lastly, you will have to accept, the female population is more then that of male. By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

Hmm, not sure about this.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women.

Yes but for most of the time most of the world is not involved in a war so this would be only a neglible factor. And only temporary when it happens. And only limited to the geographic area where the war took place.

More men die due to accidents and diseases than women.

Maybe but then many women die in childbirth, especially in poor countries. And women get diseases too. It all probably evens out.

The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

Irrelevant. Women may live to be older but if a woman's husband dies in his 70s then she will probably not go looking for a new husband (if she is also in her 70s).

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males. Now concider this, if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than seven million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (not concidering that America has several million gays, if you do that, the rate increases very highly). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

All this stuff doesn't really make sense. Many men don't get married and remain bachelors so there's plenty of spare men out there. I don't think that there is a problem out there of women not being able to find husbands because there aren't enough available men.

The world ratio of men to women is pretty much 50/50.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife

No because it is not the case that there are any women who cannot find husbands because there aren't enough unmarried men. There are NO women who cannot find a husband for this reason.

or becomes (a harsh word)'public property'.

Dunno what this means. Do you mean she sleeps around? If so then that is her choice. She could get married if she wanted to - there's plenty of unmarried men out there.

This problem is probably bigger in muslim (and asian) countries because they place a lot of importance in marrying off sons and daughters early (by arranged marriage). So in these countries you probably do get more of a shortage of unmarried men (and women). But there's still enough to go round. Anyone who wants to get married can. If they can't find a husband then it's not because there aren't enough men. It would be for some other reason.

There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

Huh?

That's a pretty major leap of logic you just made there. You just said that all modest women will choose to marry a married man rather than remain single. Maybe they have a thing called dignity and would rather remain single. Maybe they would rather remain a virgin all their life than be a second wife to some guy - I know I would, if that was my choice.

Who is the more virtuous - a woman who is willing to sacrifice her ideals and marry against her better judgement or someone like me who would rather remain a virgin and hold to my principles?

(I'm not a woman, by the way - this is just for the sake of the argument. I'm not a virgin either but you know what I mean).

Islam does not allow homosexuality so lets not even concider it as an option. But there are some people who are smart, and might say that... ‘I would prefer my sister remaining a virgin’. Believe me, medical science tells us, that a man or woman cannot remain a virgin, throughout his/her life. It is very difficult, because daily, sex hormones are being liberated in the body.

It is possible to remain a virgin. But anyway, so what if a woman has a bit of sex now and then? If two people are single and fancy a bit of jiggy jiggy they aren't hurting anyone else so what's it got to do with you or anyone else.

So, polygymy is something which is difficult(in Islam), but also a bit important. If a Muslim does not concired the conditions that he would have to satisfy for polygymy, it is a matter between him and God. It is his problem and he is wrong.

No it's not just his problem, it's a problem for the woman and for the state of marriage generally. It is bad for a marriage if one partner (the woman) has to be satisfied with the status quo and has to give up looking around but the other partner (the man) is allowed to keep playing the field.

A much more healthy arrangement would be that once you get married you stop looking.

 

[bananabrain]

Because its set up like a merger. Not that polygamy is much worse than the state of marriage in general.

although jewish law is not always the same as islamic law (although i note with interest that mohsin mentions the ban of rabbenu gershom, which most jews haven't heard of) i personally don't see what is so bad as treating marriage as a contractual arrangement providing the terms are fair. the contract (at least in jewish law and i believe in sharia as well) provides for the woman to own her own property and be her own boss. if there is a transfer of "property" you might think of it as taking a lease on the woman's child-bearing capabilities, in other words, children begotten under the terms of this agreement are the only way for a man to get legitimate offspring. there is actually no halachic requirement for a woman to marry or reproduce, although the man is obliged to do both. this effectively puts the woman in the position of power (where she also remains with regard to sexual availability) if you ask me; without an understanding on this you are not looking at the whole picture and effectively making emotive arguments. likewise, if both parties can initiate a divorce it is hard to argue that the woman is necessarily a second-class citizen. incidentally, in jewish law the woman can divorce her husband if he does not *ahem* perform up to scratch, since conjugal satisfaction is an actionable entitlement for her but an obligation for him.

Circumcision is essential (judaism) ---> circumcision is unnecessary (christianity) ---> circumcision is essential again (islam) Circumcision is either essential or it's not. Why doesn't God just tell us which it is instead of saying one thing one minute and the exact opposite thing the next minute?

it's not that difficult. this circle is squared by the fact that judaism has only ever said that circumcision is obliged for JEWS, not for everybody. christianity says it's not necessary for christians and islam says it is necessary for muslims.

Sorry God, I don't mean to annoy you but, when you find time, could you explain yourself a bit more clearly? You're causing a bit of confusion down here.

this question is what resulted in the Talmud and just about everything else that jews do that isn't immediately obvious from your king james bible.

Judaism says that there will be more prophets

actually, it's that there are no prophets any more and that this will remain the case until the messianic age.

Islam creates the system whereby a man has to answer for all his wives. Islam created this system therefore islam created the problem. Ditch islam and the problem goes away.

er. this is like arguing that getting rid of religion solves all problems, whereas actually, we know from experience that you get a whole bunch of nastier ones instead.

If two people are single and fancy a bit of jiggy jiggy they aren't hurting anyone else so what's it got to do with you or anyone else.

it's got to do with G!D. the misuse of sex is a desecration of the Divine Image and of our most Divine quality, the ability to bring a new life into the world. in fact, the mystical tradition says that sex is the closest you get to a direct experience of the Divine anyway. and that whole "they aren't hurting anyone" argument is frankly bollocks - i think we all know that "a bit of jiggy jiggy" can be perfectly harmless, or have incredibly serious consequences for the people involved and without the proper controls, you're not going to know what those are. i can certainly say from my own experience there are a lot of things in that department that with the benefit of hindsight i wish i'd never done. i'm sure all the men here can remember times they weren't thinking with the right part of the body.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mus Zibii]

i personally don't see what is so bad as treating marriage as a contractual arrangement providing the terms are fair.

You definitely have the majority of opnion on your side, but to me it seems ridiculous to regulate affairs of the heart. It seems contrary to nature. Contrarian approaches are not always bad, mind you, but in this case I feel it is. And as for the fairness, there has never been a moments thought given to allowing women the right to work and support multiple husbands.

it's not that difficult. this circle is squared by the fact that judaism has only ever said that circumcision is obliged for JEWS

I know there was a diffrent set of rules for gentiles under Judaism, but I didn't know about that. Or if I did, I forgot. That's one of the few practices Christians should've thrown out immediately. Man can live without pork, but...

this question is what resulted in the Talmud and just about everything else that jews do that isn't immediately obvious from your king james bible.

That's true, but furthermore, Christians have the dialogues and debates of the Church fathers who nowadays they totally disregard. St Jerome, the father of the NT, said clearly that the Christians texts were terribly flawed, and yet in spite of this Christians still claim inerrency in their holy writ. And there were Muslims (As-Suyuti writing of Uba ibn Ka’b) who made similar statements of the Qu'ran and continue to be venerated even though their criticism have been ignored.

actually, it's that there are no prophets any more and that this will remain the case until the messianic age.

A Rabbi told me that once and I never thought to ask why. Prophethood would be an interesting thread all to itself.