A serious one. Honest...

Muslim women are supposed to wear hijabs to cover their hair, as they believe a womans hair is what attracts men...

What if a muslim woman was to shave all of her head hair off?

Thats some nice lateral thinking.

Does that include eyebrows? Muslim women generally appear to have nice eyebrows, and as my wife has pointed out on occaision, really slutty shoes...

Thread of the Year.

What if a muslim woman was to shave all of her head hair off?

And grow it back whenever they are at home with their husband?

Firstly, a hijab is a covering and goes beyond just the hair. And secondly a Muslim women cannot shave off her hair.

And secondly a Muslim women cannot shave off her hair.

Why not?

They do their makeup really good as well, for the most part.

Why not?

I think its because a lot of Muslim people don't have hands as they get chopped of as punishment for theft, drinking alcohol, infidelity etc, making it impossible to use/hold a razor, or to get employment as a hairdresser...

A muslim women should dress 'modestly' make of that what you will.

Here's Sheikh Kalid Yasin on the Hijab

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4kJPAlkAJJw


And here he is again. Question- why are 7 out of every 10 converts to Islam women, if the hijab is soo bad.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj6sBGD1QXI


Here's Dawud Wharnsby Ali singing about the hijab

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8f96bGluhss

So Muslim women can shave all their body hair off and walk everywhere naked?

why are 7 out of every 10 converts to Islam women, if the hijab is soo bad.

a non muslim male cannot marry a muslim female. it is however acceptable for it to be the other way around. perhaps there are less muslim women going for non muslim men to start with because of this? my guess too is the number of lapsed muslim women far outweighs the number of lapsed muslim men.

Women don't have to wear the hijab anyway. Anyone who claims that is is essential to their religion is lying.

^^ The hijab is essential for the Muslim women, but the face veil isn't

Apologies that's what I meant

a non muslim male cannot marry a muslim female. it is however acceptable for it to be the other way around. perhaps there are less muslim women going for non muslim men to start with because of this? my guess too is the number of lapsed muslim women far outweighs the number of lapsed muslim men.

Doesn’t matter mate. The fact is these ladies are becoming Muslim despite the hijab, and in many cases the hijab is what triggered their interest in Islam to begin with.

^^ The hijab is essential for the Muslim women, but the face veil isn't

Not necessarily. More common than the veil, sure, and most do wear head scarves, and it may be the case that you have to in majority Muslim countries (especially the fundamentalist ones like Saudi Arabia), but in a country where you have that choice, the UK for instance, it is not essential. I see enough Muslim women around who don't wear head scarves.

Doesn’t matter mate. The fact is these ladies are becoming Muslim despite the hijab, and in many cases the hijab is what triggered their interest in Islam to begin with.

total bullshit. ive actually seen muslim girls on the tube in the middle of summer wearing a veil, tight jeans and a bikini for a top!

bikini and hijab..that's a bit farfetched. Anyway those are ususally the born Muslims who don't have the same appreciation for the hijab as the new converts

Not necessarily. More common than the veil, sure, and most do wear head scarves, and it may be the case that you have to in majority Muslim countries (especially the fundamentalist ones like Saudi Arabia), but in a country where you have that choice, the UK for instance, it is not essential. I see enough Muslim women around who don't wear head scarves.

What we're talking about is whether the hijab is an essential Islamic practice...and yes it is. It doesn't matter if your in the U.K or Timbaktu because the legislation comes from the Quran. Whether they choose to follow this practice is between them and their maker as it should be, but obviously they don't have that choice in places such as Saudi whereas they do in the U.K.

no its not far fetched at all. i suppose youre speaking on this out of experience (had a muslim girlfriend for two years).

What we're talking about is whether the hijab is an essential Islamic practice...and yes it is. It doesn't matter if your in the U.K or Timbaktu because the legislation comes from the Quran.

Well that's still wrong isnt it? It maybe that the vast majority of Muslims, and maybe even all serious Islamic scholars, interpret the Quran as meaning it is an essential practice but that doesn't mean you can't be a Muslim and interpret the Quran as meaning its optional.

What we're talking about is whether the hijab is an essential Islamic practice...and yes it is.

Does it actually say this specifically in Quran or is it vague like: "women must dress modestly"? Also, I remember reading that it was only required when entering a mosque, i'm not that well informed on this subject as you can tell...

And no-one still has answered my question regarding baldness.

Head scarf/Hijab is meant to cover the head, not hair.

If the Pope of Bush made pronouncements about things 'christian women' should do in order to maintain modesty, this thread would be 100 pages long by now.
Why the reluctance to call an imposition an imposition, and take the same stance against it any decent person who desires equality should do?

If the Pope of Bush made pronouncements about things 'christian women' should do in order to maintain modesty, this thread would be 100 pages long by now.
Why the reluctance to call an imposition an imposition, and take the same stance against it any decent person who desires equality should do?

Well i believe that the difference is that there is only one Quran and all Muslims have access to it. We believe that the Quran is the lliteral word of God and cannot be changed by anybody and we don't blame a sheikh or scholor for only repeating whats already been legislatd by God in the Quran. As for equality listen to what the sheikh in the following clip has to say about it ( specifically at 02:42, but i recommend you watch the whole clip)

edit: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0jJJ4qFuE

@The Rt Hon:

The Quran may not change, but philosophical interpretations of it may.

Does it actually say this specifically in Quran or is it vague like: "women must dress modestly"? Also, I remember reading that it was only required when entering a mosque, i'm not that well informed on this subject as you can tell...

And no-one still has answered my question regarding baldness.

Your right it says women must dress modestly in the Quran, but then you go to the the hadeeth (the teaching of the phophet) and this says that the whole body must be covered except the hands and face. As for why a Muslim women cannot compeletly shave off her hair the prophet saw it as mutilation. I don't know much more about this.

Here a prominent Muslim scholor talking about the hijab
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ThIeYecViQs

And here are some pretty ladies talking about the hijab http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ThIeYecViQs

on a side note.....Have you ever come across seen a painting of the Virgin Mary without the hijab!

Not everyone accepts the Hadith.

@The Rt Hon:

The Quran may not change, but philosophical interpretations of it may.


Yes because the world has changed and in some cases we may have a better understanding of the Quran now than the earlier scholors. But also the Quran always stresses the danger and harm of bidah (innovation in religion).

Not everyone accepts the Hadith.

if its authentic hadeeth then you have no choice because the Quran tells you to accept the hadeeth. And if you don't accept the Quran then your not a Muslim.

Quranic philosophy is based upon the idea that only the Quran has authority, because it is the word of god transmitted directly through the prophet.

But the Hadith is not the word of god through a prophet, it is just the actions of that prophet, without god's hand - just his interpretation of the Quran.

Im probably not as familiar with the Quran as you, but I would appretiate it if you could produce the verse that says people should accept the Hadith, because I wish to see if this can be interpreted in more than one way. If it can, then the authority of the Hadith within Islam is questionable.

Furthermore, the Hadith was written after the death of the prophet, and thus, even if the Hadith should be accepted, not every Muslim believes the current Hadith is an accurate relfection of the Hadith.

As one Hadith says:

"Do not write down anything of me except the Qur'an. Whoever writes other than that should delete it." This means the Hadith should have probably never have been committed to writing.

bikini and hijab..that's a bit farfetched. Anyway those are ususally the born Muslims who don't have the same appreciation for the hijab as the new converts

I don't quite understand this view of appreciating/respecting a garment of clothing (or how wearing one/not wearing one can be disrespectful). Surely material things should not matter in a spiritual religion. (This point could be made for any religion really)

^^
Indeed a person's material choices in life should not matter if they are a good individual.

A person can be a member of a nudist community, and still help the world.

Quranic philosophy is based upon the idea that only the Quran has authority, because it is the word of god transmitted directly through the prophet.

But the Hadith is not the word of god through a prophet, it is just the actions of that prophet, without god's hand - just his interpretation of the Quran.

Im probably not as familiar with the Quran as you, but I would appretiate it if you could produce the verse that says people should accept the Hadith, because I wish to see if this can be interpreted in more than one way. If it can, then the authority of the Hadith within Islam is questionable.

Furthermore, the Hadith was written after the death of the prophet, and thus, even if the Hadith should be accepted, not every Muslim believes the current Hadith is an accurate relfection of the Hadith.

As one Hadith says:

"Do not write down anything of me except the Qur'an. Whoever writes other than that should delete it." This means the Hadith should have probably never have been committed to writing.


Here are some Quranic quotes from http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=13206&ln=eng You have to remember that much hadith comes directly from God and is communicated to prophet Muhammed through arch angel Gabriel. The last quote you mentioned sounds like something one of the four main scholors that who have interpreted the Quran have said i.e where what we have said conflicts with the Quran the Quran comes first.

Allaah revealed the Qur’aan to His Messenger Muhammad (S.A.W) and commanded him to explain it to the people, as He said:

“And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur’aan)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought”

The hadeeth of the Messenger is a revelation from his Lord. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred.
Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
It is only a Revelation revealed”
[al-Najm 53:2-4]

I don't quite understand this view of appreciating/respecting a garment of clothing (or how wearing one/not wearing one can be disrespectful). Surely material things should not matter in a spiritual religion. (This point could be made for any religion really)

Well for Muslims, Islams more than just a religion and it governs every part of our lives. And it takes some reading into, and objectivity and reflection to an understand what the hijab stands for why we love it ;)

Allaah revealed the Qur’aan to His Messenger Muhammad (S.A.W) and commanded him to explain it to the people, as He said:

“And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad) the Dhikr [reminder and the advice (i.e. the Qur’aan)], that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought”

The hadeeth of the Messenger is a revelation from his Lord. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred.
Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
It is only a Revelation revealed”
[al-Najm 53:2-4]

Those quotes are pretty unclear - how does this justify the Hadith?

And furthermore, how do you know the Hadith is correct?

It seems to me that only the Quran should be authority.

And thus dressing modestly can be interpreted by the individual.

“Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur’aan and the Sunnah), Allaah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:31 – interpretation of the meaning]

That’s pretty clear so if your a believer of the Quran you must follow Sunnah

Once Allaah and His Messenger have decided a matter, no one has the right to choose concerning that or to object to it; rather it is obligatory to obey and to believe in the truth:

“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allaah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error
[al-Ahzaab 33:36 – interpretation of the meaning]


Is it possible to trust all ahaadeeth?

Among the ahaadeeth which are attributed to the Prophet (pbuh), there are some which are saheeh (sound), concerning which there is no doubt that they are the words of the Prophet (pbuh). There are others which are da’eef (weak) and there are doubts that they can be attributed to him. Both saheeh and da’eef are well known to the scholars. Books of saheeh have been compiled which include Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim; there are other books which include saheeh ahaadeeth and others, like the other books of hadeeth, The scholars have gone to great lengths to distinguish the saheeh from others, as is well known to young students let alone those who have specialized in the study of the Sunnah.

Why don't people just be nice to each other and forget about religion, these different interpretations of various rules, laws, teachings etc always cause conflict and misery.

So why not use a bit of common sense, don't treat others in a way that you wouldn't want to be treated yourself and leave it at that.

“Say (O Muhammad to mankind): ‘If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Qur’aan and the Sunnah), Allaah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’”

Is the Hadith which says to cover the hair one of the sound ones?

Hijab (head cover) for Muslim women is not mandated in the Qur’an. If it is, it is only the subjective interpretation of an Ayah (verse) on the part of the reader. Hence many Islamic Scholars say that according to Hadith, a woman should cover her whole body, except her face and hands. Majority of the Muslims do not know in which Haidth this is mentioned. A very limited number of Muslims know that this is in Sunan Abu Dawud. The English translation of Sunan Abdu Dawud is in three volumes. Again nobody ever mentions that it is in Volume Three. Actually it is in Volume 3, Book XXVII and Chapter 1535, and Hadith number 4092, titled “HOW MUCH BEAUTY CAN A WOMAN DISPLAY?" For the benefit of the readers the exact Hadith is reproduced below:

(4092) ‘A’isha said: Asma’, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (May peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.3523

Abu Dawud said: This is a mursal tradition (i.e. the narrator who transmitted it from ‘A’isha is missing) Khalid b. Duraik did not see ‘A’ishah).

[3523. When a woman reaches the age of puberty, she must observe purdah and have a thick veil which conceals her beauty. She may unveil her face and hand up to the wrists. In modern times some scholars have prohibited to unveil face out of precaution.]

It is very interesting to note that no one- neither the Muslim Scholars nor the Muslim Ummah ever pointed out that this Hadith is a mursal Hadith or weak hadith, although it is imperative that when one uses a weak Hadith for any reason then one should explain it to the people that this is a weak Hadith.

Earlier in this thread, you clearly said it is complusory for women to wear Hijab.

I argued that this comes from the Hadith and not the Quran.

You said that the Hadith is part of Sunnah unless it is weak.

But the Hadith which says this is a weak Hadith.

So, you were wrong about Hijab being complusory.

It appears that this is an individual choice - the Quran only says to dress modestly, and modest dress depends on the time and the place.

So, you were wrong about Hijab being complusory.

It appears that this is an individual choice - the Quran only says to dress modestly, and modest dress depends on the time and the place.

That's what I came to undestand about it too. :dunno:

All the hadiths below are sound as they come from al-Bukhaari and Muslim. There is plenty of hadith on hijab and this is not limited to one book. Hijab is accepted by all the respected scholars of Islam; both sunni and shia and the vast majority of Muslims in the world accept it to be an Islamic requirement regardless of whether their faith is strong enough for them to practice it not.

It was narrated from Safiyyah bint Shaybah that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) used to say: When these words were revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – they took their izaars (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4481.

It was narrated from ‘Urwah that ‘Aa’ishah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Fajr and the believing women would attend (the prayer) with him, wrapped in their aprons, then they would go back to their houses and no one would recognize them.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 365; Muslim, 645.

It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allaah (S) in ihraam, and when they drew near to us we would lower our jilbabs from our heads over our faces, then when they had passed we would uncover them again.
Narrated by Abu Dawood, 1833; Ibn Maajah, 2935; classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah (4,203) and by al-Albaani in Kitaab Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah.
It was narrated that Asma’ bint Abi Bakr said: We used to cover our faces in front of men.
Narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/203; al-Haakim, 1/624. He classed it as saheeh and al-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah.

@The Rt Hon:

The quotes you gave above do not show the prophet telling Aisha to do anything, they only show Aisha doing things. In other words, that was her choice, and I do not think everyone is compelled by it, because it is not a direct dictate from the prophet, and is thus not Sunnah. To me, it is just the same as how not every Buddhist has to renounce the world, not every Christian must be celibate, not every Hindu must be a holy man - Aisha was doing something by choice, as an extreme form of devotion, and the prophet may have approved, but it did not say everyone has to be so devoted.

Why do something just because Mohammed or Aisha or one of the scholars said to do it? Why not just make up your own mind? It can't be that difficult to decide whether it's neccesary to wear a certain item of clothing or not.

The says dress modestly and Aisha was our example- simple as

Why do something just because Mohammed or Aisha or one of the scholars said to do it? Why not just make up your own mind? It can't be that difficult to decide whether it's neccesary to wear a certain item of clothing or not.

lol.....i could explain again but i think this is just one of those situations wheere you just wouldn't understand:lol:

lol.....i could explain again but i think this is just one of those situations wheere you just wouldn't understand:lol:

Why not?

The says dress modestly and Aisha was our example- simple as

But you said the prophet is the basis of Sunnah, not Aisha.

She is not a prophet of Allah, and you are following her, that is forbidden isnt it?

Which Quranic verse says to follow Allah, the prophet, and Aisha?

The prophet is not going to wear a hijab... but his wife is our example because that's how he told her it should be worn. Here's another passage from the Quran

'O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely). That will be better, that they should be known (i.e. as free believing women), so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.' (Qur'an 33:59)

Why not?

Read the following conversion where the exact questions you've been asking are asked then answered for you.

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/Hijab_she_wont_wear.asp

Read the following conversion where the exact questions you've been asking are asked then answered for you.

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/Hijab_she_wont_wear.asp

So basically I should wear Hijab because the Quran tells me to (assuming i'm a woman). But why should I do what the Quran tells me to?

Is that all you've understood from that link. D'oh- seriously read the link

Is that all you've understood from that link. D'oh- seriously read the link

It gives some arguments as to why a woman should wear the hijab but it basically boils down to 'because the Quran says so'. What if the Quran is incorrect?

I don't agree with the logic of his argument about the fashion industry anyway, maybe many fashion executives are men (many are also women) but they can't sell something that women don't want to buy. The Quran was written by a man anyway so the male domination argument applies equally there.

The prophet is not going to wear a hijab... but his wife is our example because that's how he told her it should be worn. Here's another passage from the Quran

'O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely). That will be better, that they should be known (i.e. as free believing women), so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.' (Qur'an 33:59)

Where was this said? If this was said while praying, then it may only mean while praying.

'Cloaks' and 'all over', can be interpreted in different ways.

Here is a nice documentary:

QCMbDtDLv5c

69IoSNcd1J8

0ryv4BKDvB4

c_YBIwHXu_4

RBeDZKpg4oY

I think people should be able to wear their hair how they want as long as they are good people.

Read the following conversion where the exact questions you've been asking are asked then answered for you.

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/Hijab_she_wont_wear.asp

The argument there says 'the Quran says so'.

But the reality is, any text can be intepreted in different ways.

So in the end, it is up to the individual how they want to interpret it.

This is why two people reading the same book accurately can be violent or peaceful.

Its not that one person is wrong, its that they each found what they were looking for.

“There is no specific verse that obliges women to wear headscarves, but you find verses setting the broad lines for public modesty or decency,” according to Gamal El-Banna, brother of Hasan El-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Writing in the magazine Egypt Today, El-Banna lays to rest the controversy over the increasing use of hijab by explaining that there is no Quranic authority or injunction for donning the hijab. He writes, “The Qur’an states: ‘And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent and to draw their veils over the bosoms (24:31).’ If the Qur’an wanted to oblige women to cover their hair, it would have stated it very clearly. Why would the Qur’an resort to expressions that have a variety of interpretations? The fact is that the Qur’an can be understood directly without resorting to interpretation if it couldn’t, we would have clergy to lead us.”

In his book al-Hijab, El-Banna declares that the veil is not an Islamic tradition, but a pre-Islamic one. He bases this view on the research he has completed on the Arab world prior to the advent of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). In those days, he says, Arab women covered their heads and left the upper parts of their chest uncovered. He concludes that the Quranic verse commands women to cover their chests, not their heads.

According to El-Banna, the Prophet (PBUH) improved the status of women as much as he could given his cultural milieu. He also opened the door for further aspects of emancipation. However, the Arab society was reluctant to tolerate this new reality, so many of them started to make up ahadith that would maintain the status quo. Similarly, El-Banna says, there is no religious foundation that prevents women running for any elected office, including the presidency.

El-Banna dismisses accusations that he is calling on the faithful to abandon the Sunnah, but insists that the orally transmitted traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) are less binding on Muslims than the Qur’an itself. “We cannot deny the Sunnah, even though it has been proven that most of the sayings attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) have been made up, were narrated in other people’s words or were transmitted inaccurately. This does not mean that there are no true sayings that set many Islamic fundamental principles; what it does mean is that it’s high time to study the Sunnah in a different way,” El-Banna says.

It was left open to interpretation for a reason - i.e. so that many different people from around the world can find what they want to find - and that a person living in London or Ankara or Cairo or Dhaka can have different ways of dressing, but still be Muslim.

I respect scholars like Ali Gomaa and El-Banna.

“But the reality is, any text can be intepreted in different ways.”

Yes sometimes it can be, but I don’t agree that this is the case with the hijab. Niqaab possibly but not the hijab. Those who choose not to follow this are either the weak in faith or the hypocrites.


“El-Banna dismisses accusations that he is calling on the faithful to abandon the Sunnah”

He sounds like somebody who would be very controversial to mainstream Muslims. Don’t look for the exceptions but look at the norm.


“It was left open to interpretation for a reason - i.e. so that many different people from around the world can find what they want to find - and that a person living in London or Ankara or Cairo or Dhaka can have different ways of dressing, but still be Muslim.”

No. This would cause conflict and is also not in the spirit of Islam. Anyhow if Muslim weren't in their current condition, then there would be one Muslim government and there would be the same rules for everybody i.e the norm of the hijab being obligatory. And that's what the Muslim brotherhood who you've quoted are calling for.

lol.....i could explain again but i think this is just one of those situations wheere you just wouldn't understand:lol:

What? You're indoctrinated into it from a young age and you want to please your family?

Or alternatively you want to believe there is something 'more' and think that by agreeing old book is going to get you there?

Doesn't Islam mean "to submit" so basically, if you don't submit to every single word you're "unislamic", god what an awful way to live, no offence, that's assuming you're a musim...

It gives some arguments as to why a woman should wear the hijab but it basically boils down to 'because the Quran says so'. What if the Quran is incorrect?

I don't agree with the logic of his argument about the fashion industry anyway, maybe many fashion executives are men (many are also women) but they can't sell something that women don't want to buy. The Quran was written by a man anyway so the male domination argument applies equally there.

Jonesy55... my argument was not to convince you why a non-Muslim women should wear the hijab but to explain why Muslim women do. Anybody who believes that the Quran was written by man is not obliged to wear the hijab. And as i've explained before if a Muslim lady chooses not to wear the hijab then that's between her and her maker also. But the evidence is there should you choose to accept it.

Your right it says women must dress modestly in the Quran, but then you go to the the hadeeth (the teaching of the phophet) and this says that the whole body must be covered except the hands and face. As for why a Muslim women cannot compeletly shave off her hair the prophet saw it as mutilation. I don't know much more about this.

Here a prominent Muslim scholor talking about the hijab
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ThIeYecViQs

And here are some pretty ladies talking about the hijab http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ThIeYecViQs

on a side note.....Have you ever come across seen a painting of the Virgin Mary without the hijab!


no, but those statues represent a woman from 2,00 years ago.. things have changed slightly for women in the 'decadent' west in the intervening years. Shame it hasn't in many Muslim lands.

Those who choose not to follow this are either the weak in faith or the hypocrites.

I personally think you should not call people you do not know hypocrites and unfaithful.

This wasn't directed at anyone in this forum but those Muslims who know the truth and try to cover it up for whatever reason. And by weak in faith (not unfaithful) i mean people who are Muslim but just don't have enough knowledge of Islam or maybe just afraid of what others may think of them for example. And the Quran describes these people many a times.

no, but those statues represent a woman from 2,00 years ago.. things have changed slightly for women in the 'decadent' west in the intervening years. Shame it hasn't in many Muslim lands.

yes but you have to understand that even if the whole world was running around butt naked...it wouldn't make a difference to Muslims. The illusions of the world are not important to us. Its hard to explain this to non Muslims but we do believe that the words in the Quran ARE Gods actual words so it doesn't whether its 570 or 2007... the words are still the same. It doesn't matter if the world has changed...the thing is the Quran still remains the same. People have come over the years to try and change the Quran, but how can you do this when its a book that's memorised; set in stone in the hearts of the people. But also God promises to protect the Quran in the Quran.

This wasn't directed at anyone in this forum but those Muslims who know the truth and try to cover it up for whatever reason.

If it's one thing i've learned over the years, is that "truth" is relative.

And by weak in faith (not unfaithful) i mean people who are Muslim but just don't have enough knowledge of Islam or maybe just afraid of what others may think of them for example.

Or those that believe in a different interpretation, that is just as valid? There is no "one way" of believing in a god, to any believer. There will always be differences, commonalities sure, but never one true way.

Its hard to explain this to non Muslims but we do believe that the words in the Quran ARE Gods actual words so it doesn't whether its 570 or 2007...

As would Christians of the bible for instance. Islam is no exception tot he general rule of religion. The only difference is, how can I put it nicely without offending you, is that Islam is found in predominantly oppressive *dare I say socially backward* nations, where liberalism and the enlightenment that so revolutionised Europe, has yet to effect the middle east, in a way where Muslims are free to question or interpret the Quran without fear of persecution, beatings or torture simply for not obeying a "mainstream" form/practice of belief.

The same unwavering attitudes to obey a certain path of Christianity was ever so prevalent in Europe centuries ago, and those who deviated from it, or questioned the interpreted teachings of the bible (for instance Galileo) were punished severely.

It is folly to believe that any scripture from god is 100% virgin text, as it was MAN who wrote it. Wherever man is present arises the possibility of corruption or agenda, because as human beings we are flawed. I'm of no doubt that since its original conception the Quran has gone through phases of reconstruction/change (like the bibles testaments), where wording has been changed to convey meaning to an ever more sophisticated set of followers. As we all know, 1 word in a sentence can change the entire meaning of a paragraph. So my point is that, unless it's the absolute original text, then it is merely the translation of a translation of an edited translation.

The point is that, even if the words do not change, or very little. Humanity, as it progresses will ALWAYS question and interpret texts different to find meaning that applies to their lives. :)

As would Christians of the bible for instance. Islam is no exception tot he general rule of religion.

Not particularly. There's only a few Christian groups that take it as the word of god. Most think of it as the word of god written down by man. Infact, I'm surprised Muslims don't have this view too. (Although I don't know who 'wrote' the Quran).

Islam is found in predominantly oppressive *dare I say socially backward* nations, where liberalism and the enlightenment that so revolutionised Europe, has yet to effect the middle east, in a way where Muslims are free to question or interpret the Quran without fear of persecution, beatings or torture simply for not obeying a "mainstream" form/practice of belief.

The same unwavering attitudes to obey a certain path of Christianity was ever so prevalent in Europe centuries ago, and those who deviated from it, or questioned the interpreted teachings of the bible (for instance Galileo) were punished severely.

Islam is found in many oppressive and socially backward nations, but those are dictorships and they're against Islam anyway. Islam does not need to do any soul-searching, people are suppressing Islam but Islam is not repressive...its a sleeping giant and it will re-emerge. Muslims had that 'enlightened' period also, when Europe was still in the Dark Ages. But this happened when the Muslim were one people, one government and ended when rifts emerged amongst the Muslims and we began fighting each other and become divided into several dozen of small countries. But the precedent has already been set and its something we'll work towards.


I'm of no doubt that since its original conception the Quran has gone through phases of reconstruction/change (like the bibles testaments), where wording has been changed to convey meaning to an ever more sophisticated set of followers. As we all know, 1 word in a sentence can change the entire meaning of a paragraph. So my point is that, unless it's the absolute original text, then it is merely the translation of a translation of an edited translation.

The point is that, even if the words do not change, or very little. Humanity, as it progresses will ALWAYS question and interpret texts different to find meaning that applies to their lives. :)

Don’t make the mistake of judging Islam on what you know about Christianity. The Quran is written in Arabic- a semitic language much older than the English language. Arabic was there at the time of Muhammed (pbuh), but English wasn't there at the time of Jesus. The Arabic language is still with us today and because of Islam's uniqueness in that the Quran must be memorised we still have it today. The muslims of China recites the Quran in Arabic and so do those in Canada and everywhere else.

Infact, I'm surprised Muslims don't have this view too. (Although I don't know who 'wrote' the Quran).

The Quran was memorised by all the prophets companions and written down by different ones during the prophets lifetime. The collection and compilation of the Quran took place under the Caliph Abu Bakr. The Quran itself proclaims a divine protection of its message: Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.

I would advice people to read the Quran. I'm sure you people have read all sorts of stuff, so it would be a shame to miss out on reading one of the most profound books available to us...because that's what the Quran is.

Islam does not need a single state to prosper, it just needs to understand why it prospered in the first place. Right now, those people who talk about returning to a golden age have no idea what actually made Islam successful - most of these people who call for that have no real grasp of history - they only have a glorified understanding of the past, and have never touched a real history book with references. Many of them just know what websites or preachers tell them, and have not inquired for themselves, as the Quran says to do. They assume that in the past, people must have been more pious, less influenced by others, and that this brought them success. Qualified scholars such as Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa of Egypt would say otherwise.

In early Islam, the religion encouraged knolwedge (one of the most frequnetly mentioned words in the Quran) above all else, so that people became more literate, and read the works of the ancient Greeks, Indians, Chinese, etc, and wrote their own great works of science and philosophy - scholarship and understanding of the universe flourished in the Islamic countries. Europe at the same time remained in the dark ages because the Catholic Church did not encourage people to read the Bible for themselves, they had to hear it through priests, and thus had no need to be literate. This didnt change until the Protestant Reformation.

The reason Islamic countries were successful was due to the persuit of knolwedge. How can this continue today, when so many ignorant groups, such as the Saudi-sponsored Wahabis, dont persue real scholarship and philosophy anymore - they only know a glorified history, when the Quran encourages truth, even if the truth is not what one wants to hear - they look only to Arabic literature, when the prophet said to seek knolwedge everywhere. If they do not understand Locke and Hume and Voltaire and Marx and Neitzche and Jefferson and Tagore and Gandhi and Sartre and and all the others, how can they call themselves true theologians? Why should they fear reading a secular philosopher when ancient Islamic scholars like Al-Farabi read the works of pagan Hindus and Greeks without fear?

I would advice people to read the Quran. I'm sure you people have read all sorts of stuff, so it would be a shame to miss out on reading one of the most profound books available to us...because that's what the Quran is.

Yes, I agree. I read the Quran once, when I was younger, not to mention the main texts of Buddhism, Hinduism, and the Bible, etc, and it was tought at school briefly. My father, who is a Catholic with pan-theist sympathies, read the Quran at some point. I also advise you to read the works of European, Persian, Indian and Chinese philosophy and religion, you will find them rewarding.

Islam does not need a single state to prosper, it just needs to understand why it prospered in the first place.

yeees...and part of that equation was unity. It would be like a bringing together of minds and resources. The rulers of many Muslim countries are hostile towards Islam themselves and harrass the sheikh/imams. We'd get rid of the dictators and put a few clever people in charge. Anyhow Islam doesn't recognise kings, Precident etc and their man laws and the return of the Khalifa has already been prophesied...so therefore this is something that we Muslims cannot ignore.

The reason Islamic countries were successful was due to the persuit of knolwedge. How can this continue today, when so many ignorant groups, such as the Saudi-sponsored Wahabis, dont persue real scholarship and philosophy anymore - they only know a glorified history, when the Quran encourages truth, even if the truth is not what one wants to hear - they look only to Arabic literature, when the prophet said to seek knolwedge everywhere. If they do not understand Locke and Hume and Voltaire and Marx and Neitzche and Jefferson and Tagore and Gandhi and Sartre and and all the others, how can they call themselves true theologians? Why should they fear reading a secular philosopher when ancient Islamic scholars like Al-Farabi read the works of pagan Hindus and Greeks without fear?


Yes. I agree with you there, we shouldn't confine ourselfs to just previous Arabic knowledge but take the beneficial from wherever we find it.

Its hard to explain this to non Muslims but we do believe that the words in the Quran ARE Gods actual words so it doesn't whether its 570 or 2007... the words are still the same.

What's the actual evidence that the Quran is God's words? (assuming for the moment that God exists).

yes but you have to understand that even if the whole world was running around butt naked...it wouldn't make a difference to Muslims. The illusions of the world are not important to us. Its hard to explain this to non Muslims but we do believe that the words in the Quran ARE Gods actual words so it doesn't whether its 570 or 2007... the words are still the same. It doesn't matter if the world has changed...the thing is the Quran still remains the same. People have come over the years to try and change the Quran, but how can you do this when its a book that's memorised; set in stone in the hearts of the people. But also God promises to protect the Quran in the Quran.


please don't be so conceited that it is only Muslims who hold the literal word of God so true?

That is the whole point about fundamentalism. It is the same with extreme Christian sects, they beive in the literal truth of every word in the Bible (never thinking to compare the contradictions in much of it, especially when taken with the 'New' testament) and that it is the direct word of God. This is plain daft.

The big problem with accepting the notion is that you narrow your own options completely, haiving to live fully to every literal word in a book, the only leeway being on how extremes the take is in how the interpretations of what Allah, Mohammed, Jesus etc, meant exactly!

The Quran was memorised by all the prophets companions and written down by different ones during the prophets lifetime. The collection and compilation of the Quran took place under the Caliph Abu Bakr. The Quran itself proclaims a divine protection of its message: Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian.

I would advice people to read the Quran. I'm sure you people have read all sorts of stuff, so it would be a shame to miss out on reading one of the most profound books available to us...because that's what the Quran is.

Ah, I see. Cheers.

I believe that the neck should not be shown too.

yeees...and part of that equation was unity. It would be like a bringing together of minds and resources. The rulers of many Muslim countries are hostile towards Islam themselves and harrass the sheikh/imams. We'd get rid of the dictators and put a few clever people in charge. Anyhow Islam doesn't recognise kings, Precident etc and their man laws and the return of the Khalifa has already been prophesied...so therefore this is something that we Muslims cannot ignore.

You are right that unity helps - but I think many people assume that unity must mean a single state, like a medieval empire - when it can instead be an alliance, as Ali Gomaa said:

"This flexibility is present in the Islamic political sphere as well, but this is a point that is often missed. Many assume that an Islamic government must be a caliphate, and that the caliph must rule in a set and specific way. There is no basis for this vision within the Islamic tradition. The caliphate is one political solution that Muslims adopted during a certain historical period, but this does not mean that it is the only possible choice for Muslims when it comes to deciding how they should be governed."

Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa is as orthadox and qualified as people come, yet he supports liberal democracy:

"The principles of freedom and human dignity for which liberal democracy stands are themselves part of the foundation for the Islamic world view; it is the achievement of this freedom and dignity within a religious context that Islamic law strives for."

Wow! Imagine the raucus if the Pope and/or his cardinals where having wet dreams about a global Catholic Empire.. or at least a Christian one... talk about Holy War!

so let me get this straight, only the koran has the true words from god for many muslims, and therefore if it says in the koran that women must wear the hijab then non-wearers are not true muslims. But there are many things in the koran that are not taken literally anymore, such as the inciting of violance etc for example "IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." So why the insistance to take the wearing of the hijab literally and not put it into a modern context.

I think people need to be consistant.

What's the actual evidence that the Quran is God's words? (assuming for the moment that God exists).

Here's what sheikh Yusuf Estes says about the question of God existence and the Quran

1. "Can you prove there is a God?"
Answer:
Can you prove that you exist? Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine that you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things that He has created and the way that He cares for things and sustains us, to know that there is no doubt of His existence.

Think about this the next time that you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect that it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.

And then consider if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Can a fast food restaurant operate itself without any people there? That's crazy for anyone to even think about.

After considering all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the molecules in a microscope and then think that all of this came about as a result of a "big bang" or some "accident?"

2. "How do you know that the Qur’an is really from God?"

Answer:

Muslims have something that offers the most clear proof of all, The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. It is absolutely perfect in the Arabic language. It has no mistakes in grammar, meanings or context. The scientific evidences are well known around the entire world, even amongst non-Muslim scholars. Predictions in the Quran have come true; and its teachings are clearly for all people, all places and all times. No one has been able to produce a book like it, nor ten chapters like it, nor even one chapter like it. It was memorized by thousands of people during the lifetime of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and then this memorization was passed down from teacher to student for generation after generation, from mouth to ear and from one nation to another. Today every single Muslim has memorized some part of the Quran in the original Arabic language that it was revealed in over 1,400 years ago, even though most of them are not Arabs. There are over nine million (9,000,000) Muslims living on the earth today who have totally memorized the entire Quran, word for word, and can recite the entire Quran, in Arabic just as Muhammad, peace be upon him, did 14 centuries ago.



Here are many non-Muslim scientists proving the Quran to be from non other than Allah. http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php

And you can also browse the miracles section of the same website as to what the Quran has to say on The origins of the universe, clouds, mountains human embryonic development etc. http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_human_embryonic_development.php

Ancient scientists knew more than people give them credit for :)

The Hindu holy books are perticularily rife with scientific theories ahead of their time.

It would have only taken the opening of the womb with a knife to see the development of a foetus, and would have only taken someone with a view of the mountains and oceans to see cloud formation.

But there are many things in the koran that are not taken literally anymore, such as the inciting of violance etc for example "IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." So why the insistance to take the wearing of the hijab literally and not put it into a modern context.

Well we don't just pick a line or two ramdomly and out of context from the Quran act on it. Because those orders are only referring to times of war when Muslims are being oppressed. But ofcourse the terrorists and those who are desperate do believe Muslims are being attacked and have acted on the verses. No its not always taken literally and there is clear hadith that tells us not to take the Quran at face value.. and on those occasions we seek the guidance of our imams and scolars who refer us to the hadith that explains those verses.

Ancient scientists knew more than people give them credit for :)

The Hindu holy books are perticularily rife with scientific theories ahead of their time.

It would have only taken the opening of the womb with a knife to see the development of a foetus, and would have only taken someone with a view of the mountains and oceans to see cloud formation.

How can the foetus develop when is mothers womb is lying open:lol: (this is the first 40 days)

the mountains and rivers and oceans aren't just described but we're given facts that where only available to Scientists in recent times.

How can the foetus develop when is mothers womb is lying open

Who says it has to?

Ancient scientists would have cut more than one womb open, each one at a different stage of development.

Basically the ancients knew more science than modern people give them credit for, and this is only now being recognised.

Ancient India for example had plastic surgery as early as 500 BCE. The Greeks predicted the atom. The ancient Egyptians built the first primative electric batteries, and light bulbs.

Here's what sheikh Yusuf Estes says about the question of God existence and the Quran







Here are many non-Muslim scientists proving the Quran to be from non other than Allah. http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php

And you can also browse the miracles section of the same website as to what the Quran has to say on The origins of the universe, clouds, mountains human embryonic development etc. http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_human_embryonic_development.php

Unfortunately that site is blocked by my work internet so I can't comment on the specifics for the moment.

A couple of further questions though.

If God/Allah is universal and for all humanity, why did all of the prophets and revelations come to one small part of the earth? Why were there no prophets saying these same things in China or the Americas or Australia? Is it not more likely that Judaism-Christian-Islam was just the religious philosophy of a group of middle eastern cultures that was then exported to the rest of the world?

And is it not more likely that Mohammed was simply a clever man who thought of ways in which he would like to improve the world, he went away and wrote these ideas in the Quran and attached himself to the tradition of the Jewish prophets to give credence and authourity to his ideas so that they would be taken more seriously?

The fact that many people have memorised The Quran is impressive but it is not proof of divinity. Many people have memorised many other books and it is perfectly possible to memorise anything if you put your mind to it.

The theory that the universe is so complicated that it must have a creator is interesting and certain Christian groups also use this as 'evidence' that their faith is correct but i'm not convinced. We don't have anything of similar complexity to compare it to so we cannot say that things as complicated as the universe must have a designer, we simply do not know what 'nature' and evolution is capable of on its own.

Which brings me to another point, if Islam also accepts that Allah created the universe as in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve (correct me if I am wrong on this point), is it not the case that there is now overwhelming archeological evidence that proves this story to be incorrect? The big bang may or may not be correct as well but it's what the evidence we have currently points to. Would it not be best for people to just admit that they don't know for sure how the universe came into being (there is no shame in this) rather than stick rigidly to one theory that cannot be proved, whether that is religious or scientific?

Surely a reasonable Allah would not punish me for taking such a reasonable stance given the logic that he has endowed me with. :)

Basically the ancients knew more science than modern people give them credit for, and this is only now being recognised.

Ancient India for example had plastic surgery as early as 500 BCE. The Greeks predicted the atom. The ancient Egyptians built the first primative electric batteries, and light bulbs.


I 100% agree with you there because this just disproves that whole cave man thing that's shoved don our throats. Therefore we were right all along.:lol:

I 100% agree with you there because this just disproves that whole cave man thing that's shoved don our throats. Therefore we were right all along.:lol:

What do you mean?

This has nothing to do with pre-historic humans - im talking about Egypt, India and Greece...

No its not always taken literally and there is clear hadith that tells us not to take the Quran at face value.. and on those occasions we seek the guidance of our imams and scolars who refer us to the hadith that explains those verses.

What qualifications does somebody need to become an Imam or scholar? Is there any central authority that decides who can and cannot become one or is it the case that anybody who considers themselves educated in the intricacies of Islam can call themselves a scholar or Imam?

I 100% agree with you there because this just disproves that whole cave man thing that's shoved don our throats.

My friend's grandmother thinks that dinosaurs were just big cows and it's all just made up :lol:

If God/Allah is universal and for all humanity, why did all of the prophets and revelations come to one small part of the earth? Why were there no prophets saying these same things in China or the Americas or Australia? Is it not more likely that Judaism-Christian-Islam was just the religious philosophy of a group of middle eastern cultures that was then exported to the rest of the world?

oh there probably where. I don't have the quotes but in the Quran God/Allah says that he sent 1000's (probably hundred of thousands) of Prophets and messengers and of who's names we know and others who's names we don't. Some of these included Noah, Zakariya, jacob, John, arabham, Lut, Jesus and finally Muhammed. They all basically carried the same basic message of 'the is only one creater and you should worship him alone. Each prophet was only sent to a particular group of people....for example Jesus was only sent to the 'lost sheep of the tribe of the children of Isreal' i.e the Jews. Muhammed was the only messenger to be sent to the whole of mankind and we believe him to be the seal of the prophets. The reason so many prophets were sent is because back then people were so corrupt that sending the full message in one go would have been to much for poeple to take. Also overtime these messages were forgotten and people reverted back to their old ways. So you cannot be a Muslim unless you accept all of the previous prophets including Jesus ( peace be upon him), and all of the previous books including the Bible and the Torah.

And is it not more likely that Mohammed was simply a clever man who thought of ways in which he would like to improve the world, he went away and wrote these ideas in the Quran and attached himself to the tradition of the Jewish prophets to give credence and authourity to his ideas so that they would be taken more seriously?

Prophet Mohammed was a trustworthy and respected and this was known by both his people and his enemies (e.g his enemies trusted him to look after their money and also called him when they had disputes amongst themselves). But prophet Muhammed (pbuh) could not have written the Quran because he was an unlettered man as it says in the Quran. When angel Gabriel approached him and told him to recite the words of the Quran in the name of his Lord, he said i am not a recitor (and this is the first verse of the Quran that was reveiled).

The fact that many people have memorised The Quran is impressive but it is not proof of divinity. Many people have memorised many other books and it is perfectly possible to memorise anything if you put your mind to it.

Which brings me to another point, if Islam also accepts that Allah created the universe as in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve (correct me if I am wrong on this point), is it not the case that there is now overwhelming archeological evidence that proves this story to be incorrect? The big bang may or may not be correct as well but it's what the evidence we have currently points to.

What evidence...oooh yes-the BIG BANG wallop that had nothing before it and the THEORY (yes that's theory) of evolution that says that our ancesters were a bunch of Orangutan. Scientists always change their minds and i cannot base my existence on their ever changing theories.

^^
We agreed earlier that its good to pursue knolwedge wherever it may be.

But it sounds like you have not looked into the theories you are criticising.

After learning about them, then you would be in a better position to deny them.

You are acting in the same way as people who criticise the Quran without reading it.

What qualifications does somebody need to become an Imam or scholar? Is there any central authority that decides who can and cannot become one or is it the case that anybody who considers themselves educated in the intricacies of Islam can call themselves a scholar or Imam?

To be an Imam you must know the Quran and hadith thoroughly, but our scholars usually come from Al-Azhar University in Cairo....the first university in the world or equally respected universities and are educated in the finner details of Quran, Hadith, Arabic, and the works of the scholars before them. They ususally specialize in a particular area of Islamic law

[QUOTE=VaastuShastra;16959111] But it sounds like you have not looked into the theories you are criticising. QUOTE]

Vaastu...its rammed in my face everyday:lol:

Why do you keep laughing at each post I make?

I have shown respect to your points, yes?

Well, you said things above that show you dont understand those theories.

None of our ancestors were orangutans in any theory, orangutans are a different species.

And the Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, etc, came long after the alleged era of cave dwelling.

This to me shows that you have not learnt about the biologicaly or historical theories you are criticising.

If I may make a suggestion, it is best to know the methodology of a theory before criticising it.

Why do you keep laughing at each post I make?

I have shown respect to your points, yes?

Well if you look back at the posts you’ll see that apart from the foetus being split apart one it’s not your comments that i'm laughing at. But since I don’t post here often I’ve probably used the wrong emoticons and I know that the laughter icon can appear a bit patronizing or dismissive.......anyway my bad.

imagine the bile and ridicule this post would elicit if the poster where Christian?

This is not a plea to start dissing this lad, just a prompt to remind you how Euro/ethnocentric you all are, especially the ones who delude themselves that they have 'an international take on life'!

My whole point in joining the 'Does God exist' thread was to highlight that most people who believe in God are not nuts or bad

Here's what sheikh Yusuf Estes says about the question of God existence and the Quran







Here are many non-Muslim scientists proving the Quran to be from non other than Allah. http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php

And you can also browse the miracles section of the same website as to what the Quran has to say on The origins of the universe, clouds, mountains human embryonic development etc. http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_human_embryonic_development.php

I 100% agree with you there because this just disproves that whole cave man thing that's shoved don our throats. Therefore we were right all along.:lol:


Inteligent design/Creationsim/God!!! Those nutty Yanks hey!

oh there probably where. I don't have the quotes but in the Quran God/Allah says that he sent 1000's (probably hundred of thousands) of Prophets and messengers and of who's names we know and others who's names we don't. Some of these included Noah, Zakariya, jacob, John, arabham, Lut, Jesus and finally Muhammed. They all basically carried the same basic message of 'the is only one creater and you should worship him alone. Each prophet was only sent to a particular group of people....for example Jesus was only sent to the 'lost sheep of the tribe of the children of Isreal' i.e the Jews. Muhammed was the only messenger to be sent to the whole of mankind and we believe him to be the seal of the prophets. The reason so many prophets were sent is because back then people were so corrupt that sending the full message in one go would have been to much for poeple to take. Also overtime these messages were forgotten and people reverted back to their old ways. So you cannot be a Muslim unless you accept all of the previous prophets including Jesus ( peace be upon him), and all of the previous books including the Bible and the Torah..

Isee, so you even have to accept the prophets that we don't know about. I suppose if they were all saying the same thing though it doesn't matter.

Prophet Mohammed was a trustworthy and respected and this was known by both his people and his enemies (e.g his enemies trusted him to look after their money and also called him when they had disputes amongst themselves). But prophet Muhammed (pbuh) could not have written the Quran because he was an unlettered man as it says in the Quran. When angel Gabriel approached him and told him to recite the words of the Quran in the name of his Lord, he said i am not a recitor (and this is the first verse of the Quran that was reveiled)..

Even trustworthy people tell small lies occasionally if they think that it will be benficial in the long-term, I think that history and personal experience shows that to be the case.

ok, so if Mohammed was illiterate he told somebody else to write down his ideas, I still don't see any clear evidence of Allah's involvement here (presuming he/it exists).

What evidence...oooh yes-the BIG BANG wallop that had nothing before it and the THEORY (yes that's theory) of evolution that says that our ancesters were a bunch of Orangutan. Scientists always change their minds and i cannot base my existence on their ever changing theories.

We can see evolution in practice, it has been demonstrated using everything from moths changing colour due to natural selection to viruses and bacteria mutating to become resistant to medicines, of course more complex creatures will take longer.

We also know that the oldest humans come from Africa and we know how they migrated. We know by numerous dating techniques that the earth is much older than the 6000 or so years that the Torah claims.

The difference between science and religion is that science never claims to know everything, it merely seeks to constantly improve our understanding. Religion on the other hand claims to have all the answers in one nice easy package, the problem comes when evidence and experience shows those answers to be wrong or incomplete, religion either doesn't have the flexibility to change and thus becomes irrelevant (like Islam or orthodox judaism) or if it does try to stay relevant by coming up with new interpretations etc, it loses credibility (like Christianity).

You may not like to base your existence on ever changing theories but surely it is better to admit that you are not sure and try to improve your understanding gradually even though it may never be complete than just to pick one of the competing theories and to say that you are sticking with that whatever happens.

imagine the bile and ridicule this post would elicit if the poster where Christian?

This is not a plea to start dissing this lad, just a prompt to remind you how Euro/ethnocentric you all are, especially the ones who delude themselves that they have 'an international take on life'!

My whole point in joining the 'Does God exist' thread was to highlight that most people who believe in God are not nuts or bad

It doesn't have to descend into bile and ridicule, christian or muslim, i've taken part in plenty of (reasonably :) ) sane debates with christians on similar subjects.

and the THEORY (yes that's theory) of evolution that says that our ancesters were a bunch of Orangutan. Scientists always change their minds and i cannot base my existence on their ever changing theories.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

The theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun.

edit

Guys, can this not devolve into a religion bashing thread? i think Rt Hon has been very decent and generous in explaining and arguing his positions.

OK! Right Hon. come back. Didn't mean to scare you off. :wave:

Guys, can this not devolve into a religion bashing thread? i think Rt Hon has been very decent and generous in explaining and arguing his positions.

I agree. It's great to have a decent discussion about it. I find it interesting and TBH i'm quite ignorant of Islamic beliefs.

Please keepposting Rt. Hon.

Father murders daughter for not wearing hijab.

Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab.
Police said in a statement they received an emergency call at 7:55 am local time Monday from "a man who indicated that he had just killed his daughter."

The victim, Aqsa Parvez, was "rushed to hospital with life-threatening injuries, but tragically passed away late last night."

Her father, Muhammad Parvez, 57, was arrested at the scene and will be formally charged with murder when he appears in court Wednesday, said police.

The girl's friends, meanwhile, told local media she was having trouble at home because she did not conform to the family's religious beliefs and refused to wear a traditional Islamic head scarf, or hijab.

"She wanted to go different ways than her family wanted to go, and she wanted to make her own path, but he (her father) wouldn't let her," one of her classmates told public broadcaster CBC.

"She loved clothes," another of her friends, Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, told the daily Toronto Star. "She just wanted to show her beauty ... She just wanted to dress like us, just like a normal person."

According to her friends, Aqsa had worn the hijab at school last year, but rebelled in recent months.

They said she would leave home wearing a hijab and loose-fitting clothes, but would take off her head scarf and change into tighter garments at school, then change back before going home at the end of the day.

The victim's 26 year-old brother was also charged with obstructing police in the investigation.

It's sad, so sad
It's a sad, sad situation
And it's getting more and more absurd

I'm not surprised at all to be honest :(

Muslim helps Jews attacked on New York subway

....Another passenger, Hassan Askari -- a Muslim student from Bangladesh -- came to Adler's aid, and the group began physically and verbally assaulting him, Hellerstein said.

"A Muslim-American saved us when our own people were on the train and didn't do anything," Adler said.


Read it here on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/

Check out the video here on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/#cnnSTCVideo

It's sad, so sad
It's a sad, sad situation
And it's getting more and more absurd

Why can't they talk it over?
It seems to me
Hijab seems to be the hardest word.