• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ask a Muslim anything

Bill Thompson said:
Cool.

How does if feel to believe a lie?

Do you believe your prophet drew his sword and cut the moon in half?
Click to expand...

Don't know about the answer to your first question but the answer to the second is surely that this is just allegorical.

At least that's my interpretation. :p
 
Jinn said:
Peace angrysoba,

I would suspect it to be the same, but don't quote me on that.

As far as evolution, there are several lengthy explanations regarding it's correlation with the Qur'an, but for time's sake, I'll attempt to give you a quick rundown of the basic points.

First, Muslims believe God to have many Names. One of which, is most commonly translated into The Shaper or The Evolver (both are valid) and is referenced in 59:24. The verse also references Him as The Bestower of Forms

Second, 21:30 states that all things were made from water, which from the first cell to today's creatures, is true.

Third, 30:1 states that God increases/adds to the creation as He wills. This is indeed a broad statement, but can mean literally anything from increase in population or an increase in complexity.

Fourth, let's turn to the creation as described in the Qur'an. 23:12 decribes mankind being created from a quintessence, or extract of earth and water, interestingly enough, all the base minerals required for humans to survive are from the earth. In 2:30, God declares that mankind will be placed as a successor on the earth. The word "khalifah" translated into "successor" literally translates into "one who replaces someone else who left or died and assumes their responsibilities." If Adam is the first man, who is the predecessor?

That's... the really, really short version.

There is no contradiction with accepting both evolution and the Qur'an. In fact, Muslims have tossed the idea around long before Darwin ever did.


Quote:
One should then take a look at the world of creation. it started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner to plants and animals.

Quote:
The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached by the world of monkeys
Click to expand...


Both of these are quotes from Ibn Khaldun's book "The Muqaddimah" which preceded Darwin by about 1400 years. Other scientists reached similar conclusions, such as Al-Jahiz, Ibn Miskawayah, Hasan Ibin al-Haitham, Nasir al-Din Tusi and Ismail Ibn Kathir. Western scientists were well aware of this at the time and called it "The Mohammedan theory of evolution of man from lower forms"

So as far as I'm concerned, Darwin's theory wasn't anything new, it was just the one that popularized it. :)
Click to expand...

Jinn, thanks for the reply.

I'm having a little difficulty accepting that the Quran is any better a guide to evolution than it is on pulsars. The quotes from Ibn Khaldun are interesting, although Ibn Khaldun is recognised as a pretty formidable intellectual of his age, and yet I think you mischaracterize Darwin given that Darwin's mechanism was of natural selection which is why his form of evolution differed from many others that had gone before it.

May I make an observation here. You do quite often point out that a lot of Muslims disagree with you and in fact I think that is a massive understatement. Given that you reject Sunni and Shia Islam which make up a combined number of over ninety per cent of the Ummah then just how many people do you represent with these views on Islam?

When you invite us to "ask a Muslim anything" aren't you really saying "ask a man with a very idiosyncratic view of Islam anything"?

A lot of what you have said here seems to stem more from your liberal Western upbringing than your studies of Islam which is why you are a pro-gay rights Muslim who disapproves nonetheless and recoiled in horror at the hadiths.

Don't you wonder if this is slightly dishonest? Would you want any of us to go away thinking, "You know what, I heard that the penalty in Islam for apostasy is death and yet some guy on the net called Ryan told me this was not true at all"?

That said, I would be quite happy if your brand of Islam was the dominant school of thought and who knows, maybe in the future you could follow in the footsteps of a maverick Jew such as Jesus, a maverick Catholic such as Martin Luther, a maverick Shi'ite such as The Bab, or a maverick Protestant such as Joseph Smith and gain a huge following.

In the meantime I think it is fair to say that you don't represent Islam and most Muslims would agree with me. Isn't this true?
 
Jinn said:
Peace Toontown,

*sigh*

I will field this, even though it's not a question, but honestly, I'm not too amused by having to address Jochen Katz and his ilk again. I'd like to kindly ask you not to use others to form your questions, or in this case, your rebukes.

Here's my answer:

The persecution of apostates in "Islamic" countries is not supported by any Qur'anic decree, but instead mandated by hadith (I have stated previously that I do not agree with the validity of the hadith) and fatwas (or Islamic rulings) by Islamic leaders (whom I do not recognize as authorities).

The author admits up front that the Qur'an shows that apostates are to be judged by God, not us, then goes straight into 4:88-89. He then glosses over 4:90:

If they do not wish to fight, we do not fight them. It's that simple. Furthermore, the context of the verses are for times of unrest and war as pointed out previously in the Chapter.

Next we go to 9:73-74. Most translators use "Strive hard" instead of "Fight hard" at the beginning of the verse, due to it being a more proper translation. Nowhere in these two verses does it tell us to kill unbelievers, rather, it tells us to be firm in mind. I again reference the author's admittance that the Qur'an does not order the wonton killing of apostates.

Critics of Islam love to tell us that "Jihad" is akin to war, killing, physical violence and such, but the literal definition is "to struggle" I can wage a jihad against the bench press at the gym when I up my max lift.

9:123 is quoted out of context and is again describing a time of battle. I invite you to read the contextual surrounding verses.

The rest of the article deals with hadith, which I do not accept as valid for multiple reasons.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

It is not all about what you, personally, believe. Other Muslims have other ideas about "apostates" and what should be done to them:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187528.php

“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976. ...

Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.

The rest of the article whitewashes Islamic law and bends over backwards to let the very Muslims supporting the death penalty for apostates explain how Islamis is so peaceful and all that. They actually use the words, "Islam is a peaceful religion" while discussing Allah's promise of death for the apostate.

It is interesting how you avoided the issue of the Hadiths by simply stating your personal rejection of them. But that doesn't mean all other Muslims reject them. Don't you think a person who might be considering becoming a Muslim has a right to know exactly what he/she might be getting into?

What if this hypothetical person converted to Islam, then became disillusioned and left the faith, only to be murdered by a Muslim who interprets things differently than you? Wouldn't it be unfortunate if you had painted the victim an unrealistically rosy picture about Muslim tolerance toward "apostasy"?
 
I find the bits of this thread asking for clarification of certain aspects of Islam to be more informative than the challenges from atheists asking why anybody believes anything that can't be scientifically proven. If I want to read about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism the question, "Do you believe water can turn into wine?" does not shed light on the differences between the two faiths.

Jinn: what is your understanding of the Isaac/Ishmael thing. I've never been clear. My impression is that Muslims believe they are the same person and reject the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac.

I've always thought the Hebrew version makes Abraham look horrible, sending a slave and her baby out in the desert like that because his wife got pregnant after all.

Last thing a caution against my earlier construction "Muslims believe ..." Although I used it - as a convenient shorthand - it has its limitations (as would "Jews believe ...," "Christians believe ...")

A billion people don't hold identical beliefs. The fact that an atheist sees them all as equally deluded, I accept, but I'm still interested in reading about divergent beliefs.
 
Dayan81 said:
Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, therefore they deny this lie.
Click to expand...
Is Dayan the original poster of this thread. So many responses. Which is the right one?

OK, so you are just rudely jumping in to a question the original poster made.

Dayan81 said:
Muslims do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, therefore they deny this lie.
Click to expand...

They also believe Jesus tricked the Romans into convicting Judas instead. Mohammed inviented this so that people would not feel it was possible that Jesus died for their sins. This idea is implausable as well, but embrased by Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Let's try this again. Jinn, what is it like to believe a lie? Do you believe that Mohammed spit the moon in half with a sword as the Quran says?
 
Jinn, I have a question for you. Let me preface this by stating that it's mroe or less a standard question for me to ask anyone who says "This is what I believe", even myself. I'm honestly asking in good faith, no snark intended.

What would it take to prove your belief wrong?
 
Dayan81 said:
God expresses hatred towards homosexuals in the Koran? I was unaware of this.
Click to expand...


It is one of the reasons Sodom was destroyed. Yes, the Qur'an includes descriptions of the story of Lot that closely parallel the Old Testament.

Granted, it is only in the hadiths where specific prohibitions against homosexuality and punishments are detailed.
 
dang, you evil atheist have made him flee, we only had one :D
 
Jinn, I'm not going to add to your long list of questions, just wanted to say your answers have been interesting and at times informative; and you've attempted to answer a good percentage of the questions thrown your way, which I know is difficult for one person to do. Welcome to the forum!
 
Jinn said:
Peace AdMan,

As I referenced, the Crab Nebula is an example on how powerful a pulsar is. The pulsar inside the Nebula is around 10 miles in diameter but generating enough light to illuminate around 6 light years of supernova remnants using only it's pulsing lighthouse effect.

Hope that helps. :)
Click to expand...
.
The Crab was first observed in 1054 CE, as a supernova.
Once that event faded, it requires a telescope to be seen.
It can't be seen with the naked eye.
The Crab could not have been seen in Mohammed's time (hadn't occurred then), and the pulsating is visible only by extra means... optical and electronic.
Supernova 185 was observed in 185 CE, and SN 1006 in 1006 CE by Islamic astronomers. There doesn't appear to have been any, between those times.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Fascinating to have a muslim here for a change.
Welcome :)

I do have a question, which I've also seen asked (and not answered by) to christians.
Why did your god, assuming he/it is the only true and all powerful being, chose to reveal its teachings in such an incredibly limited and unconvincing way as revealing a chosen text in secret to a single man somewhere in a desert?
Regardless of its teachings of peace, islam was spread relatively violently and in a human way and then split into many factions disagreeing with each other.

Wouldnt revealing the quran to everyone on earth at the same time in an incontrovertably godlike way (say flaming writing in the sky anyone can read at any time) have been a much more convincing way to do so?

I know the quran says god will judge those that have been good and not muslim anyway, but that seems a human written cop-out as to why their all powerful god did not show its power at all. After all, if that is the case, there is no need for a religious text to follow at all since god will judge you by your deeds, not the ability to follow some random arbitrary rules.

Have you ever considered the fact that the quran might not be divinely inspired at all, but rather written by a man? And that all the wisdom you take from it did not come from some nebulous outer source, but rather from the creativity of our own species?
Click to expand...
.
I have this problem with -all- religions. Revelations that have purely human sources are at the cores of all of them.
When looking at historical figures, such as Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, etc, the underlying problems with the sources comes out. Either a mental problem, or a desire to enhance the situation of the revealer for their own benefit.
When going further back into the murk of seriously edited materials like the bible, the same problems can be seen when reading closely.
Father Abraham was a nut.
The prophet Samuel another.
Revelations are just fictions.. noises in the head of the revealer, who happened to be quite charismatic and persuasive, nothing more. Usually interested in personal wealth and sexual satisfaction.
Barry Minkow appears to be both.
 
What if this hypothetical person converted to Islam, then became disillusioned and left the faith, only to be murdered by a Muslim who interprets things differently than you? Wouldn't it be unfortunate if you had painted the victim an unrealistically rosy picture about Muslim tolerance toward "apostasy"?
Click to expand...

Jinn, what if YOU decided to rtenounce your faith in Islam-as you previously did for Chritianity- You realise there are those you count as your Brothers in Islam who would then consider it justified to have you killed?
 
What do you like on your pizza?


What?? He said ask him anything!
 
Jinn said:
... Muhammad would then reveal the chapter and verse of each one. The Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years, and after the final verse was revealed, Muhammad died.
Click to expand...
To this reader, it seems obvious that if Muhammad was the prophet revealing the verses, the final verse would inevitably be the last one before he died. Is there some significance to you explicitly saying this, e.g. did Muhammed "it's finished" after the last verse, and expired shortly thereafter - or is it just the way you tell it? I mention it because it has the ring of prophecy, yet is factually mundane.

As far as the Qur'an being infalliable, it is the only religious text that I know of that actively challenges the reader to prove it to be false.
Click to expand...
The text is open to a multiplicity of interpretations, and proving a negative is problematic at the best of times, so I'm curious to know quite what a proof of its falsity would look like - i.e. could one conceivably prove it false to its followers, and if so how?
 
Where is Jinn?

Has he left?

Was he for real?

It is amusing that the Jinn in the Quran were the magic beings like Genies.
 
Imagine yourself as not a Muslim. That you are an overall "good" person, with few enemies, and those tend to be out of spite instead of from any real actions you've made against them.

Would you be treated any differently after death by your god compared to you being a Muslim? Why or why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom