Becoming a Muslim

alex73

Some years ago I started to study the Muslim Faith. I found it very interesting. A friend of Mine was going to do the Haj, I ask if I could go aswell and was told that if I were not a muslim that I would not be let into Mecca area. How does Muslim expect people to understand their faith when we can't visit their most holy site.

alex73

alex73 wrote: »

Some years ago I started to study the Muslim Faith. I found it very interesting. A friend of Mine was going to do the Haj, I ask if I could go aswell and was told that if I were not a muslim that I would not be let into Mecca area. How does Muslim expect people to understand their faith when we can't visit their most holy site.

I'm sure plenty of people are christians without visiting significant christian areas
There are plenty of resources and supports available for anyone who wants to study it I am sure.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

Some years ago I started to study the Muslim Faith. I found it very interesting. A friend of Mine was going to do the Haj, I ask if I could go aswell and was told that if I were not a muslim that I would not be let into Mecca area. How does Muslim expect people to understand their faith when we can't visit their most holy site.

Good question!

How would you think the muslims who have never been to Mecca understand their own faith?

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

Good question!

How would you think the muslims who have never been to Mecca understand their own faith?

Is that why all must go there at least once in their lifetime? :pac:

deravarra

bluewolf wrote: »

Is that why all must go there at least once in their lifetime? :pac:

Those who can, and as their finances and health permit them to do so. It doesnt make you any less of a muslim if you cannot get there.

alex73

So why can't a person who is discerning his/Her muslim faith go to Mecca? I think it would be a good place to start? If I were allowed to go I would have followed and dressed a prescribed.. But I was told no. you first need to be a muslim to go there.

hivizman

Over the years, some non-Muslims have visited Mecca surreptitiously. Possibly the most famous was the 19th century explorer and adventurer Richard Burton, who wrote about his visit in the book Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah and Meccah. Burton went disguised as a Persian (some accounts say Afghani) merchant, and even went as far as having himself circumcised so as to get into character. There's a summary of Burton's story here.

Like alex73, I'd also like to visit Mecca and Medina, but the "cost of entry" (conversion to Islam) is very steep! However, restricting access to these cities to Muslims at least means that people visiting them go for more than just tourist interest

smcgiff

alex73 wrote: »

So why can't a person who is discerning his/Her muslim faith go to Mecca? I think it would be a good place to start? If I were allowed to go I would have followed and dressed a prescribed.. But I was told no. you first need to be a muslim to go there.

They have rules that must be followed just like any religion.

It's their most holy site and therefore, I imagine, they don't want it defiled by a <insert word for non believer here>

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

So why can't a person who is discerning his/Her muslim faith go to Mecca? I think it would be a good place to start? If I were allowed to go I would have followed and dressed a prescribed.. But I was told no. you first need to be a muslim to go there.

Mecca does not make the muslim. It is not necessary that you visit Mecca to be a muslim.

Is this one of those pithy questions like the women who want to join a men's club?

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

Mecca does not make the muslim. It is not necessary that you visit Mecca to be a muslim.

Is this one of those pithy questions like the women who want to join a men's club?

Sorry I beg to differ. Mecca is the holiest site of Islam. However if you want to compare it to a Mens club.. then so be it.

I gave up trying to understand Islam, if you are not born into the faith then its hard to understand. If Islam does not want outsiders in Mecca.. so be it. I only wanted to go as a Muslim friend of mine was going, and I was genuinely interested.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

Sorry I beg to differ. Mecca is the holiest site of Islam. However if you want to compare it to a Mens club.. then so be it.

I gave up trying to understand Islam, if you are not born into the faith then its hard to understand. If Islam does not want outsiders in Mecca.. so be it. I only wanted to go as a Muslim friend of mine was going, and I was genuinely interested.

Whoaaa there. I did not compare Mecca to a man's club. I asked if this was one of those pithy questions that comes up now and again - such as why cant women join portmarnock golf club ...

I was not born into the faith, and I didnt find it hard to understand. I would see Mecca as a holy place - where the prophet walked and lived. Most non muslims would not understand the city in the same context as muslims would, and therefore would not comprehend the importance of Mecca. For that reason, a non muslim would not afford the holy places the same respect as a muslim would, and it would be therefore better for muslims along to be allowed there.

I suppose you could ask why you arent allowed into the Vatican's most secret areas, or to pray at the wailing wall (especially if you were a woman).

Tom Dunne

alex73 wrote: »

So why can't a person who is discerning his/Her muslim faith go to Mecca? I think it would be a good place to start? If I were allowed to go I would have followed and dressed a prescribed.. But I was told no. you first need to be a muslim to go there.

If I could jump in here with a possible reason - visas.

I live in Bahrain, a 20 minute drive from Saudi Arabia over the causeway. I am not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia, no such thing as a tourist visa or visitors visa. Friends have tried to visit, but have been turned back at the border (Irish friends at that).

Perhaps that is the reason?

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

Whoaaa there. I did not compare Mecca to a man's club. I asked if this was one of those pithy questions that comes up now and again - such as why cant women join portmarnock golf club ...

I was not born into the faith, and I didnt find it hard to understand. I would see Mecca as a holy place - where the prophet walked and lived. Most non muslims would not understand the city in the same context as muslims would, and therefore would not comprehend the importance of Mecca. For that reason, a non muslim would not afford the holy places the same respect as a muslim would, and it would be therefore better for muslims along to be allowed there.

I suppose you could ask why you arent allowed into the Vatican's most secret areas, or to pray at the wailing wall (especially if you were a woman).

:-) I have been all over the Vatican... And met 2 Popes. So you can't use that argument.

I agree Mecca should not be turned into a tourist attraction. I would have given Mecca the upmost respect. But I was told I would not be let in if I were not a muslim (with a letter from Iman)

af_thefragile

Mecca is the holiest city in Islam. It's not just because it's like the center of the Muslim world (like the Vatican is for the catholic world) as it's not. There is no "head imam" in Islam. The reason Mecca is considered holy is because the significance of the land itself. It is meant to be sacred and highly respected. You can't even pluck a leaf from a tree/plant there and you can't kill an insect. You have to recognise the spiritual and angelic significance of that place to be able to treat the place accordingly.

A person who is not a muslim simply cannot understand this significance and respect for the land (as if he did he would be a Muslim then!) which is why non-Muslims aren't allowed in for preventing the city from becoming a tourist attraction and getting disrespected by ignorant tourists. It's like if they let one non-Muslim in who says he'll respect the place then they'ld have to let other non-Muslims in as well and soon you'ld not have a sacred city of worship but a tourist attraction.

There are many good documentaries on the hajj if you wanna find out what goes on there. National geographic had a good one whose name I can't quite remember... It's on YouTube if you wanna search for it...

And if you wanna experience what it's like being a Muslim, you can always head down to the Dublin mosque (or whichever is closer to you) on a Friday and see what it's like. The hajj is just a more elaborate and longer version of that. It's the location that makes it sacred and the feelings and emotions it brings about in Muslims. It's quite a powerful experience for most Muslims but if you need to believe in it to experience that feeling.

demonspawn

I suspect it also has a lot to do with keeping out non-Muslim troublemakers. Let's face it, Christianity does not have a very good record of friendly relations with Muslim countries. Who can blame them for wanting to keep at least one or two holy sites for Muslims only?

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

:-) I have been all over the Vatican... And met 2 Popes. So you can't use that argument.

ALL OVER? You mean all over the places where the public are allowed go...

Been into the papal apartments? What about the secretary of state's office? What about the quarters of the Swiss Guard? Maybe the crypts between St Peter's square and Castel San Angelo? Or perhaps the convent beside the CDF and the Hall where the papal audiences are held on wednesdays when the pope doesnt appear at his apartment balcony?


All over the vatican my ass

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

ALL OVER? You mean all over the places where the public are allowed go...

Been into the papal apartments? What about the secretary of state's office? What about the quarters of the Swiss Guard? Maybe the crypts between St Peter's square and Castel San Angelo? Or perhaps the convent beside the CDF and the Hall where the papal audiences are held on wednesdays when the pope doesnt appear at his apartment balcony?


All over the vatican my ass

Hi, Most of the Above.. I have not been in the convent. (its a cloister for women) But I have been to all the rest of the places.. That Vatican is not as closed as you think.. and yes Muslims can visit it.

Sefirah

deravarra wrote: »

I suppose you could ask why you arent allowed into the Vatican's most secret areas, or to pray at the wailing wall (especially if you were a woman).

Women can pray at the Wailing Wall / Kotel too- the wall is just sectioned off for men on one side and women on the other for reasons of concentration, modesty etc- it's the same when praying in any orthodox synagogue, and I'm pretty sure Muslims have the same set up in a mosque.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

Hi, Most of the Above.. I have not been in the convent. (its a cloister for women) But I have been to all the rest of the places.. That Vatican is not as closed as you think.. and yes Muslims can visit it.

You've been in the papal apartments and the office of the secretary of state for the vatican, along with the quarters for the swiss guard? Well done mate!

Even with a good friend of mine working in the vatican, I couldnt get in there. Although I did manage to get into the convent. It's not as closed as you think. And I saw a lovely view of Rome from the top of the CDF building...

Oh ... and Im a muslim

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

You've been in the papal apartments and the office of the secretary of state for the vatican, along with the quarters for the swiss guard? Well done mate!

Even with a good friend of mine working in the vatican, I couldnt get in there. Although I did manage to get into the convent. It's not as closed as you think. And I saw a lovely view of Rome from the top of the CDF building...

Oh ... and Im a muslim

I lived in Rome for 6 years and used to help a cardinal.. So access to the Vatican was possible.. Of course I have not been in every single room.. But I have been in the Papal apartment for Mass, I did not see the whole apartment, after all its private.. But then again most people can't see the private living quarters of other heads of state.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

I lived in Rome for 6 years and used to help a cardinal.. So access to the Vatican was possible.. Of course I have not been in every single room.. But I have been in the Papal apartment for Mass, I did not see the whole apartment, after all its private.. But then again most people can't see the private living quarters of other heads of state.

You are a catholic?

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

You are a catholic?

yes, But I have often seen Muslim Tourists also visit the Vatican and tombs.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

yes, But I have often seen Muslim Tourists also visit the Vatican and tombs.

Yes, but those places wouldnt be seen as all sacred. museums are museums and tombs are tombs.

The whole city of mecca is seen as a holy place.

You see the difference?

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

Yes, but those places wouldnt be seen as all sacred. museums are museums and tombs are tombs.

The whole city of mecca is seen as a holy place.

You see the difference?

To be honest i regret starting the thread. With islam its their way or no way. if they want to keep mecca to only muslims there is no way of changing it

af_thefragile

alex73 wrote: »

To be honest i regret starting the thread. With islam its their way or no way. if they want to keep mecca to only muslims there is no way of changing it

Ive mentioned it in my post before the reason why non-muslims aren't allowed into Mecca. It's not a political or some racist reason, it's simply because that place needs to be respected in a certain way that most non-Muslims wouldn't be able to and it's a sacred place of worship. They don't want it turning into a tourist attraction.

It's only Mecca that non-Muslims aren't allowed into. You can go everywhere else in the Islamic world and you'll be welcomed.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

With islam its their way or no way.

With any religion, it's their way or no way. you seem to have a fixation with Islam doing what everyone else does. why is that?

deravarra

af_thefragile wrote: »

It's only Mecca that non-Muslims aren't allowed into. You can go everywhere else in the Islamic world and you'll be welcomed.

Reminds me of the song "I want the one I can't have" (The Smiths)

hivizman

af_thefragile wrote: »

It's only Mecca that non-Muslims aren't allowed into. You can go everywhere else in the Islamic world and you'll be welcomed.

I think also that only Muslims are allowed into Medina, although the area that is restricted is not as extensive as that around Mecca.

af_thefragile

hivizman wrote: »

I think also that only Muslims are allowed into Medina, although the area that is restricted is not as extensive as that around Mecca.

I think it is. I don't know if non-muslims can enter into the Holy Mosque where the prophet is buried. Again it would be for the same reasons as I stated above. Its a very sacred place and demands very high levels of respect.

You can't harm an animal or even a plant in these places (except for food purposes of course). You can't dirty the place. You can't speak foul language in the places, you can't fight and there are many such things.

Muslims follow these rules because they regard the place very highly and they wouldn't dare break any rules (although they usually do a lot). Non-muslims wouldn't regard these places as highly and wouldn't understand its level of sacredness hence they might not treat it the way its meant to be.

deravarra

af_thefragile wrote: »

I think it is. I don't know if non-muslims can enter into the Holy Mosque where the prophet is buried. Again it would be for the same reasons as I stated above. Its a very sacred place and demands very high levels of respect.

You can't harm an animal or even a plant in these places (except for food purposes of course). You can't dirty the place. You can't speak foul language in the places, you can't fight and there are many such things.

Muslims follow these rules because they regard the place very highly and they wouldn't dare break any rules (although they usually do a lot). Non-muslims wouldn't regard these places as highly and wouldn't understand its level of sacredness hence they might not treat it the way its meant to be.

Given the huge increase in anti-islamic rhetoric, it would be rather foolish to allow any change in the current situation

irishconvert

alex73 wrote: »

Some years ago I started to study the Muslim Faith. I found it very interesting. A friend of Mine was going to do the Haj, I ask if I could go aswell and was told that if I were not a muslim that I would not be let into Mecca area. How does Muslim expect people to understand their faith when we can't visit their most holy site.

You don't need to go near the holy site to understand the religion. Many Muslims do not go there until they are in their later years yet they understand the religion sufficiently.

Makkah and Madinah are very holy places. They are a place of worship not a tourist attraction. The only reason one should go there is to worship God. Muslims are not even allowed to being cameras into the Grand Mosque.

alex73

irishconvert wrote: »

You don't need to go near the holy site to understand the religion. Many Muslims do not go there until they are in their later years yet they understand the religion sufficiently.

Makkah and Madinah are very holy places. They are a place of worship not a tourist attraction. The only reason one should go there is to worship God. Muslims are not even allowed to being cameras into the Grand Mosque.

I don't take the argument, As I already posted I would have not gone with a camera around my neck.. I was not going on a holiday.. but want to do the Hajj with a Muslim friend... So I would have dressed and prayed as he did.. Anyway there is little debate on the topic.. Saudi Embassy said I would not get in.

af_thefragile

^the do occasionally let reporters and other people on but you need to get special permit.

As I said before you might go there and respect the place but if the government started letting people in just like that, soon people will be going there to take pictures and explore the city. It's because of that they don't let any non Muslim in.

If you are so keen on going maybe then you could become a Muslim and then go and see how you feel. If you don't like it, you can go back to being a Christian or atheist or whatever. No one will chop your head off or persecute you for doing that if you're sincere and are not going 'for a laugh' making a mockery of it.

The hajj is pretty intensive. You have to be in a constant state of prayer and remorse. You will have to walk a lot and you won't get to sleep much. It's far from a holiday retreat. You really need to believe in what you're doing to be able to perform all of it properly.

Which is why if you're not a Muslim you might get tired or not be able to commit to it fully or worse think this is stupid and go back.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

I was not going on a holiday.. but want to do the Hajj with a Muslim friend... So I would have dressed and prayed as he did

Sorry man, but that wouldnt be possible ... your "prayers" would have simply been a falsehood and a mockery if you were not a muslim.

Did your friend not try and discourage you? I would never encourage or give any sort of hope to any non muslim friends of coming to Mecca...

alex73

deravarra wrote: »

Sorry man, but that wouldnt be possible ... your "prayers" would have simply been a falsehood and a mockery if you were not a muslim.

Did your friend not try and discourage you? I would never encourage or give any sort of hope to any non muslim friends of coming to Mecca...

There was no mockery at all in my prayers... And my Muslim friend did not encourage me to go to Mecca, he told me from the start I would not be let in. But he was very sincere about his faith and I was interested. What do you take be for a lame tourist?

As I already said if I had went there I would have sincerely prayed as my friend did to God, to the one God.

In Catholicism there are many sites where non Believers have gone and converted. Medjugorje seems many non believers coming away believing. I have been to many Orthodox Churchs and Stayed in their Monasteries, in the End in my search of Faith, Christianity offered more openness. And I didn't have to convert to visit the holy sites.

I went to far as to learn Arabic for 3 years, so converting to Islam was not a spur of the moment decision.. but I wanted to understand it from inside Islam, and Mecca is central to the faith, I mean when I travel to Abu Dhabi the TV will always advise what direction is Mecca for those who want to pray. You pray in the direction of Mecca.

deravarra

alex73 wrote: »

I have been to many Orthodox Churchs and Stayed in their Monasteries, in the End in my search of Faith, Christianity offered more openness.

You could have visited many Mosques, and received the same openess. I did when I went to Morocco, France, UK, and Italy. Before and after becoming a muslim, I found a welcome whenever I went to a mosque. Always.

What you wanted to do was go to the holiest site. That is reserved for muslims alone. You couldnt accept that, and you still cant.

The "holy of holies" in the Temple of David was reserved for the high priest. Nobody else dare enter. I suppose you would have challenged that too ...

irishconvert

alex73 wrote: »

I don't take the argument, As I already posted I would have not gone with a camera around my neck.. I was not going on a holiday.. but want to do the Hajj with a Muslim friend... So I would have dressed and prayed as he did.. Anyway there is little debate on the topic.. Saudi Embassy said I would not get in.

Are you telling us the reason you did not convert to Islam is because you were not allowed to go to Makkah as a non-Muslim? Was this the only reason? Or were there others also?

alex73

irishconvert wrote: »

Are you telling us the reason you did not convert to Islam is because you were not allowed to go to Makkah as a non-Muslim? Was this the only reason? Or were there others also?

It was a factor, but not the reason. Main reasons (theologically) was that I found the Koran to be pulled from Jewish/Christian sources.. Mohameds message vastly different from Christ's. A wealthy Merchant who gained political control via religion. But that is only my point of view from reading historical accounts. Problem is Christian and Muslim accounts of Mohomed differ. Islam has a lot of great facets, which I admired. But to become a Muslim I really needed to believe, and the more I studied (over 3 years) the more I was convinced it was not the true faith for me. One thing I always found strange were the muslim accounts of the Prophet preparing food, sewing clothes and repairing shoes.. Strange how the muslim Men I know are so far removed from the Kitchen. Muhammad delivered revelations permitting the Muslims to fight, where Christ teaching was the opposite. In islam a women who commits adultery is stoned (as was done by the jews) yet Christs message was one of forgiveness.

... Anyway those a my opinions.. Its hard to really understand islam as an outsider, but I tried a much as possible to read muslim accounts .

af_thefragile

alex73 wrote: »

It was a factor, but not the reason. Main reasons (theologically) was that I found the Koran to be pulled from Jewish/Christian sources.. Mohameds message vastly different from Christ's. A wealthy Merchant who gained political control via religion. But that is only my point of view from reading historical accounts. Problem is Christian and Muslim accounts of Mohomed differ. Islam has a lot of great facets, which I admired. But to become a Muslim I really needed to believe, and the more I studied (over 3 years) the more I was convinced it was not the true faith for me. One thing I always found strange were the muslim accounts of the Prophet preparing food, sewing clothes and repairing shoes.. Strange how the muslim Men I know are so far removed from the Kitchen. Muhammad delivered revelations permitting the Muslims to fight, where Christ teaching was the opposite. In islam a women who commits adultery is stoned (as was done by the jews) yet Christs message was one of forgiveness.

... Anyway those a my opinions.. Its hard to really understand islam as an outsider, but I tried a much as possible to read muslim accounts .

Historically Christian/European accounts were very negatively biased and some truly terrible things were written about him. It has only been recently, due to the efforts of many muslim scholars that the view of Muhammad has become neutral. To be honest I wouldn't believe a word of any thing written about Muhammad coming from a Christian source before the 60s (still even today many christian accounts of Muhammad are very negative). All of them had an agenda to portray Muhammad in a negative light to defame Islam as a part of the historical "clash of civilisation". The Christian world and the Muslim world were never at peace with one another. Only in few places like Sicily, Cyprus and parts of Andalusia Muslims and Christians lived together peacefully at times and there was intermingling of knowledge and sciences. The rest of the Christian world considered Islam to be the work of the devil.

Muslim accounts of the prophet are very accurate and are very well documented from reliable sources. He was a very honest man and there are many books written about his character and life which although are Islamic so you might think they're biased but you can verify the sources of all these accounts as being authentic coming from people who knew him and saw him.



About muslims today. Unfortunately they're barely following anything the prophet used to do. So its just a problem of the condition of the muslims today.

About the wars. You need to study the condition on which the wars took place. In the beginning they were forced to fight for their lands and rights and also if you take a account of all the wars that Muhammad took part in, you'ld notice the number of casualties were not many. Its all very well documented the amount of people who took part in each war and how many people died on each side. The wars were on very small scale which weren't very bloody, decisions came soon before there were many casualties. Although there were many strict rules of wars. No women or children were to be harmed. No unarmed solder was to be harmed. You were only allowed to fight the people who were fighting you. If a person surrendered or said he'll accept Islam, he was to not be harmed. Then the prisoners were treated well. Any prisoner who could teach people to read and write (many muslims back then were illiterate), he was set free. The prisoners were set free if they became muslim or for a ransom. It really was a lot more humane than most other wars that take place.

Then the question that baffles most Christians is that Jesus always taught2 peace and forgiveness while Muhammad fought wars and allowed persecution.
You could look back at Moses here and his religion, the Torah contained mainly laws. It was a very earthy religion. It was strict and harsh at times. His justice was " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". It was very instinctive for people as if anyone harms you, your first instinct is to take revenge.

Then Jesus came with a very peaceful religion. He taught people to love and forgive. It was a very angelic religion. Quite hard for people at times as you need to raise above your instincts to be able to love others and forgive.

Then Muhammad came with the moderate middle way. A balance between the earthy and angelic nature. It gave people the option to persecute for any crime but it goes further to say there is a greater reward from God and virtue in forgiveness.


Sure an Adulterer/res is to be persecuted by stoning. But for a persecution to be made there need to be 4 witnesses who say the act taking place clearly, they couldn't just assume they were together hence they must have committed the act. The need to see it with their eyes penetration taking place. Then the witnesses must be reputable members of the society. You can see how its highly unlikely for a persecution to be made. If there are less than four witnesses a persecution can't take place.

Historically persecution only usually took place when the guilty person himself/herself pleaded guilty to the crime and asked for persecution. The reasoning for this being a person who is punished for a crime on earth won't be punished for it by God. The guilt was quite strong among people back then.
Even then when the guilty person enters the stoning pit for the punishment, they're not tied down or chained. They're free and if the person has enough, changes his mind and leaves the pit (which the person is free to do so), the person is free and no one can harm that person.

There is a very good story of a man who committed adultery and then felt guilty about it and when to Omar to confess his crime. Omar asked him if he told anyone about it. He said he didn't. Omar then told him to not tell anyone about it and plead to God for forgiveness. The person still couldn't shake away his guilt and when to Abu Bakar to confess about the guilt. Abu Bakar asked him if he told anyone about the crime. The person said he told Omar and Omar told him not to tell anyone about it. Abu Bakar them asked him then why was he telling about it to Abu Bakar when Omar told him to keep quite about it. Abu Bakar told him to not tell any more people about it and just pray to God for forgiveness. The person was still not satisfied and he wen't to the prophet Muhammad to confess. Muhammad asked him to same if he told anyone about him. He said he told Omar and Abu Bakar and they told him to not tell anyone and ask for forgiveness. He couldn't live with that. Muhammad then convicted him and the person was punished for his crime.

So the first thing to do in Islam is to forgive the guilty person. But in case of a murder, if the family of the victim want justice or in other cases (adultry and such), the accused is asking for the punishment, he is to be punished for it.





There are a lot of books about Islam out there and fairly most of them are very poor. You need to find yourself reliable sources if you want to study the religion.


Still you have your opinions and you've probably done your research and have come to your conclusions so I'll respect that.

hivizman

Thanks for such a detailed post - you are certainly making a valuable contribution to the forum at the moment.

I don't want to take issue with your comments in general, but there are a couple of points where I'd differ slightly from your interpretation.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Muslim accounts of the prophet are very accurate and are very well documented from reliable sources. He was a very honest man and there are many books written about his character and life which although are Islamic so you might think they're biased but you can verify the sources of all these accounts as being authentic coming from people who knew him and saw him.

Yes, the well-known lives of Muhammad are detailed, and the authors of classic biographies (such as Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah) give the isnad (chain of transmission) of the various traditions they quote. There are also many biographical traditions in the authoritative hadith collections, such as Bukhari and Muslim. However, some (usually Western) commentators have been sceptical about the reliability of these biographies since they are entirely based on Islamic sources - there is no non-Islamic attestation that Muhammad even existed until several decades after his death. I don't share this scepticism, but I thought I should mention it just for completeness.

Even within the classic biographies, there is some questioning as to accuracy. For example, the famous historian and Qur'an commentator At-Tabari narrated the notorious story about what is now referred to as the "Satanic Verses", attributing the story to two informants of Ibn Ishaq. The existence of this story creates a dilemma - either it has to be accepted as historical as there is no obvious way of distinguishing the quality of sources and transmission from other stories that are accepted as factual, or if it is rejected as non-factual, then the validity of other stories is weakened. However, within the body of Islamic sources, the life of Muhammad is one of the best documented lives of any figure from the pre-modern era.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Sure an Adulterer/res is to be persecuted by stoning. But for a prosecution to be made there need to be 4 witnesses who say the act taking place clearly, they couldn't just assume they were together hence they must have committed the act. The need to see it with their eyes penetration taking place. Then the witnesses must be reputable members of the society. You can see how its highly unlikely for a persecution to be made. If there are less than four witnesses a prosecution can't take place.

A problem that I have is that the Qur'an specifically lays down a different punishment for adultery, not stoning but lashes (see Surat An-Nur 24:2-3). Yes, there are several traditions about Muhammad ordering or acquiescing in stoning, but (a) these traditions can all be explained as involving special circumstances, for example individuals who would not "take the hint" from the Prophet but insisted on being stoned, and (b) the traditions could arguably pre-date the verses in the Qur'an on adultery. There are some rather odd hadiths that refer to a "verse of stoning" having been revealed but then the only written record having been stored underneath Muhammad's (or Aisha's) bed and eaten by a goat, but the whole issue of stoning for adultery looks like a case of those in authority after the death of the Prophet (basically men!) wanting to have stoning as a punishment for adultery and insisting on it despite the clear wording of the Qur'an.

The punishment of stoning for adultery has particular significance given its role in the biblical story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), where Jesus challenges those who want to enforce the Judaic law of stoning: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." The doctrine of repentance rather than punishment - "Go your way, and from now on do not sin again" - is, I think, consistent with the better aspects of Islam, and the use of stoning as a punishment within the Islamic Sharia will always be seen as a stumbling block by those brought up in a Christian tradition.

af_thefragile

Hivizman, although you're not a muslim, you know more about Islam than myself and most muslims I've come across so I'm really not going to attempt to debate on Islamic topics with you. All I know about Islam is what I've learnt from listening to the lectures of various scholars whom I consider are among the most learned in the west atleast.

Its always going to be hard for a non-muslim to believe in the authenticity of the prophet's biography as the only reliable sources are all Islamic sources so there could always be an element of bias. While all the Christian sources, atleast the older ones (older than the 20th century) gave a pretty negative and horrible depiction of the prophet.

What I herd was that the punishment for adultery was stoning to death.
And the punishment for fornication was 100 lashes and banishment from society for a year. Fornication seen as a lesser sin than adultery as in adultery the family life is destroyed.

I think its due to bad translation of the verse 24:2 into English this arose from. Some translations say adulterers, some say adulterers and fornicators, some say fornicators.
If you read later on in the verse it says a person guilty of this shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone except of someone of the same guilt (which sort of says the fornicators should end up marrying each other). So taking the context, i think this verse deals with fornicators and not adulterers.

This is Dr.Mohsin's translation of the verse I just found:
Quran 24:2 The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).

A lot of people who see stoning in Islam and consider Islam to be a cruel religion don't see the conditions on which this punishment is given. Firstly it is almost impossible for such a conviction to be made on evidential basis as the amount of evidence necessary for the conviction is improbable. No four people of good reputation and character are going to stand around to watch two people in bed to be able to give a conviction later. The only times (in a proper Islamic way) such convictions were handed out were when the guilty person pleaded for persecution themselves. And even then the guilty is not chained down or tied down in the stoning pit. They're free to leave if they don't like it and change their mind and if they say they've had enough and leave the pit, no one is allowed to harm the person, the person is free to go.

I really doubt this is how the stoning in all those news reports we hear about take place. Its just cultural practices taking over religious ignorance. Islam encouraged the guarding of people's honor i.e. if you knew someone did a wrong thing or was guilty of something, you shouldn't go around telling everyone or anyone about it. You're supposed to keep it to yourself and not defame the person, like the media today does with all these sex scandal reports. Its only in cases where say a person stole something were you allowed to tell other's about who the thief is so that the victim can get his stuff back.

Spartacus1052

Over the past twenty years I have spent a great deal of time in the Middle East,I have spent a lot of time in the company of ordinary, everyday Muslims. The vast majority of those that I have come across have all been decent, good people who just want to live their life in peace and care for their family. They opened there homes to me and welcomed me in a way that would NEVER happen in the West. As with other religions Islam does have a few bad apples, NO religion has a monopoly on extremists,fanatics or down right crazies - Christianity, Islam, Buddists, all have their own respective nutjobs. If a Christian be it (Catholic or Prodestant) wants to revert to Islam, then fair play to them, having struggled with aspects of my own spirituality I can appreciate the allure of Islam.

lauddly_irish

Spartacus1052 wrote: »

Over the past twenty years I have spent a great deal of time in the Middle East,I have spent a lot of time in the company of ordinary, everyday Muslims. The vast majority of those that I have come across have all been decent, good people who just want to live their life in peace and care for their family. They opened there homes to me and welcomed me in a way that would NEVER happen in the West. As with other religions Islam does have a few bad apples, NO religion has a monopoly on extremists,fanatics or down right crazies - Christianity, Islam, Buddists, all have their own respective nutjobs. If a Christian be it (Catholic or Prodestant) wants to revert to Islam, then fair play to them, having struggled with aspects of my own spirituality I can appreciate the allure of Islam.

I have been reading all the post of this thread. It is very interesting.

I would just say that in Islam conversion from Islam to Christianity is not accepted. Why is that ?
In many communities it is rejection that will happen to the person who convert to Christianity. Yet I know personally women who convert to Islam for a man but her family accepted it. Even though she was born as a catholic Christian..

I also read that Christians in Egypt are persecuted by Muslims. Why is that ? 7 Christians were killed in front of a church last year in Egypt. There is no security for Christians.

In France, some girls were insulted by Muslims men. Why ? because they were doing gym in a stadium close to the mosque. French people are very tolerant but unfortunately some behaviour that were normal before are critiqued and attacked by Muslim community.

irishconvert

lauddly_irish wrote: »

I have been reading all the post of this thread. It is very interesting.

I would just say that in Islam conversion from Islam to Christianity is not accepted. Why is that ?
In many communities it is rejection that will happen to the person who convert to Christianity. Yet I know personally women who convert to Islam for a man but her family accepted it. Even though she was born as a catholic Christian..

I also read that Christians in Egypt are persecuted by Muslims. Why is that ? 7 Christians were killed in front of a church last year in Egypt. There is no security for Christians.

In France, some girls were insulted by Muslims men. Why ? because they were doing gym in a stadium close to the mosque. French people are very tolerant but unfortunately some behaviour that were normal before are critiqued and attacked by Muslim community.

Lauddly_irish, you can't give examples of isolated incidents and hold all Muslims accountable. You are free to ask questions but no more of this in the forum please.

Thank You

ummy

albeit two years late to this discussion, it has nothing to do with visas or keeping trouble-makers at bey, it has to do with maintaining the purity of tawheed~ the belief that there is no God but Allah.people who have tawheed may enter the sacred portion (known as the haram, haramain pl) and people who worship others alongside Allah, may not enter.
Non-muslims may go to Mecca or Madinah, they are just not allowed to enter the Haramain thats all. here is a link with a good answer; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx8m5tqKBGA.

He explains just as governments have visa requirements when entering a country. The 'spiritual visa' requirement to enter the haram in Mecca or Madina is 'La illha ilAllah Muhammad a rasoullulah' .

Madam

I'm not sure this is the proper thread to ask this question(delete if not please). What brought you as an Irish person to Islam(Ireland being so far removed from it in religious and ethnic terms)?

irishconvert

Madam wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the proper thread to ask this question(delete if not please). What brought you as an Irish person to Islam(Ireland being so far removed from it in religious and ethnic terms)?

I know the question is not directed at me, but I find Islam to be very similar to the religious and cultural practises of my (Irish) grandparents. It feels very natural to me. Islam is not a religion for any race or colour, it is for all mankind.

Madam

irishconvert wrote: »

I know the question is not directed at me, but I find Islam to be very similar to the religious and cultural practises of my (Irish) grandparents. It feels very natural to me. Islam is not a religion for any race or colour, it is for all mankind.

Thank your for your reply but I was asking how and why did you become a Muslim, what do you find in it that you didn't with your previous faith(if you had one:))?

irishconvert

Madam wrote: »

Thank your for your reply but I was asking how and why did you become a Muslim, what do you find in it that you didn't with your previous faith(if you had one:))?

My wife introduced it to me. At the time I believed in God but did not follow any religion. I was born a Catholic but the whole pope/church structure and their massive wealth didn't sit well with me and seemed to go against the teachings of Jesus. I also thought so many of their rules were man made with no evidence of being the result of the teachings of Jesus. So when I read about Islam it seemed to make so much sense to me. The teaching that Jesus was just a messenger, like Noah, Moses and Abraham made sense. The teaching that there is just one creator of this world and everything in it sounded good. The importance of the family structure, the banning of destructive things like alcohol, gambling and usary in Islam are all very good teachings. So really the more I read, the more I like and eventually I got to the point of realising this was the true religion and finally converted.

donaghs

Some interesting points to take from this:

irishconvert wrote: »

My wife introduced it to me. At the time I believed in God but did not follow any religion. I was born a Catholic but the whole pope/church structure and their massive wealth didn't sit well with me

If you didn't like the current mosque you attend, or the particular sect of flavour of Islam, would that be reason enough to change religion?

irishconvert wrote: »

and seemed to go against the teachings of Jesus. I also thought so many of their rules were man made with no evidence of being the result of the teachings of Jesus.

If you like the teachings of Jesus, why not just read them yourself and follow them as you see fit? Wasn't there a Reformation for similar reasons? As opposed to joining a different religion?

irishconvert wrote: »

So when I read about Islam it seemed to make so much sense to me. The teaching that Jesus was just a messenger, like Noah, Moses and Abraham made sense. The teaching that there is just one creator of this world and everything in it sounded good. The importance of the family structure, the banning of destructive things like alcohol, gambling and usary in Islam are all very good teachings. So really the more I read, the more I like and eventually I got to the point of realising this was the true religion and finally converted.

Usary was banned in Christianity too. And Christianity was used as an excuse to ban gambling and alcohol in various places. e.g. Loughall in Armagh has no pubs due to the strong Presbyterian influence.

But as long as you feel happier.

whydoc

donaghs wrote: »

Some interesting points to take from this:
If you like the teachings of Jesus, why not just read them yourself and follow them as you see fit? Wasn't there a Reformation for similar reasons? As opposed to joining a different religion?

Muslims are more "christians" than trinitarians:
http://road2paradise.weebly.com/jesus-test.html