The great big "Ask about Islam" thread

Tom Dunne

Ok, not sure how this is going to work, but let's give it a go.

I've stated many times on this very forum that one of my aims in taking over the moderation was an attempt to dispel many of the myths surrounding Islam.

With that in mind, I'm throwing this out there to all of us non-Muslims to ask questions about Islam, with the hope that the Muslims amongst us will answer.

Normal rules apply, please keep it civil.

biko

Good idea OP, I'll start:
What is the reason for women in stricter Muslim countries not being able to move about by themselves (a male relative must be present)? And where in the Quran is this written?

biko

Islam is said to be tolerant of other religions, but how does this work with the burnings of churches recently in Syria and in Egypt?

Tom Dunne

Posts snipped, as I said, keep it civil.

micosoft

biko wrote: »

Good idea OP, I'll start:
What is the reason for women in stricter Muslim countries not being able to move about by themselves (a male relative must be present)? And where in the Quran is this written?

This happened in Christian Countries in the past. Don't forget we locked up Woman not too long ago here.

Local Culture feeds into how people interpret any Religion. So the Bible says a lot of unacceptable things but people in the west now culturally reject those interpretations. Not to do with the religion per-say but a reflection on local social mores that lead to that interpretation. Not to say we should not challenge those interpretations but not to have a superiority complex around them.

Plug

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Posts snipped, as I said, keep it civil.

It was an honest question...

Stone Deaf 4evr

Do you feel that the media have a lot to answer for in terms of how Islam and Muslims are depicted? For example, it always seems to focus on people who hold the most extreme views (burning effigies, chanting stone throwing etc. Etc.).

And slightly related to this, do you have any opinion on how it seems ok for comedians or tv shows to make jokes about other religions (catholics and Jewish mainly), but Islam is a strictly taboo subject.

SoulandForm

Are the Jinn mortal like us in Islam or are they immortal like the Angels?

Do all Muslims believe that Adam would have died naturally anyway regardless of the fall or not?

Tom Dunne

Plug wrote: »

It was an honest question...

It's sh!t stirring and you know it. Let's leave it at that.

confusedquark

biko wrote: »

Good idea OP, I'll start:
What is the reason for women in stricter Muslim countries not being able to move about by themselves (a male relative must be present)? And where in the Quran is this written?

It's not a ruling from The Quran, but comes from the Hadith. The main reason for it is for the woman's own safety and protection. There's a very good article on it here - http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/faqs-and-fatwas/is-it-okay-for-a-woman-to-travel-on-her-own-abu-majid-al-hanbali/ and it delves into what type of circumstances it is applicable in today's world. I don't want to copy and paste the whole thing here, but here's a snippet summary:

Originally, there is a prohibition for a woman to travel alone without a mahram (relative) to somewhere which takes over one day and one night to get there. The Hadith is in Bukhari #1088... Back then they would travel much slower by camels and walking, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) was speaking about the desert where there were no police and no security in most cases... The Prophet was not making rulings which were expected to remain exactly as they are until the Day of Judgment... If it could be said that there is just as much chance for harm to come your way going to the local store as it would going somewhere far then if that chance was scarce then it would only be recommended to have a male escort in going somewhere far.

My own personal take on it is that Islam acknowledges that women are the physically weaker gender, and more at risk of physical/sexual attacks than their male counterparts, and makes appropriate provisions to reduce the risk of them coming to harm. If you look at the statistics where around 250,000 cases of sexual assault take place annually in the United States alone, one can make a strong case for these provisions to be in place. I'm not saying that sexual assaults don't occur in Muslim countries, and admittedly there's probably a lot of under-reporting, but I'd imagine if people do abide by Islamic principles, the rates would be considerably lower.

And it's not just women that are the focus of these principles. Gender-mixing without good reason is disliked in Islam, and men are also advised to not approach women who don't have a mehram with them.

confusedquark

biko wrote: »

Islam is said to be tolerant of other religions, but how does this work with the burnings of churches recently in Syria and in Egypt?

The burning of churches is completely wrong and not Islamic. The people who committed those atrocities were very misguided. Not every action committed by Muslims is directly because of Islam.

confusedquark

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Do you feel that the media have a lot to answer for in terms of how Islam and Muslims are depicted? For example, it always seems to focus on people who hold the most extreme views (burning effigies, chanting stone throwing etc. Etc.).

And slightly related to this, do you have any opinion on how it seems ok for comedians or tv shows to make jokes about other religions (catholics and Jewish mainly), but Islam is a strictly taboo subject.

Yes, the media do have a lot to answer for, but not all the media we're fed is truly independent, and many of them have their own agendas. In part, it has to do with the political views of those in charge and what message they want to broadcast. In part, it has to do with making money - they'll get more ratings by showing extremists, and not so much by showing everyday Muslims doing everyday things, which is what's needed to help foster tolerance and integration, but that's not in their specific interests.

To the second part, I don't think it's ok to make derogatory jokes about any religion. I use the word "derogatory", because there are many different types of jokes, and there are many jokes about Muslims and Islam that I'd find genuinely funny. But then there are a lot of jokes which aren't in good humour, and have a more racist/belittling tone behind them. We're developing a South Park (tv show) mentality, where the more offensive something is, the funnier it is, and it's ok to say anything. Personally I disagree with that mentality, because people have a right to be aggrieved by certain types of jokes, e.g. ones that fuel stereotypes, and expecting people to "just take it and see the funny side" doesn't foster mutual respect, especially in multicultural societies.

As to why specifically Islam is a taboo subject - there are a few reasons. Muslims tend to hold their religion very close to them, and it's not that we lack a sense of humour, we consider it entirely inappropriate for jokes to be directed at our Prophet or God. In the same way most people don't appreciate jokes being made at their parents. That's one reason, and then there's also how different people react when something offensive is publicly said - some of us ignore it, some write letters of complaint, some make press statements, some organise demonstrations, some burn flags/effigies and others send death threats. I certainly don't agree with the latter forms of protest, because there's a way to go about these things.

It probably wasn't ok to make jokes about Catholicism until fairly recently either, but with people becoming less religious in the past few decades and the power of the Catholic church fading, there's less opposition to offensive jokes when they are made - if there were more protests and condemnation, I'm sure comedians wouldn't make as many jokes.

confusedquark

SoulandForm wrote: »

Are the Jinn mortal like us in Islam or are they immortal like the Angels?

Do all Muslims believe that Adam would have died naturally anyway regardless of the fall or not?

From: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/669/viewall/

In many aspects of their world, the Jinn are very similar to us. They eat and drink, they marry, have children and they die. The life span however, is far greater then ours. Like us, they will also be subject to a Final Reckoning by God the Most High. They will be present with mankind on the Day of Judgment and will either go to Paradise or Hell.


I can't speak for the other billion+ Muslims in the world, but Adam would have died naturally anyway because he was human and mortal (although I'll be honest I don't know what the actual cause of his death was from an Islamic perspective).

SoulandForm

Does the belief that satan fell because of his refusal to venerate Adam when asked to by God come from the Koran or the hadith?

Do all Muslims believe that angels, unlike humans and jinn, lack free will or is that just a majority opinion among the Sunni?

Thanks.

wuffly

Is it more acceptable or less of a 'sin' to drink alcohol than to eat pork? Genuine question as i know Muslims that will drink but will not consider eating pork? Just wondering what the difference is?

Dozen Wicked Words

Do Sunni and Shia pray together in the same mosque here in Ireland or would they have separate places of worship? Would their relationship be similar to Protestants and Catholics in Christianity?

iDave

What is an acceptable punishment for apostasy?

helimachoptor

wuffly wrote: »

Is it more acceptable or less of a 'sin' to drink alcohol than to eat pork? Genuine question as i know Muslims that will drink but will not consider eating pork? Just wondering what the difference is?

Just to echo this.

A few years back i worked with a Muslim guy, he drank,did drugs also ate pork and prayed infrequently however in his mind when he got "older" he'd have to conform, how is this viewed?

Also are certain nationalties viewed as more muslim than others (where the majority of the population is muslim?


Good idea for a thread Tom, lets hope it stays on topic

confusedquark

SoulandForm wrote: »

Does the belief that satan fell because of his refusal to venerate Adam when asked to by God come from the Koran or the hadith?

Do all Muslims believe that angels, unlike humans and jinn, lack free will or is that just a majority opinion among the Sunni?

Thanks.

The first bit's from The Koran:

"And (remember) when We said to the angels: ‘Prostrate yourselves unto Adam.’ So they prostrated themselves except ‘Iblis’ (Satan). He was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the command of his Lord" (Quran, Al-Kahf: 50).

“….And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah)” (Quran, Al-Baqarah: 34).

To the second part, once again I can't speak for everyone, and certainly don't have enough knowledge to comment on what's a majority Sunni opinion, and what's otherwise, but from what I know, angels don't have free will and only obey orders.

confusedquark

wuffly wrote: »

Is it more acceptable or less of a 'sin' to drink alcohol than to eat pork? Genuine question as i know Muslims that will drink but will not consider eating pork? Just wondering what the difference is?

Both are explicitly forbidden in The Koran, so neither is really acceptable at any level (suffice for the rare occasions when you're stuck in the middle of a desert and only have pork to eat). Muslims differ considerably in their adherence to the religion, and most of us go through good phases and bad phases - a bad phase for one person might be missing a few prayers here and there, whereas a bad phase for another would be drinking alcohol regularly. Some things will be more deeply engrained in some people that others, so a person might be tempted by the odd gamble or pint of alcohol, but would never consider pork because of how they were brought up or what values they have. So, the Muslims that you know who drink probably do know deep down that they're wrong in what they're doing, but are probably turning a blind eye to it. Very few of us manage to follow all the rules perfectly, mind you, but the vast majority do not drink alcohol.

confusedquark

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Do Sunni and Shia pray together in the same mosque here in Ireland or would they have separate places of worship? Would their relationship be similar to Protestants and Catholics in Christianity?

Yeah, they do pray together in the same mosques here. Part of the reason is probably that the communities are relatively small and if/when the numbers grow - there probably will be separate mosques built. There certainly are a few core beliefs that are different, somewhat along the lines of the Protestant/Catholic divide, and I suppose you can make as much of an issue of it as you want, or just let it be and focus on the similarities. Thankfully there isn't any friction between the Sunni and Shia communities in Ireland, and I'd know a good few families on both sides.

confusedquark

iDave wrote: »

What is an acceptable punishment for apostasy?

Four pages of good reading on the topic here (although the apostasy bit specifically is from page 3 onwards)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056923122

confusedquark

helimachoptor wrote: »

A few years back i worked with a Muslim guy, he drank,did drugs also ate pork and prayed infrequently however in his mind when he got "older" he'd have to conform, how is this viewed?

It's procrastination really. People come up with all sorts of excuses to justify living a life they want. When the Day of Judgement comes, we'll be questioned about every action in our lives, and whilst praying towards the end of one's life might be enough to get one into heaven, it's far from a guarantee and the best way to maximise your chances is to be as good for as much of your life as you can. And unfortunately, a lot of people with the above attitude never reach their "older" phase - whether physically or mentally.

helimachoptor wrote: »

Also are certain nationalties viewed as more muslim than others (where the majority of the population is muslim?

Certain people from certain nationalities might feel they're "more Muslim", e.g. if they're from Saudi and their country houses the main Islamic sites, and they speak the Arabic language, but every country will have it's fair share of "good" Muslims, and fair share of not so adherent Muslims, and no one country really stands out as such (to my mind anyway).

SoulandForm

confusedquark wrote: »

I can't speak for the other billion+ Muslims in the world, but Adam would have died naturally anyway because he was human and mortal (although I'll be honest I don't know what the actual cause of his death was from an Islamic perspective).

Well I think its fair to say that if the Jinn who remained Muslim at the time of satan's fall are mortal than in Islam Adam must have been created mortal too.

Doesnt Islam believe that there were other cycles of creation on this planet before Adam came along?

Were not the Jinn in charge of the planet so to speak before us?

Can you recommend any good books dealing with the Jinn?

Giak

A Muslim man can marry anybody of "the book" but a Muslim woman can only marry Muslims. Why is this?

confusedquark

SoulandForm wrote: »

Doesnt Islam believe that there were other cycles of creation on this planet before Adam came along?

Were not the Jinn in charge of the planet so to speak before us?

Can you recommend any good books dealing with the Jinn?

There's nothing concrete in the Quran one way or another about prior cycles of creation on this planet before Adam. Different opinions exist about the issue, some do say Jinn were the first to dwell here, some say they weren't.

I've never really gone looking for any Jinn literature, so cant help you with the last bit. And apologies about the rather late reply, have had a busy couple of weeks.

confusedquark

Giak wrote: »

A Muslim man can marry anybody of "the book" but a Muslim woman can only marry Muslims. Why is this?

Firstly, Muslim men being allowed to marry women of the book is more of an exception than a rule, and even then, there are conditions attached to it. Men are still strongly encouraged to marry Muslim women.

To answer your specific question, it has to do with the preservation of religion. If a conflict (in religious opinion/practices etc) arises in the relationship, it's more difficult for a woman to stand up and maintain her religion than it is for a man. Yes relationship dynamics can be very different from one couple to the next, and there are a lot of very strong women and obliging husbands out there, but by and large, a man is less likely to have his views/religion compromised if push comes to shove.

MayoSalmon

Islamic countries are some of the most oppressive countries in the world, why is this?

From what I am led to believe Saudi Arabia base this oppression against Women, Drinking etc by following Islamic religious laws. Morocco is also a Islamic country and adheres to Islamic law too, but is worlds apart from Saudi?

How do you explain this and why is it acceptable that the law of the land is religious law?

periodictable

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Do you feel that the media have a lot to answer for in terms of how Islam and Muslims are depicted? For example, it always seems to focus on people who hold the most extreme views (burning effigies, chanting stone throwing etc. Etc.).

No. What I don't hear is moderate Islamic leaders condemning the extremism of their co-religionists. For example, when Lee Rigby was butchered on a London street, where were the Irish Islamic leaders condemning that act of barbarity?

Tom Dunne

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Islamic countries are some of the most oppressive countries in the world, why is this?

From what I am led to believe Saudi Arabia base this oppression against Women, Drinking etc by following Islamic religious laws. Morocco is also a Islamic country and adheres to Islamic law too, but is worlds apart from Saudi?

How do you explain this and why is it acceptable that the law of the land is religious law?

I think I will jump in here and take this one.

As I have said many times before on this forum, Saudi Arabia is not representative of Islam. The Saudis have obscene amounts of wealth and as long as they keep the US supplied with oil, they are given free reign to do what they want. Also, it is always important to distinguish between cultural norms and Islamic laws, especially when it comes to Saudi.

There is significant tension Saudi between the religious leaders who see it as their duty to impose a strict version of Islam, vs. the ruling family who, believe it or not, actually are quite liberal and want to modernise the country.

What you have is this odd triangle where the ruling family are on one hand trying to pacify the religious leaders, so essentially let them do what they want, and on the other hand buying the population's acquiescence with the vast oil wealth. All to keep themselves in power.

One of the comical contradictions in Saudi is where women who are not allowed drive, because it might put them in contact with men they are not related to, are forced to get their own drivers, who, you've guessed it, are men.

Benny_Cake

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think I will jump in here and take this one.

As I have said many times before on this forum, Saudi Arabia is not representative of Islam. The Saudis have obscene amounts of wealth and as long as they keep the US supplied with oil, they are given free reign to do what they want. Also, it is always important to distinguish between cultural norms and Islamic laws, especially when it comes to Saudi.

There is significant tension Saudi between the religious leaders who see it as their duty to impose a strict version of Islam, vs. the ruling family who, believe it or not, actually are quite liberal and want to modernise the country.

What you have is this odd triangle where the ruling family are on one hand trying to pacify the religious leaders, so essentially let them do what they want, and on the other hand buying the population's acquiescence with the vast oil wealth. All to keep themselves in power.

One of the comical contradictions in Saudi is where women who are not allowed drive, because it might put them in contact with men they are not related to, are forced to get their own drivers, who, you've guessed it, are men.

Indeed - Wiki has a nice breakdown of sharia law by country here. Saudi Arabia is clearly one of a very small number of countries where Sharia is the sum total of national law.

Benny_Cake

periodictable wrote: »

No. What I don't hear is moderate Islamic leaders condemning the extremism of their co-religionists. For example, when Lee Rigby was butchered on a London street, where were the Irish Islamic leaders condemning that act of barbarity?

I'm not sure whether Irish Muslim leaders commented on that murder or not, but would they be expected to comment on acts carried out by Muslims in other countries? I don't think that mainstream British Muslim groups could have been clearer in their condemnation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/23/woolwich-attack-muslim-groups-condemn-lee-rigby-murder_n_3328374.html

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

No. What I don't hear is moderate Islamic leaders condemning the extremism of their co-religionists. For example, when Lee Rigby was butchered on a London street, where were the Irish Islamic leaders condemning that act of barbarity?

As Benny_Cake says, there was widespread condemnation by UK Muslims after the murder. If you didn't hear it, then that reflects on the mainstream media you follow. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Irish Islamic leaders to make a press statement following every act of barbarity committed by Muslims across the world - it's more of an issue for Muslims living in that specific country.

Furthermore, was this really an act of religious extremism? The UK are in a war of their own choice, as a direct result of which thousands and thousands of innocent Muslims have been victims of barbarity (and of course no condemnation is ever demanded from anybody for that), and millions more suffer the consequences. The UK and US aren't doing this out of good will towards these countries - they have their own agendas which they have always pursued, and always will pursue. That is the backdrop as to why Lee Rigby, a UK solider, was targeted - as a revenge attack for the misery UK forces have been a part of. I don't agree with what they did, and also condemn it - but you cannot focus solely on the fact that Muslims committed it and that their religion must somehow be the only reason for their actions. I came across a very good article in the Guardian which covered as much:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

As Benny_Cake says, there was widespread condemnation by UK Muslims after the murder. If you didn't hear it, then that reflects on the mainstream media you follow. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Irish Islamic leaders to make a press statement following every act of barbarity committed by Muslims across the world - it's more of an issue for Muslims living in that specific country.

Disagree. Muslims speak of the ummah. That recognizes no boundaries. This act was meant to garner world attention. Britain is out nearest neighbour and the country we are closest to in so many ways. Irish people watch British TV.
The Irish ought to have spoken out.

WellThen?

confusedquark wrote: »

Firstly, Muslim men being allowed to marry women of the book is more of an exception than a rule, and even then, there are conditions attached to it. Men are still strongly encouraged to marry Muslim women.

To answer your specific question, it has to do with the preservation of religion. If a conflict (in religious opinion/practices etc) arises in the relationship, it's more difficult for a woman to stand up and maintain her religion than it is for a man. Yes relationship dynamics can be very different from one couple to the next, and there are a lot of very strong women and obliging husbands out there, but by and large, a man is less likely to have his views/religion compromised if push comes to shove.

Is this the view of the Quran? and also do you think that the religion will adapt (like most of the rest have done) and associate itself with todays world.

confusedquark

WellThen? wrote: »

Is this the view of the Quran? and also do you think that the religion will adapt (like most of the rest have done) and associate itself with todays world.

The Quran states that men can marry women of the book, and there's no further elaboration as such in it. The view is that of Islamic scholars which I have come across.

To the second part, it's a very broad question, and can really only be answered individually on the specific aspects of today's world you want to focus on. I would add that "today's world" has many short-comings, so just because the world is what it is today, it doesn't mean it's the most perfect period humanity has ever had, and as such, I don't think religions should have to necessarily adapt to fit it. Any particular issues you had in mind nonetheless?

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Disagree. Muslims speak of the ummah. That recognizes no boundaries. This act was meant to garner world attention. Britain is out nearest neighbour and the country we are closest to in so many ways. Irish people watch British TV.
The Irish ought to have spoken out.

Yes we speak of the ummah, and when one part of the ummah comes out in force to condemn something, isn't that enough to get the message across to the world that the act is wrong? As this issue has nothing to do with Ireland, I still don't see why there should be an onus on Irish Muslims to have to voluntarily come out and condemn it - even if it is our neighbours and we watch their TV a lot.

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

Yes we speak of the ummah, and when one part of the ummah comes out in force to condemn something, isn't that enough to get the message across to the world that the act is wrong? As this issue has nothing to do with Ireland, I still don't see why there should be an onus on Irish Muslims to have to voluntarily come out and condemn it - even if it is our neighbours and we watch their TV a lot.

But when someone does something which Muslims consider offensive, the reactions come from all over the place.
When the Danish cartoonist drew Mohammed, protests were held in the US, UK, India, Nigeria, New Zealand, Europe, Indonesia Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia....
All over a drawing. Surely the terrorist killing of Mr. Rigby is at least deserving of such a response? You can't have your cake and eat it.

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Surely the terrorist killing of Mr. Rigby is at least deserving of such a response?

Did you even look at the guardian article i posted? If you didn't, please do, and then please explain how it was a "terrorist" killing.

periodictable

confusedquark wrote: »

Did you even look at the guardian article i posted? If you didn't, please do, and then please explain how it was a "terrorist" killing.

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument. Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances.
Thanks for making that clear.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

confusedquark

periodictable wrote: »

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument.

Fine, if you want to define that as an act of terrorism by the "virtue of the attack" and the "intended consequences", would you consider (as in the article) ongoing US drone attacks, which have claimed hundreds of innocent lives to date (not that it matters whether it's innocent civilians or soldiers that are killed), as "terrorism", or the US/UK shock and awe attacks on Iraq as "terrorism"? Because we either define all acts with these specific "virtues" and "intended consequences" as terrorism, or else none of them. But if the term is going to be reserved primarily for when a Muslim culprit is involved, then that's just bias which serves only to fuel stereotypes and create unwanted friction in multicultural societies.

periodictable wrote: »

Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances. Thanks for making that clear.

1) I didn't for a moment try to excuse Rigby's murder - I've already written "I don't agree with what they did, and also condemn it". An act of violence can still be gruesome, horrific and absolutely wrong, even if it's not terrorism (however we choose to define the latter), so when I question whether his murder was an act of terrorism, I'm not excusing his murder - that was still a vile inexcusable crime. And I'll spell this out for your sake - I don't believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims.
2) Not publicly condemning something does not equal you believe it to be fine. There can be various reasons why somebody might not publicly condemn something, e.g. If there has already been widespread condemnation of something by people of your religion - you might not see the point in repeating the same thing again, or you might not feel it to be necessary at all if it's something relating to another country.
3) My issue is with how Muslims at large are held accountable when two lunatics do something crazy (and un-Islamic), and even when many Muslims are instantly vocal in their condemnation, those who aren't are automatically assumed to approve of it - without so much as approaching them to get their opinion.

Tom Dunne

periodictable wrote: »

Don't assume I haven't read the article on the basis that your initial response didn't satisfy me. Simply because the victim is a soldier doesn't excuse the attack. It was terrorism by virtue of the attack and the intended consequences, just as the RIRA killing of two British soldiers some years back was terrorism. Stop splitting hairs to make your argument. Your sophistry doesn't for one moment excuse Rigby's murder, and that reasoning is why the Irish Islamic leaders didn't condemn it, or many other atrocities, because you believe it's fine to murder non-Muslims in some circumstances.
Thanks for making that clear.

Ok, can we drop the politics? This is a thread for asking questions about Islam, not discussion of issues such as this.

So, with my mod hat on, I am asking you to take this particular topic to another thread.

confusedquark

Phoenix wrote: »

If a christian wants to marry a muslim female must he revert to islam?

Yes, although a reversion to Islam should ideally be a result of believing in the religion itself - and not motivated solely by other gains.

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=4829&CATE=10

Phoenix wrote: »

Also why is charging interest on loans forbidden in Islam?

Interest is something which contributes to a system where the rich get richer and poor get poorer. Person A doesn't have money to buy something he wants/needs, and somebody B has excess money which he can afford to give. Person A takes out the loan and by the time he's paid it back with interest, he's relatively more poor than person B than what he was at the start, despite being worse off to begin with. It would be one thing if people only took out loans for absolute necessities, but the reality is, the ready availability of loans (even credit cards are short-term loans, with interest piling on after the first month) means a lot of people get things they don't need and often live beyond their immediate means, resulting in a lot of personal debt - which only serves to make people even poorer over time.

I've copied and pasted the following from http://qaazi.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/why-does-islam-forbid-interest/ which goes into a lot of detail.

"On an international level, the situation is much more devastating and dangerous. There is no question that when looked at from an international perspective, interest kills people. The debt servicing of lesser developed countries today is so great that they must sacrifice essential health and nutritional needs. It is dumbfounding to think that untold numbers of children are dying daily in lesser-developed countries due to the “tool” of modern capitalism: interest. Some African governments are forced to spend more on debt servicing than they spend on health or education. [36]
In this context, the UNDP (1998) predicted that if the external debt of the 20 poorest countries of the world was written off, it could save the lives of 20 million people before the year 2000. In other words, it means that uncancelled debt was responsible for the deaths of 130,000 children a week up until the year 2000. [37]
Ken Livingston, Mayor of London, claimed that global capitalism kills more people each year then were killed by Adolf Hitler. He blamed the IMF and World Bank for deaths of millions due to their refusal to ease the debt burden. Susan George stated that every year since 1981 between 15 and 20 million people died unnecessarily due to debt burden “because Third World governments have had to cut back on clean water and health programs to meet their repayments.”

3men1mission

The day you understand politics and inside job like the 9/11 I will answer your question,in plain english is beyond your level.

Giak

Why can't Muslims whistle inside a house?

Tom Dunne

3men1mission wrote: »

The day you understand politics and inside job like the 9/11 I will answer your question,in plain english is beyond your level.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, then please don't.

confusedquark

Giak wrote: »

Why can't Muslims whistle inside a house?

I'll be honest, my initial reaction to that question was "aren't we?"

After some research, it appears the disapproval over whistling comes from this Quranic verse:

8:35 - "Their prayer at the House (of Allah) is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands"

This refers to non-Muslim Arabs during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who prevented other people from worshipping at the Ka'ba with whistling and clapping. Following on from this, some scholars say that whistling in general is disliked, whereas others say it is only disliked when it's done to disrupt other people, or when imitating a song, but I haven't come across anything that specifically mentions whistling inside a house. The word "disliked" is used because it's not the same specific prohibition as alcohol, gambling etc.

Giak

So a Muslim can actually whistle in a house? A muslim friend told me recently not to whistle in her house and I thought it was the craziest thing I'd ever heard.

Do you whistle?

confusedquark

Giak wrote: »

So a Muslim can actually whistle in a house? A muslim friend told me recently not to whistle in her house and I thought it was the craziest thing I'd ever heard.

Do you whistle?

To the first bit, as I said, scholars do differ over it, some say it's ok so long as you're not disrupting anyone else, whereas others say it's disliked in general and should be avoided. Personally, I do whistle occasionally - but it's not something I've ever done much of anyway.

Did your friend object on religious grounds? Because not everything a Muslim says to you will be because of Islam - she might just have had very sensitive hearing :-)

Amilda

Hi guys

Though I'm not exactly new on the Board - I've been reading it for quite a while - I only registered tonight after making some search about how Muslim people are perceived in Ireland.

I was delighted to find the thread here - it's interesting to see what some people think, some of the questions they have etc. I'm sometimes taken aback by some remarks/ideas/beliefs, as I don't recognize myself in some of the stuff depicted as being my religion...

Just to quickly introduce myself : I am a 26 year old sales professional and have been working and living in Ireland for about 3 years in total. I originally came here because of a great passion I had for the country (the music, the history, the culture etc... and I still love it ).

So I will be actively taking part in this thread as I think it is interesting to confront and be able to bring light of who muslims are. But being from France, I must say this should give you a very different angle view from muslim from other part of the world. Indeed muslim in France tend to be a lot less into religion and more moderate on many stuff than their middle-east/arabic countries/asian countries counter-part. Sorry, I should not say moderate : but a different cultural background will define a different way of
practicing the religion I guess. For instance, many french guys coming from muslim families (though this fact doesn't automatically make them muslims) will drink alcohol and not think wrong of it. Or they will not pray or stuff like that. I guess french muslim have their own version of their faith. Very different from what it originally is.

Just to get back to Giak :

Your post made me smile and is the reason that actually triggered my signing up here The reason is, when I was a kid, my mum would always told me not to whistle while in the house. When I asked her why, she would always answer : because it brings the devil in. This answer made me be very frightened. :eek: For years I was afraid of whistling at all in any place like a house or flat.
Then I grew up and learned to think in a more rational way and got back to my mum questioning her why she used to tell me that as it made me very scared a s a child. I asked her where is the Quran was it written not to whistle in places like a house. She told me it was not, but her mother used to tell her that. It was just old superstitious beliefs that she passed on to me. This is symptomatic in Islam and tends to happen a lot is this religion : people tend to mix religious texts with their own cultural traditions, and both things get so intricate you can't tell where the religious stuff begins and where it ends. Lots of things people would tell you is in the Quran is actually not when you check, lots of them are just made-up facts ...like whistling in house
(Apologies in advance for my english, I tried to keep it as good as possible:D)