The Five Necessities of Shariah

anonymous wrote: "The 5 necessities that Islamic Shariah (laws) has come to protect are life, intellect, offsprings, wealth (i.e. private, public, and natural wealth/resources), and religion itself..."

This is correct except for the order. Anonymous has listed it in order 2-3-4-5-1. Religion is first.

Muslim Inventions

In the past couple weeks, I had made the occasional comment on Yusuf Smith's Indigo Jo Blogs; however, yesterday, I noticed that one of my recent comments had been deleted. Why, I don't know. In my opinion, the comment was rather innocuous; however, I respect Brother Yusuf's right to censor comments made on his blog. I, of course, also reserve that right, which I've exercised several times in the past on my own blogs. Regardless, I've decided to post my comments to his blog here on my own blogs, where he cannot censor me for what appears to be arbitrary reasons.

The comment that was deleted was in response to the following question: "What have Muslims invented in the last 500 years?" The writer in question asserts that Muslims have done absolutely nothing inventive in the past 500 years, which, of course, is a rather stupid and easily refutable assertion. For example, I had posted in my deleted comment a link to the Granted Patents webpage at the General Directorate of Patents - King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology website. The page is in Arabic, however. Today, while "googling" for the KACST website, I also came across a US government webpage that categorizes by technology class all of the patents made in Saudi Arabia between 1999 and 2003.

My point in choosing Saudi Arabia for this refutation was merely to show one Muslim country's efforts in creating intellectual capital (in this case, in the form of patents). Obviously, this one country is not the entire Muslim world, but it is sufficient enough to disprove the writer's original assertion.

Aishah

Over at Indigo Jo Blogs, there's the oft-repeated argument over Aishah's age when she was married to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Instead of replying there (because the following is so lengthy), I'm posting this response here, and will link the response over in the comments section of IJB's thread.

This particular response is not mine, but was written by a woman whose nick was Ruqaiyyah. The post was taken from Beliefnet (where I used to be a regular), and was originally written on 24 April 2001.<> I have edited her post slightly for grammar, punctuation, and spelling; otherwise, the words are hers:

Dear Cassian, AAWR. This will probably be one of the most difficult replies I have to write in this dialogue, because there is so much that needs to be said. You have done a great deal of research, and have pointed out various references, but at the same time, every single point you raise in my opinion you have gained the wrong interpretation.

But let us start at the beginning with the facts; yes, the Prophet (pbuh) was over 50 when he was engaged to Aishah, who was perhaps only 6 years old, their physical marriage commencing three years later when she was 9. My first comment is to let you know that the scholars do actually differ in the information given; all the hadiths claiming that she was only 6 are based on Urwah, and are not from Madinah, which to many Sunni scholars makes them suspect. That is not to say they are not true, but they are 'suspected'. Secondly, you need to know that the birth and death dates of many of the Prophet's (pbuh) companions, including his wives, are not known for certain, and there are several possible dates given for many of them. Most scholars accept that Aishah died at the age of 67, but they give the date of 672 CE/ 50 AH, after a widowhood of 40 years. Just to give you an idea of the complication of it all, I would like to tell you in detail that there are three main theories -

(1) The most widely accepted in the Muslim world, that Aishah was born in the 4th year of Prophethood, ie.614 CE, based on Ibn Sa'd's work. If true, she was 5 when Khadijah died, 6 at nikah, 9 at marriage, but these sources also suggest she was only 18 when Prophet died; this means she would only have been 58 in 672.

(2) If she were born 4 years before the Prophethood, she would have been 14/15 when Khadijah died, 15/16 at nikah, 19 at year of marriage, 27/28 when he died, and would indeed have been 67/68 in 672.

(3) Other hadiths say she was born five years after Fatimah, who was said to have been born 5 years before Prophethood, making Aishah's birth that year - 610. Then she would have been 9 when Khadijah died, 10 at nikah, 14 at marriage, 22 when he died, and 62 when she died. However, Fatimah's dates are also disputed.

My own conclusion is that she was born in 605-6, and that Ibn Sa'd was cursed by a glaring example of writer's slip that went unnoticed by those who used him as their primary source. The slip, I believe, was that he stated Aishah was born in the 4th year of the Prophethood, when what he actually meant was 4 years before it.

So, my first part of my answer is that the whole business of Aishah's age is debatable. I have a booklet on the subject, if you are interested, published by IPCI in Birmingham.

The second part of my answer is to consider the thorny issue of pedophilia. There is all the difference in the world by adult men committing indecent sexual acts on small children, and the issue of love (which might not even be a physical thing at all) between an adult and a child. The Prophet (pbuh) was well known for his great love for children, but certainly with no sexual content to it whatsoever. He had many children himself, the four girls surviving and two sons dying, at which he adopted his four-year old cousin Ali and brought him up and also adopted a 14-year-old slave-boy, Zayd, and brought him up too. In later life, when he married his other wives, they also brought with him all their children by their previous marriages - for example, Umm Salamah came with 3 (and one born just after their marriage); Sawdah came with 6, etc. There was never any suggestion of pedophilia.

At the same time, we have to realize that the culture was very different; the usual age for a girl's marriage was once she reached puberty and her periods commenced, thus making her technically 'adult'; it was the same for Jewish people - and we might observe how the Virgin Mary was presumably only 12 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, if the material about her upbringing and family background has any truth in it. Boys tended to marry for the first time round about the age of 15-16. In reality, many little girls of twelve or so have already experienced 'being in love', and boys tend to do so just a little later. It seems to be natural. Whether or not they should be having a sexual relationship at that age has varied in public opinion throughout the ages; in practice, many seem to do so, whether or not their families know about it. Certainly this seems to be the case in the UK. You are probably aware of the Muslim point of view that once a youngster shows signs of sexual urges that are becoming difficult to control, it is more sensible and kinder to get them married, (then they can have as much as they like, honorably), than let them risk all the consequences of sex outside marriage.

Another aspect I would like you to consider is the very deep love that can exist between an older person and a tiny child. I cannot be the only grandma to whom a little grandson has seriously declared that he loves me, and will marry me when he grows up. I love him, too, more than any other human being. But you will have to take my word when I say there is no question of any pedophilia involved. You will also have to take my word when I tell you that when I was 12 I was deeply in love with our 45-year-old postmaster, at whose office I had a part-time job. I adored him - but again, no pedophilia whatsoever!! And at that time, I also had plenty of toys to play with.

So, I have to conclude that the love between the Prophet (pbuh) and his best friend's daughter - whom he knew from her birth - was not pedophilic at all, but a very sincere and deep mutual love. The fact that he may have engaged her at the age of 6 was not at all unusual - many children were engaged at birth. The physical marriage when she arrived at puberty (which for girls can vary, and is normal, between 9 and 18ish) was also normally accepted. Most of his companions had similar marriages, as did the Virgin Mary and Joseph. According to the Protevangelion (Gospel of James), Mary was 12 and Joseph around 80 - with an already existing grown-up family! He certainly died not long after the marriage, and there is no further Gospel mention of him.

The fact that the Prophet (pbuh) dreamed about Aishah is nothing suspicious - there was no suggestion whatsoever in the hadith that the dream was of a sexual nature, just that they were destined to marry. So, to get back to your opening paragraph, yes - it was all normal.

Overcoming the Islamic Fear Factor

The following article comes from the Wichita Eagle. I had originally thought about posting it to my regular blog, Dunner's, but I decided instead to post it here because I think it makes for a good Learn About Islam-type piece.

There is one paragraph that I have personally modified. The author made the suggestion that to contact a certain person at the Islamic Society of Wichita for more information on classes about Islam. However, in the interest of a wider audience, I have rewritten that paragraph. It begins with "Contact your local mosque..." and is in italics, so you shouldn't be able to miss it. :)


All it the fear factor: Muslims and terrorists. The two go together in many people's minds, and little if any distinction is made between fanaticism and faith.

Before you give in to fear, ask yourself: How much do I know about the religion of Islam? When I hear the word Muslim, do I immediately think only of terrorists?

Regardless of your preconceptions -- or misconceptions -- are you willing to learn more about the religion of more than 1 billion people?

First, take this six-question quiz to give yourself a baseline for learning:

1. True or false: Most Muslims are Arabs.

2. True or false: The ultimate meaning of worship for Muslims is observing the five pillars of Islam: profession of faith in Allah, performance of prayers five times a day, fasting, giving to charity and pilgrimage to Mecca.

3. Jihad means:
A. Struggle to live a perfect life
B. Struggle to defend Islam
C. Struggle to convey the message of Islam
D. All of the above

4. Only a government, through its Islamic leaders (caliph or imam), can call for a holy war. Which of the following rules for waging such a war does NOT apply:
A. Do not kill children or women.
B. If a fighter turns his back, do not kill him.
C. Take action against an enemy before he attacks.
D. Fight on behalf of religious freedom.

5. True or false: Marriage in Islam is a social contract that requires the consent of both parties.

6. True or false: Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe in the coming of a Messiah.


Here are the answers, according to several authoritative sources:

1. Most Muslims are Arabs. False. Of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, about 20 percent are Arabs.

2. False. Worship is everything that a person does to submit to Allah. The five pillars are part of that broader and all-inclusive understanding of worship.

3. Jihad means: D. All of the meanings of struggle, including to live a perfect life, to defend Islam and to convey the message of Islam.

4. The following rule for waging a holy war does NOT apply: C. Take action against an enemy before he attacks. The Quran enjoins Muslims: "Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah does not love aggressors" (2:190).

5. True. Neither bride nor groom can be forced into a marriage.

6. True. Beliefs differ, but all three religions teach about a Messiah (or Mahdi in Islam).

If you got all six correct, you've made a good start in learning about Islam. But there's more to do.

Centuries of fear and suspicion -- between Jews, Christians and Muslims -- make the task daunting. And a post-9/11 world has only intensified those fears.

Moreover, it doesn't help that our interlocking histories (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have spawned intolerance and suspicion of one another. No religion is guiltless.

Fueling the greater angst among non-Muslims today is a belief that Islam is only a religion of violence. That's why it's important to learn about the religion. Here are some ways to begin:

• Read such books as What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam by John Esposito (Oxford University Press); Silent No More: Confronting America's False Images of Islam by Paul Findley (Amana Books); Terror and Suicide Attacks: An Islamic Perspective edited by Ergun Capan (Light Inc.).

• Attend classes that provide an overview of Islam. Contact your local mosque for more information. Many mosques frequently have classes about Islam for new converts and non-Muslims who are interested in the religion and the Muslim way of life. Look in your local Yellow Pages for the telephone number of the mosque nearest you.

• Raise the hard questions you have about Islam with Muslim leaders. All of us are challenged to explain, as best we can, the seeming inconsistencies, contradictions and mysteries of our faith. Don't be afraid to ask.

"Truth and love are one and the same," wrote then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. "This affirmation -- if we grasp its full import -- is the greatest guarantee of tolerance, of a relationship with the truth, whose only weapon is itself and thus is love."

Although differences will always remain among people who don't share the same faith, learning from one another can break down walls that separate.

And in the end, that can go a long way in reducing the fear factor and increasing mutual understanding and respect.

Reach Tom Schaefer at 268-6586 or by e-mail at tschaefer@wichitaeagle.com

Holy books treated with respect in nearly all religions

These are excerpts from an article in the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) that I think are important to read with regard to the recent controversy over the desecration of various Qur'ans at Guantanamo Bay. The comparison with the burning of a US flag is a valid one, and I'm a little surprised that this is the first time I've heard someone make this particular comparison. I also like how the writer (Stephanie Innes) got the comparisons from the Rabbi and Bishop to show that our (Muslim) handling of the Qur'an is similar to the way in which Jews and Roman Catholics treat the Torah and Bible, respectively.


The Quran is a book with special sensitivity to Muslims, and there are certain rules that need to be followed, Ahmed said.

"It is also about personal perception. Some people get upset if someone burns a U.S. flag - it will enrage them to no end. Others will say it's just a piece of cloth," said Deedra Abboud, executive director of the Muslim American Society's Arizona office, based in Phoenix.

...

"The Quran is considered divine speech and mentions that only those purified should touch it," said abdul Wali, whose institute educates both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam. "It is not simply ink on paper - it is a crystallization of divine speech."

When one of his children drops the Quran on the floor, abdul Wali says to kiss it as a way of apologizing. Muslims keep their Qurans on the highest level of bookshelves out of respect, he said.

"The Quran will bear witness for or against you on the day of judgment," he said. "It's not just a book."

...

Other religions also have traditions about handling their holy books. In Judaism, the Torah scroll is stored in the center of the sanctuary in an "aron kodesh," Hebrew for holy ark.

"You don't just put it in a box and put it in the corner," said Rabbi Robert Eisen of Congregation Anshei Israel, 5550 E. Fifth St., a Conservative Jewish congregation. "It also has to be dressed in an appropriate manner - a mantle over it and very often ornaments."

If a Torah wears out, it cannot simply be thrown away, he said. It is buried either with the rabbi or with a prominent member of the congregation.

"If a Torah scroll falls on the ground, some counsel that we are to fast for 40 days as a community, or give to charity," Eisen said.

He said any other Jewish text with God's name in it should be kissed if it's dropped and should never be left open. When the texts wear out, they cannot be thrown into the garbage but must be buried in a "genizah" - a burial site for sacred Jewish objects, including texts.

"I think you will find in all religious traditions a way of maintaining respect and structure within community and life," Eisen said. "If something is going to be considered sacred and holy in and of itself, it has to be treated in a consistent way."

Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas said the Bible holds a place of reverence in Catholicism that's often referenced by the deacon or priest when he kisses it. The Bible is held high during the procession at the beginning of church services.

"Sacred books of any religion are to be respected, to be held as special and not to be tossed. Oftentimes even a Catholic in private prayer will read the Bible and kiss it as respect to the word of God," Kicanas said. "Clearly, it's the responsibility of any culture to respect the sacred books of any religion."

Arabian Dialects

Chris Turner wrote: "If it was necessary for ALLAH - GOD to reveal it in the different dialects, then there must be a significant difference between these dialects - yes or no

"but how different ?

"e.g. is it

"(A) just pronunciation e.g. in the S of England we say "Baaarth & Graaass in the North they say "Bath & Grass" with a short a - but if that is all it was why did Allah have to reveal the Koran in the different dialect, Mohamed could have just pronounced the words differently?

"(B) different words for the same thing e.g. blackberry in the south - bramble in the North? Sidewalk (US) - Pavement (UK),

"(C) different words and grammar, e.g. Standard English, "I am going he is....", old fashioned country English "I be going, he be ...",

"(d) very different words and grammar, UK v West Indian English

"which was it ?"


In my research, the answer is at least both (a) and (b). (It could also be (c) or (d), but I haven't read anything to suggest that yet.)

"In some cases, each tribe used different words to describe the same object. For example, some tribes called the lion an 'asad,' while other tribes called it a 'layth,' 'hamzah,' 'hafs,' or a 'ghadanfar.' In other cases, differences occurred in the way certain letters were pronounced due to vowelling differences."
-- Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, "Usool at-Tafseer: The Methodology of Qur'aanic Explanation," p. 175

"In order to take into account the various differences which existed among the Arabian dialects, Allaah revealed the Qur'aan in seven different forms. The forms matched the dialects of the following seven tribes: Quraysh, Huthayl, Thaqeef, Hawaazin, Kinaanah, Tameem, and Yemen. These various forms did not represent different Qur'aans, as Jibreel only conveyed verses from a single Qur'aan written on a protected tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfooth) in the heavens. However, Jibreel was instructed to recite the verses that he brought in seven forms corresponding to the dialects of the major tribes. The various forms represented the various ways in which the same word might be said according to the various dialects. However, the meanings were all stated the same."
-- ibid, pp. 176-7

"This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven forms, so recite whichever is easiest for you."
-- ibid, pp. 178 (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 482, no. 514 and Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, pp. 389-90, no. 1782)

Qur'an Supports Flat-Earth Theory? Irrelevant!

Sabiqun wrote: "I must confess that from here onwards, I don't know how I can address the particular verses in mention without addressing the 'arabic issue'."

Perhaps I can help.

I've only looked at the past few posts in this thread, but what strikes me about this conversation (especially from Rex's side) is how it misses the forest for the trees. There's all this yada, yada, yada about how verses x, y and z somehow "prove" that the Qur'an supports a flat-earth theory.

IRRELEVANT!

The purpose of the Qur'an is to provide arguments in favor of a belief in one God, Allah (swt), a moral lifestyle, and so on. In the case of verses 88:17-20 (one example), the argument is the former, how by considering different aspects of nature (in this case, the camel, the sky, the mountains and the earth) one may come (insha'allah) to an understanding as to who the Creator really is.


"Allah commands His servants to look at His creations that prove His power and greatness. He says,

"(Do they not look at the camels, how they are created) Indeed it is an amazing creation, and the way it has been fashioned is strange. For it is extremely powerful and strong, yet gentle, carrying heavy loads. It allows itself to be guided by a weak rider. It is eaten, benefit is derived from its hair, and its milk is drunk. They are reminded of this because the most common domestic animal of the Arabs was the camel. Shurayh Al-Qadi used to say, 'Come out with us so that we may look at the camels and how they were created, and at the sky and how it has been raised.' Meaning, how Allah raised it in such magnificence above the ground. This is as Allah says,

"(Have they not looked at the heaven above them, how we have made it and adorned it and there are no rifts on it) (50:6) Then Allah says,

"(And at the mountains, how they are rooted) meaning, how they have been erected. For indeed they are firmly affixed so that the earth does not sway with its dwellers. And He made them with the benefits and minerals they contain.

"(And at the earth, how it is outspread) meaning, how it has been spread out, extended and made smooth. Thus, He directs the bedouin to consider what he himself witnesses. His camel that he rides upon, the sky that is above his head, the mountain that faces him, and the earth that is under him, all of this is proof of the power of the Creator and Maker of these things. These things should lead him to see that He is the Lord, the Most Great, the Creator, the Owner, and the Controller of everything. Therefore, He is the God other than Whom none deserves to be worshipped." (My emphasis.)
-- Source

Arguments like Rex's is merely barking up the wrong tree.

Understanding the Qur'an is a lot easier when you leave your preconceived notions behind.

More about the Sun's Orbit, mentioned in the Qur'an

idbc wrote: "Nice try dunner, but the Sura implies that the moon and the sun have the same orbit. (#42)"

No, the sura makes no such implication. The sura states, "They float each in an orbit." (My emphasis.) Not, "they float each in the same orbit." I've tried to think about why you might have made such an erroneous original statement ("Why does the Quran say that the sun has an orbit, when we know it doesn't ?" (#38)). Even the ancients, as far back as Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus; 85-165 CE), knew that the heavenly bodies all travelled in separate orbits. My conclusion was that you must be taking the perspective of an observer who watches the sun, moon and planets as they traverse the zodiacal band, wherein most of those bodies (with the notable exception of Pluto, the comets and some asteroids) all appear to be moving within the same area of the sky. Even if we take this perspective, the earlier sentence in the sura remains true: "It is not for the sun to overtake the moon..." The sun, of course, can never "overtake" the moon in the sky. The moon moves too quickly in its apparent motion. When there's a solar eclipse, it is the moon that overtakes and then passes the sun, not the other way around.


"It should also be pointed out that is is NOT the 'SUN' that revolves around the a 'galactic center' but the entire solar system. (#43)"

Irrelevant. It is the sun's gravity that holds the solar system together. The sun orbits around the galactic center; the rest of the solar system is merely along for the ride.


"Also as I pointed out the sun does not 'orbit' the center of our galaxy. (#45)"

Never taken an astronomy class, huh? :) Well, here's some information for you:

"The sun is one of hundreds of billion of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The galaxy is composed of gaseous interstellar medium, neutral or ionized, sometimes concentrated into dense gas clouds made up of atoms molecules, and dust. All of the matter -- gas, dust, and stars -- rotate around a central axis perpendicular to the galactic plane. The centrifugal force caused by the rotation balances out the gravitational force, which draw all the matter toward the center.

"The mass is located within the circle of the Sun's orbit through the galaxy is about 100 billion times the mass of the Sun. Because the Sun is about average in mass, astronomers have concluded that the galaxy contains about 100 billion stars within its disk.

"All stars in the galaxy rotate around a galactic center but not with the same period. Stars at the center have a shorter period than those farther out. The Sun is located in the outer part of the galaxy. The speed of the solar system due to the galactic rotation is about 220 km/s. The disk of stars in the Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across and the sun is located about 30,000 light years from the star's center. Based on a distance of 30,000 light years and a speed of 220 km/s, the Sun's orbit around the center of the Milky Way once every 225 million years. The period of time is called a cosmic year. The Sun has orbited the galaxy, more than 20 times during its 5 billion year lifetime. The motions of the period are studied by measuring the positions of lines in the galaxy spectra."

Source: Period of the Sun's Orbit around the Galaxy (Cosmic Year) (All italics mine.)

Understanding the Qur'an is a lot easier when you leave your preconceived notions behind.

Sun's Orbit in the Qur'an

idbc wrote: "Why does the Quran say that the sun has an orbit, when we know it doesn't?"

I suspect idbc is referring to either of the following verses:

"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit." (21:33)

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit." (36:40)

We all know that the moon has its own orbit, revolving around the earth; however, the sun has its own orbit as well...around the galactic center, which is estimated to take about 225-250 million years for one "cosmic year."

The Qur'an is correct, yet again.

Muslim Names

I've read a lot of silliness in the past few days on Beliefnet regarding whether reverts to Islam should adopt Muslim names or not. This person, who shall remain nameless - and who should know better, has claimed that "converts want to become fake Arabs, changing their names and donning Arab dress." In addition, this person has either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted my challenges to her posts, and so I address this topic in the clearest possible language.

• Is it wrong for a revert to Islam to take a Muslim name? No.


• Is it permissible for a revert to Islam to take a Muslim name? Yes.


• Does a revert to Islam have to take a Muslim name? No.


• Should the revert to Islam be encouraged to take a Muslim name? Yes.
There is no sin if a revert does not take a Muslim name, nor should reverts be pressured in any way to take a Muslim name; however, there is nothing wrong with encouraging converts to take a Muslim name either.


• Is there a need for the Muslim ummah to encourage a "diversity" of names? No. Granted, there are many "Muhammad's" and "Ali's" around the world, but there already is a great diversity of Muslim names in use around the world. Encouraging "diversity" in Muslim names is a red herring.


• By taking on a Muslim name, will a revert be considered a "fake Arab?" No. In my experience, the only people who equate all Muslims with being Arab are ignorant non-Muslims. (Only 18% of the entire Muslim population is Arab.)


• Is Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) a "fake Arab" because he took on a Muslim name? No.


• Is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) a "fake Arab" because he took on a Muslim name? No.

(I may add onto this list in the near future, insha'allah.

This argument strikes me as equivalent to saying "Chinese people cannot adopt English names; they may only use their given Chinese names." Which, if I told my told my Chinese colleagues and students (e.g., Pamela, Nigel, Louis, Kitty, Johnson, Eunice, Michelle, and so on) that, I'm sure they'd all have a hearty laugh.

A rose by any other name...

Hijab (Part 1; Insha'allah I'm sure there will be more... :) )

erey wrote: "I would say it is the muslim world more than the western media that seem to be fascinated with hijab. Half the conversations between muslims around women is all about hijab. Should I/should I not, must I/I don't have to. There seems to be more conversation amoung muslims regarding a head scarf than nonmuslims talk about their hair."

I can see where you might think this but, from my perspective, this is more a case of culture shock. The conversations about hijab are more common among Western Muslims (especially converts) than they are with Muslims living elsewhere in the world. For example, here in SE Asia, discussions about hijab (or tudungs, as they're called here) are rare among individuals or in the media. There's no real need for the "fascination" as so many women wear the tudung on a daily basis.


"She was further manipulated by the muslim men around her into this idea that because she is a muslim she has to wear the clothes of a arab woman."

Leaving aside your questionable issue of "manipulation," you need to realize that wearing hijab or tudung does not mean a woman is wearing the clothes of an Arab. It doesn't even really mean that a woman is wearing Muslim clothes. What is a nun's habit other than a form of hijab? Wearing a hijab or tudung means that a woman fears Allah (swt) in the positive sense. It's too bad non-Muslims can't seem to grasp that fact.

Islam vs. Unitarian-Universalism

EternalWallflower wrote: "But can one be a practising Muslim, continue to attend one's Mosque, and add on membership in a UU congregation?"

I'm a former Catholic turned (briefly) UU turned (eventually) Muslim.

IMO, my short answer would be "yes, one probably could," but for myself I would add, "why bother?"

For me, Islam is the priority; UUism is a luxury. Islam, as Muslims will tell you, is a way of life, not merely a religion. Islam is very pervasive in our lifestyles, affecting many aspects of life that (for example) Christianity does not affect. For example, in terms of prayer, the necessity of doing the five prayers daily is much more important than attending a church once per week. (If that. The UU congregation I had joined closed down their church every summer for about four months. I realize not every congregation is like that, but the experience made me question how serious these people were in their religious beliefs - something you don't worry about with most Muslims.)

Moreover, the UU service has always seemed to me to be more in the way of a sermon about some topic that may or may not touch on religion, with the congregation being more interested in coffee and discussion as opposed to prayer. There's nothing wrong with coffee and discussion, of course, but each has its place. A church, to me, is a house of prayer and, well, one ought to pray in it. :)

The other issue I think is a problem is that there are some significant differences from a philosophical perspective between the two religions. The Unitarian side of the church I think, historically, was a Christian attempt to come to the same position Islam came to; i.e., there is only one God (Allah - swt), and that Jesus (pbuh) was only a prophet as opposed to being a part of the trinity. That was the aspect that had originally drawn me to UUism. Of course, now, UU members have diverse opinions regarding whether to believe in God or not (the humanist/atheists vs. the theists), including the split between the UUA and the AUC.

On the other side, the Universalist position (how could God ever put someone in hell?) just goes completely against the grain of Islam. As a Muslim, I don't accept that idea. And there are other issues, primarily social, where Islam and UUism clash (e.g., gay rights, death penalty, abortion, etc.). Islam, I'm afraid, is too conservative for most UUs.

And so, as a Muslim, I feel my priority as good a Muslim as I can possibly be, but that if I were interested in some coffee and discussion, I *might* consider visiting a UU church some Sunday. (But don't expect me anytime soon. ;) )

Memorizing the Qur'an

arnof79 wrote: "is't very interesting!. To the best of my lill knowledge, there is no one which can recite the bible by heart. any idea? and what is the explanation?"

The Bible in its entirety (New and Old Testaments), I don't believe, was ever intended to be recited or memorized in full (although I believe portions of the Old Testament were written for the purpose of recitation). The Bible, of course, was written by numerous authors as opposed to the Qur'an (one - Allah (swt)). Moreover, the Bible is a combination of different writing styles, being mostly prose with a smattering of poetry. The Qur'an has a unified style, being neither prose nor poetry, but using some of the elements of poetry, such as rhymes and near-rhymes.

People are able to memorize the entire Qur'an due to several reasons. First, as I mentioned above, there is the poetic element of rhymes and near-rhymes. To the best of my knowledge, virtually every verse of the Qur'an ends in a rhyme or near-rhyme. For example, Al-Ikhlas:

Qul huwa Allahu ahad
Allahu alssamad
Lam yalid walam yoolad
Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad

"Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." (112:1-4)

As you can see, each verse ends in an "ahd" sound. Even the verses that are the most "legalese" rhyme. (Ask your local legislators to try writing laws that rhyme! ;) )

Another reason why the Qur'an is memorized by so many is that children are encouraged to learn the Qur'an. Many are taught the Qur'an by rote, others learn Arabic and are able to memorize because they have an understanding of the language.

Of course, for us adults, memorizing the Qur'an may be more problematic; however, there are numerous websites that provide recitations by various people that allow us to listen to the proper pronunciation of the verses. You might find this page, Short Surahs of the Quran, to be of interest. (All of these audio clips are set up for RealPlayer.)

With regard to memorizing the Qur'an, one of my favorite quotations is from Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, an Englishman who converted to Islam and translated the Qur'an into English in the 1930s. In his footnote to verse 55:17, he wrote:

"It is a fact that the Koran is marvellously easy for believers to commit to memory. Thousands of people in the East know the whole Book by heart. The translator [Pickthall], who find [sic] great difficulty in remembering well-known English quotations accurately, can remember page after page of the Koran in Arabic with perfect accuracy."

"And in truth We have made the Qur'an easy to remember: but is there any that remembereth?" (55:17)

Reading the Qur'an in Order?

"do i read the quran in order or i select whatever?"

The Qur'an may be read in any order. You will
discover that it's not a "linear" type of book. You
can read the Qur'an from front to back, from back to
front, or choose any individual surah (chapter) that
tickles your fancy. :)

Taking the Qur’an out of Context

A popular pastime of many non-Muslims (primarily, but not limited to Christians) is to take ayaat (verses) out of context from the Qur’an. In doing so, they think that they are proving a point (e.g., trying to prove that Islam is “violent”) but what they really show is their ignorance of the Qur’an and Islam.

The Qur’an was revealed in stages to Muhammad (pbuh) over a 23-year period. Many of these ayaat were revealed in response (normally after, but sometimes before) to specific historical events. As a result, there is often an historical context to these ayaat that Muhammad (pbuh) and the Sahabah (“companions” to the Prophet (pbuh) – the first Muslim community) knew instinctively; after all, they were living through those events. However, we Muslims and non-Muslims are living 1400-plus years after the fact, and non-Muslims in particular are ignorant of Islamic history. Trying to use an ayah in a general fashion that was revealed for a specific event in history is tricky business, even for a Muslim. Without an understanding of early Islamic history and Arabian culture, mistakes are often made in the interpretation of Qur’anic ayaat. As an imam once said in a khutbah (sermon), “To understand the Qur’an, one must understand the life of Muhammad (pbuh). And to understand the life of Muhammad (pbuh), one must understand the lives of the Sahabah.”

To be continued, insha'allah.

Muhammad (pbuh) #2

"Ok, why do people believe Mohammed is God's prophet if he in the beginning said all the people of the book (including Christians and Jews) were God's people capable of salvation, and shouldn't be killed, but later said all people who are not Muslim should be killed? Why is he considered a prophet if first he said that Islam is not compulsory, but later said to kill all the infidels."

This is a gross distortion of what the Qur'an actually says. Nowhere does the Qur'an say that all who are not Muslim (or all infidels) should be killed. What the Qur'an does say, for example, is:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." (2:190-1)

"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them." (4:88-91)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (9:5)

Before I begin my analysis, we need to stress a point that most non-Muslims overlook when reading the Qur'an: the Qur'an frequently needs to be read in the light of its context. There are generalities in the Qur'an that have guided the lives of Muslims since its revelation, including the Muslims of today, but many verses are also best understood by examining the context of the verses, not only the literary context (what other verses precede and come after the verse in question), but the religious and - most importantly - the historical context as well.

In the first case (verses 2:190 and 2:191), we have a general commandment ("Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,...). However, even this is limited ("...but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.), the limits being such as if the enemy quits fighting, then the Muslims too should quit fighting as well. In the second verse, though, we find that the "them" in question are the Pagans of Makkah. This deduction is made from the phrase ("fight them not at the Sacred Mosque"), and is obvious to any who has studied early Islamic history.

In the second case, we find another verse that reads "seize them and slay them wherever ye find them", but the literary context shows that "they" is referring to the Hypocrites, a Medinan faction of pseudo-Muslims who came to naught before the Prophet's (pbuh) death. Likewise, in the third case, we are told directly that those whom should be slain were the Pagans of Makkah. This is not a general commandment to the Muslims of today that we should slay "pagans"; the verse is a time-specific commandment referring to a specific people (although the second half of the verse, "...but if they repent...", is a general commandment that could be applicable today).

There are other verses that refer to fighting, but these too need to be considered in the appropriate context. Like other religious books, the Qur'an is deep and subtle and requires more than a surface reading in order to understand it. Little effort put into understanding the Qur'an will result in little profit.

Muhammad (pbuh) - Part 1

"If people only believe in 4 wives, why is it okay he had (9?)?"

The Qur'an states that men may marry up to four women if they can deal justly with each woman (4:3); however, 33:50 exempts the Prophet (pbuh) - and only the Prophet - from this limitation:

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful." (33:50)

"Why is it acceptable that a prophet lusted after a girl at only 5, married her at only 6, and consummated the marriage at 9?"

The following was posted by a woman, "Ruqaiyyah," on Beliefnet back in April 2001. (I have taken the liberty of editing for spelling, punctuation and grammar; otherwise, this is as she wrote.) IMHO, this is one of the better answers to this type of question regarding Aishah.

"But let us start at the beginning with the facts; yes, the Prophet (pbuh) was over 50 when he was engaged to Aishah, who was perhaps only 6 years old, their physical marriage commencing three years later when she was 9. My first comment is to let you know that the scholars do actually differ in the information given; all the hadiths claiming that she was only 6 are based on Urwah, and are not from Madinah, which to many Sunni scholars makes them suspect. That is not to say they are not true, but they are 'suspected.' Secondly, you need to know that the birth and death dates of many of the Prophet's (pbuh) companions, including his wives, are not known for certain, and there are several possible dates given for many of them. Most scholars accept that Aishah died at the age of 67, but they give the date of 672 CE/ 50 AH, after a widowhood of 40 years. Just to give you an idea of the complication of it all, I would like to tell you in detail that there are three main theories –

"(1) The most widely accepted in the Muslim world, that Aishah was born in the 4th year of Prophethood, ie.614 CE, based on Ibn Sa'd's work. If true, she was 5 when Khadijah died, 6 at nikah, 9 at marriage, but these sources also suggest she was only 18 when Prophet died; this means she would only have been 58 in 672.

"(2) If she were born 4 years before the Prophethood, she would have been 14/15 when Khadijah died, 15/16 at nikah, 19 at year of marriage, 27/28 when he died, and would indeed have been 67/68 in 672.

"(3) Other hadiths say she was born five years after Fatimah, who was said to have been born 5 years before Prophethood, making Aishah's birth that year - 610. Then she would have been 9 when Khadijah died, 10 at nikah, 14 at marriage, 22 when he died, and 62 when she died. However, Fatimah's dates are also disputed.

"My own conclusion is that she was born in 605-6, and that Ibn Sa'd was cursed by a glaring example of writer's slip that went unnoticed by those who used him as their primary source. The slip, I believe, was that he stated Aishah was born in the 4th year of the Prophethood, when what he actually meant was 4 years before it. So, my first part of my answer is that the whole business of Aishah's age is debatable.

"The second part of my answer is to consider the thorny issue of pedophilia. There is all the difference in the world by adult men committing indecent sexual acts on small children, and the issue of love (which might not even be a physical thing at all) between an adult and a child. The Prophet (pbuh) was well known for his great love for children, but certainly with no sexual content to it whatsoever. He had many children himself, the four girls surviving and two sons dying, at which he adopted his four-year old cousin Ali and brought him up and also adopted a 14-year-old slave-boy, Zayd, and brought him up too. In later life, when he married his other wives, they also brought with him all their children by their previous marriages - for example, Umm Salamah came with 3 (and one born just after their marriage); Sawdah came with 6, etc. There was never any suggestion of pedophilia.

"At the same time, we have to realize that the culture was very different; the usual age for a girl's marriage was once she reached puberty and her periods commenced, thus making her technically 'adult'; it was the same for Jewish people - and we might observe how the Virgin Mary was presumably only 12 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, if the material about her upbringing and family background has any truth in it. Boys tended to marry for the first time round about the age of 15-16. In reality, many little girls of twelve or so have already experienced 'being in love', and boys tend to do so just a little later. It seems to be natural. Whether or not they should be having a sexual relationship at that age has varied in public opinion throughout the ages; in practice, many seem to do so, whether or not their families know about it. Certainly this seems to be the case in the UK. You are probably aware of the Muslim point of view that once a youngster shows signs of sexual urges that are becoming difficult to control, it is more sensible and kinder to get them married, (then they can have as much as they like, honorably), than let them risk all the consequences of sex outside marriage.

"Another aspect I would like you to consider is the very deep love that can exist between an older person and a tiny child. I cannot be the only grandma to whom a little grandson has seriously declared that he loves me, and will marry me when he grows up. I love him, too, more than any other human being. But you will have to take my word when I say there is no question of any pedophilia involved. You will also have to take my word when I tell you that when I was 12 I was deeply in love with our 45-year-old postmaster, at whose office I had a part-time job. I adored him - but again, no pedophilia whatsoever! And at that time, I also had plenty of toys to play with.

"So, I have to conclude that the love between the Prophet (pbuh) and his best friend's daughter - whom he knew from her birth - was not pedophilic at all, but a very sincere and deep mutual love. The fact that he may have engaged her at the age of 6 was not at all unusual - many children were engaged at birth. The physical marriage when she arrived at puberty (which for girls can vary, and is normal, between 9 and 18ish) was also normally accepted. Most of his companions had similar marriages, as did the Virgin Mary and Joseph. According to the Protevangelion (Gospel of James), Mary was 12 and Joseph around 80 - with an already existing grown-up family! He certainly died not long after the marriage, and there is no further Gospel mention of him.

"The fact that the Prophet (pbuh) dreamed about Aishah is nothing suspicious - there was no suggestion whatsoever in the hadith that the dream was of a sexual nature, just that they were destined to marry. So, to get back to your opening paragraph, yes - it was all normal."