OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 04:39:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Feel free to ask me anything about Islam...  (Read 27799 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
fibonacci
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Rabbaniyyun, follower of Ahl al-Bayt
Posts: 165



« Reply #585 on: June 23, 2013, 07:56:22 PM »

I have a few questions regarding Mosques.

- Why do Muslims go there? Isn't praying at home enough?

It helps bind the community together, talk about current issues that can be resolved with wisdom from the quran.
Praying at home is also important, often times people perform long private prayers at home-- to strengthen their connection with the Lord.

Quote
- Do they have sermons and how long do the services last?
Often times, Thursday or Friday nights there are sermons.  It depends on the mosque, on how long the service should last.
Prayers at mosque should not be very long, because there are elders there who have trouble standing up for too long.

Quote
- Do they have anything like all-night vigils like we do? 
During Ramadan (next month), some mosque are open overnight, many stay from sunset to sunrise, to pray and talk with one another.

Quote
Is attending a Mosque compulsory?
No, there are many muslims who live in locations that there are no mosques, so they pray at home.

Quote
I have seen footage of Muslims in Mosques and if memory serves me, only men are praying. Are women allowed to pray together with men?
Men and Women pray separately, so lust doesn't distract the members during the rituals/sermon.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #586 on: June 24, 2013, 07:02:22 AM »

Okay two questions. First, what religion was Mohammed before starting Islam? Or, perhaps a better way to word it (as I know that Muslims consider all prophets to have been Muslim from the start) what religion was the household he grew up in?

Islamic tradition is replete with legends that depict Muhammad as a member of an Abrahamic sect named Hanifs. This is most likely because Muslims are not happy with the idea that Muhammad was pagan before his supposed prophetic mission. Muhammad was born into Quraish, the leading pagan tribe of Mecca. He most likely practiced paganism with his relatives and folk until he decided to take after some monks and spend most of his time in isolation from people for meditation.

Contrary to the legends concerning Muhammad's monotheistic faith in the Islamic tradition, the Qur'an teaches that Muhammad was astray before he was put on the right path by his Allah:

Did He not find thee erring, and guide thee? (Surah 93:7)

He also did not know anything about Faith and Scripture:

And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it a light whereby We guide whom We will of Our bondmen. (Surah 42:52)
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,344



WWW
« Reply #587 on: June 28, 2013, 02:17:53 AM »

The divide between the Sunni and Shia Muslims- the two main branches of Islam- began over the succession from Mohammed to his next in line. Sunnis are a big majority of Muslims and believe his real successor was Abu Bakr, another leader in the Muslim community, while Shia Muslims believe that it was his cousin and son in law, Ali.

From our Orthodox perspective it's an outside debate, but I am curious to ask people's opinions about this.

Time summarizes the problem by saying that Mohammed
Quote
died without sons and without leaving a clear will. His closest male relative was his cousin and son-in-law, the philosopher-warrior Ali
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924116,00.html#ixzz2XSsz1lJZ

In favor of Abu Bakr, favored by the Sunnis,
Wikipedia says:
Quote
Reportedly, before he died, Muhammad made a gesture of enormous trust in Abubakr by asking him to lead the prayers in the mosque as Imam — a highly visible role virtually always undertaken, when possible, by Muhammad himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad

In favor of Ali, favored by the Shiites, Wikipedia says:
Quote
Muhammad... put his hand on the back of Ali's neck and said:
Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey.
(Wikipedia lists eight Sunni sources confirming this.)

[According to London] researcher Wilfred Madelung:
  • In the Qur’an, the descendants and close kin of the prophets are their heirs also in respect to kingship, rule, wisdom, the book and the imamate. The Sunnite concept of the true caliphate itself defines it as a succession of the prophet in every respect except his prophethood. Why should Muhammad not be succeeded in it by any of his family like the earlier prophets?

    The Qur’an advises the faithful to settle some matters by consultation, but not the succession to prophets. That, according to the Qur’an, is settled by divine election, God usually chooses their successors, whether they become prophets or not from their own kin...
The difference between the Caliph and Imam is that the Caliph is more like a kingly ruler, while the Imam is more of a religious leader.

So while Arab tribal customs would rely on the community's selection of a leader (like its choice of Abu Bakr as the Caliph), doesn't Wikipedia portray it as if the prophet's own way of selecting a religious successor would be based on kinship?

Alternately, how is one to decide whom God chose to be that successor? The descriptions of Ali by both sides make him seem more sympathetic and pious than the combined descriptions of Abu Bakr, and he lived to a later date.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 02:27:27 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,344



WWW
« Reply #588 on: June 28, 2013, 02:41:35 AM »

According to the Qur'an, Jesus already experienced death when He was taken up to Heaven:

When God said, o Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me, and I will deliver thee from the unbelievers; and I will place those who follow thee, above the unbelievers, until the day of resurrection: Then unto me shall ye return, and I will judge between you of that concerning which ye disagree. (Surah 3:55)
I am confused. I thought that Islam doesn't teach that Jesus died during Passover, and that he would only die a long time later after apocalyptic events.

Maybe this does not have to be consistent....
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 02:41:50 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,344



WWW
« Reply #589 on: June 28, 2013, 11:34:36 AM »

Going back to my post above on the succession issue, let's say that one concludes like the Shiites that Ali was Mohammed's correct successor because: Mohammed called Ali his successor, and Ali was the closest male relative and would more likely have divine favor due to his piousness and overall sympathetic portrayal.

The next issue is whether Ali, after becoming the successor, transferred his leadership to Abu Bakr. Most Muslim sources say that Ali accepted Abu Bakr or Umar taking over from Mohammed, but others deny he gave explicit consent. Generally sources suggest that Ali was under pressure to accept the transfer.

My conclusion though is that whether Ali consented to Abu Bakr's leadership or not became indecisive as to succession, once Ali himself later on became the fourth Caliph for Sunni Muslims. Thus the next step is to take the principles about transfer and use them to see where the succession went after both sides saw Ali as their Caliph.

Ali clearly chose his own family to succeed him, and among his two sons the older, Hasan, received the title as the younger son did not claim it. Thus, one must next look to the conflict between Hasan and the commander Muawiyah to see who became the leader next.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 11:58:33 AM by rakovsky » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #590 on: June 28, 2013, 04:55:11 PM »

ravosky, I've said this before, but I appreciate your often long pauses in responding to threads along with your researched posts.

It is a literal and figurative nice change of pace.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,344



WWW
« Reply #591 on: June 28, 2013, 05:20:57 PM »

ravosky, I've said this before, but I appreciate your often long pauses in responding to threads along with your researched posts.

It is a literal and figurative nice change of pace.
I appreciate your appreciation!
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,702


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #592 on: June 30, 2013, 06:26:08 PM »

I have been reading the book "A brief History of the Middle East"  by Christopher Catherwood this week.

I thought about this thread when I was reading the chapter on Islam and Mohammed.

I guess my question is what do you think of the nature of Islam being from the beginning a political issue, because it differs  from the other 2 religions Judaism and Christianity , that were started with no ties to politics or governments at least for many years,Mohammed used religion specifically to grasp power and kill people who opposed him. The stories that Abraham told were about humble peoples living in the desert as nomads, and also of total sacrifice such as Isaac, with no ties to conquest and power . Christians as well were not part of any government or power base for hundreds of years. I never really knew this about Mohammed until reading this book, that he was very much after political gain.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 06:48:08 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #593 on: June 30, 2013, 06:39:32 PM »

I have been reading the book "A brief History of the Middle East"  by Christopher Catherwood this week.

I thought about this thread when I was reading the chapter on Islam and Mohammed.

I guess my question is what do you think of the nature of Islam being from the beginning a political issue, because it differs  from the other 2 religions Judaism and Christianity , that were started with no ties to politics or governments at least for many years,Mohammed used religion to also grasp power and kill people who opposed him in a way that is totally different from what the other two religions are based upon.

The name of the religion instituted by Muhammad is Islam by no coincidence. Islam means submission.. Wink

Read the Islamic version of the Jewish legend concerning Solomon and the Queen of the South. (Surah 27:17-44) There Solomon sends a letter to the Queen and asks her to be of those who submit (Muslims). He also threatens to attack her folk if they do not become Muslims.

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ThatOrthodoxGuy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 8


New convert to Orthodoxy. Ex-Catholic


« Reply #594 on: July 01, 2013, 12:25:00 AM »

I have been reading the book "A brief History of the Middle East"  by Christopher Catherwood this week.

I thought about this thread when I was reading the chapter on Islam and Mohammed.

I guess my question is what do you think of the nature of Islam being from the beginning a political issue, because it differs  from the other 2 religions Judaism and Christianity , that were started with no ties to politics or governments at least for many years,Mohammed used religion to also grasp power and kill people who opposed him in a way that is totally different from what the other two religions are based upon.

The name of the religion instituted by Muhammad is Islam by no coincidence. Islam means submission.. Wink

Read the Islamic version of the Jewish legend concerning Solomon and the Queen of the South. (Surah 27:17-44) There Solomon sends a letter to the Queen and asks her to be of those who submit (Muslims). He also threatens to attack her folk if they do not become Muslims.



If thats not peaceful, I don't know what is!  Grin lol
Logged

"The spread of Christ's faith ought to be near and precious to the heart of every Orthodox Christian"- St. Tikhon of Moscow
fibonacci
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Rabbaniyyun, follower of Ahl al-Bayt
Posts: 165



« Reply #595 on: July 08, 2013, 12:50:34 AM »

hi everyone

I highly recommend you check out this lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRP_iJWavo

it was delivered in moscow state university
translated in russian
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 12:51:58 AM by fibonacci » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #596 on: July 08, 2013, 01:27:59 AM »

hi everyone

I highly recommend you check out this lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRP_iJWavo

it was delivered in moscow state university
translated in russian
But how credible is this Imran N. Hosein overall?

He wrote a book Jerusalem in the Qur'an; do you buy this notion that Jerusalem is in the Qur'an?

Daniel Pipes[1] had this to say about it:  
( http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/02/claiming-jerusalem-is-in-the-koran )

Quote from: Daniel Pipes

"I read Hosein's antisemitic screed and, sorry to say, am not convinced by his laborious argument that Jerusalem really is in the Koran despite its never being named there. I admit to special puzzlement when the good author asserts that Deuteronomy 9:6 is a forgery and that the long Muslim rule of Jerusalem offers "a clear Sign from the heavens of Divine approval of Muslim rule over the Holy Land!" How might these prove that Jerusalem really and truly is in the Koran?

Hosain also wanders off to discuss such irrelevancies as a pharaoh's death, the Anti-Christ, the Khazars, the Soncino press, the Ahmadiyya, the outbreak of World War I, the Bretton Wood financial system, Israeli justice, and the feminist revolution. Also, Henry Ford, Fidel Castro, Hal Lindsey, and Louis Farrakhan all waddle into his account.

Comment: This shoddy rant is sadly typical of the Muslim attempt to construct a counterfeit history of Jerusalem. How can anyone take it seriously? (February 29, 2012)
___________
[1]Daniel Pipes' bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 01:38:06 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
fibonacci
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Rabbaniyyun, follower of Ahl al-Bayt
Posts: 165



« Reply #597 on: July 08, 2013, 01:37:44 AM »

hi everyone

I highly recommend you check out this lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRP_iJWavo

it was delivered in moscow state university
translated in russian
But how credible is this Imran N. Hosein overall?

He wrote a book Jerusalem in the Qur'an; do you buy this notion that Jerusalem is in the Koran?

Daniel Pipes[1] had this to say about it:  
( http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/02/claiming-jerusalem-is-in-the-koran )

Quote from: Daniel Pipes

"I read Hosein's antisemitic screed and, sorry to say, am not convinced by his laborious argument that Jerusalem really is in the Koran despite its never being named there. I admit to special puzzlement when the good author asserts that Deuteronomy 9:6 is a forgery and that the long Muslim rule of Jerusalem offers "a clear Sign from the heavens of Divine approval of Muslim rule over the Holy Land!" How might these prove that Jerusalem really and truly is in the Koran?

Hosain also wanders off to discuss such irrelevancies as a pharaoh's death, the Anti-Christ, the Khazars, the Soncino press, the Ahmadiyya, the outbreak of World War I, the Bretton Wood financial system, Israeli justice, and the feminist revolution. Also, Henry Ford, Fidel Castro, Hal Lindsey, and Louis Farrakhan all waddle into his account.

Comment: This shoddy rant is sadly typical of the Muslim attempt to construct a counterfeit history of Jerusalem. How can anyone take it seriously? (February 29, 2012)
___________
[1]Daniel Pipes' bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

I haven't read that book of his yet, so can't comment on it, but his analysis on global monetary/economic corruption is spot on, and he shares some valuable insights in the video.

In regards to 'antisemitic ', I would say he's more anti-zionist.  He regularly has discussions with a Jewish friend of his.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #598 on: July 08, 2013, 01:42:49 AM »

Thanks; the youtube video froze for me half way through but I'll try to catch the rest.
Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #599 on: August 06, 2013, 03:05:13 PM »

Please discuss: "Convert to Islam or you will be killed." http://www.christiantoday.com/article/syria.assyrian.christians.told.if.you.want.to.come.back.convert.to.islam.or.you.will.be.killed/33496.htm

"Christians report their property being stolen, their homes being confiscated, and their possessions being sold on the black market in order to buy weapons and ammunition. In many of these cases, those forcefully dispossessed were not even allowed the chance to take with them any of their personal belongings. According to the jihadist Islamist ideology espoused by such forces as the al-Nusra Front, the properties and possessions of such "infidels" are halal (fair game), and it is not a sin to plunder them."
Logged

Silly Stars
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,344



WWW
« Reply #600 on: August 09, 2013, 04:07:24 AM »

He wrote a book Jerusalem in the Qur'an; do you buy this notion that Jerusalem is in the Qur'an?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Islam
You can come to your own opinion. Naturally, it's a charged opinion between two religions, which thankfully Christianity can sit on the bleachers for.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 04:07:42 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #601 on: August 09, 2013, 06:45:42 AM »

He wrote a book Jerusalem in the Qur'an; do you buy this notion that Jerusalem is in the Qur'an?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Islam
You can come to your own opinion. Naturally, it's a charged opinion between two religions, which thankfully Christianity can sit on the bleachers for.

Christians cannot do that since Yeshua wants us to side with Jews against the Ishmaelites:

We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews. (Yohanan 4:22)

Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #602 on: August 10, 2013, 04:36:24 PM »

Please discuss: "Convert to Islam or you will be killed." http://www.christiantoday.com/article/syria.assyrian.christians.told.if.you.want.to.come.back.convert.to.islam.or.you.will.be.killed/33496.htm

"Christians report their property being stolen, their homes being confiscated, and their possessions being sold on the black market in order to buy weapons and ammunition. In many of these cases, those forcefully dispossessed were not even allowed the chance to take with them any of their personal belongings. According to the jihadist Islamist ideology espoused by such forces as the al-Nusra Front, the properties and possessions of such "infidels" are halal (fair game), and it is not a sin to plunder them."
This is what disturbs many Christians today.
Also, I don't see why the USA is supporting the rebels in Syria against Assad. And it looks like Obama does not want to talk to Putin about it, since he cancelled his summit meeting with him. Under Assad, Christians in Syria were able to practice their religion in peace, but now with the al-Nusra front and the American support of the rebels, things may change.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,152


« Reply #603 on: August 11, 2013, 10:13:43 AM »

hi everyone

I highly recommend you check out this lecture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABRP_iJWavo

it was delivered in moscow state university
translated in russian
I've listened to more than one of this guys's lectures.

He definetly nails it on globalists and Zionists issues. I also can appreciate his worldview on secularism.


Although, I don't think he's a big fan of us "papists". Grin
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,152


« Reply #604 on: August 11, 2013, 10:20:18 AM »

I don't feel like going back through 14 pages in this thread, so at the risk of this question already being asked.........

What is your opinion of the "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie?

Do you believe he has any credibility of his critique of the Koran?

And do you believe in the validity of the Fatawa decree calling for his death?

Thanks in advance.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,750



« Reply #605 on: August 11, 2013, 10:37:17 AM »

Come on, you can do better than that. I'm sure you can think up something even more polemical. Think of Muslims eating infants or founding Illuminati or something.
Logged

Aedificare
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe
Posts: 120



« Reply #606 on: August 11, 2013, 10:42:29 AM »

He wrote a book Jerusalem in the Qur'an; do you buy this notion that Jerusalem is in the Qur'an?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Islam
You can come to your own opinion. Naturally, it's a charged opinion between two religions, which thankfully Christianity can sit on the bleachers for.

Christians cannot do that since Yeshua wants us to side with Jews against the Ishmaelites:

We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews. (Yohanan 4:22)



We should support the Jews (or anyone for that matter) against people who want to genocide them. That's as far as I'll go.
Politically being forced to support Israel or what it is you imagine is a crazy american apocalyptic hypothesis.
Logged
Trebor135
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 132


« Reply #607 on: January 28, 2014, 02:11:25 AM »

PS: Also, what do you guys think about the material in www.answering-islam.org? Is it worth going  through it or should I just ignore the site completely? THanks.

I've been reading the site off and on for some years now, and I'd call it a mixed bag.

Here are the pros:

1) It's comprehensive, addressing a wide range of topics.

2) It gives what are sometimes very strong arguments defending Christianity and rebutting Islam. I hope to draw up a list of the most useful articles.

3) It calls out Islamic apologists on their illogical, inconsistent, and/or intellectually dishonest arguments and tactics.

And here are the cons:

1) Nearly all of the authors are Calvinists and Zwinglians, inescapably hobbled as they are by the deep flaws intrinsic to those theologies--the doctrine of sola scriptura, the acceptance of denominationalism, and the lack of historical roots. As a result, Christianity may appear less credible to those who would find the faith more compelling if Orthodoxy were the option being presented rather than Protestantism.

2) With the exception of Jochen Katz, these polemicists can have a tendency to knock Catholic/Orthodox teachings which they reject, dislike, and/or misunderstand--chiefly regarding saints and statues/icons.

3) Sometimes arguments put forward seem weak or sophistical, the articles being penned by non-scholars aiming to score points against their opponents and having an already-shaky foundation in Protestantism.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:18:43 AM by Trebor135 » Logged

Incognito777
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: N/A
Posts: 293


« Reply #608 on: January 28, 2014, 01:20:19 PM »

Watch this debate between William Lane Craig, and Shabir Ally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-9-vWtTcU8

William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h51YwIMxtrQ

You will see that Islam doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,636


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #609 on: January 28, 2014, 09:16:04 PM »

Are Muslim females, in any instances, allowed to marry a non-Muslim man? Are there any sects that would even consider allowing this? I've heard talk--not sure how accurate it is--that some Sufi (sp?) sects allow it in some instances.

If the answer is no in all regards, then are there any loopholes whatsoever where a Muslim female can live with a non-Muslim man like husband and wife without being guilty of anything according to her Muslim faith?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #610 on: January 28, 2014, 10:15:47 PM »

Are Muslim females, in any instances, allowed to marry a non-Muslim man? Are there any sects that would even consider allowing this? I've heard talk--not sure how accurate it is--that some Sufi (sp?) sects allow it in some instances.

If the answer is no in all regards, then are there any loopholes whatsoever where a Muslim female can live with a non-Muslim man like husband and wife without being guilty of anything according to her Muslim faith?

No. All sects prohibit this, unless the male is already in the process of conversion to Islam. If the male eventually converts, then the union is acceptable until then.

Quote from: Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (3/174)
Question: What is Islam’s attitude towards a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim man, because she needed to do that, i.e. she was forced into this marriage?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a kaafir, and the marriage is not valid.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al‑Mushrikoon[polytheists] till they believe (in Allaah Alone)”

[al-Baqarah 2:221]

“O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them; Allaah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers send them not back to the disbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them”

[al-Mutahanah 60:10].

The fact that she was forced into that does not justify her giving in and surrendering to this marriage. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience to the Creator.”

This marriage is regarded as invalid, and intercourse with him is zina (fornication, adultery).

Source

I do however wonder if Shi'ite temporary (Mut'ah) marriages would be permissible in this case. I've heard on ShiaChat that once a Shi'a male and a non-Muslim female were allowed.

See Also:
Sh. Muhammad Salah
SunniPath
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 10:21:23 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #611 on: January 28, 2014, 10:19:08 PM »

^What's interesting is that Bashar Al-Assad -the Lion of the Arabs, the Protector of Chris... oh, you know the drill- is Alawite while his wife Asma Akhras is Sunni. The Sunnis traditionally consider Alawites to be non-Muslim, so I'm guessing the Sheikh who married them must have been very liberal regarding inter-sect marriages.

But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 10:21:15 PM by Severian » Logged

"What on Earth was I smoking?"

-My personal reaction when re-reading half of the c**p I've written on this forum.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #612 on: January 29, 2014, 12:23:46 PM »

Are Muslim females, in any instances, allowed to marry a non-Muslim man? Are there any sects that would even consider allowing this? I've heard talk--not sure how accurate it is--that some Sufi (sp?) sects allow it in some instances.

If the answer is no in all regards, then are there any loopholes whatsoever where a Muslim female can live with a non-Muslim man like husband and wife without being guilty of anything according to her Muslim faith?

No. All sects prohibit this, unless the male is already in the process of conversion to Islam. If the male eventually converts, then the union is acceptable until then.

Quote from: Al-Muntaqa min Fataawa al-Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (3/174)
Question: What is Islam’s attitude towards a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim man, because she needed to do that, i.e. she was forced into this marriage?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a kaafir, and the marriage is not valid.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al‑Mushrikoon[polytheists] till they believe (in Allaah Alone)”

[al-Baqarah 2:221]

“O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them; Allaah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers send them not back to the disbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them”

[al-Mutahanah 60:10].

The fact that she was forced into that does not justify her giving in and surrendering to this marriage. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience to the Creator.”

This marriage is regarded as invalid, and intercourse with him is zina (fornication, adultery).

Source

I do however wonder if Shi'ite temporary (Mut'ah) marriages would be permissible in this case. I've heard on ShiaChat that once a Shi'a male and a non-Muslim female were allowed.

See Also:
Sh. Muhammad Salah
SunniPath
Ask Imam
Fatwa Islam
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #613 on: January 29, 2014, 12:49:45 PM »

^What's interesting is that Bashar Al-Assad -the Lion of the Arabs, the Protector of Chris... oh, you know the drill- is Alawite while his wife Asma Akhras is Sunni. The Sunnis traditionally consider Alawites to be non-Muslim, so I'm guessing the Sheikh who married them must have been very liberal regarding inter-sect marriages.

But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).

It is much more complex than that on both accounts as most things are in Islamic jurisprudence. A cursory glance at the rulings on the matter would show as in most cases there is no rule which is binding outside time, manner, and place, no matter that is what the so called fundamentalists and the Islamophobes would like.

Really, it just takes some lazy research to see that both idiots like Daniel Pipes and youtube fatwa issuers have no care for what they speak of.

Of course, Islamophobes at once decry Islam for being too ideologically blind and tyrannical while defaming it for being to opportunistic and plastic allowing to be whatever anyone wants it to be. But such are the ranting of idiots.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 01:00:13 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,750



« Reply #614 on: January 29, 2014, 12:54:40 PM »

^Thank you. The most sensible overview of Islam that I've heard read for a long time.
Logged

Eastern Mind
Hi! I'm Olaf and I like warm hugs!
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Hopeful
Jurisdiction: Greece
Posts: 713



« Reply #615 on: January 29, 2014, 12:56:17 PM »

Do Muslims believe in ghosts?
Logged

"ALL THE GODS OF THE HINDUS ARE DEMONS HAHAHAHAHA!!"
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #616 on: January 29, 2014, 01:19:16 PM »

^Thank you. The most sensible overview of Islam that I've heard read for a long time.

To be fair to you Europeans, you would laugh at the anti-Muslims morons in America cause there are functionally no Muslims here and they are not growing in population. I see Muslims all the time and I think Americans have a selection bias at work since Muslims are over represented in the places we live: convenient stores.

Most of these Americans who are worried about the Arab menace couldn't manage to live to in Europe. I lived in the in the city with the largest population of Turks in it other than Istanbul and it wasn't in Turkey.

You see the same antisemitic canards rising in Europe against Muslims this time instead of Jews. The difference being this time around, please correct me, but the relative population of Muslims in Europe is greater than the population of Jews around the turn of the 20th century and they are much more (if only a few) proselytizing.

While I don't agree with the general anti-Muslim tone in European discourse, (and I did live there and did live primarily among Muslims as it was cheaper to do so) I am at least is somewhat sympathetic, rather than to the lunatic ravings without any basis here in America. I think Muslims, Jews, Atheists hold about the proportion of the American populace and are growing at about the same rate, so I think we see ourselves having 3% of our country being made of that mixed group throughout the future. 3%. 3%.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

LOL.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 01:22:04 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,750



« Reply #617 on: January 29, 2014, 01:27:47 PM »

I don't know where you lived but I think you're overreacting if you're comparing islamophobia to historic antisemitism. It's not that bad even though there are morons here and there.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #618 on: January 29, 2014, 01:33:59 PM »

I don't know where you lived but I think you're overreacting if you're comparing islamophobia to historic antisemitism. It's not that bad even though there are morons here and there.

I didn't say it was the same. I am saying the the canards are. And it depends on when you are talking about antisemitism. I would suggest looking at the public and open discussion of the Judenfrage in the late 19th century and very early 20th and tell me how different it was.

Europe was a buzz with how to deal with the Jews, while most of the Jewry were happily integrating and a small, small group were working on Zionist fantasies.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,750



« Reply #619 on: January 29, 2014, 01:47:44 PM »

Fair enough. I probably should read more about this Judenfrage. I recall hearing that nazi-like antisemitism was all the loose in whole Europe in early 20th century but it would be interesting to learn longer historical background.
Logged

augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #620 on: January 29, 2014, 01:58:10 PM »

Quote
But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).
There was one such wedding  in my hometown a good 5 years ago. It was quite a site since the wedding took place in church full orthodox ritual, but the bridegroom probably got freaked out by all the byzantine shenanigans and refused to wear the crown. Then they just sorta held it briefly over his head and fumbled through the service like that.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #621 on: January 29, 2014, 02:05:12 PM »

Fair enough. I probably should read more about this Judenfrage. I recall hearing that nazi-like antisemitism was all the loose in whole Europe in early 20th century but it would be interesting to learn longer historical background.

No, I am saying something else. The notion that people could discuss rather openly what to do about the Jews (including Jews themselves, see Freud) in polite and "academic" discourse is sorta chilling. This was during a time when Jews enjoyed a rather incredible relative freedom in Germany, it wasn't all kittens and buttons, but it wasn't relatively good.

The return to the typical European antisemitism, and yes Europeans on the whole have been antisemitic throughout history, came after this calm. My Jewish family fought in WWI for Germany and till they were all killed by Germans or died, always thought of themselves as Germans first, Jews second. Even after Germans killed nearly all of them. My poor shunned grandfather drove a VW his entire life. The local Jewry just didn't put up with it. I didn't realize at a young age the disjunct between the VW Super Beetle he drove and the tiny and modest Rosh Hashana sticker in its window.

But that dichotomy pretty much summed up the triple alienation of the life of a people who saw themselves as Germans, Jews, and decent people and whom Germans, Jews, and decent people saw as outcasts.

My concern is more the discussion of the Muslim Question has become so abstracted and has fallen into historically familiar structures of discourse that preceded some of the most awful behavior in contemporary Western European history that persons are lost and annihilated already. The holocaust had already happened in the clinical discussion and refinement of the Judenfrage. Persons disappeared.

When I see the older Muslim guy grabbing a smoke after working 14 hours in his store that sells alcohol and pork rinds, and he is greeted with suspicion and outright contempt by Americans, Muslims, and decent people, I think of my grandfather, who if not for an odd turn of events never would have had the opportunity to live his quiet life of isolation.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #622 on: January 29, 2014, 02:37:47 PM »

Do Muslims believe in ghosts?

Jinn, kind of like demons, created in fire by Allah. Also black magic (Sihr).

Quote from:  Masaa’il wa rasaa’il, Muhammad Mahmoud al-Najdi, p. 23
Question: In the last few days a controversy has arisen concerning the matter of jinn entering human bodies. Some say that this is rationally impossible, because of the difference in the essences from which they were created, as man was created from clay and the jinn from fire. It has also been said that the shayateen (devils) have no power other than waswas (insinuating whispers) and that Allah has not given them any power over man. And it is said that the recorded tapes that are in circulation (recordings of jinn supposedly speaking through people) are no proof of anything. What is your response to all this?

Answer: Praise be to Allah

The fact that jinn can enter human bodies is proven in the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic teachings), and by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (main body of Muslims who are united upon the sunnah), and by real-life events. No one disputes this apart from the M’utazilah (a deviant sect) who give priority to their own rational analysis over the evidence of the Quran and Sunnah. We will mention a little about this below:

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Those who eat riba (interest) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytan leading him to insanity. That is because they say: ‘Trading is only like Riba’…” [2:275]

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer (exegesis): “This ayah (verse) is proof that those people are wrong who deny that epilepsy is caused by the jinn and claim that its causes are only physical, and that the Shaytan does not enter people or cause madness.”

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer, after mentioning the ayah quoted above: “They will not rise from their graves on the Day of Resurrection except like the way in which the epileptic rises during his seizure, when he is beaten by the Shaytan. This is because they will rise in a very bad state. Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: the one who consumes riba will rise on the Day of Resurrection crazy and choking.”

According to a saheeh hadeeth (authentic report) narrated by al-Nasai from Abu’l-Yusr, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to pray: “Allahumma innee a’oodhu bika min al-taraddi wa’l-haram wa’l-gharaq wa’l-harq, wa a’oodhu bika an yatakhabatani al-shaytan ‘ind al-mawt (O Allah, I seek refuge with You from being thrown from a high place, old age, drowning and burning; and I seek refuge with You from being beaten by the Shaytan at the time of death).” Commenting on this hadeeth in Al-Fayd, al-Manawi said: “[The phrase] ‘and I seek refuge with You from being beaten by the Shaytan at the time of death’ means, lest he should wrestle with me and play with me, and damage my religious commitment or mental state (at the time of death) by means of his insinuating whispers which cause people to slip or lose their minds. The Shaytan could take control of a person when he is about to depart this world, and misguide him or stop him from repenting…”

Ibn Taymiyah said: “The fact that jinn can enter human bodies is proven by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaah. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

‘Those who eat riba will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytan leading him to insanity. That is because they say: ‘Trading is only like riba’…’ [2:275].

And in as-Saheeh it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘The Shaytan flows through the son of Adam as the blood flows through his veins.’”

‘Abd-Allah ibn al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “I said to my father, ‘There are some people who say that the jinn do not enter the body of the epileptic.’ He said: ‘O my son, they are lying; the jinn could speak through this person.’” Commenting on this, Ibn Qudamah said: “What he said is well known, because a person may suffer an epileptic seizure and speak in a language that no one understands, and his body may be beaten with blows that would fell a camel, but the epileptic does not feel them at all, and he is also unaware of the words he is saying. The epileptic and others may be dragged about, or the carpet on which he is sitting may be pulled, and utensils may be moved about from place to place, and other things may happen. Anyone who witnesses such a thing will know for sure that the one who is speaking through the person and moving these things is not human.” And he said, may Allah have mercy on him: “There is no one among the imams (religious leaders/scholars) of the Muslims who denies that jinn may enter the body of the epileptic and others. Anyone who denies this and claims that Islam denies it is lying about Islam. There is nothing in the proofs of sharee’ah (Islamic law) to show that it does not happen.”

So the fact that jinn may enter human bodies is proven in the Quran and Sunnah, and by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah, some of whose comments we have quoted above.

As regards the ayah (interpretation of the meaning): “but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s Leave” [2:102], this is undoubtedly a clear indication that the jinn cannot harm anyone through witchcraft or epilepsy or through any other kind of disturbance or misguidance, except with the permission of Allah. As al-Hasan al-Basri said: “Whomever Allah wills, He gives them power over him, and whomever He does not will, He does not give them power over him, and they cannot do anything to anyone except with the permission of Allah.” The Shaytan (who is the disbelieving jinn) may gain power over the believers by making them sin and by making them neglect the remembrance and Tawheed of Allah (maintaining Allah’s Oneness) and sincerity in worshipping Him. But he has no power over the righteous slaves of Allah, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islamic Monotheism) — you have no authority over them. And All-Sufficient is your Lord as a Guardian.” [17:65]

During the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic days of ignorance) the Arabs were well aware of this and mentioned it in their poetry. For example, the poet al-A’asha likened his she-camel’s energy to that of one who was touched by the jinn, and said that it was the jinn who was giving her energy.

As regards the causes of epilepsy, Ibn Taymiyah explained the causes. He said: “When the jinn touch a person with epilepsy, it may be because of desire or love, just as happens between one human and another… or it may – as is usually the case – be because of hatred and punishment, such as when a person has harmed them or they think that he has harmed them deliberately, either by urinating on them or pouring hot water on them or killing them, even if the person did that unknowingly. There are ignorant and wrongdoing ones among the jinn who may punish a person more than he deserves, or they may be playing with him and mistreating him, like foolish people among mankind.”

And I say: the way to save oneself from this is to remember Allah and speak His Name at the beginning of all things, as it was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to mention Allah in many cases, such as when eating, drinking, mounting his riding-beast, taking off his clothes for any reason, having intercourse and so on…

As regards treatment (of one whose body has been entered by the jinn), Ibn Taymiyah said (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 19/42): “When the jinn attack a person, they should be told of the rulings of Allah and His Messenger, proof should be established against them, and they should be commanded to do what is good and told not to do what is evil, just as should be done in the case of people, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)’ [al-Israa’ 17:15].” Then he said: “If the jinn does not leave after being addressed in this manner, then it is permissible to rebuke him, tell him off, threaten him and curse him, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did with the Shaytaan when he came with a falling star to throw it in his face, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I seek refuge with Allah from you and I curse you with the curse of Allah” – three times. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari).

We may also seek help against the jinn by remembering Allah (dhikr) and reciting Qur’an, especially Aayat al-Kursiy. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever recites it will remain under the protection of Allah and no Shaytaan (devil) will be able to approach him until the morning.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari). And al-Mi’wadhatayn (the last two soorahs of the Qur’an) may also be recited.

As for psychiatrists who do not treat the epileptic in the manner described, they cannot do him any good at all.

This issue may be discussed in much more detail, but what we have said here is sufficient for those who want to know a little about this matter, Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Islam Q/A
Shaykh Abdur Raouf Ben Halima 'Jinnbuster'
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 02:40:06 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #623 on: January 29, 2014, 02:41:23 PM »

Do Muslims believe in ghosts?

Jinn, kind of like demons, created in fire by Allah. Also black magic (Sihr).

Quote from:  Masaa’il wa rasaa’il, Muhammad Mahmoud al-Najdi, p. 23
Question: In the last few days a controversy has arisen concerning the matter of jinn entering human bodies. Some say that this is rationally impossible, because of the difference in the essences from which they were created, as man was created from clay and the jinn from fire. It has also been said that the shayateen (devils) have no power other than waswas (insinuating whispers) and that Allah has not given them any power over man. And it is said that the recorded tapes that are in circulation (recordings of jinn supposedly speaking through people) are no proof of anything. What is your response to all this?

Answer: Praise be to Allah

The fact that jinn can enter human bodies is proven in the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic teachings), and by the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (main body of Muslims who are united upon the sunnah), and by real-life events. No one disputes this apart from the M’utazilah (a deviant sect) who give priority to their own rational analysis over the evidence of the Quran and Sunnah. We will mention a little about this below:

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Those who eat riba (interest) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaytan leading him to insanity. That is because they say: ‘Trading is only like Riba’…” [2:275]

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer (exegesis): “This ayah (verse) is proof that those people are wrong who deny that epilepsy is caused by the jinn and claim that its causes are only physical, and that the Shaytan does not enter people or cause madness.”

Ibn Katheer said in his Tafseer, after mentioning the ayah quoted above: “They will not rise from their graves on the Day of Resurrection except like the way in which the epileptic rises during his seizure, when he is beaten by the Shaytan. This is because they will rise in a very bad state. Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: the one who consumes riba will rise on the Day of Resurrection crazy and choking.”

According to a saheeh hadeeth (authentic report) narrated by al-Nasai from Abu’l-Yusr, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to pray: “Allahumma innee a’oodhu bika min al-taraddi wa’l-haram wa’l-gharaq wa’l-harq, wa a’oodhu bika an yatakhabatani al-shaytan ‘ind al-mawt (O Allah, I seek refuge with You from being thrown from a high place, old age, drowning and burning; and I seek refuge with You from being beaten by the Shaytan at the time of death).” Commenting on this hadeeth in Al-Fayd, al-Manawi said: 17:65]

During the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic days of ignorance) the Arabs were well aware of this and mentioned it in their poetry. For example, the poet al-A’asha likened his she-camel’s energy to that of one who was touched by the jinn, and said that it was the jinn who was giving her energy.

As regards the causes of epilepsy, Ibn Taymiyah explained the causes. He said: “When the jinn touch a person with epilepsy, it may be because of desire or love, just as happens between one human and another… or it may – as is usually the case – be because of hatred and punishment, such as when a person has harmed them or they think that he has harmed them deliberately, either by urinating on them or pouring hot water on them or killing them, even if the person did that unknowingly. There are ignorant and wrongdoing ones among the jinn who may punish a person more than he deserves, or they may be playing with him and mistreating him, like foolish people among mankind.”

And I say: the way to save oneself from this is to remember Allah and speak His Name at the beginning of all things, as it was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to mention Allah in many cases, such as when eating, drinking, mounting his riding-beast, taking off his clothes for any reason, having intercourse and so on…

As regards treatment (of one whose body has been entered by the jinn), Ibn Taymiyah said (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 19/42): “When the jinn attack a person, they should be told of the rulings of Allah and His Messenger, proof should be established against them, and they should be commanded to do what is good and told not to do what is evil, just as should be done in the case of people, as Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)’ [al-Israa’ 17:15].” Then he said: “If the jinn does not leave after being addressed in this manner, then it is permissible to rebuke him, tell him off, threaten him and curse him, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did with the Shaytaan when he came with a falling star to throw it in his face, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I seek refuge with Allah from you and I curse you with the curse of Allah” – three times. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari).

We may also seek help against the jinn by remembering Allah (dhikr) and reciting Qur’an, especially Aayat al-Kursiy. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever recites it will remain under the protection of Allah and no Shaytaan (devil) will be able to approach him until the morning.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari). And al-Mi’wadhatayn (the last two soorahs of the Qur’an) may also be recited.

As for psychiatrists who do not treat the epileptic in the manner described, they cannot do him any good at all.

This issue may be discussed in much more detail, but what we have said here is sufficient for those who want to know a little about this matter, Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

Islam Q/A
Shaykh Abdur Raouf Ben Halima 'Jinnbuster'

LOL @ Jinnbuster!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #624 on: January 29, 2014, 02:45:21 PM »

^What's interesting is that Bashar Al-Assad -the Lion of the Arabs, the Protector of Chris... oh, you know the drill- is Alawite while his wife Asma Akhras is Sunni. The Sunnis traditionally consider Alawites to be non-Muslim, so I'm guessing the Sheikh who married them must have been very liberal regarding inter-sect marriages.

But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).

It is much more complex than that on both accounts as most things are in Islamic jurisprudence. A cursory glance at the rulings on the matter would show as in most cases there is no rule which is binding outside time, manner, and place, no matter that is what the so called fundamentalists and the Islamophobes would like.

Really, it just takes some lazy research to see that both idiots like Daniel Pipes and youtube fatwa issuers have no care for what they speak of.

Of course, Islamophobes at once decry Islam for being too ideologically blind and tyrannical while defaming it for being to opportunistic and plastic allowing to be whatever anyone wants it to be. But such are the ranting of idiots.

So, the Consensus (Ijma') of the Islamic scholars, and the Qur'an are not valid sources of Islamic law and jurisprudence in your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the majority of the Islamic population who are knowledgeable about their religion would disagree with you.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 02:46:20 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #625 on: January 29, 2014, 02:50:37 PM »

^What's interesting is that Bashar Al-Assad -the Lion of the Arabs, the Protector of Chris... oh, you know the drill- is Alawite while his wife Asma Akhras is Sunni. The Sunnis traditionally consider Alawites to be non-Muslim, so I'm guessing the Sheikh who married them must have been very liberal regarding inter-sect marriages.

But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).

It is much more complex than that on both accounts as most things are in Islamic jurisprudence. A cursory glance at the rulings on the matter would show as in most cases there is no rule which is binding outside time, manner, and place, no matter that is what the so called fundamentalists and the Islamophobes would like.

Really, it just takes some lazy research to see that both idiots like Daniel Pipes and youtube fatwa issuers have no care for what they speak of.

Of course, Islamophobes at once decry Islam for being too ideologically blind and tyrannical while defaming it for being to opportunistic and plastic allowing to be whatever anyone wants it to be. But such are the ranting of idiots.

So, the Consensus (Ijma') of the Islamic scholars, and the Qur'an are not valid sources of Islamic law and jurisprudence in your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the majority of the Islamic population who are knowledgeable about their religion would disagree with you.

We are in the same hermeneutic problem that the Orthodox face, in virtue of what is that consensus of the everyday man found?

And I don't think most Muslims understand a fig, much like the Orthodox, of what how various rulings are made. And given that rulings are distributed which are in opposition, something must be amiss in your desire to create a singular face of Islamic law.

You should get over your desire to paint Islam with a wide brush, if only for the reason that you are going to let down when you find out that the "Patristic Consensus" in Orthodoxy is wildly variable thing as well, allowed to remain in stasis only in light of saying economy a lot.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #626 on: January 29, 2014, 02:54:39 PM »

For instance, I would ask how many youtube and other idiotic rulings are based on speculative previous rulings?

Sorry, I don't do poppy and use Arabic or google mine for info like you. Do you know what speculative jurisprudence is? And how throughout most of the history its rulings were understood? Do you know when and who began to rely on speculative jurisprudence to make actual rulings?

If so, summarize it for me, as I am bit vague on it and would like some crib notes. Thanks.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 02:54:57 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #627 on: January 29, 2014, 02:59:04 PM »

^What's interesting is that Bashar Al-Assad -the Lion of the Arabs, the Protector of Chris... oh, you know the drill- is Alawite while his wife Asma Akhras is Sunni. The Sunnis traditionally consider Alawites to be non-Muslim, so I'm guessing the Sheikh who married them must have been very liberal regarding inter-sect marriages.

But yes, you are correct. Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men is a big no-no. However, Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women who are of the "people of the book" (I.e. Jews and Christians).

It is much more complex than that on both accounts as most things are in Islamic jurisprudence. A cursory glance at the rulings on the matter would show as in most cases there is no rule which is binding outside time, manner, and place, no matter that is what the so called fundamentalists and the Islamophobes would like.

Really, it just takes some lazy research to see that both idiots like Daniel Pipes and youtube fatwa issuers have no care for what they speak of.

Of course, Islamophobes at once decry Islam for being too ideologically blind and tyrannical while defaming it for being to opportunistic and plastic allowing to be whatever anyone wants it to be. But such are the ranting of idiots.

So, the Consensus (Ijma') of the Islamic scholars, and the Qur'an are not valid sources of Islamic law and jurisprudence in your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the majority of the Islamic population who are knowledgeable about their religion would disagree with you.

We are in the same hermeneutic problem that the Orthodox face, in virtue of what is that consensus of the everyday man found?

And I don't think most Muslims understand a fig, much like the Orthodox, of what how various rulings are made. And given that rulings are distributed which are in opposition, something must be amiss in your desire to create a singular face of Islamic law.

You should get over your desire to paint Islam with a wide brush, if only for the reason that you are going to let down when you find out that the "Patristic Consensus" in Orthodoxy is wildly variable thing as well, allowed to remain in stasis only in light of saying economy a lot.

I recognize that there are varying beliefs in Islam, but there is a general consensus. The reason there are four Madhahib is due to this variance of belief. But nowhere does this variance of belief contradict, in the above cases, the Qur'an and the Consensus view, that Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim males, or in the case you are referring to above, the doctrine of jihad defined as perpetual warfare to expand the territory of the Islamic State.

The Consensus on those views has not been challenged, only differing views on superficial matters.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,230



« Reply #628 on: January 29, 2014, 03:01:04 PM »

For instance, I would ask how many youtube and other idiotic rulings are based on speculative previous rulings?

Sorry, I don't do poppy and use Arabic or google mine for info like you. Do you know what speculative jurisprudence is? And how throughout most of the history its rulings were understood? Do you know when and who began to rely on speculative jurisprudence to make actual rulings?

If so, summarize it for me, as I am bit vague on it and would like some crib notes. Thanks.

I don't know the history of 'speculative jurispruence.' I think it is the concept of "Qiyas" that you are referring to. But I recognize that it has been used by Islamic authorities in the past. One such instance is the consumption of alcohol in Islam. The Qur'an only commands prohibition of wine, not alcohol in general, but through Qiyas, they assumed that all alcohol was likewise forbidden.

Is this the concept that you are referring to?
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #629 on: January 29, 2014, 03:04:05 PM »


So, the Consensus (Ijma') of the Islamic scholars, and the Qur'an are not valid sources of Islamic law and jurisprudence in your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the majority of the Islamic population who are knowledgeable about their religion would disagree with you.

You are talking to someone who would declare Muhammad an Islamophobe if Muhammad came back to this world and debunked his arguments.  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.187 seconds with 73 queries.