Response to “Allowing Violence?”

In Islam, one can NOT force a non-Muslim to convert and become a Muslim. We can only invite non-Muslims to Islam and inform them about the religion. It is very important to accept religion from your heart or else you won’t practice it routinely. It is like being forced into a marriage. If you do not like your wife and just married her for your parents sake or something, then you won’t accept her from the bottom of your heart. You won’t be able to love her. But the day you end up accepting her as your beloved wife, you will notice and cherish every little thing she says or does. You will want to be with her for the rest of yourlife. Same thing applies to religion. Till you don’t truly and deeply accept that “There is no god, but God,” you won’t be able to find peace even if you pray five times a day. However, it is permissible to fight or argue for the sake of religion when the opponent does something which is preventing Muslims from practicing Islam. Allah has taken all responsibilities towards protecting His religion, and He has been successful until now and He will do as He pleases. Therefore, fighting in Islam is the last way out and that too when Muslims are not allowed to follow their religion and in Islam one has to accept the religion from the heart before he/she starts practicing it.

Response to “Prophet or Conqueror”

I still think there is a gap here in the different ways we are understanding the events.  Where are you reading that he amassed some huge army?  Where does it say that Muhammad went in and forced people to convert?  Where are you getting this from?  It seems like every paragraph you list you are siding with the bad interpretation of events.  Muhammad was in Mecca preaching to his people all those years, and just like Jesus, they tried to kill him.  But, Jesus was more violent in those three years than Muhammad was.

Your expecting that Muhammad should just let people choose their beliefs, while everyone is getting persecuted and killed?  It seems to me that one of Muhammad’s missions was to end the persecution and killing so people could then choose whether or not to follow him.

Response to “Prophet or Conqueror”

No, I am reading the same book as everyone else. I also have been to each lecture and class thus far. I am asking whether or not it was necessary for Muhammad to spread his message by force, meaning amassing an army and marching into territories that were not Muslim with the intent of having them convert. I agree that he didn’t want to use excessive violence, but it seems just contradictory to God’s message since it seemed that people converted more out of fear of the consequences of not converting.

This leads me to my next point: did people really have a choice in converting to Islam or not? If they didn’t, their trade would be disrupted and they would be seen as “hostile” to Islam. Also, even if they were able to maintain their own religious beliefs, they had to pay a tax to Islam in order to continue about their traditions. Wouldn’t that push people to convert in order to not bare these types of consequences?

I am saying that, perhaps ideally, Muhammad should have spread his message by telling people and letting them decide for themselves, instead of worrying about being taxed or seen as enemies to a growing military-religious state.

names… (partial response to “curious”)

I am also confused about naming in Islam.  Is re-naming yourself when you convert to Islam the same as taking a new name when you become a priest or nun?  Also, who would someone name their child something in refrence in either a dog or being a slave.  This does not make a whole lot of sense to me.  If my name were Isabelle, and I converted to Islam would not God still see me as Isabelle.  Would God really care if I took another name or not, would he not love me just as much with the name Isabelle as much as with the name Fatima?

Response to “prophet or conqueror”

 

If your reading the wrong book than so am I. Muhammad’s raiding tactic was brillant and he did instruct his followers not to use life-ending violence.  Come on everyone, we leaned that in class.  Also, when Muhammad marched to Mecca and had the power to wipe out all of the Quarysh he proved that he is a non-violent man who can restrain himself and his followers from killing the people who persecuted them so severely.  He also did not force people to convert, he gave them an option.  Muhammad did not want to be a conquer, he wanted to spread his message from God.

In Response to “prophet or pedophile”

One thing that is so important when examining other cultures or religions is the idea of relativism. It is hard to read some of the postings because they are so eurocentric it does not even make sense. First of all, we are talking about a marriage that happened over a thousand years ago. People got married earlier back then, and even now a days we can see this happening. Now of course its not as widely accepted but you have to keep in mind that its a different culture with different rules and customs. Also, Prof. said that the age is really up for debate so no ones sure exactly how old she was. I think that if you try and use this to discredit Islam in any way you’re just trying to find something bad to say.

Response to “Prophet or Conqueror”

I think I’m coming to the conclusion that I’m reading a different book than everyone else.  Where in any of our readings did it say that Muhammad spread the message by force?  You’re all reading Martin Lings, right?  You sat in the same lectures I sat in right?  I thought the raiding tactic was brilliant.  He was just saying, to keep your trade out of our vicinity.  So, the Quraysh were stuck.  If they were arrogant and proud of themselves, they’d continue on with their trade caravans inspite of Muhammad’s announcement, and would lose them.  If they cared about their caravans, then they’d have to travel an extra month or so.  It reminded me of all those union protests when companies would exploit their employees.  

Then when they went to battle, none of the battles were offensive.  I think we could argue that the battles should have been expected if Muhammad was confiscating the Quraysh’s property.  But, when Muhammad was marching into Mecca, I thought he was gonna wipe out the Quraysh, but he didn’t.  

Are you people paying attention to what we’re covering?

Response to “prophet or pedophile response” and “scary fact response”

I mean this respectfully, but are we reading the same books?  Where did you guys get the impression that women are considered naive in the Islamic tradition?  The amazing thing of the story we had in class about Muhammad’s biography was that woman had such super high status.  First, in Arabia, before Muhammad came, they were just property, and along comes Muhammad and suddenly they are super important in society.  I couldn’t even find anything in our Qur’an readings saying that Eve was behind the fall of mankind (although maybe it’s there).  Where are all of you getting this stuff from?  I’m saying I disagree with you.  Women are most definitely portrayed as magnificent in Islam.

If there is some teaching in Islam that there are more women in hell, I think it needs some explanation.  I’m sure the prof has some answers.  

I’m glad the prof gave us that lesson about paradigms at the beginning of the class, because I think I would have misread everything the same way you guys are.  Or, maybe I’m wrong.

response to race and religion

Islam is not bound to any race or demographic – you will find people, young and old, from all parts of the Earth from in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan to England, Morocco, Egypt, Canada, America, etc. following Islam.  That’s the beauty of the religion, it is a way of life which is why it applies to every person in existence.  I know lots of non-Muslim born Americans who converted to Islam after having encountered it.  I’d like to point out that during the pilgrimage (hajj) all the men must wear the same attire, and similarly the women must wear a certain attire – all to show the equality of all people in the view of God.  The only thing that distinguishes one person from another is “the one who is most deeply conscious of Him…” (49:13).

Response to Prophet or pedophile

This is a very touchy topic for some.  I believe their is also a Hadith which says that anyone who criticizes Aisha will be punished (…*I believe*).

I think that it is inevitable people will find that idea that the Prophet married Aisha, who was a much younger person, perhaps perceived as a mere child to some, to be a very weird thing.  It is inevitable for certain people to think like this because they have been raised in a different environment.  These people have been taught different social values.  According to these people, it just may be that someone older than 18 marrying someone younger than 18 may be quite odd and and more so, simply wrong.

However, these people are only looking through their own native eyes and projecting their own social constructs onto a society which was immeasurably different and distant in ideological terms.   Just because a group of men made up some laws regarding the appropriate age for the marriage of two individuals, does that make them universally applicable?  The  thought that even 13 year old girl and perhaps a 20 year old man together seems wrong sounds like a safe judgment. Romeo and Juliette… hmm.

Anyhow, back to the point.  The fact is Aisha’s true age is perhaps unknown.  But what if she was 7 years old when she was married?  What if she was around 9 years old when she consummated her marriage with the Prophet. Well, first of all, marriage in Islam can be looked at as a contractual agreement.  When he was intially married to her, he did not live with her.  In fact, I believe it was Abu Bakr who insisted that the Prophet marry his daughter.  Secondly, what about when the two consummated their marriage?  Let’s say Aisha was around the age of 9-13.  Is it not possible that back then, girls may have matured differently?  If a girl has matured, she is capable of reproducing, and therefore, capable of consummating her marriage.   Just because it is viewed by many Americans that girls are not emotionally mature at that age, it does not make make it impossible.  In fact, women generally do mature faster than guys.  What i’m saying is, if a girl has physically matured, what is to stop her from marrying?  A person must eradicate their social biases and beliefs when regarding such a topic.  Any other culture can be just as easily criticized. For example, why is it okay for a woman, for example in America, to get married at a very late age and have multiple sexual partners and become afflicted with various STI’s.  Regardless, Aisha’s age can be debated, but even if she wasn’t as old as 16-19, the idea of her being married at a younger age may not be that surprising to many.

Also, just another thing to note.  Someone said something about guys being allowed to have multiple wives.  As I mentioned earlier, marriage in Islam is like a contractual agreement.  If a woman chooses, she can include in the contract that she does not want her husband to marry anyone else.