my few questions

dayaa

Well-Known Member
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Points
0
hello everyone/salam
i have just a few questions please concerning the islam:
1. death penalty for apostasy? please explain or justify. it appears to be a "scare-tactic" to make sure people don't leave.

2. halal slaughter? again please explain and justify. this method of slaughter seems to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.

3. circumcision? i can't see why if God wanted it like that he didn't create it like that in the first place. reading medical evidence there seems little to support it. also it looks like an attempt to link the islam back to abraham giving it more credibility.

4. God protecting his message? i can't see why God didn't protect his message in the first place. why should he allow it to be corrupted twice before protecting it?

please excuse the very direct questions. my intention is not to criticise. these are my only doubts about the islam and if i don't ask the questions i'll never know. thankyou. can you please include in replies explanations about which rulings are from the quran and which are hadith and how strong/weak the hadith are.
 
Salam & peace ,

Can U plz explain these

an attempt to link the islam back to abraham giving it more credibility.
why should he allow it to be corrupted twice before protecting it?
Just wondering , where did U get the information about Quran corrupted twice .

Regards
 
dayaa said:
hello everyone/salam
i have just a few questions please concerning the islam:
2. halal slaughter? again please explain and justify. this method of slaughter seems to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.

.
Salaam
Thanks for your questions
first I will answer some of them then I will return back when I have time .
to answer your question about halal slaughter , please return to this link
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2816

see reply number 5



can you please include in replies explanations about which rulings are from the quran and which are hadith and how strong/weak the hadith are
about the strong/ weak hadiths return to these links

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2282

see replies number 4 ,5

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2021



 
Halal slaughter is “the humane method” providing hygienic meat to the consumer. Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) “God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve it’s pain”.

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an Electro encephalograph (EEG) and Electro Cardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is The humane method of slaughter and captive bolt stunning practiced by the western method, causes severe pain to the animal. The results surprised many.

Experimental Details:
1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain.
2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.
3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and oesophagus-Halal Method.
4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol - humane slaughter by the western method.
5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning Results and Discussion:

I. Halal Method
1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter , thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message ( EEG ) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.

II. Western method by C.B.P. Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.

Ashraf Dabayeh
(Dept. of Civil Eng. University of Waterloo)
 
farhan said:
Salam & peace ,

Can U plz explain these

Just wondering , where did U get the information about Quran corrupted twice .

Regards
I think he was referring to the scripture given to the jews and the christians. Essentially speaking, even if that is what he is saying, he is still wrong cause the underlying assumption would be that there were only two divinely revealed books b4 the Quran, which is incorrect as explained on other threads.
So, i guess the questioner will have to explain the question but our questioner seems to be under the impression that islam started 14 centuries ago, so for our questioner, please read the following thread;
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2182
regarding circumsicion, please read this thread.. u can start with post #8.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1861

Hope this helps,
And Allah knows best.
 
Last edited:
hello again and salam
thank you for the detailed answer on halal slaughter. i was interested in the scientific studies, and the idea that the animal quickly becomes unconscious from the blood loss was quite comforting. i want to point out that i was not in any way suggesting that western stunning/slaughter methods are better...actually i was wondering more whether it would not be better to cut the spinal cord. my thoughts were that if the brain is still connected to the body the animal will suffer more, and is this procedure really necessary for pumping out the blood? if you take a slice of meat filled with blood and wash it in cold water all the blood is removed and the meat will become almost white.
i've read all the various comments on circumcision and still am not convinced i'm afraid. i tend to feel that God made things the way they were meant to be and the burden of proof remains with those who practice circumcision to make some sense of it. as yet it still doesn't make sense to me....but i'm willing to listen if anyone can try to give any further comments.
regarding my question on protected messages which seems to have caused some confusion....sorry maybe i was not clear enough....yes i was referring to the jews and christians (ahl al kitab). maybe i put it in an over simplistic way.
by the way, i am not assuming that the islam started with mohammad(saw)....i am not making any assumptions at all...that is the point....i am trying to confirm (or otherwise) in my own mind whether the islam is or isn't the right way, part of which involves looking at the possibility that it may be a man-made religion. my question was meant to ask, if God wanted to protect his message, why didn't he do that in the first place? why allow previous corruption then protect a final message?
thank you all for your answers. looking forward to more answers and more comments
 
dayaa said:
hello everyone/salam
dayaa said:
i have just a few questions please concerning the islam:

3. circumcision? i can't see why if God wanted it like that he didn't create it like that in the first place. reading medical evidence there seems little to support it. also it looks like an attempt to link the islam back to abraham giving it more credibility.
.


Assalamu alaikom

here Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid view:


Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

The Muslim obeys the command of Allaah. This is the meaning of Islam, which is submission to Allaah and obedience to His command, whether the wisdom behind it is clear to him or not, because the One Who is issuing the command – Allaah, may He be exalted – is the Creator, the All-Knowing, the All-Aware, who created mankind and knows what is good for them and what is not good for them. Circumcision is one of the rulings of sharee’ah which the Muslim carries out willingly, in submission to and out of love for Allaah, and seeking reward with Him. He is certain that Allaah does not command anything unless there is a wisdom behind it and it is good for His slaves, whether people know that or not. Since your question referred to the health benefits of circumcision, we will, after looking at the shar’i (religious) benefits, will answer your question about the health benefits, in order to increase the believers in faith in the ruling, and so that non-Muslims may see one aspect of the greatness of this sharee’ah (Islamic law) which came to bring benefits and ward off harm.

1 – The shar’i (religious) benefits:

Circumcision is one of the commands concerning beautification enjoined by Allaah, which Allaah has prescribed for His slaves to make them beautiful both outwardly and inwardly (physically and spiritually). It is the perfection of the fitrah (natural state of man) with which He created them, and hence it is the perfection of the haneefiyyah (pure monotheism) of the religion of Ibraaheem (Abraham). The origin of the institution of circumcision as the perfection of haneefiyyah was when Allaah made a covenant with Ibraaheem and promised to make him an imaam (leader) of mankind, and promised him that he would be the father of many people, that prophets and kings would come from his loins and that his descendants would be many. And He told him that between him and his descendants there would be the sign of the covenant, which would be that every newborn male among them would be circumcised, and so the covenant would have this sign on their bodies. Circumcision is a sign of having entered into the religion of Ibraaheem, and this is in accordance with the interpretation of the verse (interpretation of the meaning) –

“[Our Sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (religion) of Allaah (Islam) and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allaah’s? And we are His worshippers”

[al-Baqarah 2:138] –

as referring to circumcision.

For the haneefs (pure monotheists, i.e., Muslims), circumcision has the same status as baptism does for the worshippers of the cross (i.e., Christians). They purify their children – as they say – when they baptize them in the baptismal water, and they say, now he has become a Christian. Allaah has prescribed for the haneefs their own rite, the symbol of which is circumcision. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“[Our Sibghah (religion) is] the Sibghah (religion) of Allaah (Islam) and which Sibghah (religion) can be better than Allaah’s? And we are His worshippers”

[al-Baqarah 2:138] –

… So Allaah has made circumcision a symbol of those who belong to Him and to His religion, and who attribute themselves to Him as being utterly enslaved to Him alone…

The point here is that the religion of Allaah is haneefiyyah (pure monotheism) which fills the heart with knowledge and love of Him and sincerity towards Him, and worship of Him alone with no partner or associate, and which marks the body with the characteristics of the fitrah, namely circumcision, removal of the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails, plucking the hair from the armpits, rinsing the mouth, rinsing the nose, using the siwaak (toothbrush made from twigs from a certain tree) and cleaning oneself after elimination of urine or faeces.

So the fitrah of Allaah is manifested in the hearts of the haneefs and on their bodies.

(Tuhfat al-Mawdood bi Ahkaam al-Mawlood by Ibn al-Qayyim, p. 351)

Circumcision also has health benefits and brings a lot of benefits to the boy in his life. (See Question # 2425).

It is not essential for the child to remain as he is when he comes forth from his mother’s womb, if there is something that may be done for him that serves a purpose and is enjoined by the pure religion. Such things include shaving his head after he is born, because that is in his best interests. The Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Remove the harm from him.”

The same applies to washing the blood from him and cutting the cord by which he was attached to his mother, and other things which are done to benefit him.

2 – The health benefits:

Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali al-Baar (a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in the UK and a consultant to the Islamic Medicine department of the King Fahd Centre for Medical Research in the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah) says in his book al-Khitaan (Circumcision):

“Circumcision of newborn boys (i.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, including:

1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.

2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.

In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.

3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.

4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.

There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee’ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).

5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.

From al-Khitaan, p. 76, by Dr. Muhammad al-Baar.

And Allaah knows best.

source
 
dayaa said:
hello everyone/salam
i have just a few questions please concerning the islam:
1. death penalty for apostasy? please explain or justify. it appears to be a "scare-tactic" to make sure people don't leave.

please excuse the very direct questions. my intention is not to criticise. these are my only doubts about the islam and if i don't ask the questions i'll never know. thankyou. can you please include in replies explanations about which rulings are from the quran and which are hadith and how strong/weak the hadith are.
Assalamu alaikom,

Here answer to similar question By Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid :


Firstly:

The Muslim should not incline more towards one scholarly opinion rather than another just because it is in accordance with his whims and desires or his reasoning. Rather he has to accept the ruling based on evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is essential to put the texts and rulings of sharee’ah before all else.

Secondly:

Apostasy (riddah) and going out of Islam are things that may be done in the heart, on the tongue or in one's actions.

Apostasy may take place in the heart, such as disbelieving in Allaah, or believing that there is another creator alongside Allaah, or hating Allaah or His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Apostasy may take the form of words spoken on the tongue, such as defaming Allaah or the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Or apostasy may take the form of outward physical actions, such as prostrating to an idol, mistreating the Mus-haf, or not praying.

The apostate (murtadd) is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, refuting the pantheistic belief of the Baatinis:

It is well known that the kaafir Tatars are better than these (Baatinis), because the latter are apostates from Islam, of the worst type of apostates. The apostate is worse than one who is a kaafir in the first place in many aspects.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 1/193

Secondly:

Not every Muslim who falls into kufr is a kaafir and apostate. There are reasons why a Muslim may be excused and not judged to be a kaafir, for example: ignorance, misunderstanding, being forced, and making mistakes.

With regard to the first, a man may be ignorant of the ruling of Allaah, because he lives far from the Muslim lands, such as one who grows up in the desert or in a kaafir land, or has only recently come to Islam. This may include many of those Muslims who live in societies where ignorance prevails and knowledge is scarce. These are the ones concerning whom the questioner is confused as to whether they are to be judged as kaafirs and executed.

The second reason is if a person interprets the ruling of Allaah in a manner not intended by the Lawgiver, such as those who blindly follow the people of bid’ah (innovation) in their misinterpretations, such as the Murji’ah, Mu’tazilah, Khawaarij and the like.

The third reason is if an oppressor overwhelms a Muslim and will not let him go until he makes a blatant statement of kufr out loud in order to ward off the torture, when his heart is at ease with faith.

The fourth is when words of kufr come to one's lips without meaning it.

Not everyone who is ignorant about wudoo’ and prayer can be excused, when he seed the Muslims establishing prayer and praying regularly, and he can read and hear the verses on prayer. What is preventing him from praying or from asking about how it is done and what its essential conditions are?

Fourthly:

The apostate is not to be put to death immediately after he falls into apostasy, especially if his apostasy happens because of some doubt that arose. Rather he should be asked to repent and he should be offered the opportunity to return to Islam and resolve his doubts, if he has any doubts. Then if he persists in his apostasy after that, he is to be put to death.

Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni, 9/18:

The apostate should not be put to death until he has been asked to repent three times. This is the view of the majority of scholars, including ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Ata’, al-Nakhaii, Maalik, al-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i, Ishaaq and others. Because apostasy comes about because of doubt, and cannot be dispelled in an instant. Time should be allowed for the person to rethink the matter, and the best length of time is three days.

End quote.

The saheeh Sunnah indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death.

Al-Bukhaari (6922) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.”

Al-Bukhaari (6484) and Muslim (1676) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of the Muslims.”

The general meaning of these ahaadeeth indicates that it is essential to put the apostate to death whether he is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) or not.

The view that the apostate who is to be put to death is the one who is waging war on Islam (muhaarib) only is contrary to these ahaadeeth. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the reason why he should be put to death is his apostasy, not his waging war against Islam.

Undoubtedly some kinds of apostasy are more abhorrent than others, and the apostasy of one who wages war against Islam is more abhorrent than that of anyone else. Hence some of the scholars differentiated between them, and said that it is not essential to ask the muhaarib to repent or to accept his repentance; rather he should be put to death even if he repents, whereas the repentance of one who is not a muhaarib should be accepted and he should not be put to death. This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).

He said:

Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is essential to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/696

Al-Hallaaj was one of the most well known heretics who were put to death without being asked to repent. Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad said:

The Maaliki fuqaha’ of Baghdad at the time of al-Muqtadir were unanimously agreed that al-Hallaaj should be killed and crucified because of his claim to divinity and his belief in incarnation, and his saying “I am al-Haqq [God],” even though he outwardly appeared to adhere to sharee’ah, and they did not accept his repentance.

Al-Shifa bi Ta’reef Huqooq al-Mustafa, 2/1091.

Based on this, it is clear that what the questioner says about the apostate not being killed unless he is waging war on Islam is mistaken, and the differentiation that we have quoted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah may dispel any confusion and make the matter clearer.

Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.

Source
 
halal slaughter? again please explain and justify. this method of slaughter seems to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
Salaams
The issue of halal slaughter is of old and not Just mandated by Islam.The jews use the same method called the Kosher.When you look at the terrible ways today that animals are slaughtered comapred to the Islamic Method.by strangling, or by a violent blow,shot with a gun and Electrocution brings more suffering to the animal, you try getting elctric shock it is not fun, there are other methods wher the animal is battered on the head ( the temple or nearer to it ) then slaughtered.Is that not painful to get battered in the head.That could drive the animal mad before it can get slaughtered.We may not see the pain that it feels but it as a living creature it does. even shooting the Animal before Slaughtering it, it suffers slowly.Now the inhumane bull fighting in the Spanish countries where the Matador has to insert spears into the back of the bull untill it bleeds to death then once dead drag it around to show people his bravery and courage of killing the Mighty dangerous bull.
However islam ordains one quick slash with a very sharp knife on the main artery and that is all notto subject the animal to any further suffering.That one slash is enough to bleed the animal within minutes if not seconds.This is much more humane way and casue far less suffereing to the animal then the above ways. Also the animal needs to bleed completely as was mandated in all previous religious scriptures,eating blood has always been unlawful

“Say (O Muhammad): I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be Maytah (a dead animal) or blood poured forth (by slaughtering or the like), or the flesh of swine (pork); for that surely, is impure or impious (unlawful) meat (of an animal) which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allaah (or has been slaughtered for idols, or on which Allaah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering). But whosoever is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits; (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”[al-An’aam 6:145]

And Allah knows best
Answerd by :Aboo Mohammad
 
Assalamau alaikom,

The reason for the protection of a revelation – whether it be the Torah, the Injeel or the Qur’an – seems to be interlinked with the discontinuation of the institution of prophethood, after Muhammad (pbuh). Till the time that the institution of prophethood continued, there was no need to protect the scriptures of the previous prophets. The new or the current prophet was always as reliable and as powerful an authority of God’s laws and His likings as the older ones. Thus, during that phase of the history of man when the institution of prophethood continued, it was the current prophet’s word of mouth, which was the primary source of God’s religion; the books of the previous prophets were no more than a secondary source. Had the institution of prophethood continued even after Muhammad (pbuh), the position of the Qur’an would, obviously, not have been any different.

Thus, in simple terms, the answer to your question is that till the time that the institution of prophethood continued, God protected His message and His guidance to man, through His prophets. There was no need, at that time, to protect the books revealed upon the previous prophets. Later on, when, after Muhammad (pbuh), the institution of prophethood was discontinued for ever, it was now imperative to protect the finally revealed book, for the purpose of protecting His message and His guidance to man, as no further prophet was to be sent for the purpose.

One may, however, ask why has the institution of prophethood been discontinued after Muhammad (pbuh). The answer to this question lies in the understanding of the reasons for the initiation of the institution of prophethood. According to the Qur’an, the reason for which God sent His prophets was to remove all excuses of rejection of the basic truths taught by these prophets (Al-Nisaa 4: 165). Thus, a continual chain of prophets has adorned the history of man. This chain of prophets was, obviously, to continue till the time that the basic objective of the initiation of the institution of prophethood was fully attained, according to the absolute knowledge of God. Finally, with the advent of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), God terminated the institution of prophethood. This clearly implies that, according to the absolute knowledge and wisdom of the Almighty, after the advent of Muhammad (pbuh) – in continuation of all the previous prophets – the stipulated objective of the institution of prophethood was fully attained and, thus, the institution was, finally, sealed.

source



see also these links:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/que3.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.c...ge_his_mind.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/que2.htm


Answered by : Abu Rawan
 
hello again/salam

thanks to all for the very comprehensive answers:)

i would like to ask another question please, which runs on from the question about protecting messages. i was looking at the different versions of the story of abraham, isaac and ismail from the muslim and jewish perspectives, and i really can't help wondering did the jews edit ismail out.....or did mohammad (pbuh) edit him in? if you look at this from the perspective of an outsider, where the answer (because God said so) is irrelevant, how could one decide in a situation like this, where the events are too far in the distant past to be able to prove or disprove anything in either direction? i tried looking at it as one might look at any investigation.....opportunity and motive.....and quite surprised myself with the results (which i will keep to myself for the time being:eek: )
i would be interested in any comments, opinions, information about this subject.
thank you:)
 
i would like to ask another question please, which runs on from the question about protecting messages. i was looking at the different versions of the story of abraham, isaac and ismail from the muslim and jewish perspectives, and i really can't help wondering did the jews edit ismail out.....or did mohammad (pbuh) edit him in? if you look at this from the perspective of an outsider, where the answer (because God said so) is irrelevant, how could one decide in a situation like this, where the events are too far in the distant past to be able to prove or disprove anything in either direction? i tried looking at it as one might look at any investigation.....opportunity and motive.....and quite surprised myself with the results (which i will keep to myself for the time being:eek: )
i would be interested in any comments, opinions, information about this subject.
thank you:)
hello Dayaa,

You discuss very important issue here ,at this moment i want to ask you to see this previous thread which may give you some ideas .
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1774
 
My Answers

In regard to the edited books:
It is again(in my understanding)just likethe issue of Alcohol why did god create it? Its because this is an exam and in Gods infinate mercy and wisdom he has provided us with a guiding light that light is the Al-Quran............
The other books are their today as examples and lesons so we may truely apreciate the miricle of the quran it is also another leson of the many lesons that teach us about the behavior of men who choose to do the wrong thing(the wrong doers) who choose to follow books that leave gaps for them to do as they please and in doing so lessens their guilt for they tell themselves it is allowed by God the almighty..........
These books editation just like everything else that we observe is part of our education.......

In regard to Halal meat:
This question has already been answered...

In regard to Circumcition:
It has not been told to do such a thing in the Al-Quran and nothing should be added onto the religeon...........Hadiths are charicter referances and that is all......They are not to be followed blindly and without referance to the Al-Quran..........if a man keeps clean(Mentioned in the Al-Quran in depth) And washes behind his forskin after any discharge(also mentioned as having obvious urine and exrimate left over on your persons make your Salah invalid if you had knowlage of such things) and their is no medical need for the forskin to be cut and it is perfectly aplicable for the man to keep clean without cutting then as you have mentioned god made man perfect and nothing is needed to be changed(All god creations are perfect in their purest form)
YES it is easyer to keep clean but that does not make you cleener and YES it does make you less prone to infection but that is only if you are unclean.....
The religeon of Islam was perfected on that day in which the last chapter of the Al-Quran was recited onto the Earths canvass.........I will ask now All my brothers and sisters to treat the Hadiths with respect and treat the Chapters given before it (the sciptures of the jews and christians ect.) With respect also for they may have much truth in them.............................Staffy
(p.s. if i have not anssered all questions i will return Inshalla)
 
hello staffy/salam

thankyou so much for your answer:)

i would really be interested in your thoughts about death penalty for apostates also. everyone keeps telling me that according to hadith this is right, but i can't see it. i am sure the quran says : no compulsion in religion. to my mind the only value in religion is if you believe by choice (either by chosing that religion or if you are born into it, at some stage chosing to continue accepting it). surely it becomes hypocrisy if people are afraid to leave because of a death penalty? that is not faith or belief. my understanding is that the only reason to prescribe death for apostasy would be in the case of hostile apostasy which in effect would come under the laws of jihad. (treachery to your people). i don't know if i'm missing something, but it seems to me that any hadith requiring death penalty simply for apostasy contradicts the quran....so however it is validated otherwise, there is something wrong. sometimes i feel that people are so bound up in this hadith says this and that hadith says that, that they forget to think. oh well, i suppose i'm in trouble now....in for a telling off! :eek: i know we are told to follow sunna.....but in prophet mohammad's (pbuh) last sermon didn't he say something like maybe the later people will understand better? sometimes i feel very frustrated with people just quoting like robots. i feel that anything which claims to be absolute truth should be able to stand up to honest questioning.

thanks and salam
 
Re: Apostates

Hello Again:)
The death penalty for apostates is false! The Al-Quran states very clearley that we all go our own way. Refer to my earler comment on Hadith......
And your right..........In fact if anything contradicts the Al-Quran then its actualy a major Haram to add it saying it is Islam...

"You shall not accept any information, unless you
verify it for yourself. I have given you the
hearing, the eyesight, and the brain,
and you are responsible for using them."
Translation of the Quran 17:36

So your on the right track by questioning such laws......Also refer to the last verse of Chapter 109 to understand Islams standing on those of other faiths...

The Al-Quran also mentions frequelnty "those who went astray" so it is quite obvious everything was taken into acount............The Quran is perfect and complete and is in no need for extra chapters.......The hadith should only be ussed as a chariter referance and to give you ideas for good behavior....The hadith is very inportant for such things otherwise it wouldent be their but as 17:36 states all muslims are resposible for verifying information.....And as far as the word of god go's the Al-Quran is the Un-Changable word of god and in relation to god and gods laws should always be the one and only referance ussed (including on deciding on wether or not to follow extra hadiths)....I hope i've anssered you question i am confident with my ansser.......Staffy
 
Re: Apostates

"The death penalty for apostates is false!"
Agreed.

Actually Hadith is more than just a guide.And you should neither follow quran nor hadith blindly.That's what i have to say.
 
Re: My Answers

Staffy said:
It has not been told to do such a thing in the Al-Quran and nothing should be added onto the religeon...........Hadiths are charicter referances and that is all......They are not to be followed blindly and without referance to the Al-Quran..
salaam,
The first two considerations in Islamic law is the Quran and the Sunnah. The Sunnah explains many things which the Quran states. e.g. exactly how to pray, how much zakat to pay, how many times to go around the kabah etc. etc. The list is endless. When you say "Hadiths are charicter referances", really i dont understand what you are trying to say. Please elaborate. You cannot ignore Hadith just cause you dont like what has been stated. If it is determined to be authentic, then you cannot ignore it. no one is saying to follow blindly but it is unquestionably just as important that we do not make our desires and whims the judge. One cannot reject something just cause someone doesnt like it.
Just as Shiekh Munajjid said that the Muslim should not incline more towards one scholarly opinion rather than another just because it is in accordance with his whims and desires or his reasoning. Rather he has to accept the ruling based on evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is essential to put the texts and rulings of sharee’ah before all else.
I request you to read the answer provided (of Sh. Munajjid) by Friend. A hadith from sahih bukhari states clearly that “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.” [Vol. 9,Book 84 (Dealing with apostates), Hadith#57].
And the 'no compulsion in religion' verse is for those who are outside Islam.
'There is no compulsion in religion', meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim..." [See Tafsir ibn kathir].
If you have time to read more, you can try post #14 and 15 at:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2035
And with Allah lies all guidance.
 
Friend said:


I. Halal Method
1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter , thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message ( EEG ) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.

II. Western method by C.B.P. Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.

It would be interesting to see how this study stands up to peer review - it seems more than a little odd to claim that an animal in the process of being slaughtered with a blade doesn't feel it in the slightest. The comments also do not explain how the interpretations of the EEG readings justified claims of feeling "no pain" as opposed to "extreme pain". Having had the "good fortune" to view a PETA video of cows being stunned, then having their trachae sliced out, yet still managing to stagger around, I'm just a little cynical of any claims regarding issues of pain-free slaughter.
 
I said:
It would be interesting to see how this study stands up to peer review - it seems more than a little odd to claim that an animal in the process of being slaughtered with a blade doesn't feel it in the slightest. The comments also do not explain how the interpretations of the EEG readings justified claims of feeling "no pain" as opposed to "extreme pain". Having had the "good fortune" to view a PETA video of cows being stunned, then having their trachae sliced out, yet still managing to stagger around, I'm just a little cynical of any claims regarding issues of pain-free slaughter.
i have to agree. this is all a bit bizarre for me. if the animal could speak our language I bet they would say a whole different thing about this.
 
hello/salam
brian, bandit and all:)

well, i don't know, i'm no expert and really it's all a bit disgusting to be honest....worrying.....but i think there might be some truth in those studies. i gave it some thought and comparing to minor injuries i have had myself, for example i have stumbled and grazed my arm against a rough wall and although it is just a scrape it is very painful immediately and for some time.....yet on many occaisions, i have been working in the kitchen using a very fine sharp knife to prepare vegetables for example....and continued quite happily until suddenly i notice blood pouring from my finger. washing it off and inspecting the wound i have often found a nasty, deep slash, but a "clean" cut, and i was totally unaware of having done it till i saw the blood.

to be honest, i find modern western stun/slaughter methods more disturbing than kosher/halal slaughter methods. the idea and explanation i mean (i haven't actually seen it).....although having said that i'm not sure any of it is really very encouraging. becoming vegetarian sounds nice actually....the problem is you really can't beat the system unless you go completely vegan....and that does make life a bit difficult. don't know....still thinking:confused:
 
Back
Top