I have a few questions about Islam

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So I was just watching a program called "God's Warriors" on CNN, and the reporter referred to some followers of Islam as "Moslims", something I've heard many times before. So why is it that when referring to followers of Islam I hear the terms "Moslim", "Muslim", and "Islamic"? Is there a difference between the three?

Also I was curious if anybody knows the Qur'an's official policy on Jihad, smiting infidels, who qualifies as an "infidel", and treatment of women. I once heard a quote from Muhammad that went "to kill one muslim is to kill us all", but it might have been "to kill one person is to kill us all", I can't remember.

Any knowledgeable religious scholars with some info?

[Hardcore Newbie]

I only have details of the religion I grew up in. Religions are kind of interesting to know, but one is really enough lol.

I hope someone can answer tho, as I am quite curious as well.

[asadkahloon]

To answer your first question. the correct way to address someone who follows Islam is called a Muslim. Some people misspell it and put the O instead of the U. Islamic is said to be a synonym of Muslim.

For the second part of your question. The official policy and definition of Jihad, is any time someone struggles for God. For example declaring Jihad against something that God has forbidden. Killing innocent people is not allowed, and even attacking the so called "Infidels" for no reason is forbidden.

People who qualify as Infidels are those who do not believe in the God of Abraham, any one other than what is commonly referred to as "people of the book" who are part of the Jewish, Christian, or Islamic faith.

As for the treatment of women, here is some information on that:


In history Men have always dominated women. This is not something that Islam agrees with and as you mentioned yourself the

bible tells the men to be protectors of the women.
The Quran has a chapter devoted to the women, but furthermore Islam is the only religion in which the rules of rights and

treatment of women are laid bare.
This is a very important subject and people are often mislead bythe media into thinking that Islam oppresses women. So once

again I thankyou for bringing this subject up.
Islam teaches that men and women are equal. Equal but with different roles.
A man must work and provide for his wife and children while a woman must manage the house and children.
This does not mean the that the woman must slave at home.
In fact the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a great example of how a man must treat his women.
He (PBUH) while handling all the affairs of the Muslims in every respect from teaching Islam, to helping the needy, to

commanding the Muslim army and leading in the prayers would still find time to help his wives do the cleaning and cooking. He

would play a role in raising not only his own children but the children of others also.
Islam asks its men to protect the honour of its women.

The idea of a man and womans roles being different is not something sexist. If we put logic and reason to the issue we can see

that it is the logical way to run a family since there are some roles that women cannot carry out and some that the men cant

carry out.
Can a man give birth or breast feed a child? No the role of raising the child is naturally the womans. She has the ability gifted to her. Her body provides the nutrients for its infant while in the womb and outside. The man cannot do this and so cannot fit the

bill.
Therefor a man must earn for the family and provide in that sense.


In direct response to your question I believe that Islam offers women the opportunity to live with pride and honour. It does not

oppress women and gives women rights that in modern socities they may not yet achieve.
There maybe people in the Muslim world that do not understand the way they should treat women but that is the same with

people that do not understand in the west also.
These are men that never knew how to respect their mothers and sisters and so when it comes to their wives they dont know

how to act. You will find this in every part of the world.
Women are an unrespected object all over the world from Mexico, to the UK to Morrocco. But Islam is not the source of this mistreatment but is the opposite.

A women journalist that had visited the ottoman empire once mentioned that she thought the Muslim women were the most free women on the planet. They were not judged on appearance but character.
Is this not what women want? Do women really want to be judged on the size of their breasts and beauty of their hair?
I think it was quoted in a book called lords of the horizons. A good book.

[natureisawesome]

I don't know about the first question but the second question:


Also I was curious if anybody knows the Qur'an's official policy on Jihad, smiting infidels, who qualifies as an "infidel", and treatment of women

I havn't read the koran but from the verses I have seen, it really depends which part of the koran you read.In one place it says be at peace and another says anyone who is not muslim should have thier heads cut off. It depends.

I think I want to read the koran for myself. I'm tired of people telling me what it says. I suggest if you want to know you do the same. Then you can inform others, and not take someone elses word for it. Or dig up dirt on islam and then search for the other side of the arguemtn and compare both sides. I think you'll find what I 've found. It depends.

[asadkahloon]

well the cutting people's heads off is only acceptable if there is war and you have the other side attacking, but it is still forbidden to kill women and children even if they are infidels or unbelievers.

[jamstigator]

I would agree that there are some roles men cannot do that women can (bearing children being the obvious). But the reverse isn't really true -- there are very few roles women cannot perform as well as men, with the exception, in some cases, of heavy lifting type gruntwork. (Although there are some very strong women, just as there are some physically weak men.) In other words, once the child's born and no longer breast feeding, there's no rational reason the woman can't go out and be the bread-winner while the man stays home with the kids, other than the fact that this particular religion doesn't agree with that scenario. That *is* sexist.

The only reason women need men is for their sperm, to create children, and scientists already figured out how to turn a stem cell from a *woman* into a sperm, so it won't be long before women don't even need us for that either. That doesn't work in reverse; even if we figure out how to create eggs from the stem cells of a male, we still don't have a uterus or birth canal. Women are very close to being sufficient unto themselves, and men are very close to being obsolete.

[Iambreathingin]

All we need is Arnold to bare all of our children.

[natureisawesome]

asadkaloon:


well the cutting people's heads off is only acceptable if there is war and you have the other side attacking, but it is still forbidden to kill women and children even if they are infidels or unbelievers.

That's makes no sense considering the muslim empires. They obviously found some scripture in the koran that told them to go out and conquer the infedels and kill anyone who resisted. It widely known that the koran teaches muslims to conquer the world. And I don't believe for a moment that they never slughtered women and children.

Not to mention the justification I remember the koran saying this, that it was every mans duty to kill an infedel and that Christians should have thier heads cut off. I'm pretty cetain about that, and that it never mentioned having to have been provoked.

For them to conquer the world and put everyone under shariah law it requires them to be the aggressors.

[imitator]

asadkaloon:



That's makes no sense considering the muslim empires. They obviously found some scripture in the koran that told them to go out and conquer the infedels and kill anyone who resisted. It widely known that the koran teaches muslims to conquer the world. And I don't believe for a moment that they never slughtered women and children.

Not to mention the justification I remember the koran saying this, that it was every mans duty to kill an infedel and that Christians should have thier heads cut off. I'm pretty cetain about that, and that it never mentioned having to have been provoked.

For them to conquer the world and put everyone under shariah law it requires them to be the aggressors.

Granted I have only breezed through it in a single class, but I am pretty sure what you state here is false. I cant say for certain, but it doesnt sound right... when I get home from work Ill take a look into my Qur'an and see if I can find what you are referencing to. Its possible it was just a poor translation, or misunderstanding.

[jamstigator]

BTW, I wouldn't judge all Muslim folks based on the bad actions of a few. I lived in Turkey for somewhat over a year, and by and large, it was a great experience. There were some bad Turks, but mostly they were very nice and kind and friendly. And unlike most U.S. soldiers there, who stay around other Americans and insulate themselves from the foreign culture in which they live, I did the opposite -- I embraced the language and the culture. I actually started thinking and dreaming in Turkish near the end of my time there, something I wouldn't even have thought possible before it happened, and I had a sign on my door that said (in Turkish) 'English forbidden'.

That said, I'm pretty much with Bill Maher: all religions suck. They divide us, cause friction and war and violence, and rely on a solid (*cough*) foundation of unproven assumptions. We could accomplish so much more, and live in so much more peace, without religions segregating us into artifically-created cliques based on myths and mysticism.

[imitator]

Part of that lies in the need of others to prove to themselves that their faith is the correct one.

If you have faith, and it enhances your life, be happy with that. If other people dont share it, or find their happiness in something else, then so what? There is no need for anyone to force upon others their beliefs and faith systems, its foolish, and the cause of all the problems we see with religion/faith.

[imitator]

Part of that lies in the need of others to prove to themselves that their faith is the correct one.

If you have faith, and it enhances your life, be happy with that. If other people dont share it, or find their happiness in something else, then so what? There is no need for anyone to force upon others their beliefs and faith systems, its foolish, and the cause of all the problems we see with religion/faith.

Thats not to imply that all do this, by far that would be false.

But then again, its never the moderate people that are noticed throughout life in everything, its the extremists.

And no matter what the subject, no matter when or where, problems are caused when you introduce extremism into the equation.

[asadkahloon]

asadkaloon:



That's makes no sense considering the muslim empires. They obviously found some scripture in the koran that told them to go out and conquer the infedels and kill anyone who resisted. It widely known that the koran teaches muslims to conquer the world. And I don't believe for a moment that they never slughtered women and children.

Not to mention the justification I remember the koran saying this, that it was every mans duty to kill an infedel and that Christians should have thier heads cut off. I'm pretty cetain about that, and that it never mentioned having to have been provoked.

For them to conquer the world and put everyone under shariah law it requires them to be the aggressors.


Just because you see history being misinterpreted and showing all of the Muslim empires to be agresdively killing Christians, that is not all true. There were many instances when Christians lived in harmony among the Muslim rulers but were required to pay a mandatory tax if they choose not to convert to Islam.

[asadkahloon]

I would agree that there are some roles men cannot do that women can (bearing children being the obvious). But the reverse isn't really true -- there are very few roles women cannot perform as well as men, with the exception, in some cases, of heavy lifting type gruntwork. (Although there are some very strong women, just as there are some physically weak men.) In other words, once the child's born and no longer breast feeding, there's no rational reason the woman can't go out and be the bread-winner while the man stays home with the kids, other than the fact that this particular religion doesn't agree with that scenario. That *is* sexist.

The only reason women need men is for their sperm, to create children, and scientists already figured out how to turn a stem cell from a *woman* into a sperm, so it won't be long before women don't even need us for that either. That doesn't work in reverse; even if we figure out how to create eggs from the stem cells of a male, we still don't have a uterus or birth canal. Women are very close to being sufficient unto themselves, and men are very close to being obsolete.

well there is nothing in the Quran that says that women cannot go out and work, and they are free to work if they choose to do so but if a women decides that they don't want to work then it is the guy's duty to provide for mer and make sure she doesn't go hungry. But working women don't have any obligation to support their men.

[rebgirl420]

^Like THATS any better. But to be fair, the muslims might kill in the name of god but so do every one of the other religions out there (with the exception of a few I guess). Look at the crusades for example! Christians killed thousands if not more b/c of religion.

You cant take a few stray people from a religion and make broad assumptions. But im sure we all here know that. Stoners have a way of having an "above the influence" look about religion.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

^Like THATS any better. But to be fair, the muslims might kill in the name of god but so do every one of the other religions out there (with the exception of a few I guess). Look at the crusades for example! Christians killed thousands if not more b/c of religion.

You cant take a few stray people from a religion and make broad assumptions. But im sure we all here know that. Stoners have a way of having an "above the influence" look about religion.


Rebgirl hit the mark. I'm sure there's plenty of Muslim's who have killed Christians, and vice versa. There's people from every religion killing one another. I was shocked to find out a couple years ago that some Buddhist temples have warred over differences in scriptural interpretations, full on killing, and the biggest aspect of Buddhism is supposed to be compassion for all life, whether it be friend, enemy, or a cockroach. What can I say, people are screwed up. That's why I'm not crazy about choosing sects. I follow the Buddha's teachings, but all I do is reach strait from his teachings and make the best possible sense of them for myself.


Also, I have to question the notion that Muslim's are supposed to kill Christians as commanded by the Koran. Muhammad did a lot of study in Europe of ancient Greek and Christian philosophers, and he took his teachings from the angel Gabriel who is a product of Christian theology. The whole reason Islam was created was because he believed that Christianity had been altered from it's original teachings, that Jesus wasn't a devine manifestation but was a messenger of god... and I gotta say I agree for the most part.

You know looking at all the western conflicts in the middle east, I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims believe Christians are under obligation to slaughter or convert non-believers. It's a shame a few assholes can taint the image of the whole.

EDIT: Oh and Ashadkaloon, you have my many thanks for all the help:thumbsup::jointsmile:

[couch-potato]

Read the Qu'ran (or Koran) and it evident that Muslims are very encouraged to make war with the unbelievers. They want world domination for Allah, and with the aspect of jihad imprinted into their skulls they tend to be fearless. Any moderates in that religion are simply ignoring a good chunk of scriptures.

[asadkahloon]

Read the Qu'ran (or Koran) and it evident that Muslims are very encouraged to make war with the unbelievers. They want world domination for Allah, and with the aspect of jihad imprinted into their skulls they tend to be fearless. Any moderates in that religion are simply ignoring a good chunk of scriptures.

Give me some evidence of where you see this. You're telling me millions of Muslims who don't dominate or kill simply don't understand the religion? I believe not.

[THClord]

IMO islam is not a bad religion at all, but the media and Hollywood tend to portray the islam as highly terroristic.
I think Bush has a lot do with this in trying to get the country to go to war. And there is some evidence that some of the terrorism in Iraq is fake and done by allied soldiers (watch Zeitgeist on google video if you want to know more).

So basically the media is shaping peoples' beliefs in any way it wants to.

[Oneironaut]

So I was just watching a program called "God's Warriors" on CNN, and the reporter referred to some followers of Islam as "Moslims", something I've heard many times before. So why is it that when referring to followers of Islam I hear the terms "Moslim", "Muslim", and "Islamic"? Is there a difference between the three?
A "Muslim" (can also be spelled/pronounced "Moslem") is a follower of the Islamic faith. A person cannot be an Islamic. "Islamic" is an adjective. You talk about Islamic culture, the Islamic calendar, Islamic scripture, etc. but you don't call people Islamics. That's bad grammar.


Also I was curious if anybody knows the Qur'an's official policy on Jihad, smiting infidels, who qualifies as an "infidel", and treatment of women. I once heard a quote from Muhammad that went "to kill one muslim is to kill us all", but it might have been "to kill one person is to kill us all", I can't remember.

Any knowledgeable religious scholars with some info?
There is no one official Muslim policy on these things. Just like Christianity, there are lots of different sects and sub-sects, with their own interpretations of what the scripture means. This is especially true of what "jihad" is supposed to mean. There is a lot of debate on that issue going on, but (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)), "although some Islamic scholars have differered on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression".

As for women, there is no way to doubt that the Qur'an considers them inferior to men, and that this belief is widely practiced throughout Islamic culture. It's really quite an abomination. Here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html) is a thorough collection of the anti-woman verses in the Qur'an, if you're interested, but this one really says it all:

"And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them." â??Surah 2:228

[asadkahloon]

A "Muslim" (can also be spelled/pronounced "Moslem") is a follower of the Islamic faith. A person cannot be an Islamic. "Islamic" is an adjective. You talk about Islamic culture, the Islamic calendar, Islamic scripture, etc. but you don't call people Islamics. That's bad grammar.


There is no one official Muslim policy on these things. Just like Christianity, there are lots of different sects and sub-sects, with their own interpretations of what the scripture means. This is especially true of what "jihad" is supposed to mean. There is a lot of debate on that issue going on, but (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)), "although some Islamic scholars have differered on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression".

As for women, there is no way to doubt that the Qur'an considers them inferior to men, and that this belief is widely practiced throughout Islamic culture. It's really quite an abomination. Here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html) is a thorough collection of the anti-woman verses in the Qur'an, if you're interested, but this one really says it all:

"And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them." â??Surah 2:228

all those verses on that website have been changed and are not correct as for the one above the correct one is men have a degree of RESPONSIBILITY above them. Men are told to be care takers and providers for their families and that is why is it said like that. Why dont you do alittle more ACCURATE research before you go around posting links to inaccurate sites.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Give me some evidence of where you see this. You're telling me millions of Muslims who don't dominate or kill simply don't understand the religion? I believe not.

I hear a lot of conflicting info on this so I don't know. However, yes I think it's very plausible that millions of muslims could be just ignoring (or ignorant) of certain scriptures. You'd be hard-pressed to find a christian that actually lives exactly as the bible teaches, but if we did live by the bible there'd be a good deal of slavery, wife-beating, child-abuse, spousal murders (forget the term) and infanticide, raping of (the christian equivilant of) infidels, gay-killings, and the odd stoning (no not the good type we here enjoy). But most christian's don't condone these things, as I'm sure most muslims don't condone a lot of bad things that may be in the Koran.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but these books that are the "word of god" seem to suspiciously reflect the cultural attidudes of the time more than a devine wisdom.:wtf:

[Oneironaut]

all those verses on that website have been changed
Well, duh. I'm assuming most of the readers of this thread are not very familiar with Classical Arabic.

and are not correct as for the one above the correct one is men have a degree of RESPONSIBILITY above them.
First of all, that's still condescending and sexist. Men do not have responsibility over women. Women have responsibility for themselves, because they are free and equal individuals. Second of all, I can't find any translations of the Qur'an that say "responsibility" here. Can you tell me what translation you are using? Do you know Classical Arabic? If so, can you tell me what the original Arabic words are and how so many translators could have fucked them up that badly?

Men are told to be care takers and providers for their families and that is why is it said like that. Why dont you do alittle more ACCURATE research before you go around posting links to inaccurate sites.
Why don't you open your eyes and see how often Muslim societies treat women like shit? What do you think is the reason for that? I think it might have something to do with the Qur'an not once saying that women and men are equal and should be treated equally.

By the way, the Qur'an says if women are captured in battle as men are taking over their town, the men are allowed to take them into their "possession" (just like in the Bible). The very concept of kidnapping women and taking them into possession is horrifying, and the fact that this is just a euphemism for rape is downright disturbing. How could a real God have said something so hateful and so obviously immoral?

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." -Surah 4:24

[jamstigator]

Well, I will admit that when in Turkey, probably the most secular of Islamic nations, the women were not treated as equals. They tended to be more servant-like. I almost had to marry one (entrapment scheme), and that was basically her goal: to marry a rich American like me (*cough*), and take care of my every need at home, whilst I went out into the world and made money to support us. It was sort of tempting too, because in addition to *wanting* to be my sexual slave and servant, she was, in fact, hot. Their women, for the most part, seem to *want* this to be the way life works.

However, after due consideration, I decided that when I did find a mate, I wanted a peer, an equal, a partner -- not a servant/maid/sextoy, so I figured a way out of that dilemma, and bribed her family with three grand of good ol' U.S. dollars to have the wedding (this they insisted on) but for her to say *no* to marrying me at the wedding, in public. This was to shame me, apparently. Unfortunately for them, I felt no shame and whooped with happiness when she said no. Heh. The alternatives were Turkish prison or marriage...or bribery. So I am content with my choice there.

Just shows how deeply they've brainwashed their women to be servants. That's what they expect from life and, for the most part, that's also what they seem to *want*.

Makes for an interesting wedding story anyway. ;)