^ Brother Quaid-e-Azam was not a prophet. So let us follow the religion the way our prophet (saw) taught us rather than any leader, because only prophets CAN'T make errors in preaching and practicing religion.
If you are a Muslim than Islam does not believe in religion being mild influence but a "Complete way of life".
I agree that rigidity of concepts leads to disasters but the ways of prophet (Saw) are the most flexible and practical ways a human can ever think of, not even our respectable Jinnah could think even 1% of that.
It all sounds ok in theory but in practice, nobody can guarantee certain meaning of Allah and the prophet. Whoever shouts loudest or looks most pious is interpreting to their neighbors with the result that 80% of all who preach I will say are intentional fakes in one point or other.
In current day world blindly following anything or anybody has failed miserably (and I include blind followers of Jinnah also in that). So when I say "as Jinnah" said, I mean use each person's own logic and try to understand current ground reality.
Otherwise the current rot of the Pakistan will only keep getting worse.
Do you know how shocking it is to hear some younsgters answer "Islam first" when asked "country of religion"?
if Allah(swt) wanted them to be muslims they would have been born in a muslim family, to understand the logic you would need to understand the creator:)
***"2:30 AND LO! [21]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue&#) Thy Sustainer said unto the angels: “Behold, I am about to establish upon earth one who shall inherit it.” [22]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue&#) They said: “Wilt Thou place on it such as will spread corruption thereon and shed blood -whereas it is we who extol Thy limitless glory, and praise Thee, and hallow Thy name?” [God] answered: “Verily, I know that which you do not know.” ***
2:28 How can you refuse to acknowledge God, seeing that you were lifeless and He gave you life, and that He will cause you to die and then will bring you again to life, whereupon unto Him you will be brought back?"
why is Islam perfect?
***Islam is perfect because it solves all the problems that mankind faces ***
i.e zakat just imagine if all the rich people payed zakat to the poor the way Allah has made it farz upon them, would poverty be conquering the less economic countries as it is today?
brotherhood- if we humans did as Allah asked us to and loved our brothers and sisters the way we love ourselves would there be hate and envy everywhere?
49:10 All believers are but brethren. [11]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue#) Hence, [whenever they are at odds,] make peace between your two brethren, and remain conscious of God, so that you might be graced with His mercy"
orphans
***"2:215 THEY WILL ASK thee as to what they should spend on others. Say: “Whatever of your wealth you spend shall [first] be for your parents, and for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer; and whatever good you do, verily, God has full knowledge thereof.” ***
4:2 Hence, render unto the orphans their possessions, and do not substitute bad things [of your own] for the good things [that belong to them], and do not consume their possessions together with your own: [2]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue#) this, verily, is a great crime. "
4:6 And test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions; and do not consume them by wasteful spending, and in haste, ere they grow up. And let him who is rich abstain entirely [from his ward’s property]; and let him who is poor partake thereof in a fair manner. And when you hand over to them their possessions, let there be witnesses on their behalf - although none can take count as God does."
***4:8 And when [other] near of kin and orphans and needy persons [7]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue#) are present at the distribution [of inheritance], give them something thereof for their sustenance, and speak unto them in a kindly way. ***
women-
***"4:127 AND THEY will ask thee to enlighten them about the laws concerning women. [145]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetrue</d#) Say: “God [Himself] enlightens you about the laws concerning them”- for [His will is shown] in what is being conveyed unto you through this divine writ about orphan women [in your charge], to whom - because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them - you do not give that which has been ordained for them; [146]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetrue</d#) and about helpless children; and about your duty to treat orphans with equity. And whatever good you may do - behold, God has indeed full knowledge thereof. ***
***Islam gives women honour and modesty unlike many religons… ***
daughters-
remember the times when girls used to be buried alive because of thier gender?
16:58 for, whenever any of them is given the glad tiding of [the birth of] a girl, [65]](IslamiCity - The Global Muslim eCommunitytruetruetruetruetruetrue</#) his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger," 16:59 avoiding all people because of the [alleged] evil of the glad tiding which he has received, [and debating within himself:] Shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it]-or shall he bury it in the dust? Old, evil indeed is whatever they decide!"
42:49 God’s alone is the dominion over the heavens and the earth. He creates whatever He wills: He bestows the gift of female offspring on whomever He wills, and the gift of male offspring on whomever He wills"
the number of abortions are the highest in india,and the reason for abortion is the child a girl statistics also prove likewise, what does that say?
the test of life
2:286 God does not burden any human being with more than he is well able to bear: in his favour shall be whatever good he does, and against him whatever evil he does."
3:185 Every human being is bound to taste death: but only on the Day of Resurrection will you be requited in full [for whatever you have done] - whereupon he that shall be drawn away from the fire and brought into paradise will indeed have gained a triumph: for the life of this world is nothing but an enjoyment of self-delusion. "
***I can really go on and on *** just that I dont have the time right now i’ll get back to this one, I know theres a few things I havent covered like equality etc etc .
zakat is like charity right? charity can only be a temporary solution to poverty. Every civilization have their version of utopia through charity - Islam through universal zakat, Hindus with the Ram Raj, even USA with the welfare state ideals.
Problem is that while some poor and unfortunate truly benefit from charity, others simply get used to it and make taking alms their vocation.
Similarly there are other imperfections too. If we take womens' rights, today's Star Ledger is carrying a multi-page article on the poor and disastrous state of women in Pakistan!
salam,
Zakat was not a new concept, jews have to pay tithe as per their scriptures. Now imagine zakat at 2.5% vs tithe at 10%, which one is going to solve the problem faster.
Bortherhood - does it include non muslims as well. On the other hand christianity says love thy neighbor as yourself, it say anything about the religion of the neighbor. what do you think is the better idea?
Honor of women - Yes this one of the good points of Islam, but as I see women are still opperessed in Islamic world. but that can be attributed to not implementing the true message.
waiting for your post regarding equality, muslim men vs muslim women and muslims vs non muslims.
The religion is not perfect if it is not implement to the letter. Where is it implemented in the world. Nobody has to convince anyone if it is so good. I look at the religion from it adherents because they give the best example of what they follow.
As you have said some systems may work better than others, you may say that Islam is a better religion but not the best.
Regarding your 5 points, I agree that can be a good start of a good discussion.
Lets discuss criretria 1: Why do you think only monotheism will work why not other systems?
regards
Peace Light Bearer
Apologies for my delay.
Regarding your first paragraph. This is not an acceptable scenario. In order to judge something we need to look for a constant. The adherents of Islam are not a constant. However, the Qur'an is and most authentic hadith are too. These are the correct and acceptable things to be analysing when looking at Islam. What you are actually looking at by the adherents of Islam in todays world is a combination of cultural, religious and global influences. So it could be that the bad behaviour in Muslims is a result of Capitalistic values that have seeped into us rather than Islam being at fault.
On the other hand however, if one argues that Islam has been unable to maintain control over the behaviour of its adherents then this again is a non-starter because Islam never claims to have its adherents in a deadlock. Islam says we are free to make our own choices and warns us that the lures of this world are greater than the perceived benefits of Islam. The result thereof is based on the condition of the morality of the people around us. Every religion has phases. We should be comparing those phases for sure.
I do believe Islam to be the best way of life - optimal. But at the same time I believe it to be the only spiritual guidance acceptable in the flurry of todays religions.
To answer why only monotheism. The straightforward answer is that monotheism of Islam proves to be major reason why people are becoming Muslim today in hordes. It is a simple yet fully explanatory theology. It is a belief system which is to be taken distinct from objective proof, which Islam itself distinguishes as something that is "certainty of sight" which can only be obtained in the Hereafter, before that time we are compelled to 'believe'. Monotheism is a mathematical argument. And mathematics is by far the most objective form of reasoning there is - It is logic. And based on this a level playing ground i.e. common ground can be established or at least full understanding of how further ideological constructs within Islam fit together. With other theological constructs it is not so easy to build connections to the way of life and their belief in God.
zakat is like charity right? charity can only be a temporary solution to poverty. Every civilization have their version of utopia through charity - Islam through universal zakat, Hindus with the Ram Raj, even USA with the welfare state ideals.
Problem is that while some poor and unfortunate truly benefit from charity, others simply get used to it and make taking alms their vocation.
Similarly there are other imperfections too. If we take womens' rights, today's Star Ledger is carrying a multi-page article on the poor and disastrous state of women in Pakistan!
Peace Shogun Ninjuku
I am afraid your argument is incorrect based on an incomplete understanding of zakat and Islam. The purpose of it is to lift bottomline poverty indeed but that is not the sole reason for it. It is intended to purify wealth, which makes it permissible for us to consume what we buy.
Zakat should never be viewed in isolation to other Islamic state functions. Such as for example - The ethos to promote humility, never to save too much, never to spend too much, to give at least 2.5% charity but encourages the giving of as much as a heart can muster. There is an emphasis in work for it being virtuous as opposed to being prosperous and the focus is on good DEEDS rather than material VALUE. Zakat needs to be given regardless of the perceived need for it on an ongoing basis.
salam,
Zakat was not a new concept, jews have to pay tithe as per their scriptures. Now imagine zakat at 2.5% vs tithe at 10%, which one is going to solve the problem faster.
Bortherhood - does it include non muslims as well. On the other hand christianity says love thy neighbor as yourself, it say anything about the religion of the neighbor. what do you think is the better idea?
Honor of women - Yes this one of the good points of Islam, but as I see women are still opperessed in Islamic world. but that can be attributed to not implementing the true message.
waiting for your post regarding equality, muslim men vs muslim women and muslims vs non muslims.
wasalam
Peace again Light Bearer
The 10% you mention and ask which will solve the problem faster. As mentioned earlier the zakat is not just a charity it is means to purify wealth. 10% as a requirement on people could be a burden on some of the lower-mid range earners. The amount could lead to people being strained and may not be effective. Even the meagre 2.5% is being avoided by some people. The balance here is that 2.5% is an optimal required amount to be considered easy enough and worthwhile enough for most people to do. The 10% may only solve poverty more effectively if there is greater control over the wealth. Islam encourages giving out of the goodness of ones heart and draws no upper limit to the amount one gives in charity, but only keeps a minimum limit.
Apologies for my delay.
Peace psyah, no worries, we all have our jobs to as well.
Regarding your first paragraph. This is not an acceptable scenario. In order to judge something we need to look for a constant. The adherents of Islam are not a constant. However, the Qur'an is and most authentic hadith are too. These are the correct and acceptable things to be analysing when looking at Islam. What you are actually looking at by the adherents of Islam in todays world is a combination of cultural, religious and global influences. So it could be that the bad behaviour in Muslims is a result of Capitalistic values that have seeped into us rather than Islam being at fault.
I agree adherents of Islam are not constant. Please correct if you got it wrong. As I understand you are saying that Islam in todays world is not the correct version and is corrupted by capitalism, culture and global influences. I am not trying to twist your world but this is what I understand.
On the other hand however, if one argues that Islam has been unable to maintain control over the behaviour of its adherents then this again is a non-starter because Islam never claims to have its adherents in a deadlock. Islam says we are free to make our own choices and warns us that the lures of this world are greater than the perceived benefits of Islam. The result thereof is based on the condition of the morality of the people around us. Every religion has phases. We should be comparing those phases for sure.
So the punch line is the personal morality but that can be achieved by believing in religion or being an athiest.
I do believe Islam to be the best way of life - optimal. But at the same time I believe it to be the only spiritual guidance acceptable in the flurry of todays religions.
I am still at better than most stage.
To answer why only monotheism. The straightforward answer is that monotheism of Islam proves to be major reason why people are becoming Muslim today in hordes. It is a simple yet fully explanatory theology. It is a belief system which is to be taken distinct from objective proof, which Islam itself distinguishes as something that is "certainty of sight" which can only be obtained in the Hereafter, before that time we are compelled to 'believe'. Monotheism is a mathematical argument. And mathematics is by far the most objective form of reasoning there is - It is logic. And based on this a level playing ground i.e. common ground can be established or at least full understanding of how further ideological constructs within Islam fit together. With other theological constructs it is not so easy to build connections to the way of life and their belief in God.
Truthfully speaking bro, more people are turning away from Abrahamic religions i.e. monotheism than turning into it. When you talk about montheism then you have to take all Ibrahamic religions togather and not single Islam only.
Peace again Light Bearer
The 10% you mention and ask which will solve the problem faster. As mentioned earlier the zakat is not just a charity it is means to purify wealth. 10% as a requirement on people could be a burden on some of the lower-mid range earners. The amount could lead to people being strained and may not be effective. Even the meagre 2.5% is being avoided by some people. The balance here is that 2.5% is an optimal required amount to be considered easy enough and worthwhile enough for most people to do. The 10% may only solve poverty more effectively if there is greater control over the wealth. Islam encourages giving out of the goodness of ones heart and draws no upper limit to the amount one gives in charity, but only keeps a minimum limit.
Again 10% is the minimum requirement not the maximum for the jews. Just as 10% migh be very high for some 2.5% will be very less for some, its all debatable, it has been asked by Islam to give obligatory 2.5% and that is the constant we should consider.
I agree adherents of Islam are not constant. Please correct if you got it wrong. As I understand you are saying that Islam in todays world is not the correct version and is corrupted by capitalism, culture and global influences. I am not trying to twist your world but this is what I understand.
Peace Light Bearer
I don't understand the question. After acknowledging that adherents are not the basis for judging Islam, rather the doctrine i.e. the Qur'an and authentic hadith are according to my previous post you have just ignored that. Your question had it been correct would have shown that the doctrine of Islam has remained unchanged through time. So Islam today is the correct version. Muslims however, cannot be held to ransom on that basis. Muslims in todays world are not as (generally) speaking as upright as Muslims closer to the time of Muhammad (SAW). The people are corrupted by x, y and z. Not the relgiion!
So the punch line is the personal morality but that can be achieved by believing in religion or being an athiest.
It seems I have given you context and you have chased it as though it is a premise. I blame lack of global or collective morality for the fact that Muslims are not as adherent to Islam these days, not Islam, which provides freedom to choose.
I am still at better than most stage.
Which is better than some deceivers, so you have your truthfulness in your favour. May it be a beacon for you to lead you towards the truth of Islam.
Truthfully speaking bro, more people are turning away from Abrahamic religions i.e. monotheism than turning into it. When you talk about montheism then you have to take all Ibrahamic religions togather and not single Islam only.
I stand corrected. Then let me modify my claim. Due to Islam being the correct manifestation of the Abrahamic religions I therefore need to assert when I say monotheism I mean Islamic monotheism, which is distinct from the way it is understood by the other People of the Book.
Again 10% is the minimum requirement not the maximum for the jews. Just as 10% migh be very high for some 2.5% will be very less for some, its all debatable, it has been asked by Islam to give obligatory 2.5% and that is the constant we should consider.
wasalam
I agree 2.5% should be the constant that we should consider, but we also need to consider how well the religion encourages further charity above and beyond this. I also do not understand what you mean by 2.5% being too less. Wasalam to you too.
Your post said any living thing...that included plants.
Regardless of what may be beneficial for their 'growth' (debatable), one who plucks the plant out of the farm actually kills a living object by depriving it from water, sunshine and 'individual' growth.
Point is that as per many religions or societies, animals can be eaten to keep their numbers acceptable and human being florish. So many hindus eat animals or animal products since by natural selection, human being is omnivorous. Besides, according to hindu scripture life takes different form and never dies actually. I could be wrong on this one but no need for me to dwell on this topic here though.
when you eat the fruits and vegetables of most plants the seeds are not destroyed - they are returned back to nature where reproduction occurs. If you want a not so gross example, think of how birds eat berries and excrete the seeds miles away, thus spreading the species! In fact many thousands of plants species survive only because of such symbioses.
That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructable. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.
The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.
peace psyah,
how can the entire body be indestructable?
the material of the body? hhmmm the verse contradicts itself,
"fight O descendant of bharata"
double standards?
why a hindu writer quotes a verse from the quran from surah taubah out of context, when that too is to the warriors on a battlefield? if the verse above is used out of context a similar book can be written about hindu's and terrorrism.
jazakAllah for the source:)
when you eat the fruits and vegetables of most plants the seeds are not destroyed - they are returned back to nature where reproduction occurs. If you want a not so gross example, think of how birds eat berries and excrete the seeds miles away, thus spreading the species! In fact many thousands of plants species survive only because of such symbioses.
OTOH when you kill an animal it cannot reproduce.
Peace Shogun Ninjuku
Your argument is flawed because in one case you talk about species in the other case you talk about individual animals.
To make a true comparison you will need to consider the concept of the idea if a predator was taken away from an environment where its prey lived. All of a sudden you would get too many of that kind of animal and they would compete with each too much. That would harm the ecosystem of that animal too not to be eaten. If we didn't eat animals some of them would take up too much space or worse things could happen.
Consider chickens or sheep we don't eat them the fox and wolves do. Either the sheep become too many if there are no predators displacing humans in the process or the fox or wolves become too many displacing the humans. By eating animals we keep the food chain functioning the way it should. I agree however, that we should minimise the eating of flesh but not T-Totaling it.
Your argument is flawed because in one case you talk about species in the other case you talk about individual animals.
Not at all. In both cases it is the individual item - whether the fruit or the animal. When you eat a mango, you're eating a mango, not the mango tree or the species
To make a true comparison you will need to consider the concept of the idea if a predator was taken away from an environment where its prey lived. All of a sudden you would get too many of that kind of animal and they would compete with each too much. That would harm the ecosystem of that animal too not to be eaten. If we didn't eat animals some of them would take up too much space or worse things could happen.
Consider chickens or sheep we don't eat them the fox and wolves do. Either the sheep become too many if there are no predators displacing humans in the process or the fox or wolves become too many displacing the humans. By eating animals we keep the food chain functioning the way it should. I agree however, that we should minimise the eating of flesh but not T-Totaling it.
What happens in nature, a lion hunting down a deer is vastly different from human beings cruelly killing animals for consumption. 99.99999% percent of meat eaters do not hunt their animals. They buy the fancy cuts. They manufacture the animals in cruel conditions. They feed them steroids and harmones that literally torture the animals from the inside, just to make the steak bigger or the chicken juicier.
Forget the vegetarianism arguments - look at the inconsistencies. In most parts of the world dogs are considered a pet, they are in some cases treated as members of the family - yet in China it is food!
Similar inconsistency about horses is well known too.
Tell me what the great difference is for a person who loves his horse or dog as a brother yet sits down to eat a steak?
I am not against meat eating for everyone by the way - it cannot be helped given where we as a species have come to become. But we can afford to do that in humane ways.
Not at all. In both cases it is the individual item - whether the fruit or the animal. When you eat a mango, you're eating a mango, not the mango tree or the species
What happens in nature, a lion hunting down a deer is vastly different from human beings cruelly killing animals for consumption. 99.99999% percent of meat eaters do not hunt their animals. They buy the fancy cuts. They manufacture the animals in cruel conditions. They feed them steroids and harmones that literally torture the animals from the inside, just to make the steak bigger or the chicken juicier.
Forget the vegetarianism arguments - look at the inconsistencies. In most parts of the world dogs are considered a pet, they are in some cases treated as members of the family - yet in China it is food!
Similar inconsistency about horses is well known too.
Tell me what the great difference is for a person who loves his horse or dog as a brother yet sits down to eat a steak?
I am not against meat eating for everyone by the way - it cannot be helped given where we as a species have come to become. But we can afford to do that in humane ways.
Peace Shogun Ninjuku
I see what you mean now. However, the argument is still limited. You now sound like a fruitarian and not a vegetarian. Nuts and Fruits can be eaten and their waste is what ensures further growth of the species. However, in the case of vegetables we actually eat them.
To me eating a mango and putting the seed in the ground to grow more mango trees is a touch excessive. If every mango is a potential tree then nature itself prevents ALL mangoes from becoming trees. The chances are of one may be two mangoe trees naturally growing from the mango seed (fruit) in the same vicinity of the parent tree. So all of those others seeds go to waste. Nature controls and curbs its own numbers ... that is all I am trying to say.
Humans are an integral part of that natural cycle.
As far as humane ways to grow and kill to eat animals you will not find better supporters than the educated Muslims on this front ... adding hormones, and ill-treatment of animals is against our beliefs.
***