Al-Ukhuwwatu Fiy Allahi/Brotherhood in Allah (deceit in the name of Allah)

Description of site: A site maintained by MSA-USC's primary weekly lecturer during the early and middle 90's, may Allah reward him. He has given many lectures based on classic sources containing authentic information.

Although iman raises our state and increases the brotherhood and affection between the hearts of the believers, it will continue to be imperfect in this life due to human weakness and weakness in our Islam. Very many verses and hadith stress the necessity of various attitudes which help compensate for these human weaknesses. Among them are husnu adh-dhanni (ALWAYS assuming the best possible construction of another Muslim's deeds or statements, as-sitr (concealing the faults of another when they become known to you and not following the urge to spread them around), al-'afw and as-safh (forgiving, forbearing and overlooking bad deeds or behavior from your fellow Muslim.

Iman includes harboring goodwill toward all other believers, defending them and defending their name always thinking of them in the best way possible and overlooking their faults concealing them if possible and asking Allah to forgive them and us. The Prophet (sas) said:

"Every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim. He does not oppress him nor turn him over. Whoever addresses his brother's needs, Allah addresses his needs. Whoever relieves a Muslim from some hardship in this life, Allah will relieve him from a hardship onQiyama. Whoever conceals [the faults of] another Muslim, Allah will conceal [his faults] on the day ofQiyama."Muslim and Bukhari

Thank you. I should have clarified to thread that most Moslems are victims of their religious leaders and have to live in fear. Women in the Islamic world who dare to question Islam at the very least usually get their children taken away from them. My heart goes out to Moslem victims. I might have ended up as one myself if my grandfather born into a Moslem family didn't reject that way of life. As I posted this morning in anger and

in sadness.

We need to understand the terms that are used in Islam. Most (or all, I'm not sure) Islamic leaders teach that only the Islamic definition of a word is the definition that matters. When dealing with the Islamic hierarchy, Christians need to be wise as serpents. When dealing with the Moslem common people, Christians need to be innocents as doves.

http://www.americanfriends.org/nuclear/peaceIslam_N313.html

Islam says the world is divided into two parts.
1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam
2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

Is peace possible between Israel and the Arab world?
The answer is YES -- But only after mind-boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.

ISLAM AND JIHAD
The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems.Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam
2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non- Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

The law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad... states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims."

Hardly does the Bible condone lying and covering up someone's misdeeds.

But anyway, since from your previous posts, I don't think you have much respect for a Christian point of view, I'll quote a Hindu. In the article, The Shadow Side of Krishnamurti, An Interview with Radha Rajagopal Sloss, from Tricycle Buddhist Review (tricycle.com) Winter 1991, Mrs. Rajagopal Sloss, a Hindu, is quoted to say of Krishnamurti, "He had his own problems, and I don't judge him for that. But this art of deceit, that's difficult to accept. And then, too, there are differences in attitudes toward telling lies in Asian and Christian cultures."

In other words, Restorer, this Hindu woman is noting the fact that Christians teach that God considers lying a sin no matter who you lie about and for what reason.

As a lifelong Christian, I think you're pretty off-base claiming I don't respect a Christian viewpoint. I just happen to believe that it is not appropriate for a Christian to make untrue or slanted statements about those who are not Christians. For instance, I have been involved in extended defense of Judaism when some have accused the Talmud of containing similar injunctions that it is proper to defraud non-Jews. Similarly, although I am not Catholic or Mormon, I have defended them against untrue accusations. (Frankly, there are plenty of true accusations which can be made against both groups, as there are lots of things about Islam to accurately criticize.)

The article you posted does not specifically define what types of misdeeds or faults or bad behavior a Muslim should keep to himself when committed by his brother Muslim. It does not state whether these are human failings or criminal activities. Obviously, you prefer to believe the second. In absence of a clear definition to the contrary, I prefer to believe the former. It is notable that the post refers repeatedly to human weaknesses, a poor definition for the activities of Tuesday.

I don't have time presently to research the Biblical references, but I do know there are scriptures which enjoin a Christian to not trumpet his brother's faults publicly. This does not mean that he is supposed to participate in a criminal coverup of murderous activities by his brother. Actually, by definition, any Christian who participates unrepentantly in such behavior ceases to be my brother.

Since you have accused me publicly of being anti-Christian, I assume you will have the common decency to post any remarks of mine which you believe to be anti-Christian and allow me the opportunity to demonstrate why they are not.

Thank you.

I haven't slanted anything. I've posted from a source of an Islamic lecturer/scholar about Islam. There are many Islamic leaders who are inciting hatred and condoning killing of non-Muslims. These leaders, not the Moslem people, ARE our enemies, and Americans shouldn't be naive.

If you are Christian and not anti-Christian, then I have you confused with another poster with a similar name and here's my public apology: I'm sorry for that and retract it.

I still disagree strongly that you can equate not proclaiming someone's faults with what is posted above. Radical Islam has no interested in peaceful coexistence with anyone unless for personal, temporary gain.

Question Reference Number:: 11406, Title: Killing non Muslims

Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Striving and migrating for the sake of Allaah >
Home > Islamic politics >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Transactions > Felonies >
Home > Islamic politics >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Transactions > Felonies >

Question:

I've read that in Islam it is a greater sin to kill a Muslim than a non-Muslim. However, on death a Muslim will be in Paradise whereas the non-Muslim will be in Hell.To kill a non-Muslim is to deny them forever the chance of becoming a Muslim, and condemns them to Hell. Is this not then a greater sin?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Killing a non-Muslim when he is a mu’aahid (one of those who have a peace treaty with the Muslims) is a sin, one of the major sins. Al-Bukhaari narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever kills a mu’aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance may detected from a distance of forty days.’” But with regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you” [al-Tawbah 9:123]

But this should be in the case of jihaad under the leadership of one of the leaders of the Muslims, or his deputy.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Kareem al-Khudayr . (www.islam-qa.com)

©Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000
You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents

Thank you.

To be perfectly fair, I've been accused of being anti-Christian before. This is because I am as adamant on telling the truth of Christian history as about everything else. A true Christian will admit that much of Christian history has been anything but truly Christian in nature.

I cannot disagree with your statements about radical Islam. It is a very dangerous phenomemon. However, there are close to one billion Moslems in the world. By no means are all of them radical. However, attacking the Moslem faith as such is likely to drive some of the waverers in that direction. A better approach is to emphasize the distinction between radicals and "normal" Moslems, not blur it. It's too bad that more "normal" Moslems don't stress this distinction themselves.

As you point out, a MAJOR difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam specifically enjoins its followers to spread the faith by the sword. Jihad is a core doctrine. The discussions are thus about when and how it is appropriate to conduct jihad.

Jesus, OTOH, specifically rejected violence. It is impossible to find any direct encouragement of military activity in the NT, for any reason, much less to spread the faith. Thus Christian warfare is conducted as an inherently secular activity, although it has often been perverted into Holy War, in (often unknowing) imitation of Islam.

I still do not think that the post does a particularly good job of making your point. It can be interpreted in other ways. Change the specifically Moslem references to Christian and it could fit into many a Christian pulpit.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Plenty of Christians might practice that, but they don't preach coverups from the pulpit because there is no biblical basis for it. If a Christian covers up another's sin, he becomes someone's accomplice. Hypothetical situation: You see Joe Christian stealing from the offertory (or from your Moslem boss). I don't have the verses at hand, but maybe someone else can confirm the following: Your first biblical step is to confront Joe. If Joe doesn't confess, stop, and make restitution, your moral obligation is to tell the pastor or person he stole from, whatever the case may be.

I refreshed my memory of my previous disagreement with you was when you answered my post criticizing Hindu texts. The caste system, IMO as per the Hindu texts, falls short of the sanctity of life and condemnation of murder found the the OT and NT, even when killing was commanded, such as other tribes who were set on annihilating Israel, or a child who would curse his parents (which is also a form of causing physical harm) were always in extreme circumstances and last resorts.

You mention you wish moderate Moslems would speak out against radical Moslems. Most are too afraid since there would be retribution against their relatives. It's even dangerous to be a moderate Moslem amongst radical Moslems.

If you will refer back to the previous thread you mention in #14, you will see that I do not agree with or approve of radical Islam and actually have a pretty good understanding of the ways in which "all religions are (NOT) the same."

My big objection has always been to those (like you appeared to be in that post) who criticize practices in other religions/cultures while simultaneously ignoring the evil practices committed by Western/Christian cultures. It's not the criticism I object to, it's the hypocrisy.

If you take Communism, Socialism and Fascism as bastard offspring of Western Civilization (which they are), our culture killed far more people (including innocent civilians) in just the 20th century than the Moslems have managed to in well over a thousand years.

You say you resent being lumped in with these groups? I don't blame you. How do you think many of the almost one billion Moslems feel about being lumped in with the killers?

I agree with you that the moderates are scared of the radicals. We dealt with the Nazi and Commie crazies in our culture, it's time they dealt similarly with the crazies in their's. I'm sure there are a number of Americans willing to support them in this.

I have been known to criticize quite a few Christians too, but in the previous post, I was comparing the texts and teachings, not the people. There’s a big difference. You can't blame Communism, Socialism and every other perversion of Western Civilization on Christian teachings. Most abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, recognized that slaveowners were not followers of the Bible. Archaeological evidence of graveyards in Phrygia as per "The New Archaeological Discoveries" by Camden M. Cobern, copyright 1917, showed slaves were given freedom and buried as brothers in contrast to non-Christians where slaves were put to death on a whim. (one woman had her slave/lover killed because she said he looked at another woman).

You and I are just 180 degrees apart because I am very outspoken in my views that JudeoChristianity righteously practiced is the only religion that really teaches equality and is one of the few religions that promotes peaceful coexistence with other religions.

About the Moslems, as I stated on another reply linked above, my grandfather's name was Amin Salim Zin-al-Din, born into a Syrian Moslem family. He named my mother Fatima. He moved to Hillsdale, MI in the early 1900's and became a proud American. He had a Syrian restaurant in D.C. He used to criticize the society he left. If he were still alive, he would be lumped in with the few Moslems who did this, but he wouldn't quit criticizing the violent teachings of the Moslem leaders. So I appreciate your well thought replies anyway.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.