Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Appleseed

Member
  • Content count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Appleseed

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
    Single
  • Religion
    Islam

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    London UK
  1. Interest Is Forbidden In Islam

    to stick to what the scholars have said, you have to know what they said in the first place.
  2. Interest Is Forbidden In Islam

    salam there is a thread in the counselling section regarding someone who's having a dilemma about taking out an interest based loan. i read a book, i think last year, about the concept of interest and how it ties in with modern Islamic banking. here's a preview of the book: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_books.google.co.uk/books?id=ybnkig5ci6cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Interest+in+Islamic+Economics:+Understandin+Riba&source=bl&ots=1vgnS7-glm&sig=EVpD86pxAsM3V5OTlpLsuLn7G9c&hl=en&ei=CzLQS8S5O82y-AbR4PQs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_books.google.co.uk/books?id=ybnkig5...p;q&f=false[/url] in this book, it goes through the history of the terms interest, usury and riba. riba is never defined in the quran. how come? well, neither is alcohol, pork or gambling. the reason is that riba was a very well known term to the arabs and thus Allah did not need to define it in His book. the author found that the earliest hadith that define riba in muwatta of malik is as follows. Zayd ibn Aslam said, "Riba in the Jahiliyyah was that a man would have a debt on a man for a set term. When the term was due, he would say, 'Will you pay it off or increase me?' If the man paid, he took it. If not, he increased him in his debt and lengthened the term for him." Book 31, Number 31.38.84: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetusc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muwatta/031.mmt.html#031.31.16.34"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetusc.edu/schools/college/crcc/en...ml#031.31.16.34[/url] the book goes on to show that imam shafii and imam ibn hanbal defined riba in the same way. what is clear is that the riba of pre-Islam arabia is not the same as what we call interest today. although the book was impartial, and did not try to give an answer either way, you are left with the impression that latter scholars expanded the meaning of riba to include interest. some of the harms of pre-Islam practise of riba are explained. poor people used to seek loans from those with wealth to try and get themselves out of poverty. when the time of payment came, and the borrower could not repay the debt, the lender would defer the payment but would double the debt. if this happened a second time, the lender would triple the debt. by the third time, the borrower would either have to give one or some of his sons as payment or submit himself to be the slave of the lender to repay the debt. this evil practise was banned by the quran. the doubling and tripling of the debt is considered riba or usury. but that's not how interest is charged today. the repayment is defined before the loan agreement and there is no precedent for doubling or tripling the debt at time of payment. i'm not saying interest is halal, but i am saying that there is evidence that how riba was defined during time of the revelation of the quran is not what interest is today. perhaps we should not judge others so harshly when they take out loans etc. and try to learn more on the subject.
  3. Homosexuality In Islam

    salam, okay. sorry to ask again but do you know anyone who's written about this topic? anyway, why do you feel it is dubious? the verses of surah muminun seem to be enough to reject homosexuality without using hadith or exempting the story of lut from the general rule of not applying previous shariah. i think we should be confident enough about the rules of sexuality without having to bend the rules or principles. yes, that does pretty much seal the deal. he does attempt to overcome these verses too using a different method but i reserve my judgement on whether it is a valid approach until i've done more research. i'm sceptical, to say the least. he was referring to those who genuinely had a need for a sex change i.e. those with underdeveloped genitals, those with hormone problems, and those with underlying genetic problems. basically, the operations that can be justified scientifically, biologically or psychologically. i don't think he says anything particularly controversial, as i've read some papers by some muslim researchers in egypt who have said similar things.
  4. Homosexuality In Islam

    salam he actually has a way of getting around these verses, which is a completely different line of enquiry so i didn't bother posting it here. but it still hinges on his interpretation of the story of lut a.s. but my question was specifically about the ruling or scholarly opinion regarding the shariah of previous prophets. for the sake of argument, let's just say the hadith were weak, would we still be able to apply the prohibition of homosexuality based on the story of lut a.s.? meaning is the default position yes, unless the prophet said otherwise, or is the default position no unless the prophet said otherwise? i think it is an interesting line of study and was wondering if anyone knew of anyone who has written on the topic. i'm not talking specifically about homosexuality, but the principle in general of how we use the shariah of previous prophets. thank you for the correction. like you said, the hadith argument in this instance is not really needed, considering th explicit wording in the quran against homosexual acts. for me, it wasn't about believing or not believing him, rather analysing the arguments he puts forward. like i said before, some of them are pretty weak, but some of them regarding gender ambiguities are pretty strong. jz khair for your thoughts.
  5. Homosexuality In Islam

    salam, i've read this book. i know this thread is kinda old but if anyone's interested i could give a quick summary of what the book contains... alhamdulillah i think this was a good effort by prof kugle to highlight some of the problems that homosexuals face in Islam and that we should treat such people with respect and kindness. his book should be divided into two, i think: the issues of gender ambiguity and homosexuals. i think his ideas on gender ambiguity is very strong, in that we should acknowledge that some people have hormone and genetic variances that are not clearly 'man' or 'woman' and so the shariah of Islam should reflect this reality. he thinks that people should be allowed to have sex change operations if they feel they are in the wrong gendered body etc. he doesn't claim to provide the final definitive answer to gender ambiguities, but his ideas a definitely worth examining. i don't believe his ideas are particularly radical, as al azhar university has also explored this issue and have come up with similar conclusions. the second issue he touches on is homosexuality. this is where the radical ideas come in. the following are a few claims kugle makes in his book: - the story of lut a.s. (some verses which were provided by sister redeem a few posts above) is about rape and sexual domination i.e. the men of lut a.s. were raping other men and trying to rape the angels who disguised themselves as beautiful guests of lut. so the story has been misunderstood and is not really condemning consensual homosexual relations. i think kugle is clutching at straws here. yes, the men of lut were definitely looking to rape the angels, as this was also mentioned by allama ibn katheer in his tafseer. but what about the several verses that tell of lut a.s. telling the men to return to their women instead of the men? this clearly shows that they were being told to go back to the correct gender. so this part of kugle's argument is weak. - there is no clear direction from the prophet saw that homosexuality is forbidden kugle, i think, makes a fairly strong point here. the hadith that condemn homosexuality do not go back to the prophet or are weak, and some go back to some companions. and even then, only through ikrimah (i haven't had time to verify this). he's also correct in saying that there were no cases of homosexuality recorded during the time of the prophet so the rules are subject to interpretation and ijtihad. in my opinion, this point is moot because the verses of quran are clear. so in this instance, we probably don't even need hadith to show that homosexuality is wrong. the third point is what interested me most. i was hoping someone could shed some light on this, inshallah. - even if the story of lut a.s is condemning homosexuality, we can conclude that it was haram for the ummah of lut. but that doesn't mean it is haram for the ummah of muhammad saw unless he explicitly said so (which he didn't). there is no quran ayah that explicitly states that the prohibition enforced for the tribe of lut should still be implemented today. so we do know that some things were made haram for previous peoples according to their shariah, but made halal for us, and vice versa. the twins of adam a.s. were commanded to marry, but this of course is haram for us. jihad was haram for previous prophets and their ummah (i think) but this was made halal for muhammad saw and his ummah. i think there are probably more examples. so does kugle have a point here? his point is not entirely original, as ibn hazm stated something similar. does a prohibition of a previous ummah stand as valid for us without an explicit command? is there a general rule for this? if anyone knows of any scholarly works regarding this concept, i'd appreciate it if you could point me to it.
  6. Beware Of Harun Yahya ~ Is This True?

    i meant wouldn't speaker or teacher be more fitting? a phd from the university of wales (although very impressive) is not what we'd consider the education of an Islamic scholar.
  7. Beware Of Harun Yahya ~ Is This True?

    how is bilal phillips a scholar?
  8. Sunnipath's Question Time

    yes, there is a need. if you don't know anything about what is being said, why do you think it's okay to paste an article that labels another muslim deviant? and again, you've studied their proofs and logic and spectrum of scholarship allowing you to paste articles that claim they are deviant? they haven't admitted shirk. you, with your incredibly limited understanding of Islam with the help of cut&paste jobs from sites you've been blind following think they commit shirk. once again, you've missed the point, which seems to be a common theme with you. you don't know what you're talking about, so you should stop calling other muslims deviant. you've done no research yet you have the arrogance to think you can guide others away from a deviance which you yourself haven't understood. try and have some respect for the range of scholarship in Islam and admit you are in way over your head when it comes to matters in Islam. just follow what you want to follow and stop labelling others deviant. and what is it you're trying to do? make things clear for the reader by saying xyz are deviant even though you can't possibly know why because you have no training whatsoever? has it ever dawned on you that arrogance for any person, let alone an ignorant one, is a disgusting attribute?
  9. Sunnipath's Question Time

    does that mean yes? yes you understood everything that was being said in that article and have verified its content in an objective manner through cross-referencing and research? you've studied aqida, sufism, salafism, to an adequate level to be able to agree with your cut&paste jobs to a reasonable degree? your question was stupid. you decided that because the sheikh's name is nuh and he contributes to sunnipath a comparison was necessary with another person who's name is also nuh and contributes to sunnipath. the point which i made, which clearly went over your head, is that since you don't know what you're talking about, refrain from speaking ill about muslims who have a different opinion to you.
  10. Sunnipath's Question Time

    he has different parents, hence the different surnames. he has different teachers to nuh kellar. he looks different to nuh kellar. in fact, as far as i can tell, he is a different person altogether. gosh, i wonder why they have the same first name? their innovating sufi parents must have done that deliberately to confuse us. do you even understand anything that is being refuted in this response? i imagine not. you should therefore stop spreading bile about other muslims.
  11. hello, “It is the same whether or not you forewarn the unbelievers; they will have no faith.†(Chapter 2, verse 6) i'm not sure what you found hurtful or confrontational about this verse. could you explain? the verse is saying that some unbelievers will never believe, regardless of how convincing your argument is. “God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along.†(Chapter 2, verse 15.) to understand this verse, you need to read the verse that comes just before it: And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare: Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock. Allah (Himself) doth mock them, leaving them to wander blindly on in their contumacy. so the unbelievers in this verse were those who were mocking the muslims, behind their backs. Allah thus punished them for this mockery by leaving them in darkness. “The unbelievers are like beasts, which, call to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb and blind, they understand nothing.†(Chapter 2, verse 172) it's actually verse 171. but this is not a good translation. a better one is: The likeness of those who disbelieve (in relation to the messenger) is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense. in the arabic, there is no reference to 'beasts'. these verses regarding disbelievers who will never believe are not referring to all non-muslims. of course, we see non-muslims embrace Islam every single day, so clearly this verse was not referring to them. the disbelievers in these types of verses are those who have absolutely no interest in the truth, and are arrogant. “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.†(Chapter 2, verse 190.) this is verse 191. here is a better translation: And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. as you can see, this verse is talking about a very specific battle, and is not a general religious instruction. the muslims were banished from mecca, simply because of their religion. this verse is instructing the muslims to fight fierce against the enemy. you might find this disturbing, but Islam is not a passive religion. war was prescribed to fight injustice, and this verse was an instruction against a very unjust people. “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal.†(Chapter 3, verse 118) the word for 'friends' here in arabic is "bitaanah" which has several meanings such as intimate, advisor, helper, counsel etc. so the context of this verse would be a friend as helper, or advisor. the qur'an is instructing the muslims to not take the pagans or hypocrites as helpers or guardians, because they had hatred for the muslims. many commentators also noted that this verse is probably more relevant for state affairs, and not really for interpersonal behaviour. meaning the 'bitaanah' is this verse is referring to state advisors, who could possibly sell state secrets to enemy nations etc. the verse is not an instruction to the normal muslim to never have non-muslim friends or take advice from non-muslims ever. “Let not the unbelievers think that we prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them.†(Chapter 3, verse 178) this is a warning to the unbelievers that each passing day that they reject their Lord is another grievous sin. i'm not sure what you found hurtful about this verse?
  12. I Have A Question

    salam i would find that quite odd. wouldn't a man want his wife to become more knowledgeable just like him? if he is seeking ilm he should encourage his wife to get involved as well. if he can find time after working etc. he should try and make time so she can learn too.
  13. Turning Away From Vain Talk

    I like the article and I'm sure others learned a good lesson from it. That lesson is the remembrance of the hereafter. the lesson included to not laugh. that's not a good lesson because it is against the sunnah. clearly this doesn't bother you becuse you 'like' articles that go against the sunnah? But there is nothing to laugh about remembering the hereafter that this article is speaking about. no, that's not what the article speaks of. the article is saying you shouldn't laugh at all, as demonstrated by the boy who was never seen laughing again. Vain talk makes you laugh. The fact that the prophet, sall-allahu alayhi wa salam, joked truthfuly, doesn't doesn't have anything to do with laughing out of vain talk. what's that got to do with what this article starts off saying about laughing? the article says laughing is bad. this is against the sunnah. Where does it say to seek forgivness? Prove that avoiding laughter over vain talk is against the Sunna. there is absolutely no mention of vain talk in this sentence. in fact, your whole first post makes no mention of laughing from vain talk. it simply says laughing is a bad thing. I asked HOW had he, saw, smiled. How did He, saw, laugh? There is a hadeeth that describes the Prophet, saw, smiling. I don't want to guess on it. I'll search for it when I gett he time. It was that you couldn't see his teeth..... but let me get it. which means what? muslims are not allowed to laugh by showing their teeth? While remembering the herafter? No obviously. Remembe that hadeeth in which his hair turned white.... he laughed. your article says laughing is bad. your article is wrong. But truthfuly. funny, because the taxi driver lies about being bin baz and uthaymeen then laughs at this. anyway, what you pasted there says laughing is fine. what you pasted here says laughing is not fine. That was a fatwa specifying a ruling on joking which must be done truthfully. Now compare that to this article. i did. this one says laughing is wrong and should be avoided. it is unislamic advice. you keep talking about vain talk and reference to the hereafter, but the comments made in your article make no reference to them whatsoever. Judgeing others is not good. misguiding others is not good either. Sister, I think this is vain talk... i think you don't like being exposed. If you are against it, be patient and skip over it. why should i allow you to come onto a public forum and misguide people by pasting an article that says laughing is bad? i will not have any patience with this, and i most certainly won't skip over it. Have good thoughts about your brothers and sisters, especially scholars. firstly, i couldn't even find the bio of this scholar. is this as-Samarqandi who died around 400AH? or is this a recent author? i have a low opinion of misguiding information. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned us against laughing too much, and told us of the danger it poses to the heart when he said: “Do not laugh too much, for laughing deadens the heart.†Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2305; Ibn Maajah, 4193. there is a difference between the above hadith of the prophet and this: whoever said this, is amazed that a person can laugh or be happy at all. Are we little children? For Gos's sake read the hadeeth. It no where says that you cannot laugh. What you are quoting is a narration of some kind, and it teaches a good leasson! no, it doesn't. the whole point of this discussion is that you pasted an article which goes against the hadith. the hadith says laughing is fine, whereas the 'narration of some kind' shows that laughing is something to repent from. 1. In Islam, there is disliked, prohibited etc.. The hadeeth only says not to laugh too much. Does it command not to laugh?!There is a difference between a command and something that is disliked. Islam is a way of life. exactly. so why did you paste an article that implies otherwise? The boy chose not to laugh ever again because the man thaught the boy a lesson. it was a bad lesson. it is against the sunnah to teach someone to never laugh, which is what the man did. The hadeeth is telling us not to laugh too much. What did he say wrong? he stopped the boy from laughing ever again by striking fear into his heart. this is not from the sunnah. When you are to take an exam determening your life, do you laugh while being aware of it? No. For those who believe in the Jehannam (Hell), when they are aware of it, they don't laugh because they believe in it. the story makes no mention of why the boy was laughing. yet the man scares him with the hereafter so he never laughed again. no one feared the hereafter more than the prophet, yet he still found reasons to be happy and laugh.
  14. Turning Away From Vain Talk

    yes, so stop pasting articles when you don't have the ability to verify what's contained within them. if there's something to laugh about, yes. i did. do you equate vain talk with laughter? i know english isn't your first language but even you should know the difference between the two. the unislamic advice given in your article. the bit that says laughing is a reprehensible act and one should avoid it and seek forgiveness if you do it. this is against the sunnah. with his mouth, i suspect. indeed. this is, once again, another example of you talking about things you have no knowledge in. if you had even a little understanding of seerah, you would know that the prophet was a cheerful person and laughed. if laughing was a bad thing, why would he laugh? what's even more ridiculous is that under the thread "Jokes of Prophet Muhammad" you pasted evidence that joking and laughing is fine. You even have a good giggle yourself so what's going on here? on one thread you paste an article that says laughing is fine, and in the next you say it is bad and should be avoided. you see what happens when a layman overreaches himself? you have no consistency in what you're pasting because you have an incredibly basic understanding of Islam. it is better to refrain from pasting information you've never bothered to verify. a not-so-knowledgable muslim who read both your posts would end up confused, because they contain conflicting info.
  15. Turning Away From Vain Talk

    salam the implication that laughing is against Islam and that laughing is something to repent from. these words, which are not from the prophet, are essentially saying that laughter is bad. that one should not laugh or be happy because the fire awaits him. didn't know Allah sent us here to be sombre or miserable. can't understand why i can find numerous hadith saying the prophet laughed, smiled and was a cheerful person to be around. so i wasn't laughing at Islam because as far as i know, Islam encourages us to be happy. i don't know what religion the above advice is from.
×