User talk:Truthspreader/001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Shariah 2 Blanking the Sandbox 3 No longer active 4 mizan 5 Since you are interested 6 Tahrif 7 done 8 Domestic behaviour in Islam 9 Women in Islam 10 Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam 11 Domestic violence - rebellious wives 12 re: Islam and Slavery 13 Template 14 Jihad 15 re: Jihad and general source usage 16 template 17 Slavery in Islam 18 re: hadith 19 Muhammad 20 Banu Qurayza 21 who goes to heaven? 22 Itmaam-i-hujjat 23 Reform in Islam 24 Welcome to VandalProof! 25 Islahi 26 re: raids 27 English 28 Good job 29 6 or 8 days? 30 Messenger 31 Jesus 32 My comments 33 GA review 34 Itmam Hujjat 35 Hijab 36 Hi T.S 37 Coherence in Quran 38 Thank you 39 Mohammed Article 40 Qur'an and Science 41 Good source 42 Eid Mubarak 43 Amin Ahsan Islahi 44 Thanks 45 Do you have time 46 Help in al-Aqsa talk page

Shariah

Truthspreader, please have a look at this stoning video : [1]. Of course similar punishments are found in the Old Testament. Some scholars such as Watt, believe "In Islamic teaching, such penalties may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived. However, as societies have since progressed and become more peaceful and ordered, they are not suitable any longer." BUT I DON'T really know. --Aminz 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that the punishments, in reality, apply only rarely, BUT I have problem with their very existence. They are really harsh, aren't they? And Yes, the Jewish ones may be more harsh but still. --Aminz 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. Everybody I've seen so far has been not very bad. I have no idea of people who are "really" bad. BUT I don't really wish to be present there where any of those punishments are executed. But I understand your point. I personally then prefer to remain without any opinion as I used to be. --Aminz 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I was just editing about Aisha in Muhammad article. What a coincidence. --Aminz 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, I'll look into it more closely, but here are some reliable sources disputing Aisha being married at 6 [2]. --Aminz 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have already established the reliablity of the source. There is no need of me ;) --Aminz 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please write a bit about "Zahid Aziz" on the Aisha talk page? Does he have any degree from any Islamic school? You just need to establish that he is "notable" enough. That is, to show that he is knowledgable enough about Islam. "The Legacy of Prophet Muhammad And the Issues of Pedophilia and Polygamy " is written by Muqtedar Khan who is a notable scholar. So, you can use it. You may want to start the article Zahid Aziz. --Aminz 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking the Sandbox

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No longer active

Dear Truthspreader,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I read the verses in the Hejab article. I wouldn't be surprised to see it being totally taken wrong by most Muslims. In fact, when it comes to this issues, the culture is more important than religion (Both religion and culture affect each other. Culture shapes our perception and we read the holy text with that perception. Then what we read will affect the culture and ...) Sometimes this loop doesn't work well and that is when the is culture is strong. This quote from Bernard Lewis in Muhammad article is relevant here:"Bernard Lewis believes the advent of Islam in a sense was a revolution which only partially succeeded after long struggles due to tensions between the new religion and very old societies in the countries that the Muslims conquered. He thinks that one such area of tension was a consequence of what he sees as the egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine. Lewis believes that "the equality of Islam is limited to free adult male Muslims," but according to him "even this represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents.""

Anyways, Truthspreader, my current status here is non-active. Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Please keep working on Islam related articles. They are far from being *ideal*. I was also surprised by Itaqallah's job in creating the page diplomacy of Muhammad here [3]. Like you, he has very good access to Islamic sources (I noticed al-Mubarakpuri in the references). Unfortunately, the western secular sources such as Encyclopedia of Islam are not available on the internet for free. Hey, Truthspreader, I have several good articles from Encyclopedia of Islam (all articles from Encyclopedia of Islam satisfy WP:RS). Do you want me to send them for you? Maybe they turn out to be useful one day. I sent a couple for Itaqallah. They are secular but I usually enjoy reading them and plus, secular point of view is a POV anyways. Please send a Wiki-email for me and I'll send some of the articles for you. (Tomorrow actually since it is 2:12 here now and I am still in my office in campus; what a nerd student I am! :P )--Aminz 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you should have got many emails from me. can you read the files? --Aminz 09:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. hope they would be useful sometime. --Aminz 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

mizan

link it to the article on aqeedah. --JuanMuslim ^1m 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add our discussion on this source to here:[4]. -_Aminz 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I found the article very informative and well constructed. Two things you may like to add. 1) the date or dates when the work was published and 2) any references or information to show how influential or well-regarded it is. Best wishes Itsmejudith 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are interested

Since you are interested in Shariah, you might want to compare jewish law with Islamic law. I guess you know the differences but I am sure you will be surprised to notice the differences if you already don't know it. A Jewish friend of mine in wikipedia told me that "EVERY SINGLE commandment in Jewish law regulates ACTION, not thought or belief (the only exception might be the prohibition of coveting one's neighbor). We believe that God cares what we do - not really what we believe or think (except how what we believe or think determines our actions)." (Truthspreader, BTW, if you found a Jewish editor who is friendly with you, appreciate conversation with him/her as how few they are). Well, Islamic law is essentially different as it regulates actions&thoughts&belief. You can find the whole discussion here [5]. --Aminz 09:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was what Timothy told me. I think my friend should have made this clear. At the time of discussion, I was too ignorant (and still I am actually to a good extent) but the discussion was useful. --Aminz 09:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tahrif

I think this article is not well written. But I was interested to know your view on Tahrif. Here are the relevant qur'anic verses:

Here are verses of Qur'an on Tahrif that I know:

• 3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

• 4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
  

• 5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them — barring a few — ever

bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.

• 2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you? — Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

• 2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed.

Can you please show me a verse that explicitly says that Injil and Torah are distorted?

Gary Miller (who is somebody :) ) states that Qur'an doesn't say the people of the book changed their books. Qur'an only makes three accusations:

(I) The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.

(II) Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.

(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.

--

Also, please have a look at 5:45-49 (particularly 47):

005.045 YUSUFALI: We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

005.046 YUSUFALI: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

005.047 YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

005.048 YUSUFALI: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

005.049 YUSUFALI: And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

---

Interesting verse from Bible : "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. "(From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8). See also Deuteronomy 31:25-29.

---

Question and Answer from Prof. Montgomery Watt on this issue:

Q. What do you think of the Qur’anic statement that the Old Testament has been changed, thus accounting for some of the differences between the Abrahamic faiths?

A. Well, I think that the later writers sometimes changed earlier things to make them more suitable for their contemporaries. I think there was a lot of rewriting of the Old Testament, though the form in which we have it hasn’t been changed since the Christian era. I see the Old Testament as the record of a developing religion. As a religion develops some of the earlier stages may have to be abandoned completely. An example might be Islamic teachings on usury. I don’t see how it is possible completely to get rid of usury. We’ll have to see how Islamic attempts to get rid of usury work. Undoubtedly capitalism has got to be restricted in various ways. The world is certainly in a mess at the moment, but how we can get out of it, I don’t know. All I can say is that there are things that Christianity can learn from Islam, especially on its spiritual side, and Islam can perhaps learn from Christian understanding of God in relation to the universe and human life. I think Muslims would find that this might give a slightly greater emphasis to something in their own faith.

I think another thing is that we have all got to come to terms with the scientific outlook of today. That is very critical of the Old Testament. Old Testament says a lot about God’s anger which I think is based on some of the false ideas that the Old Testament people had. They thought, you see, that God could interfere with the laws of nature. They thought that God made the sun stand still for a whole day so that Joshua could get a great victory. Well, that’s impossible. They thought that God could intervene with his own natural laws and punish people. Well, I think there is a sense in which wrongdoing is punished, but even in the Bible it is recognised that the wicked sometimes flourish. There are different strands of thinking in the Bible.

---

What do you think? --Aminz 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

done

Muhammad as a diplomat :-) request peer review? ITAQALLAH 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic behaviour in Islam

Sorry I don't really have much information, knowledge or time to do this article, however it can be improved by changing the way it deals with quotes. Too many quotes atm.--Tigeroo 09:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Women in Islam

That did sound like a good sugestion, ill take a look at it today. Thank you for the trust :) --Striver 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the grammatical/syntactical edits of this article, to the best of my knowledge al7amdulillaah, as of Sept. 6th. Hopefully we can have more collaborative efforts like this, towards applying some of the improvements suggested by myself and others, like Striver, Saadsaleem and Itaqallah (among others). --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rights and obligations of spouses in Islam

Hi Truthspreader,

Sorry for my long delay. Great JoB, Man!!!

BTW, re: "interestingly, even with some basic differences, Shias and Sunnis have the same Qur'an". Truthspreader, Shia's have exactly the same Qur'an as Sunnis. It is an unfortunate forged lie against Shias that they use a different Qur'an (have a look at Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn). Unfortunately, I have heard that when Shias want to enter Saudi Arabia for Hajj, their Qur'ans are checked or taken from them on the basis of this lie. The only difference is that Shia's count "Bismillah" as an Ayah but Sunnis don't consider Bismillah as part of the Suras (or reversly, I'm not sure). Cheers, --Aminz 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: while it is true that Shias & Sunnis have the same Qur'an (I'm not arguing this issue at all), I wanted to point out that "Bismillah" is actually counted as an Ayah, at least by Sunnis. There are 114 instances of "Bismillah" in the Qur'an (the same as the number of Surahs); one Surah (At-Towbah) doesn't have it at its beginning like the other 113, while another Surah (An-Naml) has it twice (at its beginning and in the middle). Clearly, the number of times "Bismillah" was revealed is of significance. Salaam. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 08:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This might be interesting to you ([6])

Truthspreader, I will have those articles on my watchlist till you come back. Take care, --Aminz 04:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Best of Luck to you. --Aminz 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are definitely right on your point about salvation. Cheers, --Aminz 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence - rebellious wives

TS, rebellious wives seems even more POV to me than domestic violence. Violence means hitting; domestic means in the house. Women can commit domestic violence against men. It's not as common, but it happens. As for rebellious wives -- that assumes that it's women's duty to obey their husbands and if they don't, they can be punished until they do. To heck with that! There are a great many of us women who refuse to obey. Tell me to obey and I'll walk out. Anyone who tries to punish me for rebellion is going to be reported to the police.

You're so far inside your worldview that it doesn't seem like a worldview to you.

Would you like to change the wording to "men punishing or beating their wives"? Those are the simple and plain words for what you advocate. "Domestic violence" is a much nicer way of saying it. Zora 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

just a note, domestic violence connotes attempted physical domination, and in conventional use it typically implies a good battering, the like of which is not legislated within shari' interpretation (i am not sure you can physically dominate anyone with a miswaak). similarly, a parent disciplining his child is quite simply not domestic violence by any stretch until it crosses a certain threshold. but, obviously, domestic violence is an occurance in muslim communities as well as non-muslim communities. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Islam and Slavery

regarding the name change, this is being discussed on the talk page.

about islam gradually eradicating slavery, this is already alluded to in the article, with a scholarly opinion already asserting this. i believe the facts should be presented as they are, within their correct context and objectively. excessive apologetics or justification will merely tilt the balance of the article, and i believe there is no need for such large doses of it because when people see the plain facts, then that is sufficient for them to derive what the most sensible view is. regarding intercourse with slaves, then nowhere is rape implied. it doesn't matter if you source it or not, but including too much information justifying the islamic stance is simply going to get the article tagged and subject to another revert war: the topic should be dealt with in an objective manner. that section in particular is to briefly review the fiqh of slavery, although i'm not entirely finished with it yet. if there are further materials which go into discussing the hukm and the 'illah in detail then one can include them in the external links section. thanks. ITAQALLAH 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

i think it neads a real cleanup before considering a merge, as i think it will only decrease the quality of the Islam and Slavery article (there's no point in merging with an article that has no information which is both useful and verifiable). almost everything on it is original research and very poorly laid out... (also i don't know what "free-minds" is doing on that page.. as it as an extremely non-notable minority opinion) ITAQALLAH 11:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have any objection. I think the article already touches this to some extent. Itaqallah is more competent to opinion on this. I just think that the first sentences in the section are not referenced: I mean: "At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, the institution of slavery was essential to the economic and social needs of the society. In markets, slave-men and slave-women were bought and sold, and affluent houses had slave-men and slave-women of all ages. Sex with female-slaves was considered a norm. Qur'an adopted a gradual way to eradicate slavery from society. As stated in Qur'an:And if any of your slaves ask for Mukatabat, accept it give it to them if you know any good in them and [for this] give them out of the wealth which Allah has given to you.24:33". Cheers, --Aminz 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it would be better then to have them referenced at the end of each paragraph. --Aminz 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, the Qur'an only aims to make free those slaves who actually want to become free. If someone wants to remain slave (i.e. one who is working with the money of the master and under his protection), Islam doesn't oppose it. So, Islam doesn't wish to abolish slavery. That's my POV. --Aminz 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think saying Islam wanted to abolish slavery isn't quite corret. It only wanted to make free those who wish to be free to be, rather than abolishing the slavery as a whole. --Aminz 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. God doesn't like it and I can see the flare. --Aminz 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

Here is the template for Bukhari: 1:1:1 There are also templates for Abu-Dawud etc, etc. which I don't recall. Cheers, --Aminz 23:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't know. Sorry --Aminz 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jihad

Hi,

I see you add too many details to Jihad.[7] I propose moving details to Defensive Jihad and Offensive Jihad. I put a comment in talk:Jihad too.--Sa.vakilian 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, you are very hardworking. It took me quite a lot to write a small section here to Muhammad article about his miracles [8]. Good job. Cheers, --Aminz 09:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks very good man. Great job! A big thank you!!! --Aminz 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, I personally agree with proponents. Well, actually, in Shia'sm, it is believed that issuing the fatwa for millitary jihad like ruling over the Umma, should be only done by the Khalifata Allah' Fil Arz, whom are specified by God himself for this task. Thus, practically, no shia authority can issue jihad fatwa (the jihad that is wajib). --Aminz 09:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They do have clergy of course, but they believe they can not do this on the behalf of their hidden Imam (Mahdi). The theory of welayat faghih, proposed by Khumeyni, justified for them the rule of clergy over the umma somehow on the behalf of the hidden Imam. Well, they believe that they are actually doing what they shouldn't do, but they say that they are preparing the way for the coming of Mahdi and that Imam Mahdi is guiding them. --Aminz 10:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that there exists the minority view that Jesus is not coming back. The Qur'an is kind of silent on this issue and on the Mahdi. But maybe only at the surface level. I dunno. I am going to sleep BTW. I'll get back tomorrow sometime. Cheers, --Aminz 10:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have even more unorthodox personal beliefs. I think Jesus was indeed crucified and that the Qur'an didn't actually deny the crucifixtion but rather deny the claims of those boasting Jews who said that we killed Jesus. Furthermore, I do think that Jesus's blood brings salvation, well not in the sense Christians believe, but in an Islamic sense and form of it. We kind of believe in the same things I guess, but just don't use the true terminology. That's all my original research of course :) --Aminz 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! The Qur'an wouldn't make such a passing remark on such a huge event. One thing, I think Muslims usually downplay the love of God in the sense that God actually send a prophet among them who sacrificed his whole life for them. Muhammad didn't have to do that. See verse 18:6 Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message. God sent prophets to people out of his love, but people killed and teased the prophets. But yet, God sent his beloved prophet as a gift for them and they again did the same for him. Similarly for Jesus. Jesus is called in the Bible the son of God, not meaning that he was literally the son of God or divine I think, but that he was God's beloved. God selected and sent his Son to people so that those who believe in him and accept him would be protected from his wrath through their faith and trust in God's grace. Jesus's blood is a symbol of the sacrifice. The sacrifice that Jesus did and Prophet Muhammad did. They didn't have to accept the burden and responsibility of what they did. Cheers and Salaam. --Aminz 10:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, this is what I believe Islam is saying regarding the sin issue. This is part of a prayer probably belonging to Ali I think.

“

My Lord, I seek Your protection from Your anger and from earning Your displeasure. If I am not fit for gaining Your Mercy, You are certainly fit to be generous to me by virtue of Your Magnanimity. My Lord, I see as if I am standing before You protected by my trust in You. You said what befitted You and covered me with Your forgiveness. My Lord, if You forgive me, then who is more suited than You to do that? If the time of my death has come near and my deeds have not still brought me close to You, I make this confession of my sins a means of approaching You. I have been unjust to my soul for I have not looked after it. It will certainly be doomed if You do not forgive it. My Lord, You have always been kind to me during my life time. Therefore do not cut off Your favor from me at the time of my death. My Lord, how can lose the hope of Your looking kindly, in me after my death, when you have always been good to me during my life. My Lord, in my case do what befits You and bestow Your favor on me - a sinner enwrapped in his ignorance. My Lord, You have concealed many of my sins in this world. I am in a greater need of their being conceded in the next. As You have not revealed my sins even to any of Your pious bondmen, do not expose me on the Day of Resurrection before everybody. My Lord, Your generosity has expanded my aspiration, and Your forgiveness is superior to my deeds. Therefore gladden my heart by allowing me to meet You on the day You administer justice to Your bondmen. My Lord, my apology to You is the apology of him who cannot afford his apology being not accepted. Therefore accept my apology, You the Most Magnanimous of those to whom the evildoers tender their apology. My Lord, do not turn down my request; do not foil my desire; and do not cut off my hope and expectation of You. My Lord, if You had wanted to disgrace me, You would not have guided me; and if You had wanted to expose my faults and vices, You would not have kept me safe and sound. My Lord, I do not think that You will turn down my request for that in asking You for which I have spent my whole life. My Lord, all praise is due to You, always and forever, growing not diminishing, as You like and please.

”

Prophet Muhammad said:

"Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and rejoice, for no one's good deeds will put him in Paradise." The Companions asked, "Not even you O Messenger of God?" He replied, "Not even me unless God bestows His pardon and mercy on me." ref: Reported by Aboo Hurayrah & 'Aa'ishah & collected by al-Bukhaaree (eng. trans. vol.8 p.315 no.474)

Without God's grace we are all damned FOR no one's good deeds alone will put him in Paradise. That is what Christians say. We need to cling to something. We, Chiristians and Muslims, both say: God's mercy and grace. That's the essence of what Bible says and Apostle Paul says "I think".Cheers and Salaam, --Aminz 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Goodnight --Aminz 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Jihad and general source usage

sorry for not responding lately.. i have had very little wiki time as of late. i am thinking about working on the articles related to muslim battles again in order to clean them up and such. the real thing i think i need to discuss with you is regarding the use of al-ghamidi and islahi to speak for the majority view on certain issues. from my own personal research of their work, their statements and the publications of their students, i have little reason to think that such people are representative of the sunni stance in fiqh or in creed. if you can, please provide a source on which you base your reasoning that these people are traditional "Sunnis". in fact, they have a methodology extremely similar to that of the Mu'tazilites, which expresses itself today as what is coined "modernism". this is also reflected in a lot of their theological and jurisprudential stances. in a number of related articles i feel that these minority opinions are being given way too much space. i understand that these views may be your personal conviction, but i think in some places there are grave violations of NPOV per giving undue weight, perhaps swaying the entire article, due to the heavy reliance on relating the islamic or majority view on an issue from these two or those from their ideology. i think perhaps part of this problem derives from excessive quoting which takes up unnecessary space when the idea should be to summarize the view and then proportionalize it according to how widely it is believed, or at least keep the quoting to a reasonable degree. i think you may also need to address the issue of copyvio's (copyright violations), if the works of the respective people are subject to copyright. thanks. ITAQALLAH 09:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

generally, mu'tazilah were strongly into philosophy, yes. however, they were also the only ones to adopt views such as only accepting tawatur, whereas the Sunni position has always been to accept tawatur in both lafz and meaning, and to also accept khabr ahad if they pass specific stringent conditions, as described by ash-shaafi'ee in al-'umm. you will also see ghamidi/islahi/their students referencing classical mu'tazili scholars like ibn rushd, az-zamashkari et al. classic mu'tazili positions include: denial of mahdi, denial of descent of jesus, denial of adhaab al-qabr, denial of "ru'yah" on qiyaamah, doubting narrations not reaching tawatur, and so on. no sunni text has ever denied any of these, i think some scholars even went on to say whoever denied such was on the verge of kufr. "sunni" does not necessarily mean to accept sunni hadeeth sources: most orientalists accept the corpus of sunni literature, even some shi'ites are willing to accept sunni literature when it benefits them. a "sunni" in fiqh would be one who is strictly within the realms of the four madhabs. there is no question that certain rules need to be addressed in terms of "fiqh al-waaqi" (jurisprudence of our times), but these differences are extremely minor and already being done by the fuqaaha within the madhaahib, and certainly not to the level of re-interpreting by ghamidi et al. do you have a source confirming that ghamidi/islahi is a conventional sunni? i may not be able to keep up with the rate of your editing, that is why i thought it would be better to bring it up to you, and some of the issues such as extensive quoting are better fixed by you instead of me IMHO. thank you. ITAQALLAH 10:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't say that they are mu'tazilites per se but they share many common traits, particularly their stand on tawatur (re: islahi cf [allaahuakbar.net/jamaat-e-islaami/islahi_school_of_thought.htm]), and the implications of that stance. i did have a quick look in ghamidi's work, the discussion he instigates is very light and general, so there's not much you can analyse about it. even so, ghamidi's position on khabr waahid generally speaking does not conform to conventional sunni methodology. i have heard about some very strange fiqhi ideas coming from ghamidi also. i have seen from my own research that al-mawrid/renaissance pubs do not conform to conventional sunni methodology in a number of areas.

salafis in fact, as opposed to common belief, do indeed state that a layman should do taqleed of a madhab/mujtahid. when they say "the layman has no madhab", they mean that the layman is in reality doing taqleed of the mujtahid he follows, not necessarily the accepted position within the madhab, and this has always been the majority opinion[9] and traditional sunni websites accept such[10]. scholars like ibn uthaymeen and ibn as-sa'di were hanbali jurists. the only conflict that arose was regarding if someone could change who he was doing taqleed of if he saw someone to be more pious and learned, regardless of what madhab he was from. very few of them in reality tell people to follow primary sources, because it's not very practical. furthermore, they are also sunni in creed, following the athari school. ITAQALLAH 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

template

I started to work on the template you requested, and ended up writing a main article for it: Controveries related to Islam and Muslims. Any input? --Striver 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

To be honest with you, the impression that I got from reading Lewis was that many Islamic scholars at that time were thinking abolishing slavery means forbiding what God has permitted. I honestly thought maybe it is the modern scholars who think Qur'an wanted to *abolish* slavery. But that was just my impression. Feel free to remove "the modern" addition of mine. Cheers, --Aminz 08:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

re: hadith

to be honest, i don't think it's possible. ITAQALLAH 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi Truthspreader,

Could you please watch the Muhammad article. There is a hot debate there going on. Thanks so much.

BTW, I would like to add a new section to "Muhammad the reformer" section in the article. It is going to be about "Rejection of Racism" or something similar. I am now in the process of gathering sources. If you could help me there, that would be great (if you are free of course). Thanks and Cheers, --Aminz 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know the arabic word for racism? I want to check Encyclopedia of Islam. Thanks --Aminz 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It requires membership. Is it just a dictionary? I think I can google it and find something. Thanks anyway. --Aminz 07:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways, --Aminz 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Ajami is the concept with Arabs, Arabi wa Ajami, usually that meant persians. Look at ridda wars, there is a small aspect of its existence is Arabia, ofcourse there is Salman al Farsi, Omar's death etc that can tie up with the concept but not with the specific article you have in mind though. Not sure if there is a distinct term for racism though.--Tigeroo 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hi Truthspreader,

If you would like (and have time) to do an scholarly job on this article, I can help you with academic sources that explain the situation and provide the context; the jewish laws, etc. etc. . --Aminz 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About the bare fact, the main academic POV is that although Banu Qurayza had remained neutral but they had also negotiated with the enemy. Another academic POV is the denial of the story. The idea is that Ibn Ishaq supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendents of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These Jews allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times. Watt however thinks that this argument is not entirely convincing.

But regarding the interpretations of the event and whether it is a moral failure for Muhammad, much has been said:

Watt writes: "When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam."

John L Esposito in his book "Islam: The Straight Path" also compares this with other traditions. (in books.google.com try "John L Esposito Islam: The Straight Path banu qurayza"). Others may also have written on this. Cheers,--Aminz 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of punishment was neither alien to Arab customs nor to that of Hebrew prophets. But from the perspective of the modern man who is viewing the world from the radical perspective of french revolution and is living in a much more peaceful world, these doesn't seem nice. --Aminz 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. --Aminz 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I realized that some other scholar believe that Muslims 'discovered, or perhaps became suspected' that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy. --Aminz 05:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

who goes to heaven?

Someone ask on my talk page following question. I have answered few of them. Can you please try to answer each of the following one by one? thanks --- ابراهيم 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that in sura 2 line 62 in the koran that jews, christians, and sabians go to heaven just like muslims. I want you to ask a few things.

1.) If someone is good their whole life do they go to heaven

2.) if no to the first, what about those who have never heard of islam, christianity, judaism, or sabians, and they are good?

3.) If protestants and reform jews came after that line in the koran was written wouldn't that mean the are not elligable for heaven?

4.) magians (who were zoroastrians) were mentioned in the koran beside christians, jews, and sabians, but after polytheists. Zoroastrians are also monotheistic. Do zoroastrians get into heaven?

Itmaam-i-hujjat

Hi Truthspreader,

I read the article. Good job!! My only comment is that it seems that you have used only one source and that it is a Muslim source. It is good to include the view of western Islamic scholars as well. I'll try to find some. Cheers --Aminz 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But Dhimmi in general is a *good* and *prideful* aspect of the Muslim record till premodern times. Don't let yourself to be influenced by polemics. Lewis states "The status of dhimmi "was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews" but ceased to be so after the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis." --Aminz 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Being an unbeliever in Muslim land would have meant, say, the ban on using car and forcing you to use bicycle, but in Christian land it would have meant forcing violence or exile on you.

Persecution of pagans, well, I won't have any simpathy for Meccan pagans. For others, probably. --Aminz 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there was discrimination, even there is discrimination today. I like one thing about Islam: its laws were practical at that time. Do you really think Muhammad could have established modern human rights at that time?

Good boy, if you believe that the Bible has indeed prophecied Muhammad (here), then you might want to read what this person is supposed to do:

13-The LORD will march out like a mighty man,

like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;

with a shout he will raise the battle cry

and will triumph over his enemies.

14-"For a long time I have kept silent,

I have been quiet and held myself back.

But now, like a woman in childbirth,

I cry out, I gasp and pant.

15-I will lay waste the mountains and hills

and dry up all their vegetation;

I will turn rivers into islands

and dry up the pools.

16-I will lead the blind by ways they have not known,

along unfamiliar paths I will guide them;

I will turn the darkness into light before them

and make the rough places smooth.

These are the things I will do;

I will not forsake them.

17-But those who trust in idols,

who say to images, 'You are our gods,'

will be turned back in utter shame.

--Aminz 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reform in Islam

Truthspreader, to say that Islam gives equality to believers and non-believers is an absurdity. Think about it, how can God of Islam treats those who accept Islam and those who reject it the same? So, forgive me if this is blasphemy, but I would say, the known mainstream interpretation of Islam was *excellent* for 1400 years ago, but now, this interpretation is outdated. We do need a revival and that I think is moving from polytheism towards monotheism. If the famous medieval jurist al-Ghazzali rejected the idea of a white man being not equal to a black one as falling into polytheism; today as Azizah Y. al-Hibri suggests, the revival movement should reject inequality between men and women as falling into polytheism. As Lewis says, the monotheism of Islam was only partially successful and was to some extent counteracted by other influences, notably the practice of various conquered people and countries Muslims encountered. One such area was politics and women. Lewis or Esposito, one of them, mentions that had real monotheism of Islam been implemented in politics, Islamic countries would have never been ruled by dictators. Islamic doctrine is not only monotheistic in surface but is naturally egalitarian.

Also, please read the Haddad and Esposito's quote here Muhammad#Women.27s_rights

-- Regarding the taxation, yes, Muslims were paying less tax, and taxation was a concern for Dhimmis and a motivation for them to convert to Islam, but please note that:

1. Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, Cahen states, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes" and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of Dhimmi's subjection

2. Lewis states that it seems that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters. Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egpyt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines cf. Lewis (2002) p.57

-- Some appologic comments regarding Islam and the world history of toleration (in case you haven't seen them):

• First general comment: Mark Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. cf. Cohen (1995) Princeton University Press p. xix

So, it is not something particular to Islam.

• Second comment: Michael Sells states that "The plaintiffs boast that Jesus never commanded his followers to kill the unbelievers but told them to leave punishment for the afterlife. But scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India."
• Third comment: Change in our standards: Lewis and Cohen point out that until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers, at least as it is understood in west after John Locke, was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslims and Christians.
• Fourth comment: There is a consensus among scholars that "in most respects" the position of non-Muslims under Muslim lands "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe" cf. Lewis (1984) p. 62, Cohen (1995) p. xvii

Truthspreader, I would like to chat a bit about the universal moral values. It doesn’t contradict the change in our moral standards in the sense I mean. Truthspreader, don't you think it is better to continue this discussion over email? (Tomorrow probably, it is 1:33 a.m. now and I need to wake up in the dawn for eating otherwise I won't be able to survive till the end of the day :P ) --Aminz 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

--Aminz 07:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Truthspreader/001, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! —Xyrael / 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Islahi

Can you tell me about Islahi's tafseer, how big it is & how much does it cost . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm , I was planning to buy it in Urdu (my native language). BTW where are you from . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thats the point that amazed me when I saw a few on line selections . I have read 4-5 tafsirs , but the thing thats different about Tadabbur-e-Quran is that it tells you a lot other then Sharia/jurisprudence , & at the same time it makes you think . A quality that is non-existant in other tafsirs . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

re: raids

that hadeeth is about after al-hudaybiyyah (not pre-badr) when a treaty was signed between the Meccans/Muslims. abu baseer stayed away from medinah as far as i know and would waylay Meccan caravans. to actively encourage it in this time would constitute a violation of the treaty. also see [11] and [12] ITAQALLAH 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

English

Please be careful when editing articles, I have noticed a few of your contributions have had flawed English. For example in the following,

In pre-Islamic society, parents use to bury their daughters due to fear of drought or hunger. Qur'an criticized attitude of such parents who reject their female children. As in Qur'an:

there are a number of errors. Not knowing, of course, your exact meaning, I would suggest the following:

In pre-Islamic society, parents buried their daughters due to fear of drought or hunger. The Qur'an criticized the attitude of parents who reject their female children. As in the Qur'an:

Perhaps it is advisable that you consult with another editor, or have another editor review your edits after you have made them in order to confirm proper English. I don't mean to be insulting, but these mistakes are such that it renders the articles difficult to parse correctly. One thing to keep in mind is that, in English, it is referred to as "the Qur'an" not just "Qur'an". - BalthCat 06:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Very well researched and scholarly! --Aminz 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, can you please let me know a value which west hasn't found yet but Islam has championed. Thanks --Aminz 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the west also used to be very conservative. See, Islam had *net* improvements over the best of what went before it at 1400 years ago. I would like to know if there is any aspect of Islam which wasn't put into practice but can add some real improvements over the best of what is known now in the world? --Aminz 07:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i.e., for example we know today that women should be viewed very equal to men, but is there anything unknown to us that Islam has teached 1400 years ago but has been neglected so far. --Aminz 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should continue this over email again sometime soon (i am kind of busy these days). --Aminz 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason not to believe so. I can not however get access to the journal paper from home but probably can do it from university. --Aminz 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

6 or 8 days?

The fact that it says in the Koran A) God created the world in 6 days and B) God created the world in 8 days

proves that it is not perfect. Also the idea that the Koran must be from God because, when you read the original Arabic, it is well written ... is laughable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 September 2006

According to ^{[Qur'an 7:54]}, "Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days". and according to ^{[Qur'an 41:9]}, "Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days". If Universe's life span is 13.2 billion and earths life is 4.6 billion, which is rougly one third of the universe's age, this is exactly what the Qur'an is saying. And according to theory of relativity, maybe Qur'an is talking about someother timeframe which is very close to the speed of light, in which two billion years is rougly equal to one day. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 09:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Very scientific. Why says cheers when you can't drink? Haha. Anyway yes it does say that, but read:

Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly say that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But then there is also the following passage:

2-Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

4-He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

2-So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. -- Sura 41:9-12 (Yusuf Ali)

8-altogether these are EIGHT Days.

One of the many instances of Mohammad contradicting himself. If you want more google it and you'll find 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs)

anon, wikispace is WP:NOT a soapbox for faulty (or even otherwise) polemic. suffice to say, your literalist reading of a flawed english translation has been dealt by even the "literalists" themselves[13]. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an in these verses was actually saying that the basic structure of the earth was created in two (2) days. Later on, mountains, seas and other paraphernalia required for the sustenance of living organisms on this basic structure of the earth were designed and created. And all this work (including the creation of the earth and the designing and provision of the paraphernalia) was completed in a total of four (4) days. After this, the skies were modeled and seven heavens were created in two (2) days. Thus the total time involved in the creation of the earth and the heavens totalled to six (6) days -- not eight (8) days. I do acknowledge that if the Qur'an had not mentioned at other places that the creation of the heavens and the earth involved six (6) days, the total process could have been taken to add upto eight (8) days. But keeping in mind that the Qur'an has mentioned elsewhere that the total process involved six (6) days, there is nothing wrong, linguistically, to say that the total period involved in designing and creating the earth (because the mountains etc. are a part of that earth) took four (4) days. While that of the skies involved two (2) days. Thus the total number of days in the designing and creation of the earth and the skies involved six (6) days.

Suppose, one were to say:"The structure of the whole house was raised in one month and the house was made fit for living in six months."

It is clear that 'raising the structure' of the house precedes its being 'made fit for living' and that these can be termed as two 'different' and, in a way, 'consecutive' events, yet it does not necessarily mean that the total time taken in making the house fit for living was seven months. I do acknowledge that this statement can indeed be construed to mean that the total time taken in making the house fit for living was seven months. Nevertheless, if the writer of this statement has also stated at another place that the completion of the house took six months, then it would only be appropriate to interpret the cited statement to imply that the stated time taken in making the house fit for living includes the one month taken to raise its structure.

If someone says:"According to the above verses the Earth is created first, the mountains and sustenance are given next and it is only at last that the firmaments are created."

This statement is only based on an incorrect interpretation of the Arabic word 'Thumma', used in this verse. Moreover, the implication of the word "yawm" in the Arabic language was nor restricted to the concept of the "sunrise to sunset" day.TruthSpreader^Talk 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you say that the word 'thumma' means both "then" and "simultaneously" then I have no response to that. However, there are many other contradictions in the Qur'an. Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them. This is a contradiction.

The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens one above the other [67:3, 71:15], and that the stars are in the lower heaven [67:5, 37:6, 41:12], but the moon is depicted as being in/inside the seven heavens [71:16], even though in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon. Thus Mohammad was wrong.

Also you have to keep in mind that Mohammad was a very bad man. He killed innocent people who had done him no harm multiple times; I don't have to give you a list. That is the biggest argument against Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 October 2006

Well! Everyone has a right to have his/her own opinion. The contradiction you talked in Qur'an, is actually because of taking things out of context. This is a bad scholarship to take things out of context and take them generally when original text talks about specific case.

"Heavens" in Quran means stars. The seven heavens, which Qur'an talks about are, to my understanding, parallel universes (as Qur'an says one over the other) But only our Universe has stars in it and these stars are supporting other Universes. According to String theory, only gravitational particles leave one dimension and goes to the other. Remember, if Quran says that there are seven heavens, then it should be taken literally, not some pseudo-explanation. Verse ^{[Qur'an 71:16]} is saying that moon shines and sun burns, which is 100% scietifically correct.

To have a better understanding of warfares by prophet Muhammad, kindly read Itmaam-i-hujjat. TruthSpreader^Talk 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Messenger

Hi Muhammad,

Can you please log in to your messenger. Thanks, Amin. --Aminz 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

I have mentioned my concerns on the Jesus talk page: [14]

Unfortunately, I haven't studied Jesus and Christianity. I even don't know the famous scholars of Christianity.

I know a little bit. I know the Watt's comment on trinity for example:

Q. what can Islam teach Christianity? Speaking personally, it has taught me to think more deeply about the oneness of God. I am not happy with the traditional Trinitarian Christian formulation of God comprising three “persons” - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The word “person” has changed since it was first used in English four centuries ago. It was a translation of the Latin persona - a face or mask, such as that used by actors. Now the English word means an individual, which is different. Christianity is not trying to say that God comprises three individuals. Islam, with its many different names for the qualities of God, can help the Christian see a more true meaning of Trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity is different faces or roles of the same one God. For me, that insight has been a direct result of my study of Islam.

And reversely, Q. what can Christianity teach Islam? I think Muslims will have to take the work of Christ more seriously, even if they simply regard him as a prophet. The view I take, in accordance with the creeds, is that he was truly human. He wasn’t a superman. That leaves you with the question of how he was also divine, but I think we have to look much more at his humanity. I also don’t think he was able to work miracles except for those that other saints could also do - such as curing the sick. I don’t think some of the other miracles really happened. For instance, one of the outstanding things was the supposed changing of water into wine at a marriage feast. This is given in the 4th gospel and is said to be the first of the signs of Jesus’ achievement. Clearly, this was meant to be understood symbolically, because making a lot of wine has nothing to do with the Gospel. It was meant to symbolise changing something ordinary into something precious, which is what Jesus had achieved. It was not meant to be taken literally - there was a tremendous amount of wine involved - the equivalent of about 900 bottles - and I don’t think Jesus was an alcoholic.

In the Qur’an there is very little knowledge of Judaism and almost none of Christianity except about such points as the virgin birth. There are references to Moses and Abraham and so forth, but nothing about, for example, the settlement of Israel in Palestine and the achievements of the later prophets with their important emphasis on justice. I cannot believe that God would not bless the development of greater awareness amongst Muslims of these things.

I need to do research. Too early for me to start editing Jesus article. --Aminz 12:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit the Jesus article. Anything Mohammad said about Jesus was over 600 years after he died, so isn't historically relevant. Besides Mohammad said that humans were once 60 feet tall but I don't see you putting that into the article about humans.

Also I don't know too much about the Gospels but you are referring to the wedding at Cana. The wine was not all for Jesus' consumption: that should have been obvious to you. But besides that point, Jesus is depicted in the Gospels as drinking wine and saying that it was acceptable to do so. In fact Mohammad implicitly allowed drinking in the Qoran before he eventually banned it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 October 2006

Quran used a progressive way to abolish drinking, so that it would be easier for people to accept it. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101].

By the way, Jesus and Buddha differ greatly from Mohammad in how they lived their lives. They remained celibate (in Buddha's case he was married, but left his wife to be an ascetic), let alone not having sex with children. Also they didn't behead anyone. They did not get any material benefit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 October 2006

God's decision was perfect when it was only prohibited before prayer and was perfect when it was completely abolished. Your argument has itself a fallacy in it. For the second thing, kindly read Aisha's_age_at_marriage#Evidence_that_Aisha_was_older_than_nine, this is what I believe, and why the prophet married so many times, you should read John Esposito's "Islam:The straight path", page.16. And please, wikispace is WP:NOT a soapbox for faulty (or even otherwise) polemic. Thank you! TruthSpreader^Talk 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bee's abdomen. Honey does not come from the bee's abdomen.

Sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. However, it is the rotation of the earth which causes shadows to move, while the sun remains quite still. If you want more contradictions I can easily provide them.

I'm getting tired of this. The fact is that people of every religion convince themselves of things which don't make sense, or only make sense after difficult rationalization. This is no problem except in the case of Muslims who kill people following the example of their prophet, who killed children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs)

The article:Itmaam-i-hujjat just talks about people who are direct addresses of the prophet, and you definitely are not the direct addressee of the Qur'an as you were not born in prophet Muhammad's time. In verse, ^{[Qur'an 16:69]} is mentioning about the process of production of honey. Verse ^{[Qur'an 25:45]} is talking about relative motion, which is enough to tell people about the glory of God. For the last comment, I can just suggest, you better improve your general knowledge. Cheers and peace! TruthSpreader^Talk 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments

Part 1: My comments on the first part of your comments:

Muhammad, you wrote:

• Once I read in Qur'an, in which Qur'an alleged Christians for two things. One was that they followed their desires and second was that they forgot prayer.

Would you please show me the relevant verses. I haven't seen these allegations.

• This prayer is essentially the same prayer which we pray. As there are hadith with say that people had already been praying five times a day before even prophet Muhammad were prophesized. Jews even today pray three times a day.

Muhammad, I don't think the prayer was literally the same. But yes, they were doing prayers. I have a thought which may be wrong (please correct me if you think is wrong) : I don't think the word "Salat" in the Quran always refers to the regular 5-times per day prayer that Muslims do. It is rather like the word "Muslim", which can mean the person who submit himself to God, but also symbolizes itself in the adherent of the religion of Islam. Thus I think the 5-time per day prayer is symbolizing the general meaning of 'Salat'. There are verses of Qur'an that talk about people who are always in prayer (allzina fi salatehem dayemoon). The prayer is supposed to be something hard to except for those who fear god (illal khashe'oon); the five times per day is not really something hard to do. Previous people were doing Salat.

• The point which Quran wanted to raise that these people forgot the meaning of prayer. They followed their desires and made a complete doctrine out of it. Even in Surah Fatiha (the first chapter of Quran) the Quran call them as the people who went astray. Quran never uses the word astray for Jews, rather Quran says that they are the ones who earned God's anger (in first chapter).

Muhammad, I think you are referring to an interpretation of Surah Fatiha. The Qur'an is not saying they are Christian. The Christians went astray by inventing the doctrine of Trinity. YES, I have studied the Bible which caused me to change my views quite a lot. Except the doctrine of Trinity, I have no problem with other Christian doctrines. Saint Paul's invitation of people to be reborn of the Holy Spirit is not far from Prophet Muhammad's saying that "Die before you die". I am however remained convinced that neither Jesus claimed to be God, nor Saint Paul or any of his disciples believed so. The Jews misunderstood him as claiming divinity, yes, but Jesus himself refuted this. The disciples were living as devote Jews after Jesus. Such complicated doctrine, such alien doctrine, if it was really taught by Jesus, should have caught the attention of the disciple and they should have definitely asked Jesus to explain it for them. But yet, even the word ‘trinity’ doesn’t appear in the Bible.

Now, I don’t think the Qur’an was primary supposed to correct the scriptural errors of the Bible. There main pillar of Islam is its monotheism. The emphasis on the reality of God and his unity has been neglected or forgotten in important sections of the other monotheistic religions. And this is confessed by academic scholars of Islam. Islam revived the religion of Abraham. I do think that the Qur’an contains *all* of the core beliefs that the Bible teaches. However, since the Bible was revealed through time to many prophets and appropriate to the different situations that Israel went through, there are many things Muslims can learn. The history repeats itself. The Qur’an does partly cover what happened in the Bible. But in no ways it re-states everything. Furthermore, I think the Qur’an encourages Muslims to look into the Bible. It sometimes gives incomplete accounts of stories, describes the Bible as a light and asks the people of the book to judge according to what God has revealed to them. “The Quran versus the Bible”, in my view, should be “Quran and the Bible.” The Qur’anic references to the doctrine of tahrif only criticizes the *people* who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it. Relevant verses on which the doctrine of tahrif is based are (Yusuf Ali translation):

3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them — barring a few — ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.

2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you? — Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed.

Having said that, I do think that the Qur’an say that there are literal corruption in the Bible; in fact the Qur’an does say that only implicitly by giving a new account of a story and then stressing that this is the true account and God is well aware of what is revealing. My humble view on this matter is that the Qur’an *respects* the Bible so much that doesn’t directly say that the Bible is scripturally corrupted. --Aminz 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, I'll get back to you again soon. But just wanted to add something about the positive influences. I remember Watt was writing about the importance of the contribution of civilized peoples of Egypt, Syria, 'Iraq and Persia, who later converted to Islam, to the Islamic culture and how this contribution has been sadly belittled by some Muslims who were attributing everything to the revelation. --Aminz 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Hi TruthSpreader,

Could you please change the Islam and Slavery article per reviewr's suggestions items 1(d)2-3 (i.e. "# Does zihar mean unintentional murder, or other offence? # What does bracket in "(for [freeing] necks)" mean?") Thanks --Aminz 06:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sources look good. Cheers, --Aminz 07:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Itmam Hujjat

Truthspreader, I think the article presents the POV well. Thanks for you recent works on the article. As I said before :), the monotheist religions are not tolerant of others. ;)

The works of Armstrong are good, but I personally won't use those of her books that are not published by university presses. The source currently used is published by Heinemann (book publisher) which is not a university press. This means that it may not pass the blind review practiced by university presses. Thanks again and Cheers, --Aminz 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Truthspreader, I am currently working on the Muhammad article, "the reformer section". After getting done with that I would join you on this article. Cheers, --Aminz 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hijab

Truthspreader, you're editing the hijab article in ways that I find disturbing. You've mangled the English meaning by removing "about them" from "draw" -- without the addition of those words, the sentence is incorrect. You also seem to be claiming that all Muslims believe that khimar and jilbab are just what was worn in 7th century Arabia -- completely wrong. Moreover, there's NO PROOF AT ALL that the current garments are of ancient Arabian cut. They're a modern invention, passed off as ancient. One of your edits was good, but I'm going to remove the rest. Zora 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what you think -- I kept the cite re hijab verse in Qur'an, but rewrote extensively. I don't think we should state what the verse means, since Muslims themselves differ. Zora 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the veilings (the one that covers the whole face) are definitely not part of Islam. Among wives of the prophet, only Aisha wore it. Many didn't do that in Medina. --Aminz 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well! the Qur'an asks all the wives in general, so this thing can't be said for sure. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read it somewhere in academic source that only Aisha wore the face covering. So, that is true :) But anyways, going to sleep now. Cheers, --Aminz 05:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi T.S

You mentioned in ur user page that you belief that core of Islam is still intact. Why then there are so many Islamic belief and sects ? Why there are so many versions out there ? if the core of Islam is guidence for all Muslims phippi46 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer. I think I was not able to convey my question clearly to you, what I meant is that it is clear and true that the basic core of Islam is intact, but it is also shows that it is not easy to understand it. For a non muslim it is confusing to understand it, where the ordinary muslims are not able yet to defined it. if you see the non muslims, when ever they try to explain something, they were attacked by so called muslim scholars for everything like bias or things like that. Now the things which were spreading for a long time like, a Muslim who convert to a other religion is directly called a man who committ treason. I was watching once a video of a Pakistani Scholor Mr. Israr Ahmed, I think he is head of Jamaat-e-Islimi, saying publically on television that in a Muslim state a non muslim is not allowed to spread his or her religion, he has to live like a second class citizen, he admitted that these are so called bitter pills, but we have to take it. At the same time he and his followers visit other non muslims country spreading their religion. You have to understand the picture what is presenting these days is not good and almost all of the people who are doing this are in my own openion doing something totally differnt what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did before in his life time. How can some one say that in Islam are people are equal and on the other hand what they do is speaking against them. It is not logical at all phippi46 15:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw this page recently and it is correct that Mr.Ghamadi has different openion as many others. I am happy to see that not all the Muslim Scholars are extreme in their views. However, when its come to Ijma, the majority stands against him, and there are so many things where other muslims have totally different views. Any way it is also clear to read some of his writings that he is a bit moderate in his views, and he usually dont condom clearly when its comes to serious matters regarding Jihad, second comming of Jesus etc, and it is not clear that he feels that is not getting enough supports from other muslims in mission to present the meaning and message of Islam ? phippi46 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If I ask you to give some principals to see who is telling us the right thing and who is not .. is it possible, because i have spoken here in Germany many muslim friends and belief me they all are "Right" when it come to present Islam. Even Ahmadies which are mostely considered by almost all muslim groups non muslim, claimed that they are the true Islam. (I dont know about Mr.Ghamadi openion on them), having said that, how a non muslim decide where to go if he has to join Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by phippi46 (talk • contribs)

Coherence in Quran

I think WP needs to have an article on this subject . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank You for your work in The Quran and Science article. Please give more time to that article as it needs improvements. ---- ابراهيم 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Article

Please help make the Mohammed article better suited to be placed in a public site. It is Biased at the extreme. People seem to care only about all that bull$*!t related to how evil Mohammed is or whatnot. Please Help.MOI 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ~~Note: i am referring to the discussion page.

Thanks anyways! you have done an excellent job keeping the Women In Islam Article factual. keep up the good work!MOI 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an and Science

Good work. Please have a look at this article http://www.hssrd.org/journal/summer2002/evolution.htm

This is another POV: I am quoting from the article

“

Then the Shaikh gives another account, referring to other scholars that, before Adam there were creatures, called such as Jinn, Hinn, Bann, or Tamm and Rimm. (31) Imam Abduhu . does not give much importance to this account, but he too agrees that accounts reveal important information about early inhabitants of earth. (32) Beside this there is another narration that tells about very long period of rational creature. According to this narration, the Prophet (pbuh) said: (Allah has created one hundred thousand Adams before the Adam, known to us).(33) The same is referred to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq. (34) Imam Muhammad ‘Ali al-Baqir goes further and is quoted to has said: Indeed, before Adam, our father, one million or more Adams have passed. (35) These ideas of well versed scholars disclose that before mankind there were several other generations of rational species who had their own ‘Adams’ or originators. Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, cousin of the Prophet, his companion and a famous commentator of the Quran, gives more astonishing information, while explaining the Quranic verse 65: 12, in which it is said: (It is Allah who has created seven heavens, and likewise earths. His commandments descend through them, so that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that He has knowledge of all things. ) (36) Ibn-e-Abbas, when questioned about this, said: If I tell you its details, you would disbelieve means you would reject it. (Then he said) There are seven earths, and every earth has prophet like your prophet, Adam like Adam, Nuh like Nuh, Ibrahim like Ibrahim, and Jesus like Jesus. (37) All these narratives suggest that there were other rational beings before and they were also subject to follow Allah’s commands.

”

--Aminz 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am watching the article now. Cheers, --Aminz 01:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being late in responding your email. Just noticed it. --Aminz 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I finished reading the article. It was a nice article. Unfortunately, I haven't focused on Shia-Sunni disputes yet. I consider these discussions to be at most secondary. I consider myself a Shia only because I am more than deeply attracted by the rich Shia collection of prayers such as Dua Shabaniya or Dua Kumeyl. It gives me what I need. And there is absolutely nothing there in the prayers that is specific to Shias. It is strange to me why such prayers are only read by Shias. While being a Shia, I don't take any particular position towards the historical disputes between Shias and Sunnis. I will do so probably after reading some academic books on this issue. Take care, --Aminz 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Good source

Very good source. "Mustansir Mir is Professor of Islamic Studies and Director, Center for Islamic Studies, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, 421 DeBartolo Hall, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio 44555-3448, USA; Email: mmir@ysu.edu"

Thanks. I am currently involved in Christianity article and have a hard time there. Will work on the science article as soon as I am done with that article. --Aminz 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak

Hey Truthspreader, happy Eid Mubarak! I know you're one of Moslem scholars in WP, who has been tirelessly defending and improving Islam-related articles. Taqabalallahu minna wa minkum taqabal. Oh, and the picture is our traditional rice, called ketupat, usually served during Eid ul-Fitr. — Indon (reply) — 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mobarak! --Aminz 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muhammad. I went to univ. library today (I was looking for encyclopedia of islam). Man, I couldn't believe my eyes. I found many thick academic books on Islam. I found encyclopedia of the qur'an. It consisted of 4 volumes. It was the city of knowledge. I was reading it continuously for 6 hours. I also found articles on Qur'an and Science and Qur'an and social sciences. I made a copy of them. Man, I was in heaven for 6 hours. --Aminz 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eid Mubarik to you guys. I hope after visiting heaven you will add something good in Quran and science article and others. :) --- ابراهيم 08:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Amin Ahsan Islahi

I noticed that the article on "literary structures of the Qur'an" published in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an quotes him on the structure of sura's. :) --Aminz 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If they can afford it, then they must buy it :) --Aminz 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Muhammad! It is very kind of you! It makes me to work harder on Islam related articles. You deserve a barnstar, no less than me for sure, which I will give you soon. :) --Aminz 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

		An Award
		For Truthspreader!!! For your tireless contributions to several Islam related articles! You earned it :) --Aminz 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have time

Hi Muhammad,

Just wondering if you can help me with a writing a summary on Islam's reforms regarding povetry. As Michael Bonner, Professor of Medieval Islamic History University of Michigan states "The Qur’an provides a blueprint for a new order in society, in which the poor will be treated more fairly than before." He also defines the concepts of “purification” and “circulation” of property in Qur'an which were "distinctively Islamic way of conceptualizing charity, generosity, and poverty markedly different from “the Christian notion of perennial reciprocity between rich and poor and the ideal of charity as an expression of community love." I haven't read the article in details but if you can read it and provide a short summary of its important points, I would appreciate it. I can send the article for you.

Article name = "Poverty and Economics in the Qur’an" Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxxv:3 (Winter, 2005), 391–406. By Michael Bonner, Associate Professor of Medieval Islamic History, University of Michigan.

--Aminz 10:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, very much Muhammad. It looks very good. Thanks so much for helping. --Aminz 21:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed that the article on The Encyclopedia of Qur'an on "Povetry and the Poor" is also written by Michael Bonner. Will copy it, scan it and email it to you. Haven't read it yet though. Cheers, --Aminz 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in al-Aqsa talk page

Dear Truth spreader,

Thank you for making al-Aqsa page better. Please have a look at al-Aqsa talk page [15]. I am basicly stuck and my edits are continuously removed and basicly cannot edit and add some basic facts about al-Masjid al-Aqsa. I know a whole lot of information and I am basicly have to fight for any edit I do. This is quite annoying specially that people who keep removing my edits and argue about it are people you would prbably recognise. Thanks Almaqdisi 09:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Truth, I noticed you removed the verses regarding Miraj. This is not Original research. Please allow sometime, I am working on uploading the external links which contain all this info. Thanks Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Truth,

Thanks a lot. Can you please at least restore the USC hadith link. I spent time really puling this one. This one mentions explictly Bayt al-Maqdis or Jerusalem. I think this is important because there is a long section discussing that the Farthest mosque in not in Bayt al-Maqdis. I appologise for mistakenly deleting your comments. Regarding Surat An-Najm, it talks about Miraj. I have a secondary source since it is not my Original Research. I will send you these for you to have a look at them. There should be a way to mention them I guess because these are generally accepted verses pointing to the Miraj. In any case, I will share with you those before uploading them. By the way, Qur'an, 17:60 is related to Miraj and not Isra'. Also, the term vision does not necessarily mean dream. This verse in general is interpreted as a Physical Miraj. Salam Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Salam, please whe you have time have a look at these [16] [17]. Note that 53:13-53:18 Surat An-Najm is related to the Miraj experience. I think it is important to comment or include verses 53:13-53:18 as they explictly talk about that according to many tafseers. I think the Hadith part looks great. I will work a little bit on the Farthest mosque section and discuss the Bayt al-Maqdis came in a Hadith even if it did not came in Quran explictly. Have a look at this tafseer:

"Note 10 (Quran Ref: 53:14 ) I.e., on the occasion of his mystic experience of the "Ascension" (mi’raj). Explaining the vision conveyed in the expression sidrat al-muntaha, Raghib suggests that owing to the abundance of its leafy shade, the sidr or sidrah (the Arabian lote-tree) appears in the Qur’an as well as in the Traditions relating to the Ascension as a symbol of the "shade" - i.e., the spiritual peace and fulfillment - of paradise. One may assume that the qualifying term al-muntaha ("of the utmost [or "farthest"] limit") is indicative of the fact that God has set a definite limit to all knowledge accessible to created beings, as pointed out in the Nihayah: implying, in particular, that human knowledge, though potentially vast and penetrating, can never - not even in paradise (the "garden of promise" mentioned in the next verse) - attain to an understanding of the ultimate reality, which the Creator has reserved for Himself (cf. note 6 above).(Quran Ref: 53:14 ) "

Note that Sidrat al-Muntaha was also mentioned in the Hadith reported by Muslim, namely Sahih Muslim 1:309.

Also, it appears that accidently this statement was deleted:

Mi’raj (Arabic: المعراج ) is Prophet Muhammad's ascension from Masjid al-Aqsa to the heaven which was mentioned in Surat An-Najm

I have seen your Hadith edits, both, and it looks great. I may as i told you have few comments in the Farthest Mosque section whic not only appear in this page, but in every other page related to this issue. Salam Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Truth Speaker. Certainly your formatting of the article is of the highest class. The article now is much more better. Jazakom Allah Khayran. By the way, regarding the Dream thing, I have read most of these hadiths and in fact most of them point out to a physical Journey, in addition the Quranic verse Ru'ya does not indicate explictly it was a dream and was not understood so by the Sahaba at the time. Second, the Hadith of Bukhari does not imply that during the whole Journey, the Prophet was sleep. Instead, it only says that when he descended, something we do not understand how it happens physically, the first incident that he recalls is that he was awakened. This may imply that ascension required him to loose concious and hence the first event after that is that he got awakened on the ground. It is something like what you see in some of theose movies regarding time machines and Star Trek movies when someone go from a world to another, one is awakened in the new world. Of course there is no comparision between a miracle and a movie, but I am just trying to bring my understanding to your attention. At least, that is how I understand it and what I beleive in. Thanks again for your input. Cheers! Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)