Are Jews & Christians Saved?

The Article:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6MDdLNUtSeUN3YTQ/view?usp=sharing

Appendix A:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6c3YyM1BPbTlabG8/view?usp=sharing

Appendix B:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14QB2QkDw6S201Mhgv8hJDHU_gln2IrGYR7bVuwhl2YY/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix C:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6N29iUkhCYmViNlU/view?usp=sharing

Why Does God Punish homosexuals?

Matt: Why Islam punishes homosexuals? God created homosexuality, did not he?

Hu: Well, God created evil too. Can you blame God for the evil deed people commit for this reason? No. God created both good and evil to test us. Since God doesn’t tell you to choose to be homosexual, you cannot blame God if you choose to become a homosexual.

Matt: Sexuality is not a choice. If homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality is a choice too.

Hu: Sexuality is not a choice in the sense that you born with a sexuality. For example, a male baby born with male sexuality (male sex organs) and a female baby born with female sexuality (female sex organs). Sexuality is a choice the sense that you can defy the sexuality you were born with and choose another sexuality. When someone defies the sexuality he or she was born with and chooses to practise another sexuality, he or she is called a homosexual. For example, if a man defies his male sexuality and choose to practise female sexuality, then he is called a homosexual. In Islam, you must go with the sexuality you born with. Choosing to practise a sexuality that you were not born with is same as altering or corrupting the default setting of a system.

Matt: You claim that someone can choose to corrupt the default setting. Then that raises the question, what type person would chose to corrupt that default setting.

Hu: You asked me what type of person would chose to corrupt that default setting. You have no idea of the outside world, Matt. You have no idea about the sick minded people out there. There are people out there who just want to have their sexual desire fulfilled. They don’t care if their sexual partner is a dog or a person of same sex. I personally talked to some gays and asked them what made them gays. They said they wanted to try out homosexuality and then ended up loving being homosexuals. Now you tell me what kind of people they are. Last week I read in the newspaper that an Australian man fucked his neighbour’s dog to death. Now you tell me what kind of man he is. Homosexuality is like an addiction when you adopt that. Killing is an addiction of a serial killer, drinking is an addiction of an alcoholic. Drugs are addiction of a drug addicts. If you pick up a habit, then you have the ability to give up that habit. All you need to have trust in yourself that many addicted can't unless admitted into rehab.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, the Former President of The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) said: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." (2001)

Matt: We see homosexual behaviors in some animals. If some animals can be homosexuals, then why can’t we human beings be?

Hu: What are homosexual aptitudes or behavior you are referring to? rubbing body with each other? trying to climb on each other? you can't call an animal homosexual based on attitudes not unique to homosexuals. Provide evidence that other animals have sex with the same sex because its unique to homosexuals.

Moreover, even if other animals are homosexuals, that doesn't mean we have to be homosexual as well. When a tiger forcibly has sex with a tigress, we don’t call that tiger a rapist because tiger doesn’t have conscience. We can’t rape people because tigers do. We use our conscience to decide what to do and what not to do.

Matt: Some psychologists say homosexuality is human nature. Why should humans not be homosexual if it’s human nature?

Hu: Well, many psychologists suggest that violence (such as, committing murder, rape, etc.) are human nature. Does this mean that it is okay to murder and rape since they are human nature? The answer is “no”. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is a human nature or not. What matters is whether it is good for us or not.

Matt: My nephew was not encouraged to become homosexual, he was just very clearly born like that.

Hu: Personal observation is not proof because there is no way to evaluate its reliability.

Matt: Other people's sexuality is no one's damn business. Everybody should have the right to choose.

Hu: As I mentioned before, homosexuality is a habit just like smoking, drinking, and gambling. You have right to do your habit as long as your habit doesn't harm others. Until medical proof comes out, homosexuality will be seen as a habit like smoking, drinking, & gambling. We human beings ban habits that are harmful for our society. Homosexuality is bad for our society. Check out the link below to know how homosexuality harms both homosexuals and non-homosexuals in our society:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6QmFxaldKY1hvbk0/edit?usp=sharing

Is Homosexuality Scientific?

Matt: Will you accept homosexuality if modern science confirms it? Modern science says homosexuality is epigenetic. Science Daily article says-“However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.”

Hu: There is a difference between scientific facts and hypothesis. The idea that epi-marks may cause reverse effects is a hypothesis.  The journal article that Science Daily website used as a reference says the reverse effect of epi-marks is a hypothesis. Below are the links for both Science Daily article and the journal article that Science Daily website used as a reference:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201300033/pdf

If for the sake of argument we say that the hypothesis of the reverse effect of epi-marks is a scientific fact, that even doesn't justify homosexuality. Let me explain. Science Daily article says-“… they (epi-marks) may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of SOME traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a PARTIAL masculinization of daughters”. The words SOME and PARTIAL indicate that when epi-marks have a reverse effect on a son’s masculine traits, it makes ONLY A SMALL NUMBER of masculine traits act like feminine traits. MOST OF THE masculine traits in the son remain acting like masculine traits. We know that majority controls minority, not the other way around. 

Let’s say 20% of traits in a son are feminine due to the reverse effect of epi-marks. Can we say that the son feels like a daughter because of that? No. Because there are still 80% of traits in that son are masculine. The son will keep feeling like a son because of 80% masculine traits. If a person claims that he feels sexual desire to the same sex because of some reversed traits, then there is no doubt that person feels way stronger sexual desire to the opposite sex because of most of the non-reversed traits.

Note: Try the links below if the links above don't work.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6Ui0yZlFCYTBfTkE/edit?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6cTF1WDVRRmJucU0/edit?usp=sharing

Prophet (sw)'s Marriage with Aisha (ra)

Click on the Link below to read the research article:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6WHVJNk1iNkVkQmM/edit?usp=sharing

Appendices:

Appendix A:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6andKd2gzZFplMmM/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix B:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6VTlKTlVUT21NRW8/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix C (Part 1):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6UjI4T0dMNU0wT0E/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix C (Part 2):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6RFlaWGFkaG9DM2c/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix C (Part 3):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6M1VLLWlDS0VpdVE/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix D:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6Z1dKS3oxZk8wS2M/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix E:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6SzNJR2FudkNVcE0/edit?usp=sharing

Appendix F:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6G7feyu2n-6alJNUFc0NmxWdnM/edit?usp=sharing

Did Prophet (sw) beat his wife Aisha (ra)?

Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith Number 2127 says Prophet (sw) struck his wife Aisha (ra) on the chest which caused her pain. The hadith narrates Prophet (sw) struck his wife Aisha (ra) because Aisha (ra) doubted that God and His Prophet (sw) would deal justly with her.

Islam haters say Prophet (sw) struck his wife Aisha (ra) on the chest. Therefore, it can be said that Prophet (sw) beat his wife Aisha (ra). Let’s analyze the claim Islam haters. First, we need to ask ourselves what kind of “strike” that was. “Strick” means “hit”. “Hit” can be many types, such as punch, slap, push, elbow, and so on. The Arabic word “لْھَدًة” translated as “struck” in this hadith. The Arabic word “لْھَدًة” means “pushed”. Therefore, it is clear that Prophet (sw) pushed (slapped with an open palm) on the chest of Aisha (ra) that caused her pain.

Did Aisha (ra) consider it as a “beating” when Prophet (sw) pushed her on the chest? The answer is “No.” In Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Hadith Number 5756, Aisha (ra) says Prophet (sw) never beat anyone in his life, neither a woman nor a servant.

Did Prophet (sw) consider it as a “beating” when he pushed Aisha (ra) on the chest? The answer is “No”. Prophet (sw) pushed (slapped with an open palm) on the chest of Aisha (ra) in order to drive away her doubt that God and His Prophet (sw) would deal justly with her. There are hadiths those say Prophet (sw) pushed (slapped with an open palm) other people on their chests to drive away doubt or fear in their minds. For example, Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith Number 1787, Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Hadith Number 6051, Sahih Muslim, Book 11, Hadith 3937, and Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 4492.

Some Islam haters may say it doesn’t matter whether Aisha (ra) and Prophet (sw) considered that push (slap with an open palm) as beating or not, that was an act of beating because that push (slap with an open palm) hurt Aisha (ra). In reply to this argument, I will say that it was NOT an act of beating if we look up the meaning of “beat” in the Oxford dictionaries. Oxford dictionaries say: beat (verb) means to “strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, typically with an implement such as a club or whip”. Prophet (sw) pushed (slapped with an open palm) on the chest of Aisha (ra) once, NOT multiple times repeatedly. Moreover, that push (slap with an open palm) may cause Aisha (ra) pain but was not violent to make Aisha cry in pain or lose control and fall on the ground.

References:

Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith Number 2127: Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a Hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'Aisha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Hadith Number 5756: 'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.

Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Hadith Number 1787: Ubayy b. Ka'b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur'in) ina style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of allah (may peace be upon him) asked them to recite and so they recited, and the apostle of allah (may peace be upon him) expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). And there occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of allah (may peace be upon him) saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur'an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects and (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).

Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 4492: “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, hit the chest of Umar bin Khattab with his hand three times when he embraced Islam and he said, ‘O Allah remove the malice from his heart and replace it with faith.’” (Hakim authenticated it)

Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Hadith Number 6051: Jarir reported: Since I embraced Islam Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) never refused to see me and he did not see me but with a smile on his face. Ibn Numair has made this addition to this hadith which has been reported on the authority of Ibn Idris that he (Jarir) made this complaint to him (to the Holy Prophet): I cannot sit upon the horse with firmness, whereupon he (Allah's Apostle) struck my chest with his hand and prayed: O Allah, make him steadfast and rightly-guided.

Sahih Muslim, Book 11, Hadith 3937: Abu Talha reported: 'Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon on Friday and made a mention of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he also made a mention of Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) and then said: I do not leave behind me any problem more difficult than that of Kalala. I did not refer to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more repeatedly than in case of the problem of Kalala, and he (the Holy Prophet) never showed more annoyance to me than in regard to this problem, so much so that he struck my chest with his fingers and said: 'Umar, does the verse revealed in summer season, at the end of Sura al-Nisa' not suffice you? Hadrat 'Umar (then) said: If I live I would give such verdict about (Kalala) that everyone would be able to decide whether he reads the Qur'an or he does not.

Hijab is Islamic, Not Cultural

Misconception No. 1: Veil is an Arab culture dress, not religious.

Answer to this misconception: Prophet's wives and other believing women did not use to veil before the verses of veil were revealed (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148). This is enough proof that veil is religious, not cultural. Before Islam in Arabia, men and women would go round the Kaba naked, arguing that they should present themselves before God in the same condition they were born (Invitation to Islam, Issue 1, May 1997). Islam taught Arabs how to veil. Judge Islam by Quran and Sunnah. Do not judge Islam by action of Muslims because there are so many so called Muslims out there who do not practise Islam. For example, do not define veil by how one of your Pakistani friend covers her. This is because there are some Pakistani women who wear veil properly when some others do not.

Misconception No. 2: Rules of hijab for prophet's wives are different from rules of hijab for other women. This is because:

(i) God tells prophet's companions to talk to prophet's wives from behind a curtain when they go to prophet's home (33:53). God doesn't mention anything like this about other women.

(ii) The list of unmarriageable kin for prophet's wives (33:55) is different from the list of unmarriageable kin for other women (24:31). Husband's father, husband's son, their own adopted sons,  male subordinates free from physical needs, and children are not included in the list of unmarriageable kin for prophet's wives, but they are included in the list of unmarriageable kin for other women.

Answer to this misconception:

(i) Prophet's wives are the mothers of the believers. The Quran 33: 53 says prophet's wives are unmarriageable kin of the believers. Prophet's companions used to call them "mothers". This made prophet's companions think that they can talk to prophet's wives face to face like they talk to their mothers and other unmarriageable kin. This is why God sent message ordering them to talk to prophet's wives from behind a curtain when they go to prophet's home. Prophet's wives are our mothers in a spiritual sense, so we cannot marry them. But we must talk to them from behind a curtain just like we talk to other women from behind a curtain when we go to someone's home. Aisha (RA) narrates that on one occasion a female Muslim wanted to give a letter to the Holy Prophet (SW), the letter was delivered to the Holy Prophet (SW) from behind a curtain. (Abu Dawood Book 33, Hadith # 4154)

(ii) God does not include husband's father, husband's son, male servant free from physical needs, and children in the list of unmarriageable kin for prophet's wives because prophet's father passed away before his birth, Prophet had no son, and prophet's wives had no adopted sons or male subordinates free from physical needs at prophet's home. God doesn't mention of them because they don't exist in prophet's family. "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things"(Quran 33:40).

Is God's Love Unconditional?

God loves people who do good deed. God doesn't love people who do evil deed. Both Bible and Quran agree on it. God says in the glorious Quran-"...God loves the doers of good" (2:195) & "...God does not love evildoers" (3:57).

Gospel says the same thing. Gospel of Luke12:47 says-"[Jesus says:] And that slave who knew his master's will but didn't do it will be severely beaten."

If Jesus is a loving God, then why would he command us to beat slaves? Christians say Gospel of Luke 12:47 is a parable. But the problem remains if we consider Gospel of Luke 12:47 a parable. If we take Gospel of Luke 12:47 as a parable, then "salve" symbolizes "mankind" and "master" symbolizes "Jesus". Thus, Luke 12:47 proves that Christian God Jesus will severely punish us if we don't obey his commandments. It may make Christians uncomfortable because they believe their God Jesus is a loving God who doesn’t severely punish us for our sins, Instead he forgives us.

Why doesn’t God love both doers of good and doers of evil? If God loves doers of evil, then it is injustice to doers of good. Logic says doers of good should get rewarded and doers of evil should get punished. If we reward both doers of good and doers of evil, then it is injustice to the doers of good.

We all know that the Bible is a book full of contradictions. It is true that Gospel of Luke12:47 agrees with the Quran on rewarding the doers of good and punishing doers of evil. But there are verses in the bible that contradict that. For example, Matthew 5:44 says to love your enemy. Loving your enemy sounds good to you if you are incapable of thinking multi-dimensionally.  People who are not capable of thinking multi-dimensionally always fail to see the other side of the equation. It’s like a blind spot a driver fails to see while driving. People who know how to think critically don’t buy the nonsensical idea of loving your foe. This is because when you love your foe, you do injustice to your friends.

Can we turn our foes into our friends without loving them? You love your friends because you have good relationships with them. You hate your foes because you have bad relationships with them. Therefore, it is clear that loving or hating someone depends on what kind of relationship you have with them. Note that a “good relationship” is a pre-requisite of a “friendship”. You don’t be friends with others first and then build up good relationship with them. It is the other way around. You start building up good relationship with others first and then you end up being friends with them. If “good relationship” between two friends disappears, then their “friendship” disappears too.

Let’s say John is your foe. If you want to turn your foe “John” into your friend, then you should resolve your dispute/conflict with John in order to have a good relationship with him. Friendship between you and John will grow when a good relationship between you and John is developed. Note that mediating a conflict is only possible when both sides will to do so. If one side wants to resolve the dispute/conflict but the other side doesn’t, dispute resolution doesn’t work.