Our Good Friend Ali Nawaz,who was educated at Al -AZHAR which is “THE IVY LEAGUE KIND OF university,to study the Religion of Islam,sent us this fact about the Holy Koran or QURAN.You may enjoy knowing this also.
Dr.Tarig Al Swaidan discovered some verses in the Holy Qur’an That mention one thing is equal to another, i.e. men are equal to women. Although this makes sense grammatically, the astonishing fact is that the number of times the word man appears in the Holy Qur’an is 24 and number of times the word woman appears is also 24, therefore not only is this phrase correct in the grammatical sense but also true mathematically, i.e. 24 = 24.
Upon further analysis of various verses, he discovered that this is consistent throughout the whole Holy Qur’an. Where it says one thing is like another. See below for astonishing result of the words mentioned number of times in Arabic Holy Qur’an.
Dunia (one name for World) 115 .
Aakhirat (one name for the life after this world) 115
Malaika (Angels) 88 . Shayteen (Satan) 88
Life 145 …… Death 145
Benefit 50 . Corrupt 50
People 50 .. Messengers 50
Eblees (king of devils) 11 . Seek refuge from Eblees 11
Museebah (calamity) 75 . Thanks 75
Hardship 114 …. Patience 114
Sea 32 , Land 13
Sea + land = 32 + 13 = 45
Sea = 32/45*100q.= 71.11111111%
Land = 13/45*100 = 28.88888889%
Sea + land 100.00%
Modern science has only recently proven that the water covers 71.111% of the earth, while the land covers 28.889%.
Is this a coincidence? Or God sent the Holy Quran and knew math better than us and knew how to write poetry that would have matching opposite words. This research was not done by Muslims For America. We are sorry if there are any mistakes.
Yes. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment guarantee religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, for all Americans—people of all faiths and none.
The Establishment Clause bars the government from advancing or inhibiting religion and ensures that government remains neutral.
The Free Exercise Clause and supporting laws like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protect the right of religious individuals and institutions to follow their conscience in matters of faith.
Under the Free Exercise Clause, government is prohibited from singling out religion for special disabilities. Although for many years the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Clause required government to demonstrate a compelling need to interfere with religious practice, the Court currently has repudiated any such duty in cases involving rules or laws of general applicability. Laws which allow for individualized application (such as unemployment insurance) remain subject to the prior compelling justification rule. The Supreme Court has also established that government can choose to afford religious liberty greater protection – an authority that is frequently exercised.
The twin constitutional guarantees of religious freedom for all citizens are good for religion and good for government.
The United States is today the most religiously diverse society in the world. The civic framework of religious freedom defined by the First Amendment enables people of all faiths and none to live together as equal citizens of one nation. Like other First Amendment freedoms, the rights to exercise one’s faith and to be free from governmental establishments of religion, are fundamental rights that cannot be denied by majority vote or elections.
A majority may not impose its religious values on others, nor limit minority religious rights. The fact that a majority of Americans do not share the beliefs of a minority faith does not make those beliefs and practices any less protected. Unless all Americans are assured of religious freedom, the freedom of all Americans is in question.
Yes. Most American Muslims, like most other Americans, are deeply concerned about the problem of extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. According to the most reliable data we have, the overwhelming majority of American Muslims is well integrated into American society and report criminal activity. Over the past decade, 40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims.[iii]
While the Qur’an sanctions marriage to up to four wives (Q.4:3), the wording of the verse is understood by some Muslim scholars to allow but at the same time discourage marrying more than one wife. Verse 4:3 says that a Muslim man may marry up to four wives if he can treat them equally. Since men cannot treat any two people equally, the practice which was historically acceptable during times of crisis, like war, is now even outlawed in some Muslim majority nations.
No. These penalties are not allowed in 52 countries that make up the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, encompassing most countries with a Muslim-identified government. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim majority country, along with Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco all use Sharia as a primary source of law and none allow these punishments.
In countries where extreme interpretations of Sharia are applied, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia and 12 states in northern Nigeria, stoning and amputations for adultery and theft are rarely used or enforced.
Yes. Many American Muslim leaders, educational institutions, and advocacy groups have repeatedly spoken out for freedom of expression and are actively involved in promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad.
A recent statement signed by some 200 American and Canadian Muslim leaders, unconditionally condemned “any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.”
The statement directly addresses recent controversies in the United States:
“We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation. We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.”[iv]
No. American Muslims overwhelmingly support the U.S. Constitution and do not seek to replace it with Sharia or Islamic law. The vast majority of American Muslims understand Sharia as a personal, religious obligation governing the practice of their faith, not as something American governments should enforce.
No. According to Islamic teachings, no Muslim may sanction or support murder; the Qur’an explicitly forbids such actions (16:59, 5:27-32). In fact, the Qur’an does not mention “honor killings”, and in Islamic teachings, there is no such thing as excusable murder. The term “honor killings” used in some cultures is an attempt to describe murder as something religiously acceptable. It is not religiously acceptable in Islam.
The Qur’an requires men and women to dress modestly, but without specifying exactly what that means (24:30-31). Muslims therefore differ on what modesty requires, resulting in a variety of practices in different cultures and countries.
Historically, male dominance in Muslim societies has led to unequal application of modestly rules, with women in some cultures being made to cover much more of their bodies than men are required to do. At the same time, it must be said that many Muslim women in the United States and other countries freely choose to veil as an expression of their faith.
Yes. Many American Muslim leaders and organizations have repeatedly denounced extremist violence in the strongest possible terms.
Of the many statements and actions taken by American Muslims to condemn and counter terrorism, the fatwa (religious ruling) from the Fiqh Council of North America (an Islamic juristic body) captures the views of the vast majority of American Muslims:
“Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.”
The Fiqh Council of North America’s statement affirms the following Islamic principles:
” All acts of terrorism, including those targeting the life and property of civilians, whether perpetrated by suicidal or any other form of attacks, are haram (forbidden) in Islam.
 It is haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or prohibited violence.
 It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to undertake full measures to protect the lives of all civilians, and ensure the security and well-being of fellow citizens.”
A comprehensive collection of condemnations of terrorism and extremism by American Muslims, including theological arguments, may be found on The American Muslim, a publication that has been providing information about the American Muslim community since 1989. www.theamericanmuslim.org
Many American Muslims, like other religious communities who rely on scriptures and religious principles to guide their life, look upon Sharia as a personal system of morality and identity. The vast majority of American Muslims see no conflict between their religious obligations and values and the U.S. legal system.
American Muslims are part of one of the most diverse religious groups in the U.S. in terms of ethnicity, socio-economic status, education levels and political affiliation. For some, adherence to Sharia means keeping some or all of the religious observances, such as prayer, fasting, or charitable giving. For others, Sharia also affects religious practices and rituals concerning personal matters, such as marriage, divorce, dress, inheritance, business transactions, and property.[vi]
American Muslims take part in all aspects of American civic life. They are members of the Boy and Girls Scouts, Elks Lodges, Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, and Veteran’s of Foreign Wars as well as members of school boards and volunteers in community centers.
American Muslims have created institutions of their own in the United States, just like other religious communities. There are many long-established groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an umbrella organization of some 300 mosques and Islamic centers based in Indiana, and newer organizations like the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals.
Many Islamic centers and institutions create programs serving both American Muslim communities and the wider public.
The University Muslim Medical Association, for example, is a free health care clinic in Los Angeles founded in 1992 by American Muslim college students at UCLA and Charles Drew University to serve a diverse inner-city community. The Inner City Muslim Action Network (IMAN) is a community-based non-profit formed in 1995 by American Muslim students, community residents and leaders to address inner city poverty and abandonment in the greater Chicago area. IMAN delivers a wide range of services, including a health clinic providing free heath care and support services to the uninsured population on Chicago’s Southwest Side.
Many other American Muslim institutions are actively engaged in charitable giving, educational programs, interfaith outreach, health care, civic engagement, politics and the media. In short, American Muslims and the organizations they create are part of the fabric of American public life.
More than two dozen state legislatures are currently considering or have enacted laws intended to bar state courts from considering foreign and/or religious laws. From statements by advocates of these laws, it would appear that the real target of such legislation is Sharia law, although most are now written to encompass religious law of other faiths, and “foreign” law.
Where enacted, these bills will infringe upon the long-settled and, for faiths other than Islam, non-controversial practices described above of allowing parties to voluntarily submit their disputes to religious tribunals.
Prohibiting courts from considering religious laws would hamstring all religious communities in a variety of ways. Many civil corporate documents, especially for churches, synagogues and other houses of worship, reference canon law, a book of order or discipline, church manual, or other source of law that explains the powers and limitations of administrators. How can a title company know, for example, if a religious leader signing a deed for a congregation has the authority to do so without looking at the rules and bylaws of the corporation (which for religious corporations will be religious rules or laws)? Many religious communities have alternative dispute resolution provisions in their governing documents, which have spared the courts much expense and time in civil litigation. Would these be unenforceable if courts cannot consider religious laws?
There simply is no evidence that Sharia (or other religious law) is being substituted for U.S. law in American courts. The First Amendment clearly bars government imposition of any religious law. At the same time, the First Amendment protects the right of religious groups to observe their laws in matters of faith.
Legislation barring any consideration of “foreign” or “religious law” in the courts has the effect of potentially marginalizing and discriminating against all religious communities in America who have practiced their religious beliefs and customs peacefully for centuries thanks to the pluralistic and inclusive nature of the U.S. Constitution which affords such freedoms and rights to all American citizens.
(96% of the world’s Muslims)
Also known as Orthodox Islam, this ideology is not politicized and largely based on consensus of correct opinion—thus including the Sunni, Shi‘a, and Ibadi branches of practice (and their subgroups) within the fold of Islam, and not groups such as the Druze or the Ahmadiyya, among others.
(3% of the world’s Muslims)
This is a highly politicized religious ideology popularized in the 20th century through movements within both the Shi‘a and Sunni branches of Islam-characterized by aggressiveness and a reformist attitude toward traditional Islam.
( 1% of the world’s Muslims)
Emerging from 19th cen- tury Ottoman Turkey and Egypt, this subdivision con- textualized Islamic ideology for the times – emphasizing the need for religion to evolve with Western advances.
No. Islam is a religious tradition, and adherents to Islam are called Muslim. Of course, American Muslims like Americans from other religious groups, participate in American political life. American Muslim voting patterns generally mirror the broader American population. American Muslims are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives. There is no one political platform or agenda for those who practice the religion of Islam in the United States.
Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.
If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.
Yes. Within Islam, certain interpretations and applications of Sharia have changed over time and continue to change today. There is no one interpretation called “Sharia.” A variety of Muslim communities exist around the world, and each understands Sharia in its own context. No single official document encapsulates Sharia.
Since interpretation is a human process, it has always been pluralistic, prone to error, and dependent on human understanding, no matter the religion in question. Interpretation is also subject to conditions and times specific to a particular community of believers. Interpretations may vary significantly from country to country and community to community. This explains the great variety of ways Muslims have practiced their faith all over the world for the past 1400 years.
Any theological or moral system is vulnerable to misuse by extremists to promote violence. For that reason, it is important to be familiar with the history of a religious tradition and understand the widely-shared interpretation of its beliefs and practices.
Sharia is not creeping into the U.S. court system. There are three types of cases that may require a court to even take notice of Sharia law:
The Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen is a transnational Sunni movement, with no particular ideologi- cal adherence. It is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states, particularly in Egypt where it was founded in opposition to colonial rule by Hassan al Banna in 1928. Al Banna origi- nally sought to revive Muslim culture from its position of exploitation under colonial rule, through charitable and educational work, to bring Islam into a central role in people’s life. Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966 CE) was also a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 50s and 60s.
Wahhabism/Salafism are terms used inter- changeably to refer to a particular brand of Islam. Salaf, meaning predecessors, refers to the very early practice of Islam by Muhammad and his immediate succes- sors. Salafism seeks to revive the practice of Islam as it was at the time of Muhammad and can be critical of too much emphasis being placed on thinkers from after this period. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792 CE) was an important figure in the resurrection of this ideology therefore Salafism is often simply known as Wah- habism.
Revolutionary Shi’ism is an ideology, based on the teachings of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989 CE), which shares many similarities with Marxist revolutionary thought. Khomeini believed that the only way to secure independence from colonial or imperial forces was through the creation of a Shi‘a state, under the idea of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). This means that all politics is subject to the opinion of the Supreme Leader who is responsible for the continued success of the revolution. It is only practiced in Iran.
Islamic modernism is a reform movement started by politically-minded urbanites with scant knowledge of traditional Islam. These people had witnessed and studied Western technology and socio-political ideas, and realized that the Islamic world was being left behind technologically by the West and had become too weak to stand up to it. They blamed this weakness on what they saw as ‘traditional Islam,’ which they thought held them back and was not ‘progressive’ enough. They thus called for a complete overhaul of Islam, including—or rather in particular—Islamic law (sharia) and doctrine (aqida). Islamic modernism remains popularly an object of derision and ridicule, and is scorned by traditional Muslims and fundamentalists alike.
1) Ash’ari and Maturidi Schools: Sunni Orthodoxy1
These two schools of doctrine are followed by the bulk of Sunni Muslims and differ only in minor details.
Ash’ari School: This school is named after the followers of the 9th century scholar abu al hasan al ash’ari (874–936 CE) and is widely accepted throughout the Sunni Muslim world. They believe that the characteristics of God are ultimately beyond human comprehension, and trust in the Revelation is essential, although the use of rationality is important.
Maturidi School: This school is named after the followers of the 9th century scholar Muham- mad abu Mansur al Maturidi (853–944 CE) and has a wide following in regions where Hanafi law is practiced. They have a slightly more pronounced reliance on human reason.
2) Salafi School
This school was developed around the doctrines of 18th century scholar Muhammad ibn abd al wahhab (1703–1792 CE). Salafis have specific doctrinal beliefs, owing to their particular inter- pretation of Islam, that differentiate them from the majority of Sunnis, such as a literal anthro- pomorphic interpretation of God. Salafis place a great emphasis on literal interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, with skepticism towards the role of human reason in theology.
3) Mu’tazili School
This school was developed between the 8th and 10th centuries. Although it is traced back to wasil ibn ata (d. 748 CE) in Basra, theologians abu al hudhayl al ‘allaf (d. 849 CE) and Bishr ibn al Mu’tamir (d. 825 CE) are credited with formalizing its theological stance. Mu’tazili thought relies heavily on logic, including Greek philosophy. Although it no longer has a signifi- cant following, a small minority of contemporary intellectuals have sought to revive it. Mutazi- lites believe that the Qur’an was created as opposed to the Orthodox Sunni view that it is eternal and uncreated. Moreover they advocate using rationalism to understand allegorical readings of the Qur’an.
1) The Twelver School
The infallibility (‘Ismah) of the Twelve Imams descended from the family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) who are believed to be the spiritual and rightful political authorities of the Muslim community (Umma). The twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, is believed to be in occultation to return in the future.
2) Isma’ili School
The Qur’an and Hadith are said to have truths lying with a single living Imam, descended di- rectly from the Prophet. Also known as ‘seveners’ for their belief that Isma’il ibn Ja’far was the seventh and final leading-Imam of the Muslim community.
3) Zaidi School
The infallibility of the Twelve Imams and the notion of occultation are rejected in favor of ac- cepting the leadership of a living Imam. The Imamate can be held by any descendant of the Prophet (Sayyid). Also known as ‘fivers’ for their belief that Zayd ibn Ali was the fifth and final leading-Imam of the Muslim community.
Ibadis believe that God created the Qur’an at a certain point in time, and that God will not be seen on the Day of Judgment. They also believe in the eternal nature of hell for all those who enter it.
The Muslim 500:
The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims, 2012 Second Edition
More than two dozen state legislatures are currently considering or have enacted laws intended to bar state courts from considering foreign and/or religious laws. From statements by advocates of these laws, it would appear that the real target of such legislation is Sharia law, although most are now written to encompass religious law of other […]0
Sharia is not creeping into the U.S. court system. There are three types of cases that may require a court to even take notice of Sharia law: The first is a case in which a party alleges that some government practice interfered with the ability to practice his or her faith as required by Sharia […]0
No. American Muslims overwhelmingly support the U.S. Constitution and do not seek to replace it with Sharia or Islamic law. The vast majority of American Muslims understand Sharia as a personal, religious obligation governing the practice of their faith, not as something American governments should enforce. http://interfaithalliance.org/americanmuslimfaq0
Many American Muslims, like other religious communities who rely on scriptures and religious principles to guide their life, look upon Sharia as a personal system of morality and identity. The vast majority of American Muslims see no conflict between their religious obligations and values and the U.S. legal system. American Muslims are part of one […]0