He Completed Fasting 30 Days Then Arrived in a Country Still on their 30th day

If I were to travel on the 30th day of Ramadaan from London just after
Magrib time, after having broken my fast and I wereto arrive at my
destination in the USA butto find that they are still in the day time
of their 30th day of Ramadaan, what should I do?
The reply to your question in brief is: your state should be similar
to that of the [Muslim] inhabitants of where you are. So, if they were
still observing fasting then you should observe fasting with them even
if that means you would be fasting for more than 30 days [the max.
number of days, normally observed in the month of Ramadaan]. This is
the opinion of Shaikh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baaz.

--
- - - - - - -

Muslims say they do not worship idols. When they go to Mecca, why do they kiss a black stone?

Isn't that like worshippingan idol?
Muslims do not worship the black stone. They regard the stone as a
created thing. The most fundamental principle of Islam is that nothing
or no one is to be worshipped except Allah, the one true God.
Muslims who can afford the journey are required once in their lifetime
to visit the House of Worshipin Makkah. This was the first house built
for the worship of the one true God. It was constructed byAbraham and
his son Ishmael, peace be upon them. The black stone was brought to
them from heaven by the angel Gabriel to function as a corner stone.
It was thus affixed in one corner.
Because Muslims kiss that stone, some observers hastily conclude that
Muslims worship it. A kiss, however, is not an act of worship unless
it is accompanied by an intention to worship. If you kiss your child,
for instance, that does not mean you worship your child.
Some may find it strange that Muslims should treat a stone with
respect. But this is not just any old stone. It is an item out of
paradise.
The act of fixing a stone to mark a place of worship is as old as
history. In the Bible we are told that Jacob, on whom be peace, had
fixeda stone at a place where he saw a vision. He poured oil on it and
calledit Bethel meaning 'house of God' (see Genesis 28:18). He did
this again upon God's instruction (see Genesis 35:1, 14, 15). No one
should understand from this that God instructed Jacob to worship the
stone.

--
- - - - - - -

Dr. Robert Morey proves in his book that Allah is the name of the moon god worshipped in Arabia before Islam. Is he right?

The book you refer to is entitled The Islamic Invasion:
Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion, published by Harvest
House Publishers, Oregon, US, 1992. The author, Dr. Robert Morey, sees
Islam as an invasion into North America and a threat to his religious
heritage.
Unfortunately, Dr. Morey has resorted to dishonest tactics in
combating Islam. To prove his contention that Allah is not the God of
Christians and Jews, he quoted from several books in such a dishonest
fashion that thequotations say the opposite of what we find in those
books (see quotations on pages 47-53 of Dr. Morey's book).
Dr. Morey quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica to support his case.
But in fact the Encyclopedia says:
Allah is the standard Arabic word for "God" andis used by Arab
Christians as well as by Muslims (Britannica, 1990 Edition, vol.1,
p.276).
Dr. Morey also quoted from H.A.R Gibb to support his case. But Gibb
actually says the opposite.In his book Mohammedanism, Gibb says on
page 26 that bothMuhammad and his opponents believed in"the existence
of a supreme God Allah." Gibb further explained this on pages 37-38
(see Mohammedanism by H.A.R. Gibb, Oxford University Press, 1969). Dr.
Morey should have checked his references more carefully before his
book went into print.
Dr. Morey said that Alfred Guillaume agrees with him, and he refers to
page7 of Alfred Guillaume's book entitled Islam. But here is what
Alfred Guillaume actually says onpage 7 of his book:
In Arabia Allah was known from Christian andJewish sources as the one
God, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to the pagan
Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being (Islam by Alfred Guillaume,
Penguin,1956, p.7).
How could Dr. Morey misquote like this? Furthermore, Dr. Morey quoted
from page 28 of a book by another non-Muslim writer Caesar Farah. But
when we refer to that book we find that Dr. Morey gave only a partial
quotation which leaves out the main discussion. The book actually says
that the God who was called Il by the Babylonians and El by the
Israelites was called ilah, al- ilah, and eventually Allah in Arabia
(see Islam: beliefs and Observances, by Caesar Farah, Barron's
Educational Series, 4th Edition, p.28). Farah says further on page 31
that before Islam the pagans had already believed that Allah is the
supreme deity.Of course they had 360 idols, but, contrary to Dr.
Morey's assertion, Allah was never one of the 360 idols. As Caesar
Farah points out on page 56, the prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace,
personally destroyed those idols.
Dr. Morey also quoted from William Montgomery Watt. But Watt says on
page 26 of his book that the Arabic word Allah is similar to the Greek
term ho theos which we know is the way God is referred to in the New
Testament (see Muhammad; Prophet and Statesman by William Montgomery
Watt, OxfordUniversity Press, 1964, p.26).
Dr. Morey also quoted from Kenneth Cragg's book entitled The Call of
the Minaret. However, on page 36 of Kenneth Cragg's book we find the
following:
Since both Christian and Muslim faiths believe in One supreme
sovereign Creator-God, they are obviously referring when they speak of
Him, under whatever terms, to the same Being. (The Call of the Minaret
by Kenneth Cragg, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 36). Further on
the same page,Cragg explains that the One whom the Muslims call Allah
is the same One whom the Christians call 'the God and Father of
ourLord Jesus Christ', although the two faiths understand Him
differently.
Dr. Morey should know that as a scholar he has the academic obligation
to quote honestly. He should also know that as a follower of Jesus, on
whom be peace, he has an obligation to speak thetruth.

--
- - - - - - -

How can you say that death is not theconsequence for sin whereas the Bible clearly teaches that it is?

The best way to understand this would be to study the story found in
the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Let us begin with a brief
outline of the story. We are told that God warned Adam that if he eats
from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die.
This was communicated also to Eve. The serpent, however, being
deceptive,promised Eve that they will not die from eating it.So she
ate the fruit, and gave also to her husband. As a result of eating the
fruit, they realized for the first time that they were naked, so they
covered themselves with fig leaves. When they heard the sound of God
walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from Him among
the trees. He called out to them asking where they were and asked
whether they had eaten from the forbidden tree. Adam blamed Eve, and
Eve blamed the serpent. God then cursed all three of them. The serpent
shall henceforth crawl on its belly and eat dust. The woman shall
suffer in childbearing and remain under the domination of her husband.
The man shall have to sweat for his living until he returns to dust.
God then said: "The man has now become likeone of us, knowing good and
evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from
the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So God banished him from
the garden and placed a flaming sword to prevent access to the tree of
life (Condensed from Genesis 2:17 - 3:22).
Many people misunderstand this story to mean that physical death is a
consequence for sin. But the biblical scholars who are aware ofall its
implications explainotherwise. The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary
on the Bible explains that death here means separation from God, the
giver of "life" (p.6).
The reason for this other explanation is the obviousfact that in the
story Adam did not die. He livedon for 930 years (see Genesis 5:5).
And when God spoke of his eventual death, He mentioned it not as a
consequence of sin, but as a natural outcome of the fact that Adam was
created from dust - and to dust he must return (see Genesis 3:19).
When a few verses later itis stated that God deprived Adam in access
to the tree of life many people again conclude that because of sin
Adam was deprived of everlasting life. But this too is not what the
book of Genesis says. The story goes that once Adam gained knowledge
of good and evil, God was concerned that he may now gain eternal life
also (see Genesis 3:22). The Abingdon Bible Commentary explains
thatAdam was deprived of eternal life because he had already acquired
some power, namely knowledge, and God was concerned lest Adam should
acquire more, namely eternal life, and become a threat to God (see the
Abingdon Bible Commentary, p.223).
It is clear from the story that even if Adam was promised death he was
given a lesser penalty, and death must be taken as the maximum
possible penalty - that, obviously, was not given. Elsewhere in the
book of Genesis, when God killed certain men for their wickedness, it
meant instant death (see Genesis 38: 7, 10). But the death that comes
as the natural end to physical life is not a penalty for sin. It is
better to understand that God in His mercy gave a lesser penalty to
Adam than to suppose that God in His anger gave more penalties in
addition to what He stated initially. This is why Reverend W. K.
Lowther Clarke explained in his Bible commentary that God relented and
gave Adam alesser penalty (see the Concise Bible Commentary1952,
p.343). For the Qur'anic perspective on the Genesis story, see
question 17.

--
- - - - - - -