Do Not Bash Muslims

[setst777]

This is true, yet Christian terrorists use Bible verses to justify their atrocities. Christian terrorists groups do the same and use the Bible to justify their attempts to establish Christian states.

setst777 said: ↑
Joseph, when you compare Christianity's core Scriptures with Islam's core Scripture and deduce they are both pacifist, you are showing all of us that you have no idea what Islam teaches.

Christianity's Scriptures teach pacifism which is why all fundamental and traditional Christian sects teach pacifism.

In contrast, Islam's Core Scriptures teach Jihad against unbeliever until the day of judgment, until the world becomes Islam, which is why Sunni and Shia Islam teaches this.

All four schools of Sunni teach this.
Shia teaches the same.

Salafi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

This is core doctrine within Islam's sacred Scriptures:

• Qur'an
• Sahih Hadith
• Sira / Sunnah

This is Sharia.

Sharia Figh in all four Schools of Sunni and Shia all teach the same - the Jihad against unbelievers is to be carried out until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment.

Secularized Muslims in the West do not teach this because they are obeying secular law.

Did you not know this?

Did you not know this?

setst777 said: ↑
Christianity's Scriptures teach pacifism which is why all fundamental and traditional Christian sects teach pacifism.

Joseph responds:
<<
This is true, yet Christian terrorists use Bible verses to justify their atrocities. Christian terrorists groups do the same and use the Bible to justify their attempts to establish Christian states.
>>

Setst RE: Those who claim to be Christian but commit acts of terrorism, they are not following Christianity’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith.

In contrast: Muslims, when they carry out Jihad against unbelievers, they are following Islam’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith

Joseph continues:
<<
Islam is not considered to be a pacifist religion as it teaches that fighting in self defense or against oppression is acceptable; however, Muslims, with the exception of extremists, will tell you that they are to thrive for peace, avoid conflict at all costs, and to respect others much in the same way Christianity teaches on those subjects.
>>

Setst RE: You listen to Taqyah rather than actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem. When you do not recognize the problem - Sharia - you will never solve the outgrow of Sharia - terrorism, violence and warfare in the name of Allah.

Did you not know Sharia Figh for all Sunni schools, and Shia command defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment?

Shari Figh of Sunni and Shia is founded on Islam’s core Scriptures – all of which teach defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the world until the Day of Judgment.

Did you not know this?

Joseph continues:
<<
It's not the religious texts of either of these religions that are to blame for the atrocities that extremists who follow them carry out, it's the extremists themselves.
>>

Setst RE: When you refuse to recognize the problem - Sharia Law - you are only looking at symptoms. To solve the problem you must get at the root - Islam Sharia.

• Islam’s core Scriptures (Sharia),
• Sharia Figh for all four schools of Sunni and for Shia

command Jihad (defensive and offensive) against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion. That is the problem.

setst777 said: ↑
Islam's Core Scriptures teach Jihad against unbeliever until the day of judgment, until the world becomes Islam, which is why Sunni and Shia Islam teaches this.

Joseph responds:
<<
This is the Islamic extremists teaching of jihad.
>>

Setst RE: You claim 30 year study of Islam and you do not know that all four schools of Sunni and Shia teach Jihad (defensive and offensive) against unbelievers until the Day of Judgment, until the world becomes Islam? How could you be so ignorant of Islam?

setst777 said: ↑
Sharia Figh in all four Schools of Sunni and Shia all teach the same - the Jihad against unbelievers is to be carried out until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment.

setst777 said: ↑
Salafi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

Joseph responds:
<<
No they don't. Salifi and Wahhabism teach offensive violent jihad whereas mainstream Sunni and Shia schools of thought teach defensive jihad and the use of violence only after all avenues of a peaceful solution have been exhausted.
>>

Setst RE:
Salifi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad – offer peace to the unbeliever for those who repent and submit to Islam. If they refuse, then Jihad against them is to be fulfilled until they submit to Islam. If they refuse - kill them. This is Sharia Law for Sunni and Shia. And for Salafii and Wahhabism. How could you not know this?

Joseph responds:
<<
Currently better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the interpretation of Islam you are talking about in this thread and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.
>>

Setst RE: All four schools of Sunni teach Jihad against unbelievers until Islam is the only religion in the world until the Day of Judgment. Wahhabism and Salafii teach the very same thing.

No deflection on your part can change that. No statistics can undue Sharia Law for Islam that all four schools of Sunni hold to, and Shia.

Wherever Islam gains dominance – no matter how peaceful and loving they appeared when they were a minority or too weak – they become ever more bold, threatening and abusive. That is a fact. Your statistics only show what you want to see, and what Muslims want you to see while in a minority, but not what Islam actually teaches. That is a fact.

• We already know what Islam Sharia teaches. That is a given
• We already know what all four schools of Sunni teach regarding Jihad - offensive and defensive - until the whole world is Islam. That is a given
• We already know what happens in every land that Islam has gained dominance - threats, abuse, terrorism and war. That is a given

These are all givens. So your statistics are only saying what you want to hear and what Muslims want you to hear.

Joseph continues:
>>
This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching the one true Islam.
>>

Setst RE:
Islam is represented by Sharia.

• All four schools of Sunni and Shia interpret Sharia (Sharia Figh) the same about Jihad against unbelievers in stages because that is what their Sacred Scriptures command them to do.
• That is why Sharia Figh for all four schools of Sunni, and Shia all teach the same regarding Jihad against unbelievers.
• This is core doctrine that cannot be altered or re-interpreted.

Joseph continues:
<<
Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more than 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching? What good will come from this?
>>

Setst RE: What good is hiding the truth? When you refuse to recognize the problem then evil wins. That is what Yahya and Bale were warning us about.

The problem is Sharia...

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Islamic Tradition (the four schools of Sunni) is founded on Sharia. That is the problem.

Joseph continues:
<<
Dr. Bale, Yahya Cholil Staquf, and myself are all in agreement that those who legitimize the teachings of Islamic extremists and/or peddle their extremist narrative are part of the problem in combating violent extremism. So why would you want to continue doing this? Especially knowing that it will contribute to more division and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims?
>>

Setst RE: You misunderstand what Dr. Bale and Yahya actually wrote. To solve the problem, you must recognize what the problem is.

It is not the extremist, fundamentals and traditional and orthodox themselves that are the problem. The problem is that such sects are relying on the core Scriptures of their faith to interpret (Sharia Figh) and define their faith - Sharia. That is the problem that is causing serious conflict.

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Sunni four schools and Shia all interpret Islam’s Core Scriptures – called Sharia Figh.

Sharia Figh in ALL FOUR SCHOOLS and SHIA teach offensive and defensive Jihad against unbelievers until the world is one religion- Islam.

That is the problem.

Did you not know this?

 

[Joyousperson]

That verse has nothing to do with waging war against non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims or spreading Islam through violent jihad. It is talking about fighting in defense of Islam and the Muslim community when it is under attack. Of course Islam is going to teach that there would be a greater reward for those who are willing to sacrifice their life for the cause of Islam than for those who do nothing. Sounds like common sense to me.

You missed my point.
Verse 4:95 is to show those who war against and kill disbelievers are more favored than those who don't.

The verse that enable Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers is 5:33,

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [FSD: Fasad: mischiefs, wronged] in the land - will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their [infidels] degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom;​

In this case, anything the Muslims who feel threatened or not comfortable with disbelievers they have the sanction above i.e. in 5:33 for them to kill disbelievers based on the reason of 'fasad' [FSD]. Even the drawing of cartoons of Muhammad is 'fasad' thus justified for Muslims to war against and kill disbelievers, what more with other similar milder and worst offences against Islam?

When evil prone Muslims quote 5:33 to justify why they killed disbelieving cartoonists and their supporters, WHO ARE YOU, me and others to insist they are wrong?

You want to argue with them that 5:33 is meant to be historical?

Nah! whatever is delivered in the Quran is meant to be guiding principles from Allah for all Muslims to comply with and abstract laws in their jurisprudence.
If it is meant to be purely historical, then the Quran should be only 1000+ verses instead of 6236 verses which would have wasted so much of peoples time in memorizing the load, printing, etc.

And yet Christian terrorists will quote straight from those Christian scriptures and make it sound like the Bible condones the killing of non-Christians or that they have a God given right to create a Christian state and/or forcefully convert natives to Christianity. Those same scriptures are also used by Christian extremists to justify the death penalty for homosexuals and in the past scriptures from the Christian Bible were used to justify the ownership of other human beings as personal property. Since you feel "the Christian scriptures itself has an overriding pacifist maxim that do not allow Christians to hate, war against and kill non-Christians," how is that possible?

Note I argued the sole authority of Christianity is the principles in the Gospels re Jesus Christ. Certain relevant verses from the OT and the Epistles and Acts are merely supporting texts, like appendixes in a contract [covenant].

If any Christian were to justify their evil and violent acts ask them to quote the verses from the Gospels.
For any verses they bring out, these are overridden by the overriding pacifist maxim within an overall pacifist context of Christianity as exhibited by the life of Jesus Christ* and the point that since God is all-powerful thus would not have contradicted itself.

Note Jesus Christ lived up to the Christianity ethos and set the ideal example where he did not kill a single person but was killed by others and later resurrected.
On the other hand Prophet Muhammad [supposedly an exemplar to all Muslims] was a warlord who warred against disbelievers, killed disbelievers, a robber, and committed all sorts of evil acts.

 

[Godistruth1]

• Wikipedia

• Islamic Encyclopedia

Seriously. Wikipedia, Islamic encyclopedia ?? Man u must be joking ? Even I can edit Wikipedia and I'm sure ur Islamic encyclopedia is a Christian run website. Please don't make fun of yourself. Seriously please

 

[Godistruth1]

Hi Godistruth1

I have a couple more witnesses for you to look at the further show that Joyousperson knows what he is talking about....

2nd Witness:
Saudi Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh:
<<
Saudi journalist:

If Muslims despise ‘infidel’ West, why are they so eager to live there?

Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

By MEMRI

In his July 8, 2018 column in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh slams Arab and African Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West and even risk their lives to reach it, yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.

He criticizes in particular the ingratitude of mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are immigrants themselves, who abuse the democracy and free speech in their host countries by inciting against the West.

In light of this, says Aal Al-Sheikh, the European right’s opposition to immigration is justifiable, for it is only natural to oppose the influx of immigrants who are “steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.”

Following are excerpts from his article:

“Immigrants cast themselves into the waters of the Mediterranean knowing full well that the chance of reaching their destination, the northern shore, is slim. They nevertheless risk [the journey], taking advantage of the instability in Libya, which has become the [immigrants’] point of departure on their way to the European paradise.

But what is strange, and perhaps even embarrassing, is that, if you ask them about the infidel West, they will spew curses and invective, call it ignorant, and [express] contempt for it. So why do they cast themselves into its bosom and risk their lives to reach it? I truly fail to understand this reasoning, which is so warped, rotten and paradoxical that it seems sickening and ridiculous at the same time.

An acute embarrassment

“The embarrassment becomes even more acute when one hears certain mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are foreigners and immigrants themselves, abusing the democracy and free speech that are granted to everyone [in those countries] by becoming expert at directing curses and invective at the infidels using [various] skillfully-phrased expressions.

“When the populist right in Europe demands to stop and fight immigration, even by means of military force, this evokes cries of outrage from the Arabs and Muslims there. They accuse those who make this demand of racism and hatred for the other, and – most ludicrously – [claim] that the West is undemocratic. Let me say this loud and clear: I do not blame [the Europeans]. In fact, if I were European, I would not hesitate for a moment to oppose this immigration and reject these people, whose culture is based on the duty to hate the non-Muslim, and examples [of this] in their heritage are numerous and varied… The Arabs, and especially the extremist Muslims among them, are steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.

Question:
Is a psycho-social investigation in order?

Yahya Cholil Staquf responds:
“These conflicting sentiments – of hatred [for the West], but [a willingness] to risk one’s most precious possession, one’s life, in order to live among those hated societies and enjoy the comfort, security, stability and prosperity [they offer] – require a psycho-social investigation… Some people justify [this attitude], saying that [the Europeans] are racist xenophobes and are enemies of Islam and the Muslims. [But] for the sake of reason and honesty, put yourself in their place. Would any Arab country open its doors wide to Christian foreigners and [even] allow them to work in it? The answer is definitely not. So why do you demand that others treat [you] differently than you treat them?…

“All that is left to say is that the wave of populism currently sweeping the Western societies is justified, since it is [simply] a response in kind…”
https://worldisraelnews.com/saudi-journalist-if-muslims-despise-infidel-west-why-are-they-so-eager-to-live-there/
>>

I call my third Witness:
PM Benjamin Netenyahu - not a Muslim, but you think he would know being surrounded by Muslim nations...

July 18, 2019
<<
Israel Hayom asked Netanyahu how he responds to attacks claiming Israel undermines stability in the Middle East.

“Once they also said that all the problems of the Middle East are a product of the Palestinian problem,” he said.

“Today, there is no one who seriously argues that. Even our sworn enemies are embarrassed to say it, because the struggle here is between the middle ages and modernism, between the tyranny of radical Islam and the forces of freedom. This is the struggle put simply. To stand against Islamic fundamentalism that wants to take over the Middle East first and then the entire world.”
https://worldisraelnews.com/netanyahu-israel-has-become-central-power-in-world/
>>

I call my fourth witness:
Prophet Muhammad

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy, because all unbelievers are enemies of Islam. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

I call my fifth witness – and you really should listen to everything she has to say:

Ex-Muslim Woman warns America

This is one person you really should listen to:

I call my sixth witness:

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill
IPT News
October 1, 2010

Including remarks by Manda Ervin, an American Muslim who fled Iran following the 1979 revolution, to a conference of Muslim moderates on Capitol Hill.”

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

You should read this article, because moderate Muslims are warning the West about fundamental Islam infiltrating the West to destroy its culture from within.

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

Yure good at copy pasting. I don't Wana copy paste stuff for u to refute because you can never finish replying. Rather u ask a simple question and I'll reply one by one and I'll ask my own question in that reply and it continues. Agreed?

 

[JosephZ]

You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

Dr. Bale never makes that distinction.... Bale never divides up the religion of Islam itself... I have searched the video and your “Bale” source and have not found such a distinction made. I could have missed it. Please show me where Dr. Bale makes that distinction.

Below are some quotes where Dr. Bale clearly makes a distinction between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism.

"There are the “Islam bashers” that make up the so-called “counter-jihad” movement, who generally (and foolishly) fail to distinguish between Islam and Islamism... That is the equivalent of arguing, equally absurdly, that there is no difference between Christianity in general and literalist, extremist, and theocratic interpretations of Christianity."

"‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism..."

"‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general"

"For good examples of the conflation of Islam in general with Islamism, see the article that appeared on the ‘Stop Islamization of America’ (SIOA) website (and was subsequently reprinted on Bill Warner’s ‘Political Islam’ website), wherein D. L. Adams, in the course of describing a demonstration held in Copenhagen by a Danish sister organisation called Stop Islamisation of Denmark (SIAD), insisted that ‘Islam is a political ideology’, thereby collapsing the crucial distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism the modern political ideology;"

Setst RE: Those who claim to be Christian but commit acts of terrorism, they are not following Christianity’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith. In contrast: Muslims, when they carry out Jihad against unbelievers, they are following Islam’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith

Many Christian extremists do believe that they are following the rule of faith and that God has called them to commit atrocities based on their understanding of Christianity's sacred scriptures, so while you and I strongly disagree with their conclusions, that doesn't mean that they are not perverting these texts in the same way Islamic extremist pervert Islamic texts.

Setst RE: You listen to Taqyah rather than actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

So the Christian and secular schools that I have taken courses from on Islamic Studies also practice Taqiyya?

actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

• All four schools of Sunni and Shia interpret Sharia (Sharia Figh) the same about Jihad against unbelievers in stages because that is what their Sacred Scriptures command them to do.

• That is why Sharia Figh for all four schools of Sunni, and Shia all teach the same regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

• This is core doctrine that cannot be altered or re-interpreted.

Each of the Islamic schools of thought teach differently and vary from region to region. If they all taught the same then why do they go by different names and why aren't all Muslims on the same page?
Today, the five schools of Islamic thought accepted by all Muslims are the Ja'fari, comprising 23% of the Muslims; the Hanafi, comprising 31% of the Muslims; the Maliki, comprising 25% of the Muslims; the Shafi'i, comprising 16% of the Muslims; and the Hanbali, comprising 4% of the Muslims. The remaining small percentage follow other minority schools, such as the Zaydi and the Isma'ili.

What you have been describing in this thread is only accepted by around 4 to 5% of the Muslims who fall within the Hanbali school of thought.

Did you not know Sharia Figh for all Sunni schools, and Shia command defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment?

If this were true, then you would see more than 10% of the world's Muslim population believing this way and far more than 1/10th of 1% involved in violent jihad. If a religion like Islam that has existed for more than 1,400 years actually taught the way you believe it does, then the numbers of its followers who believe Islam teaches the way you describe in this thread would be much much higher.

Setst RE: When you refuse to recognize the problem - Sharia Law - you are only looking at symptoms. To solve the problem you must get at the root - Islam Sharia.

Once again, your understanding of Shari'a differs from that of the vast majority of the world's Muslims and any reputable school that teaches on this subject. Also, extremist interpretations of Islamic texts are only one of many factors that lead to violent Islamic extremism.

Salifi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad – offer peace to the unbeliever for those who repent and submit to Islam. If they refuse, then Jihad against them is to be fulfilled until they submit to Islam. If they refuse - kill them. This is Sharia Law for Sunni and Shia. And for Salafii and Wahhabism. How could you not know this?

Many Salifi and Wahhabists fail to put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context. This is what leads to their extreme interpretations. This is where their teaching is in error and why the vast majority of Muslims reject them and their teaching.

The vast majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context and this is the proper way to interpret them. This is why Muslims who follow the religion of Islam as it was intended to be taught live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors throughout the world in both majority Muslim countries and in countries where they are the minority.

Wherever Islam gains dominance – no matter how peaceful and loving they appeared when they were a minority or too weak – they become ever more bold, threatening and abusive. That is a fact. Your statistics only show what you want to see, and what Muslims want you to see while in a minority, but not what Islam actually teaches. That is a fact.

The statistics I share confirm what I have personally experienced. How many years have you spent living and/or working in countries or regions with majority Muslim populations? How many Muslim majority countries have you visited where you have personally encountered Muslims acting boldly, threatening, and abusive towards you?

Setst RE: What good is hiding the truth? When you refuse to recognize the problem then evil wins. That is what Yahya and Bale were warning us about.

I do recognize the problem of Islamic extremism and extremists ideologies. That's why I continuously take courses and attend forums on violent extremism and have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry here in Mindanao. Dr. Bale and Yahya aren't warning against the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims following or equating Islamic extremism to Islam as you are doing in this thread. In fact, Dr. Bale goes out of his way to say that those who do this are foolish and are counter productive to the fight against violent extremism.

The problem is Sharia...

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Let's put that sentence into context with some of the rest of Yahya Cholil Staquf's interview along with the definitions of the words contained in it to get a better understanding of what he is trying to say.

Interviewer: What basic acceptances without proof within traditional Islam are problematic?

Yahya: Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important. First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live.

Interviewer: Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?

Yahya: Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is accepted without proof to be one of segregation and enmity. Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the basic tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is simply unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, frequently isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nation such as racism, for example, which exists everywhere in the world. But in any case, traditional Islam—which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity towards nonMuslims—is an important factor.

Now to the second point: the traditional Muslim relationship with the state. Within the Islamic tradition, the state is conceptualized as a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims beneath the rule of one man, who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

Interviewer: Does that mean—at least in regard to this particular matter—that the call to establish a caliphate that is so frequently issued by radical forces, including the Islamic State, is not unIslamic?

Yahya: No, it is not. The Islamic State’s goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence.

Many Muslims accept without proof that there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shari‘ah. This acceptance without proof is also in line with Islamic tradition, but of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation states. We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that suggest that it is true that the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality. And it must be crystal clear, to all, that state laws have precedence and will prevail in the event of perceived conflict between Islamic tradition and state law.
https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/...th-Kyai-Haji-Yahya-Cholil-Staquf_08-19-17.pdf

What Yahya Cholil Staquf is saying in this interview is that there are many Muslim fundamentalists and extremists who assume that traditional Islam taught a certain way without any real evidence of this and that any fundamentalist view that Islamic laws/Shari'a are to be taken as absolute must be rejected.

Based on what Yahya Cholil Staquf says in that interview it clearly disagrees with your point of view on Shari'a. Even more so when you add it to other comments he has made.

"Islamic teachings must be contextualized in order to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. In other words... the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle East, and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time. … So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

 

[Joyousperson]

Seriously. Wikipedia, Islamic encyclopedia ?? Man u must be joking ? Even I can edit Wikipedia and I'm sure ur Islamic encyclopedia is a Christian run website. Please don't make fun of yourself. Seriously please

Your response reflect intellectually immature.
Those [most] who post references from Wikipedia and secondary references never insist they are the final words on the issue.
You are stupid not to understand this normal standard but ignorant vomit your condemnation.

Generally there is a caution with using information from Wikipedia, Islamic encyclopedia, or even the tafsirs from notable Islamic Scholars.
However the above are useful to provide compilations of points as a convenience for a start to further research.

What ultimately counts in term of Islam is the direct words of Allah as represented in the 6236 verses in the Quran [supported by the Ahadith].

Translations of the Quran from Arabic are also not 100% reliable, thus much work is need to ensure the translated Allah's word are as close to the original.

Even when one read the Quran in Arabic, there is still a problem of interpretation of the words.
Again much work is still needed to understand the intention in Allah's original message.

So far, I noted your counters are very immature.

 

[Joyousperson]

Many Christian extremists do believe that they are following the rule of faith and that God has called them to commit atrocities based on their understanding of Christianity's sacred scriptures, so while you and I strongly disagree with their conclusions, that doesn't mean that they are not perverting these texts in the same way Islamic extremist pervert Islamic texts.


So the Christian and secular schools that I have taken courses from on Islamic Studies also practice Taqiyya?

• Each of the Islamic schools of thought teach differently and vary from region to region. If they all taught the same then why do they go by different names and why aren't all Muslims on the same page?

Today, the five schools of Islamic thought accepted by all Muslims are the Ja'fari, comprising 23% of the Muslims; the Hanafi, comprising 31% of the Muslims; the Maliki, comprising 25% of the Muslims; the Shafi'i, comprising 16% of the Muslims; and the Hanbali, comprising 4% of the Muslims. The remaining small percentage follow other minority schools, such as the Zaydi and the Isma'ili.

View attachment 260297
What you have been describing in this thread is only accepted by around 4 to 5% of the Muslims who fall within the Hanbali school of thought.


If this were true, then you would see more than 10% of the world's Muslim population believing this way and far more than 1/10th of 1% involved in violent jihad. If a religion like Islam that has existed for more than 1,400 years actually taught the way you believe it does, then the numbers of its followers who believe Islam teaches the way you describe in this thread would be much much higher.


Once again, your understanding of Shari'a differs from that of the vast majority of the world's Muslims and any reputable school that teaches on this subject. Also, extremist interpretations of Islamic texts are only one of many factors that lead to violent Islamic extremism.


Many Salifi and Wahhabists fail to put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context. This is what leads to their extreme interpretations. This is where their teaching is in error and why the vast majority of Muslims reject them and their teaching.

The vast majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context and this is the proper way to interpret them. This is why Muslims who follow the religion of Islam as it was intended to be taught live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors throughout the world in both majority Muslim countries and in countries where they are the minority.


The statistics I share confirm what I have personally experienced. How many years have you spent living and/or working in countries or regions with majority Muslim populations? How many Muslim majority countries have you visited where you have personally encountered Muslims acting boldly, threatening, and abusive towards you?


I do recognize the problem of Islamic extremism and extremists ideologies. That's why I continuously take courses and attend forums on violent extremism and have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry here in Mindanao. Dr. Bale and Yahya aren't warning against the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims following or equating Islamic extremism to Islam as you are doing in this thread. In fact, Dr. Bale goes out of his way to say that those who do this are foolish and are counter productive to the fight against violent extremism.


Let's put that sentence into context with some of the rest of Yahya Cholil Staquf's interview along with the definitions of the words contained in it to get a better understanding of what he is trying to say.

Interviewer: What basic acceptances without proof within traditional Islam are problematic?

Yahya: Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important. First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live.

Interviewer: Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?

Yahya: Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is accepted without proof to be one of segregation and enmity. Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the basic tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is simply unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, frequently isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nation such as racism, for example, which exists everywhere in the world. But in any case, traditional Islam—which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity towards nonMuslims—is an important factor.

Now to the second point: the traditional Muslim relationship with the state. Within the Islamic tradition, the state is conceptualized as a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims beneath the rule of one man, who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.

Interviewer: Does that mean—at least in regard to this particular matter—that the call to establish a caliphate that is so frequently issued by radical forces, including the Islamic State, is not unIslamic?

Yahya: No, it is not. The Islamic State’s goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence.

Many Muslims accept without proof that there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shari‘ah. This acceptance without proof is also in line with Islamic tradition, but of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation states. We must reach a point of societal consensus, so that any fundamentalist view of Islam that suggest that it is true that the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolutes, will be rejected out of hand as false. Religious teachings must be contextualized and religious values aligned with social reality. And it must be crystal clear, to all, that state laws have precedence and will prevail in the event of perceived conflict between Islamic tradition and state law.
https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/...th-Kyai-Haji-Yahya-Cholil-Staquf_08-19-17.pdf

What Yahya Cholil Staquf is saying in this interview is that there are many Muslim fundamentalists and extremists who assume that traditional Islam taught a certain way without any real evidence of this and that any fundamentalist view that Islamic laws/Shari'a are to be taken as absolute must be rejected.

Based on what Yahya Cholil Staquf says in that interview it clearly disagrees with your point of view on Shari'a. Even more so when you add it to other comments he has made.

"Islamic teachings must be contextualized in order to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. In other words... the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle East, and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

"Every verse of Quran was revealed in connection with a certain particular context of reality of the time. … So the Quran and the Hadith are first basically a historical document. When the situation, when the reality changed, then the interpretation of the spirit of Quran needs to be changed also.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

In the above, you are very deceptive as with most of your other posts because you are unable to provide provide arguments and proofs.

Here is what is presented in the original interview;

Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view, as leader of the world’s largest organization of Sunni Muslims, the Nahdlatul Ulama of Indonesia?
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a crystal clear relationship between fundamentalism, terror and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy.

What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic? Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important.
First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live

Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?
Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.
​

However you twisted the above and added your own words "acceptance without proof" i.e.

JosephZ changed the meaning and presented the following;
Interviewer: What basic acceptances without proof within traditional Islam are problematic?

Yahya: Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important. First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live.

Interviewer: Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?

Yahya: Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is accepted without proof to be one of segregation and enmity.​

The above change of words is a blatantly dishonest.

Note the various meanings of assumption;

1. something taken for granted; a supposition:a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
4. the act of taking possession of something:the assumption of power.
5. arrogance; presumption.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Definition of assumption | Dictionary.com

In this case the meaning of 'assumption' in context of the Islamists is more likely to be 3. the act of taking to or upon oneself based on one's personal or group beliefs.

Note the Islamists do not simply assume their beliefs without proofs.
Many of those Muslims who warred against and kill disbelievers have quoted the Quran [Allah's words] as proofs to justify their acts as a religious duty.
Those in groups are led by many who are expert scholars of Islam, e.g. Al-Bagdadi of IS has a PhD in Islamic studies.

Yayha mentioned "assumed .. segregation and enmity"
For the Islamists there is nothing to assume but the truth and proof of segregation and enmity is reflected in the 3400++ verses in the Quran that are contemptuous and antagonistic directed as disbelievers together with 300++ of verses condoning war and killing of disbelievers.

You could have at least maintain the original word and put your view in parenthesis [..].
Don't be a cheater!

 

[JosephZ]

1. you twisted the above and added your own words "acceptance without proof" i.e.

I explained how I was going to present the context of the interview.

Let's put that sentence into context with some of the rest of Yahya Cholil Staquf's interview along with the definitions of the words contained in it to get a better understanding of what he is trying to say.

You could have at least maintain the original word and put your view in parenthesis [..].
Don't be a cheater!

I highlighted the words that were exchanged in bold text which clearly showed the reader where I inserted the definitions. Since I explained this from the beginning, there shouldn't be a problem.

However you twisted the above and added your own words "acceptance without proof"

The above change of words is a blatantly dishonest.

Note the various meanings of assumption;

I used the definitions found in the Oxford dictionary which prides itself on being 'the definitive record of the English language'. The first entry (sense), in the Oxford Dictionary is considered to be the first historical use and most widely understood meaning of the word.

Below are the words I substituted along with their definitions.

Assume: to think or accept that something is true but without having proof of it

Assumption: a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof

Posit: to suggest or accept that something is true...

In this case the meaning of 'assumption' in context of the Islamists is more likely to be 3. the act of taking to or upon oneself based on one's personal or group beliefs.

It wasn't Islamists answering the questions in that interview, it was Yahya Cholil Staquf; therefore, we need to use the words in the context in which he was speaking.

 

[Joyousperson]

I explained how I was going to present the context of the interview.

I highlighted the words that were exchanged in bold text which clearly showed the reader where I inserted the definitions. Since I explained this from the beginning, there shouldn't be a problem.

That will not work as many will not refer to the original article to check and thus will take what you have changed as the original.
The intellectual protocol is you must not change whatever is in the author's original except to put your views in [...].

I used the definitions found in the Oxford dictionary which prides itself on being 'the definitive record of the English language'. The first entry (sense), in the Oxford Dictionary is considered to be the first historical use and most widely understood meaning of the word.

Below are the words I substituted along with their definitions.

Assume: to think or accept that something is true but without having proof of it

Assumption: a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof

Posit: to suggest or accept that something is true...

In this case the Oxford Dictionary is not extensive to cover the actual context of what Yahya intended.

In post #345 you stated;

JosephZ wrote:
What Yahya Cholil Staquf is saying in this interview is that there are many Muslim fundamentalists and extremists who assume that traditional Islam taught a certain way without any real evidence of this and that any fundamentalist view that Islamic laws/Shari'a are to be taken as absolute must be rejected.​

Yahya never stated "without any real evidence of this."
That cannot be because as Sets777 stated, the popular Sunni Schools condoned those acts of warring against and killing disbelievers as a religious duty which they have based their proofs from the Quran and quoting its verses.
The very famous Scholars of Islam such as Ibn Ishad and others also shared the same view and supported their views from the Quran, i.e. Allah words and from the Sunna/Ahadith.

I am sure Yahya being a scholar is well aware of the above.
What Yahya and Dr. Bale acknowledged is what the Islamists did are based on the proofs and truths from Islam itself. What they suggested is there are also other truths in the Quran and Islam which they would advocate for the modern era.

Yahya and Dr. Bale are seriously wrong on this because what is in the Quran is immutable and the disbeliever's salvation is at stake if the disbelievers change its meaning and do not comply fully with all of Allah's command in the Quran [supported by the Ahadith].

When Allah commanded in the Quran [supported by Ahadith] that Muslims should not be intimate friends or befriend disbelievers, Allah meant it to be specified so to avoid the the threats against Islam.

3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends biṭānatan بِطَانَةً ب ط ن ] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper [ʿanittum عَنِتُّمْ ع ن ت ] you [Muslims].
Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.​

This threat is eternal as long as there are disbelievers.
In reality this threat is true, as you agreed, Islam is a false religion and thus very likely to be conquered by other truer religions, e.g. Christianity.

Yahya, Dr. Bale, YOU, me or others do not have any divine authority to change the meanings of the above verse 3:118 and many others to our own meanings.

Therefore as long as Islam exists with the Quran and its 6236 immutable verses there will be SOME Muslims [from a pool of 320 million] who are the truer Muslims in complying with more the commands within the Quran.
To these 'SOME' Muslims they are doing their religious duty to please Allah but its consequences are the terrible evil and violent acts committed upon disbelievers and no human on earth has the divine authority to stop it!

It wasn't Islamists answering the questions in that interview, it was Yahya Cholil Staquf; therefore, we need to use the words in the context in which he was speaking.

You are putting words into Yahya's mouth which is wrong.
Yahya never stated "without any real evidence of this."

 

[setst777]

Yure good at copy pasting. I don't Wana copy paste stuff for u to refute because you can never finish replying. Rather u ask a simple question and I'll reply one by one and I'll ask my own question in that reply and it continues. Agreed?

Hi GodisTruth1,

You demanded Joyousperson to produce the evidence. Now that the evidence has been produced, you reject it outright.

I am serious, but you are playing games.

I definitely will not waste my time with a bigot.

Blessings

 

[setst777]

In the above, you are very deceptive as with most of your other posts because you are unable to provide provide arguments and proofs.

Here is what is presented in the original interview;

Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view, as leader of the world’s largest organization of Sunni Muslims, the Nahdlatul Ulama of Indonesia?
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a crystal clear relationship between fundamentalism, terror and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy.

What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic? Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important.
First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live

Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?
Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.
​

However you twisted the above and added your own words "acceptance without proof" i.e.

JosephZ changed the meaning and presented the following;
Interviewer: What basic acceptances without proof within traditional Islam are problematic?

Yahya: Three areas, which we describe as “centers of concern,” are particularly important. First, the relationship of Muslims with non-Muslims. Second, the relationship of Muslims to the state. And third, Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they happen to live.

Interviewer: Let’s begin with the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. What is problematic about the traditional Islamic understanding of this?

Yahya: Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is accepted without proof to be one of segregation and enmity.​

The above change of words is a blatantly dishonest.

Note the various meanings of assumption;

1. something taken for granted; a supposition:a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
4. the act of taking possession of something:the assumption of power.
5. arrogance; presumption.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Definition of assumption | Dictionary.com

In this case the meaning of 'assumption' in context of the Islamists is more likely to be 3. the act of taking to or upon oneself based on one's personal or group beliefs.

Note the Islamists do not simply assume their beliefs without proofs.
Many of those Muslims who warred against and kill disbelievers have quoted the Quran [Allah's words] as proofs to justify their acts as a religious duty.
Those in groups are led by many who are expert scholars of Islam, e.g. Al-Bagdadi of IS has a PhD in Islamic studies.

Yayha mentioned "assumed .. segregation and enmity"
For the Islamists there is nothing to assume but the truth and proof of segregation and enmity is reflected in the 3400++ verses in the Quran that are contemptuous and antagonistic directed as disbelievers together with 300++ of verses condoning war and killing of disbelievers.

You could have at least maintain the original word and put your view in parenthesis [..].
Don't be a cheater!

Hi Joyousperson,

Any person can clearly see by Joseph's messages, that he is deceptive, and is not interested in the truth.

He loves to argue, but by doing so, he is showing he is a bigot - dishonest in discussion, deceptive in his "evidence" and quotes, and naive and ignorant as to Islams core Scriptures that govern the lives of true Muslims.

So very obvious. He loves to argue and will stoop to the lowest depths of morality in order to "win."

Blessings to you, Joyousperson.

 

[setst777]

That will not work as many will not refer to the original article to check and thus will take what you have changed as the original.
The intellectual protocol is you must not change whatever is in the author's original except to put your views in [...].


In this case the Oxford Dictionary is not extensive to cover the actual context of what Yahya intended.

In post #345 you stated;

JosephZ wrote:
What Yahya Cholil Staquf is saying in this interview is that there are many Muslim fundamentalists and extremists who assume that traditional Islam taught a certain way without any real evidence of this and that any fundamentalist view that Islamic laws/Shari'a are to be taken as absolute must be rejected.​

Yahya never stated "without any real evidence of this."
That cannot be because as Sets777 stated, the popular Sunni Schools condoned those acts of warring against and killing disbelievers as a religious duty which they have based their proofs from the Quran and quoting its verses.
The very famous Scholars of Islam such as Ibn Ishad and others also shared the same view and supported their views from the Quran, i.e. Allah words and from the Sunna/Ahadith.

I am sure Yahya being a scholar is well aware of the above.
What Yahya and Dr. Bale acknowledged is what the Islamists did are based on the proofs and truths from Islam itself. What they suggested is there are also other truths in the Quran and Islam which they would advocate for the modern era.

Yahya and Dr. Bale are seriously wrong on this because what is in the Quran is immutable and the disbeliever's salvation is at stake if the disbelievers change its meaning and do not comply fully with all of Allah's command in the Quran [supported by the Ahadith].

When Allah commanded in the Quran [supported by Ahadith] that Muslims should not be intimate friends or befriend disbelievers, Allah meant it to be specified so to avoid the the threats against Islam.

3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends biṭānatan بِطَانَةً ب ط ن ] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper [ʿanittum عَنِتُّمْ ع ن ت ] you [Muslims].
Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.​

This threat is eternal as long as there are disbelievers.
In reality this threat is true, as you agreed, Islam is a false religion and thus very likely to be conquered by other truer religions, e.g. Christianity.

Yahya, Dr. Bale, YOU, me or others do not have any divine authority to change the meanings of the above verse 3:118 and many others to our own meanings.

Therefore as long as Islam exists with the Quran and its 6236 immutable verses there will be SOME Muslims [from a pool of 320 million] who are the truer Muslims in complying with more the commands within the Quran.
To these 'SOME' Muslims they are doing their religious duty to please Allah but its consequences are the terrible evil and violent acts committed upon disbelievers and no human on earth has the divine authority to stop it!


You are putting words into Yahya's mouth which is wrong.
Yahya never stated "without any real evidence of this."

Hi Joyousperson,

I couldn't have said it better. You have unmasked Joseph as the deceiver that he is - a serpent.

Yahyah does not hide the fact that he is in favor of secular law over Sharia to avoid the serious conflict following Sharia causes.

Yahya clearly and repeatedly states that the problem with the Traditional (all four schools of Sunni) and Orthodox (Sunni and Shia), as well as the problem with Fundamental (Wahhabism, Salafism), is that they follow Sharia, and this leads to violence.

"What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century."

So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence. [Yahya]

Yahya clearly rejects following Sharia, because it leads to serious conflict and violence. That is why Yahya is in favor of secular law.

 

[setst777]

Below are some quotes where Dr. Bale clearly makes a distinction between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism.

Joseph,

You are very deceptive and dishonest in your responses, and are obviously not interested in the objective evidence. Joyousperson already made this really clear in his posts, so I will respond directly to your deceptive logic...

setst777 said: ↑
Those who claim to be Christian but commit acts of terrorism, they are not following Christianity’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith. In contrast: Muslims, when they carry out Jihad against unbelievers, they are following Islam’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith

Many Christian extremists do believe that they are following the rule of faith and that God has called them to commit atrocities based on their understanding of Christianity's sacred scriptures, so while you and I strongly disagree with their conclusions, that doesn't mean that they are not perverting these texts in the same way Islamic extremist pervert Islamic texts.

Setst RE: As usual, you did not refute the point made. You are using your own subjective feelings to deceive.

You are like the people of old who use to say,

“A good Indian is a dead Indian.”

In like manner you subjectively believe in your heart that

“A good Muslim is a secularized Muslim.”

If a Muslim does not fit into your Westernized view, then they can’t be true Muslims no matter what their own Core Scriptures teach.

You need to be instructed about Islam from scratch - objectively. You learned about “Islamic” “extremists” from an infidel’s (Westerner’s) perspective, but never really learned about true Islam from their own core Scriptures or from viewing Islam in action throughout its history and in every land they have dominated, nor do you want to know. This has become abundantly clear from your own messages.

Objectively, we can know that 100% of Christianity’s core Scriptures (Four Gospels and the Apostolic Letters) teach, demonstrate and command Christians to be total pacifists – not even defensive violence – in this life.

Objectively, we can know that, more than any other topic by far, the Islam’s core Scriptures (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) teach, demonstrate and command Muslims in the art of violent Jihad against unbelievers – defensive and offensive – terror, war, raiding, pillaging, subjugation, raping, torturing, killing, enslaving and selling humans, until the world is one religion – Islam.

According to Islam’s core Scriptures, the best Muslim is one who perform violent Jihad against unbelievers in like manner as described in its core Scriptures. Only these are assured of Paradise.

It doesn’t matter what a person thinks they believe, if the so called “Christian” is not living by the NT Scriptures, they are not Christians.

It doesn’t matter what a person thinks they believe, if the so called “Muslim” is not living by the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, they are not Muslims. If any so called Muslim does not submit to Allah’s revealed will for them in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira (Sharia) according to the Sharia Figh of their sect, in so far as they are allowed within the country they live, they are not true Muslims.

Sharia was designed to give Allah’s instruction regarding every aspect of a Muslim’s personal, social and family life. Secular (moderate) Muslims do not submit to Allah's Law.

Many Western Muslims live secular lives, so they do not fall under any of the sects of Islam because they do not submit to Sharia – Allah’s Law that governs every aspect of a true Muslim’s life.

Islam: (submission to Allah): The Abrahamic monotheistic religious-political system founded by Muhammad, the Islamic prophet. Islam members are called Muslims.

Muslim: A follower of Islam, confessing the Shahada: that "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." A Muslim is one who submits to Allah by following the commands, teachings and practices of Muhammad as found in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, and structurally expressed in Sharia Figh.

Sharia: God's immutable divine law that governs every aspect of life as a Muslim, and as an Islamic nation as found in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira (Sunnah).

Sharia Figh: Represents the condensed and structured interpretation of commands, teachings, and practices sanctioned by Allah through Muhammad as found mainly in the Quran, Hadith, and the Autobiography of the Prophet Muhammad – primarily by Ibn Hisham (died 833 AD) in accordance with their sect.

setst777 said: ↑
You listen to Taqyah rather than actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

So the Christian and secular schools that I have taken courses from on Islamic Studies also practice Taqiyya?

Setst RE: The problem is complex:

• If you did take any courses, you were too hard-headed and biased, accepting only that which agreed with your biased subjective way of thinking.
• Many secular schools are naïve about Islam, and only know what Muslims and the US Government wants them to know. In this way, secular schools are victims of Taqyah, which they then teach to their students. That is partly why so many teachers and scholars disagree with each other about what Islam teaches – some understand better than others, and some are opinionated and thick-headed, others are easily fooled, some are scared.
• You listened with great interest to a Muslim teacher who sponsors terrorism in secret while he teaches you the Western Taqyah version of Islam.
• Many secular schools are afraid to teach anything negative about Islam for fear that they will be censored by the US Government and/or Islamic terrorist sponsoring organizations within our country.
• The classes that seem to have the most impact on your frame of mind about Islam is your classes about Islamic Extremists, which is not an education on Islam.

Your classes about Islamic Extremism, have already pre-programmed your mind against what Islam would call Good Muslims.

In summary so far, your understanding of Islam remains practically nil – being predominantly subjective. It’s like everything we are talking about Islam is the first time you ever learned about it, that you just can’t believe it.

I mean:

• You were totally floored when you learned that Muslims dress the way they do because of Sharia.
• You were using a Sufii book to define what Sharia Figh is for Sunni Muslims.
• You thought the millions of Muslims in foreign lands were all living and practicing full Sharia.
• You thought only peaceful loving Muslims represent true Islam.
• You cannot believe that traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) actually teach defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers who refuse to submit to Islam.

And so many other totally off the wall beliefs that no one with even a rudimentary knowledge of Islam could ever come close to.

setst777 said: ↑
actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

setst777 said: ↑

• All four schools of Sunni and Shia interpret Sharia (Sharia Figh) the same about Jihad against unbelievers in stages because that is what their Sacred Scriptures command them to do.

• That is why Sharia Figh for all four schools of Sunni, and Shia all teach the same regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

• This is core doctrine that cannot be altered or re-interpreted.

Each of the Islamic schools of thought teach differently and vary from region to region. If they all taught the same then why do they go by different names and why aren't all Muslims on the same page?

Today, the five schools of Islamic thought accepted by all Muslims are the Ja'fari, comprising 23% of the Muslims; the Hanafi, comprising 31% of the Muslims; the Maliki, comprising 25% of the Muslims; the Shafi'i, comprising 16% of the Muslims; and the Hanbali, comprising 4% of the Muslims. The remaining small percentage follow other minority schools, such as the Zaydi and the Isma'ili.

Setst RE: There are different sects of Islam that have differences that are minimal, just as Christian sects have differences that are minimal. The core doctrines of Islam (Sharia) are shared between all mainline sects of Sunni and Shia even though there are minor differences in interpretation.

Regarding a core doctrine like Jihad, it is so well explained and documented in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and Tafsir that there are minimal differences between the mainline sects of traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni in particular) on the teaching of Jihad. Jihad is the major subject of the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira.

The most significant difference I see in teaching on Jihad between the four schools of Sunni is found in the Hanafi school (the most liberal of the four). Hanafi jihad (offensive and defensive) against unbelievers is almost identical to the other schools except the Hanafi school teaches that all unbelievers are given the chance to submit to Allah and pay the Jizzya with willing submission, and if they do not agree then they are killed.

In contrast, the other schools teach that only Christians and Jews are granted the right to submit to Islamic authority and pay the Jizzya with willing submission. If they refuse they are killed.

As you can see, even this significant difference does not change the fact the Jihad (offensive and defensive) against unbelievers is commanded in all main sects of Islam until the whole world is one religion – Islam. Jihad is clearly a core doctrine among all the main sects of Islam. One actually has to be ignorant of Islam, or willfully bind, to not know this.

I would say you have a total subjective bias against Islam.

What you have been describing in this thread is only accepted by around 4 to 5% of the Muslims who fall within the Hanbali school of thought.

Setst RE: You think so because you have never studied the real Islam from their core sources. All four schools of Sunni are “Traditional Islam.” Hanbali has the greatest emphases on the Qur’an, and less on tradition, similar to Salafii. The teaching on Jihad (offensive and defensive)– the fight against unbelievers until the whole world is Islam is taught by all four Schools of Sunni, and in Shia, and in Wahhabism and Salafii. Jihad is the same, although the reasons for implementing it do vary.

For instance, unlike the Sunni sects or Shia, Wahhabism and Salafii both believe that any Muslim sect that adds tradition, or has any secular laws to govern, are hypocrites worthy of death. Therefore the scope of Jihad is larger, but the law regarding Jihad is the same for all these Muslim sects. This is core doctrine – Sharia.

This you should have known, because I had already instructed about this in my earlier message to you.

setst777 said: ↑
Did you not know Sharia Figh for all Sunni schools, and Shia command defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment?

If this were true, then you would see more than 10% of the world's Muslim population believing this way and far more than 1/10th of 1% involved in violent jihad. If a religion like Islam that has existed for more than 1,400 years actually taught the way you believe it does, then the numbers of its followers who believe Islam teaches the way you describe in this thread would be much much higher.

Setst RE: It is true. Your statistics do not take into account political and social Jihad, or threats, or censoring, or Taqyah, etc.

You are totally floored as usual, because you never actually studied the real Islam. You keep forgetting everything Joyousperson and I have been trying to instruct regarding Islam, or refuse to accept it, so we have to keep instructing all over again the same thing for weeks.

And we do this patiently with you. But patience has its limits when someone willfully chooses to remain ignorant, just as God has his limits for those who willfully reject Him in the face of repeated attempts to reach such persons. God finally hardens such persons so they can never understand again.

Jihad (offensive) against unbelievers - to expand Islam throughout the world - is taking place right before your eyes: political, social and physical Jihad in our government, politics, schools, universities and media channels, and threats, populating, and includes perceived defensive Jihad if their demands are not met in the form of demonstrations, terrorism and violence.

How many times have we tried to explain this to you, showing this is happening by quoting Islam’s own core Scriptures – but you were not willing to hear?

Your statistics do not reveal any of this Jihad activity that is all around us, that is preparing our nation for eventual domination by Islam.

Physical Jihad (offensive) – as in war – according to Sharia - can only occur when Muslims have the power to do so, and when given the order. A time will definitely come, when Islam has weakened their host countries enough so that they have gained enough dominance in Europe and the US, that they will fight unbelievers until they submit to Islam or be killed. History does not lie. Islam has a continuous history of this activity in every country they have dominated since Islam’s inception.

When Islam gains dominance, the only peace you will have under Islam is when you submit to Islam and feel yourself subdued, or else accept Islam as your religion.

How many times do we have to instruct regarding these teachings before it finally takes hold?

setst777 said: ↑
When you refuse to recognize the problem - Sharia Law - you are only looking at symptoms. To solve the problem you must get at the root - Islam Sharia.

Once again, your understanding of Shari'a differs from that of the vast majority of the world's Muslims and any reputable school that teaches on this subject. Also, extremist interpretations of Islamic texts are only one of many factors that lead to violent Islamic extremism.

Setst RE: That is a warn out and deceptive argument that has already been addressed repeatedly. My understanding is founded on accurate knowledge of the Sharia Figh – the interpretation of Sharia - of the four schools of Sunni, and of Shia.

Your understanding of Sharia is ignorance, based on you subject bias about what you think “good” Muslims should be like.

I know you never studied this or you would understand what I am saying. But since you keep asking the same questions in bewilderment shows you never studied Islam.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Below are some quotes where Dr. Bale clearly makes a distinction between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism.

Continued...

setst777 said: ↑
Salifi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad – offer peace to the unbeliever for those who repent and submit to Islam. If they refuse, then Jihad against them is to be fulfilled until they submit to Islam. If they refuse - kill them. This is Sharia Law for Sunni and Shia. And for Salafii and Wahhabism. How could you not know this?

Click to expand...

Many Salifi and Wahhabists fail to put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context. This is what leads to their extreme interpretations. This is where their teaching is in error and why the vast majority of Muslims reject them and their teaching.

Setst RE: You are using Westernized/secular language to try to explain Sharia. Just read and accept the Sharia Figh of all four schools of Sunni, and of Shia, and you will not remain totally bewildered about Islam and what it actually teaches that guides the faith of all true Muslims of their school.

Traditional Islam (the four schools of Sunni), and Shia, are not Wahhabism as you obviously believe. And Sunni represents the majority of Muslims.

The vast majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context and this is the proper way to interpret them. This is why Muslims who follow the religion of Islam as it was intended to be taught live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors throughout the world in both majority Muslim countries and in countries where they are the minority.

Setst RE: This is what you have been duped into believing by others and the US Government on political correctness. Yahya also believes this because he knows that Sharia does not work and only leads to serious conflict and violence.

Jihad can never be explained away, because that is a core command of Allah given the utmost attention in all of Islam’s core Scriptures - more so than any other doctrine of Islam.

I never asked you to believe me, that is why I quoted Sharia Figh (Sharia interpretation) to you. That is why I quoted the best Tafsir for you. That is why I quoted their sacred books. I wanted to instruct you right from their interpretation and historical context. So, don’t blame me, or try to use your subjective arguments to explain away Islam. You choose to listen to a westernized form of Islam, while I have been instructing directly from Islam’s own sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Wherever Islam gains dominance – no matter how peaceful and loving they appeared when they were a minority or too weak – they become ever more bold, threatening and abusive. That is a fact. Your statistics only show what you want to see, and what Muslims want you to see while in a minority, but not what Islam actually teaches. That is a fact.

Click to expand...

The statistics I share confirm what I have personally experienced.

Setst RE: Dr Bale calls that “mirroring.” Do not define Islam through your subjective experiences, but by studying their own core texts and Sharia Figh for their faith. I kept directing you to objective data - their Scriptures - and you keep using your subjective experience.

Taqyah is genuinely being promoted throughout the US Government regarding Islam through politically correct laws and thought. Muslims are not just instructing the US Government and its schools to do this, but Muslims must practice taqyah, not only to alleviate hostility regarding their order to perform Jihad against infidels, but also to try to convince you that Islam is a fun and peaceful religion while they methodically take over the country you live.

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels/unbelievers] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.
[Quoted from: Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari Abu Ja'far Muhammad at-Tabari, Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-'Arabi, 2001 (vol. 3, p. 267)]

This is Sharia, yet you think it is all in the past and has nothing to do with Islam, while all the while you are seeing how Islam is promoting itself in the USA and Europe. This is the great lie you were duped into believing.

setst777 said: ↑
What good is hiding the truth? When you refuse to recognize the problem then evil wins. That is what Yahya and Bale were warning us about.

I do recognize the problem of Islamic extremism and extremists ideologies. That's why I continuously take courses and attend forums on violent extremism and have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry here in Mindanao. ..

Setst RE: You should take courses on Islam and its core Scriptures. “Islamic” and “extremism” are secular terms meant to describe something that we disagree with, but in no way addresses Islam and the reality of violence within the very fabric of Islam and its core Scriptures.

setst777 said: ↑
The problem is Sharia...

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Click to expand...

Yahya’s statement here cannot be explained away by seeing only what you want to see. The context is clear throughout – that Yahya believes that secular law must supplant Sharia to prevent serious conflict. Yahya sincerely believes that following Sharia leads only to conflict and violence.

To better understand Islam today in the West, you must realize that what Muslims say to Westerners (unbelievers or infidels) does not necessarily represent what they actually believe according to their Islamic doctrine.

You must be able to differentiate what they say from what Islam teaches them to believe. Also, the history and actions of Islam, Islamic leaders, Islamic countries, and Muslims throughout the world in lands they gain ever greater dominance, are important considerations in helping you to face objective reality.

IN SUMMARY

Until you are willing to study Islam’s Core Scriptures, and the interpretations of those Scriptures (Sharia Figh) of Traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) and Shia, you will never grasp objective reality regarding Islam and Global Jihad that is, and has been practiced, by Islam since inception.

Study those first, and accept what Islam states about itself, rather than depending on the Infidel Version. If you do this, you will be ready to discuss Islam.

 

[JosephZ]

It doesn’t matter what a person thinks they believe, if the so called “Christian” is not living by the NT Scriptures, they are not Christians.

I'm just courious, do you follow all of the commands of Jesus found in the four gospels? Why or why not?

That is a warn out and deceptive argument that has already been addressed repeatedly. My understanding is founded on accurate knowledge of the Sharia Figh – the interpretation of Sharia - of the four schools of Sunni, and of Shia. Your understanding of Sharia is ignorance, based on you subject bias about what you think “good” Muslims should be like.

You are using Westernized/secular language to try to explain Sharia. Just read and accept the Sharia Figh of all four schools of Sunni, and of Shia, and you will not remain totally bewildered about Islam and what it actually teaches that guides the faith of all true Muslims of their school.

You should take courses on Islam and its core Scriptures. “Islamic” and “extremism” are secular terms meant to describe something that we disagree with, but in no way addresses Islam and the reality of violence within the very fabric of Islam and its core Scriptures.

In summary so far, your understanding of Islam remains practically nil – being predominantly subjective. It’s like everything we are talking about Islam is the first time you ever learned about it, that you just can’t believe it.

I've heard everything you have been saying here before and it can all be found on the various anti-Islamic propaganda sites that are available online. Nothing you have said in this thread is new or earth shattering.

Who do you think would have a better understanding of Islam and what Islam teaches?

A person who has lived their entire life in the US in a part of the country where the Muslim population is less than 1% and who has never spent any time in a part of the world where Muslims make up a majority; who also hasn't had any formal education in Islam or Islamic history and frequently visits right-wing, anti-Islamic sites and watches videos on Youtube produced by anti-Islamic propagandists to get information on Islam; or,

Someone who has taken multiple courses in Islamic Studies from Christian, Islamic, and secular sources scattered over a period of more than three decades, attended several forums where Islam has been extensively disused, lived in a Majority Muslim country for almost a year, visited several others, served in the military with Muslims, has lived in a predominantly Muslim village for more than five years and has been working among Muslims in regions where the Muslim population exceeds 95% in many cases and sometimes as high as 98% for going on 8 years; has witnessed the acts of Islamic extremists/terrorists first hand, spoken to countless victims of Islamic extremism, works in the same communities as recruiters for Islamic terrorist groups, and frequently spends time on islands that are the stronghold of ISIS in Southeast Asia?

The classes that seem to have the most impact on your frame of mind about Islam is your classes about Islamic Extremists, which is not an education on Islam.

As I have mentioned previously in this thread I have taken multiple courses in Islamic Studies from Christian, Islamic, and secular sources over the years. All of the courses I have taken on Islam pretty much teach the same thing with only slight variations. Earlier I recommended you take the following course from a Christian source that is available online and is free to help you get a better understanding of Islam The Gospel and Islam - TVSEMINARY Trinity Video Seminary
If you want to see just how similar the teachings are to Islamic sources, I suggest you also take the courses entitled Contemporary Issues and The Moral Foundations of Islamic Culture found at this link IOU-Diploma: Level One They are also free to enroll in.

I have completed all three of these courses and they are inline with the courses I have taken in the past that were offered by the University of Maryland and the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

You listen to Taqyah rather than actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

So you really do believe that The University of Maryland, Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, TVS Seminary, and Dr. Philip's Islamic University all of which I have taken courses from over the past three decades and who all teach basically the same about Sharia, Islamic jurisprudence, and the schools of thought found within Islam are all practicing taqiyya? Does that even sound reasonable?

You are totally floored as usual, because you never actually studied the real Islam. You keep forgetting everything Joyousperson and I have been trying to instruct regarding Islam, or refuse to accept it, so we have to keep instructing all over again the same thing for weeks

Why would I listen to someone who has no formal education in Islam and has lived their entire life in the US and another who is just an anonymous person online parroting anti-Islamic propaganda? Especially since you are both using the exact same anti-Islamic propaganda sites and anti-Islamic propagandists as sources to support your arguments? I'm going to stick with the many instructors who have extensive backgrounds in Islam and Islamic history that I have taken courses from, the countless Muslims I have encountered in my life and discussed religion with during my many years of traveling and living in their countries, and my own reading of the Qur'an and other Islamic texts to determine what Muslims believe, what Islam is, and what it teaches.

There are different sects of Islam that have differences that are minimal, just as Christian sects have differences that are minimal.

If the differences are so minimal, why are there certain sects of Islam at war with others and in some cases Muslims in general?

Traditional Islam (the four schools of Sunni), and Shia, are not Wahhabism as you obviously believe. And Sunni represents the majority of Muslims.

What are you talking about? I don't believe that. I'm the one that explained the differences to you after you made the claim that they all teach the same thing.

Each of the Islamic schools of thought teach differently and vary from region to region. If they all taught the same then why do they go by different names and why aren't all Muslims on the same page?
Today, the five schools of Islamic thought accepted by all Muslims are the Ja'fari, comprising 23% of the Muslims; the Hanafi, comprising 31% of the Muslims; the Maliki, comprising 25% of the Muslims; the Shafi'i, comprising 16% of the Muslims; and the Hanbali, comprising 4% of the Muslims. The remaining small percentage follow other minority schools, such as the Zaydi and the Isma'ili.

What you have been describing in this thread is only accepted by around 4 to 5% of the Muslims who fall within the Hanbali school of thought.

Many Salifi and Wahhabists fail to put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context. This is what leads to their extreme interpretations. This is where their teaching is in error and why the vast majority of Muslims reject them and their teaching.

The vast majority of Shia and Sunni Muslims put the Islamic texts into textual and historical context and this is the proper way to interpret them. This is why Muslims who follow the religion of Islam as it was intended to be taught live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors throughout the world in both majority Muslim countries and in countries where they are the minority.

Yahya also believes this because he knows that Sharia does not work and only leads to serious conflict and violence.

That is not what he believes. He believes that certain interpretations of Shari'a and those who try to override the laws of the countries they live in with Shari'a lead to serious conflict and violence.

Yahya’s statement here cannot be explained away by seeing only what you want to see. The context is clear throughout – that Yahya believes that secular law must supplant Sharia to prevent serious conflict.

He says this because Islam teaches that Muslims must submit to the authorities in the country they live in. If Muslims ignore this and try to override secular laws with their Islamic traditions that oppose them, then naturally there will be conflict.

I never asked you to believe me, that is why I quoted Sharia Figh (Sharia interpretation) to you. That is why I quoted the best Tafsir for you. That is why I quoted their sacred books. I wanted to instruct you right from their interpretation and historical context. So, don’t blame me, or try to use your subjective arguments to explain away Islam. You choose to listen to a westernized form of Islam, while I have been instructing directly from Islam’s own sources.

This is exactly what the Islamic extremists do and is what both Dr. Bale and Yahya discuss. Just quoting from Islamic texts and referring to Islamic history doesn't lead to an authentic interpretation.

Below is an example of what kind of teaching will result if you follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.

This sect of Christianity believes in the death penalty for things like Homosexuality and Adultery among other sins and they want to see it carried out in every case without exception. They also teach that being friends with people outside of their church is forbidden, women are to be submissive to their husbands under all circumstances, and women are not allowed to speak a single word within the church.

Now if you interpret the Bible literally and without putting things into textual and historical context, you can come to the conclusions like in the examples above. If you watch a complete sermon from one of these churches they read scripture straight from the Bible and it sounds like this is exactly what the Bible teaches. If one of these churches was the first one that a non-Christian with little understanding of the Christian faith walked into, they would easily be convinced that what the pastor preaching from the pulpit is teaching true Christianity.

The above concept also works in relation to Islam. Islamic extremist use the exact same Islamic texts, yet the vast majority of the world's Muslims, who also have access to these exact same texts, reject their teaching.

Yahya sincerely believes that following Sharia leads only to conflict and violence.

No he doesn't. Here is how he describes Shria'a: "“Muslims must understand the ultimate ideals, goals, or mission of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad himself said he had no mission other than to improve the noble character of people. In the textual tradition of Islamic teaching there are five principles that comprise the goal of Shariah – preserve life, preserve mind, preserve religion, preserve posterity, and preserve property – any action that is to be considered in line with Shariah must lead to these five results.” -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

To better understand Islam today in the West, you must realize that what Muslims say to Westerners (unbelievers or infidels) does not necessarily represent what they actually believe according to their Islamic doctrine.

What you are saying then is that all Muslims are liars.

IN SUMMARY Until you are willing to study Islam’s Core Scriptures, and the interpretations of those Scriptures (Sharia Figh) of Traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) and Shia, you will never grasp objective reality regarding Islam and Global Jihad that is, and has been practiced, by Islam since inception. Study those first, and accept what Islam states about itself, rather than depending on the Infidel Version. If you do this, you will be ready to discuss Islam

What exactly is your background in Islam and Islamic history again?

 

[JosephZ]

Jihad (offensive) against unbelievers - to expand Islam throughout the world - is taking place right before your eyes: political, social and physical Jihad in our government, politics, schools, universities and media channels, and threats, populating, and includes perceived defensive Jihad if their demands are not met in the form of demonstrations, terrorism and violence. How many times have we tried to explain this to you, showing this is happening by quoting Islam’s own core Scriptures – but you were not willing to hear? Your statistics do not reveal any of this Jihad activity that is all around us, that is preparing our nation for eventual domination by Islam.

Physical Jihad (offensive) – as in war – according to Sharia - can only occur when Muslims have the power to do so, and when given the order. A time will definitely come, when Islam has weakened their host countries enough so that they have gained enough dominance in Europe and the US, that they will fight unbelievers until they submit to Islam or be killed. History does not lie. Islam has a continuous history of this activity in every country they have dominated since Islam’s inception.

When Islam gains dominance, the only peace you will have under Islam is when you submit to Islam and feel yourself subdued, or else accept Islam as your religion.

Taqyah is genuinely being promoted throughout the US Government regarding Islam through politically correct laws and thought. Muslims are not just instructing the US Government and its schools to do this, but Muslims must practice taqyah, not only to alleviate hostility regarding their order to perform Jihad against infidels, but also to try to convince you that Islam is a fun and peaceful religion while they methodically take over the country you live.

What you have mentioned above are conspiracy theories and promoting these falsehoods is dangerous. Repeating conspiracy theories like the ones above can sometimes lead people to act out violently. I would suggest you keep these thoughts and wild accusations to yourself.

setst777 said: ↑
When you refuse to recognize the problem - Sharia Law - you are only looking at symptoms. To solve the problem you must get at the root - Islam Sharia.

Your understanding of Sharia is ignorance, based on you subject bias about what you think “good” Muslims should be like.

Here is how I explained Shari'a to you earlier in the thread.

There is no relation between Shari'a and terror and I'm pretty sure what you believe about Shari'a is not the same as that of Muslims. Shari'a is not much different than halakhah in Judaism or the magisterium found in Catholicism.

Shari'a comes mostly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and is a guide used by Muslims to become closer to God through teaching values, providing a code of conduct, and giving religious commandments which guide Muslims on how to live their day to day lives. The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims. It has no application to non-Muslims, so it's not something to be feared.

Below are some further points of view on Shari'a from various Islamic sources:

In its original Qur’anic sense, the word shari’a refers to “the way,” the path to
God, and not to formally codified Islamic law, which only emerged in the centuries
following Muhammad’s death. In examining the issue of blasphemy and apostasy
laws, it is thus vital that we differentiate between the Qur’an—from which much
of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived—and the law itself. For
while its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject
to human interpretation and revision.

For example, punishment for apostasy is merely the legacy of historical
circumstances and political calculations stretching back to the early days of Islam,
when apostasy generally coincided with desertion from the Caliph’s army and/or
rejection of his authority, and thus constituted treason or rebellion. The embedding
(i.e., codification) of harsh punishments for apostasy into Islamic law must be
recognized as an historical and political by-product of these circumstances framed
in accordance with human calculations and expediency, rather than assuming that
Islam, and shari’a, must forever dictate punishment for changing one’s religion.

The historical development and use of the term shari’a to refer to Islamic law often
leads those unfamiliar with this history to conflate man-made law with its revelatory
inspiration, and to thereby elevate the products of human understanding—which
are necessarily conditioned by space and time—to the status of Divine.

Shari’a, properly understood, expresses and embodies perennial values. Islamic
law, on the other hand, is the product of ijtihad (interpretation) which depends on
circumstances (al-hukm yadur ma‘a al-‘illah wujudan wa ‘adaman) and needs to be
continuously reviewed in accordance with ever-changing circumstances, to prevent
Islamic law from becoming out of date, rigid and non-correlative—not only with
Muslims’ contemporary lives and conditions, but also with the underlying perennial
values of shari’a itself.

From "God Needs No Defense" by H.E. Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid
https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2018/Nusantara-Manifesto.pdf

Shariah literally means “a path to life-giving water,” and refers to a defined path upon which all God-fearing people are advised to tread. It is grounded in the recognition of God’s existence. Shariah presupposes that there is a God. God reveals His desire of how man should shape his destiny, and God’s will is manifested in the form of certain laws or principles. These laws or principles constitute shariah.

Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States, for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts. American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes.

In Islam, shariah can be divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners), i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.

Countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have enmeshed religious extremism with political power resulting in a brutal brand of governance they brand “shariah.”

Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.
Demystifying "Shariah" | Islam Ahmadiyya

Shariah is an Arabic word that literally means a ‘vast road leading to an uninterrupted source of water.’ Figuratively, it refers to a clear, straight path, as mentioned in the following Quranic verse: “Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on a straight way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18) Hence, Shariah is the practical guidance Muslims live by. It is rooted in the divine teachings of Islam and relates to all aspects of life. Its collective aim is to facilitate justice and benefit for humanity in this life and the hereafter.

Shariah is derived from the scholarly study of Islamic texts. These texts include the final revelation from God (Quran) and the recorded teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Sunnah) which are timeless and of divine origin. However, scholars derive specific rulings from the revealed texts by using human effort and interpretation, taking into account the surrounding context. As such, Shariah relies on scholarly consensus, legal analogy, and interpretive reasoning in deciding rulings. Hence, there are areas of Shariah where the scholars unanimously agree due to clearly defined evidence and areas where disagreements exist. This flexibility enables Shariah to maintain its applicability and relevance in the light of changing social, cultural, and historical circumstances, while remaining faithful to the guiding principles of Shariah and its core objectives.
Understanding Shariah

Sharia isn't even “law” in the sense that we in the West understand it. And most devout Muslims who embrace sharia conceptually don't think of it as a substitute for civil law. Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it's not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Qur’an-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn't come from the state, and it doesn't even come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical. The human interpretation of sharia is called “fiqh," or Islamic rules of right action, created by individual scholars based on the Qur’an and hadith (stories of the prophet Muhammad's life). Fiqh literally means “understanding” — and its many different schools of thought illustrate that scholars knew they didn't speak for God.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html?noredirect=on

 

[Joyousperson]

Joseph,

You are very deceptive and dishonest in your responses, and are obviously not interested in the objective evidence. Joyousperson already made this really clear in his posts, so I will respond directly to your deceptive logic...

setst777 said: ↑
Those who claim to be Christian but commit acts of terrorism, they are not following Christianity’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith. In contrast: Muslims, when they carry out Jihad against unbelievers, they are following Islam’s Sacred Scriptures – the Rule of Faith



Setst RE: As usual, you did not refute the point made. You are using your own subjective feelings to deceive.

You are like the people of old who use to say,

“A good Indian is a dead Indian.”

In like manner you subjectively believe in your heart that

“A good Muslim is a secularized Muslim.”

If a Muslim does not fit into your Westernized view, then they can’t be true Muslims no matter what their own Core Scriptures teach.

You need to be instructed about Islam from scratch - objectively. You learned about “Islamic” “extremists” from an infidel’s (Westerner’s) perspective, but never really learned about true Islam from their own core Scriptures or from viewing Islam in action throughout its history and in every land they have dominated, nor do you want to know. This has become abundantly clear from your own messages.

Objectively, we can know that 100% of Christianity’s core Scriptures (Four Gospels and the Apostolic Letters) teach, demonstrate and command Christians to be total pacifists – not even defensive violence – in this life.

Objectively, we can know that, more than any other topic by far, the Islam’s core Scriptures (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) teach, demonstrate and command Muslims in the art of violent Jihad against unbelievers – defensive and offensive – terror, war, raiding, pillaging, subjugation, raping, torturing, killing, enslaving and selling humans, until the world is one religion – Islam.

According to Islam’s core Scriptures, the best Muslim is one who perform violent Jihad against unbelievers in like manner as described in its core Scriptures. Only these are assured of Paradise.

It doesn’t matter what a person thinks they believe, if the so called “Christian” is not living by the NT Scriptures, they are not Christians.

It doesn’t matter what a person thinks they believe, if the so called “Muslim” is not living by the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, they are not Muslims. If any so called Muslim does not submit to Allah’s revealed will for them in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira (Sharia) according to the Sharia Figh of their sect, in so far as they are allowed within the country they live, they are not true Muslims.

Sharia was designed to give Allah’s instruction regarding every aspect of a Muslim’s personal, social and family life. Secular (moderate) Muslims do not submit to Allah's Law.

Many Western Muslims live secular lives, so they do not fall under any of the sects of Islam because they do not submit to Sharia – Allah’s Law that governs every aspect of a true Muslim’s life.

Islam: (submission to Allah): The Abrahamic monotheistic religious-political system founded by Muhammad, the Islamic prophet. Islam members are called Muslims.

Muslim: A follower of Islam, confessing the Shahada: that "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." A Muslim is one who submits to Allah by following the commands, teachings and practices of Muhammad as found in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, and structurally expressed in Sharia Figh.

Sharia: God's immutable divine law that governs every aspect of life as a Muslim, and as an Islamic nation as found in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira (Sunnah).

Sharia Figh: Represents the condensed and structured interpretation of commands, teachings, and practices sanctioned by Allah through Muhammad as found mainly in the Quran, Hadith, and the Autobiography of the Prophet Muhammad – primarily by Ibn Hisham (died 833 AD) in accordance with their sect.

setst777 said: ↑
You listen to Taqyah rather than actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.



Setst RE: The problem is complex:

• If you did take any courses, you were too hard-headed and biased, accepting only that which agreed with your biased subjective way of thinking.
• Many secular schools are naïve about Islam, and only know what Muslims and the US Government wants them to know. In this way, secular schools are victims of Taqyah, which they then teach to their students. That is partly why so many teachers and scholars disagree with each other about what Islam teaches – some understand better than others, and some are opinionated and thick-headed, others are easily fooled, some are scared.
• You listened with great interest to a Muslim teacher who sponsors terrorism in secret while he teaches you the Western Taqyah version of Islam.
• Many secular schools are afraid to teach anything negative about Islam for fear that they will be censored by the US Government and/or Islamic terrorist sponsoring organizations within our country.
• The classes that seem to have the most impact on your frame of mind about Islam is your classes about Islamic Extremists, which is not an education on Islam.

Your classes about Islamic Extremism, have already pre-programmed your mind against what Islam would call Good Muslims.

In summary so far, your understanding of Islam remains practically nil – being predominantly subjective. It’s like everything we are talking about Islam is the first time you ever learned about it, that you just can’t believe it.

I mean:

• You were totally floored when you learned that Muslims dress the way they do because of Sharia.
• You were using a Sufii book to define what Sharia Figh is for Sunni Muslims.
• You thought the millions of Muslims in foreign lands were all living and practicing full Sharia.
• You thought only peaceful loving Muslims represent true Islam.
• You cannot believe that traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) actually teach defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers who refuse to submit to Islam.

And so many other totally off the wall beliefs that no one with even a rudimentary knowledge of Islam could ever come close to.

setst777 said: ↑
actually learning what Islam teaches in all Four Schools of Sunni and Shia - that is your problem.

setst777 said: ↑

• All four schools of Sunni and Shia interpret Sharia (Sharia Figh) the same about Jihad against unbelievers in stages because that is what their Sacred Scriptures command them to do.

• That is why Sharia Figh for all four schools of Sunni, and Shia all teach the same regarding Jihad against unbelievers.

• This is core doctrine that cannot be altered or re-interpreted.

Setst RE: There are different sects of Islam that have differences that are minimal, just as Christian sects have differences that are minimal. The core doctrines of Islam (Sharia) are shared between all mainline sects of Sunni and Shia even though there are minor differences in interpretation.

Regarding a core doctrine like Jihad, it is so well explained and documented in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and Tafsir that there are minimal differences between the mainline sects of traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni in particular) on the teaching of Jihad. Jihad is the major subject of the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira.

The most significant difference I see in teaching on Jihad between the four schools of Sunni is found in the Hanafi school (the most liberal of the four). Hanafi jihad (offensive and defensive) against unbelievers is almost identical to the other schools except the Hanafi school teaches that all unbelievers are given the chance to submit to Allah and pay the Jizzya with willing submission, and if they do not agree then they are killed.

In contrast, the other schools teach that only Christians and Jews are granted the right to submit to Islamic authority and pay the Jizzya with willing submission. If they refuse they are killed.

As you can see, even this significant difference does not change the fact the Jihad (offensive and defensive) against unbelievers is commanded in all main sects of Islam until the whole world is one religion – Islam. Jihad is clearly a core doctrine among all the main sects of Islam. One actually has to be ignorant of Islam, or willfully bind, to not know this.

I would say you have a total subjective bias against Islam.



Setst RE: You think so because you have never studied the real Islam from their core sources. All four schools of Sunni are “Traditional Islam.” Hanbali has the greatest emphases on the Qur’an, and less on tradition, similar to Salafii. The teaching on Jihad (offensive and defensive)– the fight against unbelievers until the whole world is Islam is taught by all four Schools of Sunni, and in Shia, and in Wahhabism and Salafii. Jihad is the same, although the reasons for implementing it do vary.

For instance, unlike the Sunni sects or Shia, Wahhabism and Salafii both believe that any Muslim sect that adds tradition, or has any secular laws to govern, are hypocrites worthy of death. Therefore the scope of Jihad is larger, but the law regarding Jihad is the same for all these Muslim sects. This is core doctrine – Sharia.

This you should have known, because I had already instructed about this in my earlier message to you.

setst777 said: ↑
Did you not know Sharia Figh for all Sunni schools, and Shia command defensive and offensive Jihad against unbelievers until the world is Islam until the Day of Judgment?



Setst RE: It is true. Your statistics do not take into account political and social Jihad, or threats, or censoring, or Taqyah, etc.

You are totally floored as usual, because you never actually studied the real Islam. You keep forgetting everything Joyousperson and I have been trying to instruct regarding Islam, or refuse to accept it, so we have to keep instructing all over again the same thing for weeks.

And we do this patiently with you. But patience has its limits when someone willfully chooses to remain ignorant, just as God has his limits for those who willfully reject Him in the face of repeated attempts to reach such persons. God finally hardens such persons so they can never understand again.

Jihad (offensive) against unbelievers - to expand Islam throughout the world - is taking place right before your eyes: political, social and physical Jihad in our government, politics, schools, universities and media channels, and threats, populating, and includes perceived defensive Jihad if their demands are not met in the form of demonstrations, terrorism and violence.

How many times have we tried to explain this to you, showing this is happening by quoting Islam’s own core Scriptures – but you were not willing to hear?

Your statistics do not reveal any of this Jihad activity that is all around us, that is preparing our nation for eventual domination by Islam.

Physical Jihad (offensive) – as in war – according to Sharia - can only occur when Muslims have the power to do so, and when given the order. A time will definitely come, when Islam has weakened their host countries enough so that they have gained enough dominance in Europe and the US, that they will fight unbelievers until they submit to Islam or be killed. History does not lie. Islam has a continuous history of this activity in every country they have dominated since Islam’s inception.

When Islam gains dominance, the only peace you will have under Islam is when you submit to Islam and feel yourself subdued, or else accept Islam as your religion.

How many times do we have to instruct regarding these teachings before it finally takes hold?

setst777 said: ↑
When you refuse to recognize the problem - Sharia Law - you are only looking at symptoms. To solve the problem you must get at the root - Islam Sharia.



Setst RE: That is a warn out and deceptive argument that has already been addressed repeatedly. My understanding is founded on accurate knowledge of the Sharia Figh – the interpretation of Sharia - of the four schools of Sunni, and of Shia.

Your understanding of Sharia is ignorance, based on you subject bias about what you think “good” Muslims should be like.

I know you never studied this or you would understand what I am saying. But since you keep asking the same questions in bewilderment shows you never studied Islam.

Continued...

Wow... your points really hit the heart of the matter,

What JosephZ learned from Bilal Philips is merely window-dressed Islam.

The other worst approach is the ad populum fallacy he clings to;

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.​

 

[Joyousperson]

Continued...

setst777 said: ↑
Salifi and Wahhabism teach the same as Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad – offer peace to the unbeliever for those who repent and submit to Islam. If they refuse, then Jihad against them is to be fulfilled until they submit to Islam. If they refuse - kill them. This is Sharia Law for Sunni and Shia. And for Salafii and Wahhabism. How could you not know this?

Click to expand...



Setst RE: You are using Westernized/secular language to try to explain Sharia. Just read and accept the Sharia Figh of all four schools of Sunni, and of Shia, and you will not remain totally bewildered about Islam and what it actually teaches that guides the faith of all true Muslims of their school.

Traditional Islam (the four schools of Sunni), and Shia, are not Wahhabism as you obviously believe. And Sunni represents the majority of Muslims.



Setst RE: This is what you have been duped into believing by others and the US Government on political correctness. Yahya also believes this because he knows that Sharia does not work and only leads to serious conflict and violence.

Jihad can never be explained away, because that is a core command of Allah given the utmost attention in all of Islam’s core Scriptures - more so than any other doctrine of Islam.

I never asked you to believe me, that is why I quoted Sharia Figh (Sharia interpretation) to you. That is why I quoted the best Tafsir for you. That is why I quoted their sacred books. I wanted to instruct you right from their interpretation and historical context. So, don’t blame me, or try to use your subjective arguments to explain away Islam. You choose to listen to a westernized form of Islam, while I have been instructing directly from Islam’s own sources.

setst777 said: ↑
Wherever Islam gains dominance – no matter how peaceful and loving they appeared when they were a minority or too weak – they become ever more bold, threatening and abusive. That is a fact. Your statistics only show what you want to see, and what Muslims want you to see while in a minority, but not what Islam actually teaches. That is a fact.

Click to expand...



Setst RE: Dr Bale calls that “mirroring.” Do not define Islam through your subjective experiences, but by studying their own core texts and Sharia Figh for their faith. I kept directing you to objective data - their Scriptures - and you keep using your subjective experience.

Taqyah is genuinely being promoted throughout the US Government regarding Islam through politically correct laws and thought. Muslims are not just instructing the US Government and its schools to do this, but Muslims must practice taqyah, not only to alleviate hostility regarding their order to perform Jihad against infidels, but also to try to convince you that Islam is a fun and peaceful religion while they methodically take over the country you live.

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."

If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels/unbelievers] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.
[Quoted from: Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari Abu Ja'far Muhammad at-Tabari, Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-'Arabi, 2001 (vol. 3, p. 267)]

This is Sharia, yet you think it is all in the past and has nothing to do with Islam, while all the while you are seeing how Islam is promoting itself in the USA and Europe. This is the great lie you were duped into believing.

setst777 said: ↑
What good is hiding the truth? When you refuse to recognize the problem then evil wins. That is what Yahya and Bale were warning us about.



Setst RE: You should take courses on Islam and its core Scriptures. “Islamic” and “extremism” are secular terms meant to describe something that we disagree with, but in no way addresses Islam and the reality of violence within the very fabric of Islam and its core Scriptures.

setst777 said: ↑
The problem is Sharia...

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

Click to expand...

Yahya’s statement here cannot be explained away by seeing only what you want to see. The context is clear throughout – that Yahya believes that secular law must supplant Sharia to prevent serious conflict. Yahya sincerely believes that following Sharia leads only to conflict and violence.

To better understand Islam today in the West, you must realize that what Muslims say to Westerners (unbelievers or infidels) does not necessarily represent what they actually believe according to their Islamic doctrine.

You must be able to differentiate what they say from what Islam teaches them to believe. Also, the history and actions of Islam, Islamic leaders, Islamic countries, and Muslims throughout the world in lands they gain ever greater dominance, are important considerations in helping you to face objective reality.

IN SUMMARY

Until you are willing to study Islam’s Core Scriptures, and the interpretations of those Scriptures (Sharia Figh) of Traditional Islam (all four schools of Sunni) and Shia, you will never grasp objective reality regarding Islam and Global Jihad that is, and has been practiced, by Islam since inception.

Study those first, and accept what Islam states about itself, rather than depending on the Infidel Version. If you do this, you will be ready to discuss Islam.

Wow!! another good set of counter-arguments and arguments.

 

[Joyousperson]

I'm just curious, do you follow all of the commands of Jesus found in the four gospels? Why or why not?

Note my forte is in Philosophy, i.e. including the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

In the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics [Immanuel Kant], Morality refer to the ideals set as a ceiling while ethics are the practical aspects of morality that fit within the constraints of human beings.

In the case of Christianity, Jesus pronounced the highest ideals for humans to strive toward. This is the absolute ceiling no humans can or should exceed.

However on the ethical side [the practical] and that humans are given free will and fallible, it is not likely most or even 99% will come close to the ideals

Thus within the principles of Morality and Ethics, I would expect any Christian is capable of complying to ALL that is in the four Gospels in term of the positive moral values. Thus a Christian must do the best to their personal capabilities.

But what is critical is no Christians should act against the overall pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' to hate and kill non-Christians.

If a Christian has to act in self-defense [kill if necessary], that is his personal will and be personally accountable for it and has nothing to do with Christianity. The Christian can take the risk and hope the merciful God will forgive him.

I've heard everything you have been saying here before and it can all be found on the various anti-Islamic propaganda sites that are available online. Nothing you have said in this thread is new or earth shattering.

There is nothing wrong with anti-Islamic propadanda sites as long as what they critique the ideology of Islam with supported evidence from the original sources, i.e. Quran [Ahadith] of Islam.

Who do you think would have a better understanding of Islam and what Islam teaches?

One can study about Islam for a thousand years from thousands of Islamic teachers.
What counts is whether their information are from the original sources, i.e. Quran [Ahadith] of Islam supported by justified true beliefs [JTB - a philosophical concept].

Why would I listen to someone who has no formal education in Islam and has lived their entire life in the US and another who is just an anonymous person online parroting anti-Islamic propaganda? Especially since you are both using the exact same anti-Islamic propaganda sites and anti-Islamic propagandists as sources to support your arguments?
I'm going to stick with the many instructors who have extensive backgrounds in Islam and Islamic history that I have taken courses from, the countless Muslims I have encountered in my life and discussed religion with during my many years of traveling and living in their countries, and my own reading of the Qur'an and other Islamic texts to determine what Muslims believe, what Islam is, and what it teaches.

I presume 'another' refers to me.
Note I am relying on primary sources, i.e. the Quran which is the words of Allah.
There is nothing wrong with references from anti-Islamic sources as long as they refer to the primary sources of Islam. Note I do not rely heavily on these sites except for the conveniences of their compilations from the primary sources.

I quoted the article re 9:5 from Answering Islam which I have read through and agreed. It has pages and pages of reference from various primary sources of Islam. It would be stupid for me to produced a similar article. Thus the convenience of referencing that article.
Instead of cursing the site, why not explain why the article is wrong or intellectually irresponsible.
​

Why do you keep ignoring and lying about my status when I have explained the above MANY TIMES.

Note lately most of my quotes re Islam are from the 6236 verses Quran which I extract personally to support my argument.

 

[Joyousperson]

What you have mentioned above are conspiracy theories and promoting these falsehoods is dangerous. Repeating conspiracy theories like the ones above can sometimes lead people to act out violently. I would suggest you keep these thoughts and wild accusations to yourself.


Here is how I explained Shari'a to you earlier in the thread.


Below are some further points of view on Shari'a from various Islamic sources:

In its original Qur’anic sense, the word shari’a refers to “the way,” the path to
God, and not to formally codified Islamic law, which only emerged in the centuries
following Muhammad’s death. In examining the issue of blasphemy and apostasy
laws, it is thus vital that we differentiate between the Qur’an—from which much
of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived—and the law itself. For
while its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject
to human interpretation and revision.

For example, punishment for apostasy is merely the legacy of historical
circumstances and political calculations stretching back to the early days of Islam,
when apostasy generally coincided with desertion from the Caliph’s army and/or
rejection of his authority, and thus constituted treason or rebellion. The embedding
(i.e., codification) of harsh punishments for apostasy into Islamic law must be
recognized as an historical and political by-product of these circumstances framed
in accordance with human calculations and expediency, rather than assuming that
Islam, and shari’a, must forever dictate punishment for changing one’s religion.

The historical development and use of the term shari’a to refer to Islamic law often
leads those unfamiliar with this history to conflate man-made law with its revelatory
inspiration, and to thereby elevate the products of human understanding—which
are necessarily conditioned by space and time—to the status of Divine.

Shari’a, properly understood, expresses and embodies perennial values. Islamic
law, on the other hand, is the product of ijtihad (interpretation) which depends on
circumstances (al-hukm yadur ma‘a al-‘illah wujudan wa ‘adaman) and needs to be
continuously reviewed in accordance with ever-changing circumstances, to prevent
Islamic law from becoming out of date, rigid and non-correlative—not only with
Muslims’ contemporary lives and conditions, but also with the underlying perennial
values of shari’a itself.

From "God Needs No Defense" by H.E. Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid
https://www.baytarrahmah.org/media/2018/Nusantara-Manifesto.pdf

Shariah literally means “a path to life-giving water,” and refers to a defined path upon which all God-fearing people are advised to tread. It is grounded in the recognition of God’s existence. Shariah presupposes that there is a God. God reveals His desire of how man should shape his destiny, and God’s will is manifested in the form of certain laws or principles. These laws or principles constitute shariah.

Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States, for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts. American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes.

In Islam, shariah can be divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners), i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.

Countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have enmeshed religious extremism with political power resulting in a brutal brand of governance they brand “shariah.”

Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice, tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.
Demystifying "Shariah" | Islam Ahmadiyya

Shariah is an Arabic word that literally means a ‘vast road leading to an uninterrupted source of water.’ Figuratively, it refers to a clear, straight path, as mentioned in the following Quranic verse: “Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on a straight way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18) Hence, Shariah is the practical guidance Muslims live by. It is rooted in the divine teachings of Islam and relates to all aspects of life. Its collective aim is to facilitate justice and benefit for humanity in this life and the hereafter.

Shariah is derived from the scholarly study of Islamic texts. These texts include the final revelation from God (Quran) and the recorded teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Sunnah) which are timeless and of divine origin. However, scholars derive specific rulings from the revealed texts by using human effort and interpretation, taking into account the surrounding context. As such, Shariah relies on scholarly consensus, legal analogy, and interpretive reasoning in deciding rulings. Hence, there are areas of Shariah where the scholars unanimously agree due to clearly defined evidence and areas where disagreements exist. This flexibility enables Shariah to maintain its applicability and relevance in the light of changing social, cultural, and historical circumstances, while remaining faithful to the guiding principles of Shariah and its core objectives.
Understanding Shariah

Sharia isn't even “law” in the sense that we in the West understand it. And most devout Muslims who embrace sharia conceptually don't think of it as a substitute for civil law. Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it's not a set of regulations adjudicated in court. Rather, it is a body of Qur’an-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn't come from the state, and it doesn't even come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical. The human interpretation of sharia is called “fiqh," or Islamic rules of right action, created by individual scholars based on the Qur’an and hadith (stories of the prophet Muhammad's life). Fiqh literally means “understanding” — and its many different schools of thought illustrate that scholars knew they didn't speak for God.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html?noredirect=on

The above articles are beating around the bush except one which quoted directly from Allah's words in the Quran, i.e.

“Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on a straight way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18) ​

Here is Pickthall on 45:18

45:18. And now have We set thee (O Muhammad) on a clear road [ShRA: sharīʿatin] of (Our) commandment [AMR: amr ]; so follow it, and follow not the whims [HWY: desires, fancies] of those [infidels] who know not.
​

Note the concepts in Arabic, i.e. the trilateral roots which I am relying upon.

Here Sharia [ShRA: sharīʿatin] [laws of the way of life] refers to all the commands within the 6236 verses of the Quran which Muhammad was commanded to follow which implies All Muslims must follow as well.

Now when Muhammad and Muslims [SOME from 320 millions of evil prones] followed the commands not to befriend disbelievers, to war against and kill disbelievers [upon FSD: fasad] as commanded by Allah within 45:18 and other similar verses, they are the truer Muslims than those who don't obey such commands.

There are only 4 verses in the Quran where Sharia [ShR3: shir'ʿatan; Sharia] is mentioned. Here are the other 3 verses in the Quran where the Sharia is mentioned;

5:48. And unto thee [Muhammad] have We revealed the Scripture [Quran] with the truth [haqq; pristine original], confirming whatever Scripture was before it [Quran], and a Watcher over it. So judge between them [Muslims] by that [revelation -Quran] which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their [infidels -sinners] desires [HWY; ahwāahum] away from the truth [haqq] which hath come unto thee. For each [Jews, Christians, Islamists] We have appointed a Divine Law [ShR3: shir'ʿatan; Sharia] and a traced-out way [path of actions & practices].
Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He [Allah] may try you by that [revelation & traced out way] which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are).
So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye [people] will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.​

Note as in 45:18, the Sharia refers to all the 6236 verses and its commands of Allah. Vie for good works means complying with as many commands of Allah in the Quran which including those verses to hate, war against and kill non-Muslims upon the vague threats [fasad].

42:13. He [Allah] hath ordained [ShR3: sharaʿa: ] for you that religion [alddeeni] which He commended [waṣṣā: entrusted, delivered] unto Noah, and that which We inspire [WHY: awḥaynā: ] in thee (Muhammad), and that which We commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying: Establish [aqīmū] the religion [DYN: aldeena], and be not divided therein.
Dreadful for the idolaters [infidels] is that [religion] unto which thou [Muhammad] callest them. Allah chooseth for Himself whom He will, and guideth unto Himself him who turneth (toward Him).​

In this case, [ShR3: sharaʿa:] the whole religion within the holy text, i.e. the Quran in the case of Muhammad is prescribed via Muhammad for all Muslims to comply with, those verses to hate, war against and kill non-Muslims upon the vague threats [fasad].

42:21. [Question] Or have they [infidels] partners (of Allah) who have made lawful [ShR3: sharaʿū] for them [infidels] in religion [alddeeni] that which Allah allowed not? And but for a decisive word (gone forth already), it would have been judged between them [infidels]. Lo! for wrong doers [ZLM: l-ẓālimīna] is a painful doom.​

In this verse, Sharia [all commandments AMR] is implied as not available to the disbelievers.

From the above, we can deduce from the context of [ShR3: sharaʿū] within the Quran what Sharia meant.

I believe my more detailed explanation is more specified and direct to what Allah intended in the Quran on what Sharia represent.
Did your lecturers ever refer to the Arabic trilateral roots and grammar to get to a closer meaning of what Allah [the ultimate authority] intended?

There is no need to rely on the various Islamic scholars you cited who were beating around the bush.