• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Islam

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
L

LaSalle

Guest

That's a jihad we will all support!


Great. Since we all agree on your definition that 'complex' terrorism is wrong; I suggest you not cloud the issue by trying to bring in your definition of 'simple' terrorism (i.e. vandalism), because you do tend to look like you're supporting 'complex' terrorism.

As for the media concerntrating on the bad side of life rather than good ... well, that is a phenomenon we all have to deal with. However, I notice this seems to be more so in the USA. It's not so bad where I'm in. Good deeds seem to get a fair amount of air time.

You should drop by to Singapore at least once. You'll find temples built next to mosques, across the road from a church... and no racial enclaves.
 
Upvote 0
F

farside

Regular Member
Feb 3, 2005
177
3
✟331.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Terror, Terror, and more Terror



Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Muhammad, Allah’s junior partner, was also a terrorist.

Kind Regards,
Farside
 
Upvote 0
M

maccoy77

Active Member
Mar 7, 2005
133
5
✟288.00
Faith
Other Religion

Its My Own thinking that its for sure MAN-MADE. God telling people to kill people who caused trouble ??? U said it. A Saint would try to make trouble makers better people ,not by killing them ! This the Value of life ??? Mother Therasa is better than the God found in the quran.

AnywaY who are the trouble makers ??

IM A HUMAN BEING WITH A WELL DEVELOPED BRAIN WHICH IS QUESTIONING , CURIOUS AND THINKING AND BECAUSE IM NOT A MINDLESS ROBOT. This is why i can confirmed you based on my common- sense and many other educated Ex-Muslims that the Entire Quran is for sure Man-Made. All you need to do is simply read it with understanding and with a open-mind and don't read like a mindless robot.








These are not lies. They are taken out from the quran





Yeah Muslims striving in killing kafirs/infidels souls in God's name What lies ? Islam itself is a big lie.







You once again need to explain your point further. You proclaimed, once again, something to be a fact and truth and offered very weak backing, if any at all. How is this proof that Muhammad's words and statements are in the Qur'an?
Click to expand...

Look at the verse again : “Allah has said: “Take not (for worship) two gods: for He is just One Allah: then fear Me (and Me alone).””

What is “Allah has said: Doing in the verse ?? Than Look at the last few words then fear Me (and Me alone).”” I want you to use your brain and think properly, Who is talking in this verse ??




This has already been explained in a past post on this thread infact...This is a permission for warfare once an intial offensive by the enemy has already happened. This isn't allowing muslims to go around starting wars left and right against pagans.
Click to expand...

Are you sure ? Was there a intial offensive ?? Show it. I can easliy show you proof that Muhammad started wars, His wars are special. He catches his foes off-guard. While they are sleep and so on. A great warrior indeed.



This might be because you don't have the understanding nor the capacity to understand it through such a closed-mind. Look at my past post and maybe your understanding will come, yet again maybe not.
Click to expand...

Close minded me ?? Why Not go and read the Bhagavad Gita and compare it with the quran than come to a conclusion and make your own judgement and see it for yourself. That is if you are not close-minded. I mean mindless robot.



You were formerly a muslim eh? After even such a limited amount of posts I find this hard to believe...
Click to expand...

I'm still new here




The above reply you gave me is for this claim of mine. 1.Muslims are told to dismiss any criticism of Islam as coming from Satan and they often avoid reading critical views about their Faith. This is what happening to you.

The great division bewteen Muslim, People of the book and Pagans exist in the quran. You can't argue about this. This religion divides people and break families. Muslims are told by Mullahs, Imams that they should avoid reading critical views about islam. These are not found in the quran, these are told by the word of mouth coming from these ignorant people.




Some maybe. But fear isn't what keeps me from leaving. And true believers shouldn't need fear to keep their faith. And again I challenge you to present a verse from the Qur'an asking muslims to put someone to death for leaving Islam.
Click to expand...


Historically, Muslims have killed those who desert Islam (apostates) as well as those who deny the words of Prophet Muhammad or the content of Qur’an as divine truth. This brutal custom of killing the blasphemers was started by the Prophet Muhammad himself in the 7th century and continues even till today in the Muslims countries. Passages in the Ahadiths/Sunnah (actions and sayings of Prophet Muhammad: Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260, 5:59:369 etc.) recorded Prophet Muhammad ordering to kill those who disrespected or deserted Islam.

Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment. 'No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes,"

The Quran also contains verses that sanction killing of the disbelievers or deserters of Islam (Quran 4:89, 9:12, 33:15-16, 33:60-61). For example:
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend, nor helper from among them." [Quran 4:89]



You said : clearly asks that we perfer believers over disbelievers as friends and/or helpers. There is nothing morally wrong with perference.

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (3.28)

The simple concept is GOD will not help you when you are mixing with unbelievers. God is telling you to safeguard yourself as if the Unbelievers are evil. What a perfect religion . Now i can see the real caste-system.




The only thing I find sick is your selective quoting of the Qur'an and misleading thoughts about these selective quotes you pick out and remove from the context. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Any verse picked out from a holy-scripture should be good and perfect. Be it in full context or not. If You are saying that i' only select quotes from the quran and saying these are misleading than KNOW, THAT THE QURAN IS IMPERFECT. Simple as that.



[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat


003.151
YUSUFALI: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
PICKTHAL: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.


This is another reference to wrongdoers/evil people. This verse when taken in context shows that the unbelievers are at war with the believers. This isn't about terrorism, this is about war. Anything else farside?



Peace!






 
Upvote 0

Green Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,097
26
68
Greensboro,NC
✟1,398.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Simple terrorism is morally permissible if induced by an injustice
Complex terrorism is never morally permissible
Click to expand...

Terrorism is never "morally" permissible under any circumstanses.Attempting to define terrorism by degrees is a vain exarcise at defending it.
 
Reactions: Electra
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Your model is very false. It is you basing it on the opinion of your own - please do not accuse me of something you're doing.
Click to expand...

Baseless claim

Educate yourself first - find your model in the official documents and quote it to me.
Click to expand...

Let's see what you've gathered here

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/...01/20010024.htm

*Link didn't work*

 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terror...lation/ptb.html

*Page moved and couldn't find any "Defintion" of Terrorism*


 Read up on the terrorist organisations here -

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/threat/groups/

I already have a problem with this link even after the first statement!

"Twenty-five international terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, which means they are outlawed in the UK. (See our frequently asked questions for more about proscription.)"

Countries are very biased in what they label as "terrorist". The only critera they follow is "They attacked us and *Blah* (Usually some other obvious truth about the attack)". If America had lost the American Revolution the history books would have the Miniute Men labeled as "Terrorists" and the colonist althogether as "Terrorist". Do you honestly believe this is how terrorism should be defined? I dont The rest doesn't define "Terrorism" it just gives a list of people they believe are "Terrorist". Alittle shady if you ask me (I've yet to see it defined on any site yet)

Here is another interesting list

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.ph...oups&file=index

*Page not Found*

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.ph...acks&file=index

*Page not Found*
And finaly you can have a look here at 'deffinitions' at the most accepted deffinition of terrorism - and the one I have posted.
There isnt a single deffinition for all, so that discards all your other posts
Read -
Click to expand...

Let's see, you have already been incorrect even by your own varying standards on the existence of simple terrorism (No intention to result in loss of life or injury to life) because Threats can be a form of terrorism

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/ter...or2000_2001.htm

*Page cannot be Found*


Great! One site out of your list worked


Also I thought I'd share a few things:

Is this true?

"Some people define terrorism the way a US Supreme Court Justice defined obscenity: "I know it when I see it.""



Also I found these statements to be in agreement in the model I laid out:

"All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. A terrorist act ordinarily would be considered a crime – murder, kidnapping, arson. Most terrorist acts would also violate the rules of war."

The author realizes this alone cannot define terrorism because ordinary crimes would then be "Terrorism". The red portion has no place in my model, and quite frankly I don't see this being an important attribute of terrorism. If need be I guess this too could even be thrown into the model I presented, although I currently don't see much point in it. Rules of war are dynamic and vary from peoples to peoples; time to time.


"Hitler wanted to physically eliminate all Jews, not terrorize them. Aerial bombardment, until recently, was imprecise. Do collateral casualties constitute terrorism if not the product of deliberate strategy? Probably not."

This statment suggests that Terrorism must Intentional cause terror (Terrorize) the targeted population : Another agreement with the model I laid out.


"What sets terrorism apart from other violence is this: terrorism consists of acts carried out in a dramatic way to attract publicity and create an atmosphere of alarm that goes far beyond the actual victims. Indeed, the identity of the victims is often secondary or irrelevant to the terrorists who aim their violence at the people watching."

This is partly in agreement: That terrorism is motived by political goals of some sort (This much is implied it seems).

Although I never really mention terrorism having to be carried out dramaticly, because Terrorist will carry their plans out in whatever form they see fit at the time. It doesn't necessarily have to be dramatic (I wouldn't think). This statement also gives more detail into what "Intentional creating terror" might specifically be referring to (Which I didn't go into that specific, but this one seems decent besides the dramatic portion)


I also like the articles closing remarks:

"Inevitably, the new war on terrorism will provoke further debate on the definition. Some governments may conveniently relabel their foes to obtain US support, while others will justify crackdowns in the name of the war on terrorism."


Point: Just because someone is called a terrorist doesn't make them one. With the terrible ambiguious nature of the defintion of "Terrorism" it leaves the door wide open for people to label nearly any enemy as a Terrorist.

(http://csmonitor.com/specials/terrorism/lite/expert.html)


Anyways I still haven't seen you discredit the model I offered. (Hint: One way to do this would be to offer a group that are accepted as Terrorist and show that my model labels them as NOT terrorist.) Or you could try quoting other sources, but the fact remains that many of the definitons of the web are insufficent or incorrect (As I have already research through several and the model I came up with was the integration of all the pieces I found the correctly describing of a Terrorist event using two things: Events widely accepted as Terrorism even by people who were not attacked by the event and already existent defintions.)

peace
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat


Why don't you just come and out and say what you want to say all long. You being Buddhist I realize you are against all forms of violence, including war.

But just because of this you can't just label all violence as Terrorism. That defeats the entire purpose of labeling SPECIFIC FORMS OF VIOLENCE as an act of Terrorism....Plus Terrorism can be by Threat, which would not be a form of physical violence. What is terrorism to you? Wide scale violence? Honestly I don't see much use in disscusing Terrorism with you because you haven't even been kind enough to clearly and completely define WHAT IT IS TO YOU! If you do this I can clearly tell you what I think of it in your terms (Even if I don't think what you think to be terrorism as terrorism I can still level with you and agree upon your definition monitarily so you stop the idle talk). You know what I mean when I say Terrorism and you know my view on what I mean, therefore what seems to be your problem? If you disagree with my defintion that does little to the moral standing I have for the items I believe to be terrorism. Present your model and I'll discuss with you further, until then there is no reason to continue.


Meaning its not ''simple terrorism'' as humblemuslim seem to think, its counter terrorism as they call it - deffence.
My personal view is that this kind of constitution can be abused easely...too easely
Click to expand...

My "Simple Terrorism" is counter terrorism? What??? Counter terrorism is a resposne to terrorism. Simple terrorism (Once again) is Terrorism that is not intended to result in the loss of injury to life (THREATS ARE ONE FORM OF THIS!)


You use the dictionary to define terrorism then turn around and contradict your own standards. How then am I supposed to discuss terrorism with you if you keep changing your mind, this is what I see from my point of view....


peace
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That's a jihad we will all support!
Click to expand...





That's seems very odd to me because I'm feeling Simple Terrorism isn't being properly understood. There are two forms of simple terrorism the way I see it.

1. Threats of violence or force

2. Inanimate targets (Such as buildings).

The first situtation clearly is morally permissible. The second is alittle harder to tell, because of the 2 questions I asked in my earlier post. I offered one example that might make one think whether 2 is morally permissible under all circumstances. If someone says NO! Then it seems that much of what society does and is accepted, such as driving cars, is immoral to them (Yet I doubt they think this, but possibly). This is where my statements end because this is where hot conflicts comes into play:

Is collateral damage immoral? If so by what reasoning?

Is the aggressor morally accountable for all injury to innocence when there is no intention? If so by what reasoning?

I can't answer these questions for everyone, and they can be hotly debated I'm sure.


peace
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat


This is a reference to the Qur'an verse I just responded to.


Honestly this is getting alittle sad farside. You spot the word "Terror" and this is terrorism? Is this honestly the only critera you have for terrorism? It takes more than terror to be terrorism.....

Peace!
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Terrorism is never "morally" permissible under any circumstanses.Attempting to define terrorism by degrees is a vain exarcise at defending it.
Click to expand...


I challenge you offer me a moral argument in terms of what I've presented instead of opinion. I could sit around and say all kinds of things, doesn't make them true. Let's see if you can put yourself where your mouth is


If you feel my defintion is flawed, that doesn't matter to what I've stated. Because any intelligent person could look at what I said and think to themselves "Oh, well what he said isn't terrorism in my opinion, but rather *Insert another Concept* although I do agree that his opinion on what I consider to be *Insert same other Concept* is Right/Wrong (Choose). But in my view he never addresses terrorism because my defintion of terrorism is *Insert new model of terrorism*"


Then I could say "Ok so you think terrorism is that. Fine, I think this of terrorism if we follow your model"


Simple enough, why make things difficutl and talk vainly. And once again I'm not defending terrorism, this notion is silly. Maybe this is your prejudice speaking, I dunno but it seems alittle odd that you're the only person that has gathered this.

Peace!
 
Upvote 0

Green Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,097
26
68
Greensboro,NC
✟1,398.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I challenge you offer me a moral argument in terms of what I've presented instead of opinion. I could sit around and say all kinds of things, doesn't make them true. Let's see if you can put yourself where your mouth is
Click to expand...

Attempting to define terrorism by degrees is only an exercise in semantics.It still amounts to nothing more than justifying certain terrorist actions over others.Terrorism is a plague encompassing the entire planet with scores of people being slaughtered every day.Show me just one organization that practices so-called "simple terrorism" as you like to call it.
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

So we should let murders run around freely and continue killing people. Wondeful. If you rather take some inperfect human's advice over God's that is your choice. If you have anything solid to state please state it, but my purpose here isn't to change baseless opinions but misinterpertations, misunderstanding, and lies.

AnywaY who are the trouble makers ??
Click to expand...

I guess I will go through more context with you because I'm sure you are having a misunderstanding subconsciencely as to what a trouble maker is.


033.058
YUSUFALI: And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.
PICKTHAL: And those who malign believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin.
SHAKIR: And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin.
KHALIFA: Those who persecute the believing men and the believing women, who did not do anything wrong, have committed not only a falsehood, but also a gross sin.

033.059
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


033.060
YUSUFALI: Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:


033.061
YUSUFALI: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).


033.062
YUSUFALI: (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.


These verses are talking about hypcorites first off, which should be obvious. The trouble they are causing is mentioned in the above context of what I highlighted.



I am not mindless in my reading. I do much thinking thank you. Although you seem to have a high prejudice of Islam, and lack of knowledge which is why I think you should more correctly refer to yourself as an Ex-Hyporite to the Islamic faith.
These are not lies. They are taken out from the quran
Click to expand...


Yes they are, the lie is on your part. You quoted one Surah then jumped to another Surah and acted like the two related, when they did not! And I notice you didn't even attempt to support your claim in full, which I figured you wouldn't try.

Also you fussed your OPINION with what the Qur'an actual says. Very deceptive. In addition to all this, you selectively quote leaving out important context that would make your statements stick out as apparent lies.
Yeah Muslims striving in killing kafirs/infidels souls in God's name What lies ? Islam itself is a big lie.
Click to expand...

I'm striving for God right now. Do I appear to be killing anyone? The verse could also be taken under an meaning (I believe both apply) that Muslims are to strive in cause of God if the case of an inital offensive by the enemy. So let's review:

1. Strive for God through wealth, worldy items (Build Mosques, Possibly even referring to Charity etc. Non-Combat related Striving.)

2. Aid in a response to an offensive by the enemy (War application)


It however is not asking we just start wars and kill all the disbelievers like you are suggesting. This view is not only not mentioned in this verse but is grossly shot down by what the rest of the Qur'an has to say on the subject of War.



016.051
YUSUFALI: Allah has said: "Take not (for worship) two gods: for He is just One Allah: then fear Me (and Me alone)."
PICKTHAL: Allah hath said: Choose not two gods. There is only One Allah. So of Me, Me only, be in awe.
SHAKIR: And Allah has said: Take not two gods, He is only one Allah; so of Me alone should you be afraid.
KHALIFA: GOD has proclaimed: "Do not worship two gods; there is only one god. You shall reverence Me alone."

So you are telling me God is not allowed to refer to Himself in third person? God is speaking in third person....


Are you sure ? Was there a intial offensive ?? Show it. I can easliy show you proof that Muhammad started wars, His wars are special. He catches his foes off-guard. While they are sleep and so on. A great warrior indeed.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure and I'm alittle amused by your willingness to put faith in history but not God. Quite silly if you ask me. Answer me this: Is history perfect? But regardless I'll respond to this: The prophet had guidance from God, God being all-knowing has the perfect judgment that would allow the Prophet to execute justified Pre-emptive strikes. However that doesn't mean other Muslims can do the same, they lack God's direct guidance on whether the pre-emptive is justified or not due to lack of future knowledge.

Here are some verses that I could most defintely use to support the inital offensive statment I made:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

​
Peace is perferred. So why would muslims attack and then agree to peace whenever the enemy inclines towards it. Makes no sense if we take your understanding. Obviously the enemy took the first stab...

​

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"

​
Not fought you, very clear.

​
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"

​
Until persecution is no more....

​

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

​

Does this sound like we are supposed to chase down disbelievers and kill them. Hardly, quite the opposite, we are to leave them alone!

​

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):......(The Noble Quran, 18:29)"

​
"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"

​

Etc.

​

Very clear that an inital offensive or injustice (Sorry I left injustice out, this one is equally important) must be taken by the enemy before Muslims are to fight.

​


​
Close minded me ?? Why Not go and read the Bhagavad Gita and compare it with the quran than come to a conclusion and make your own judgement and see it for yourself. That is if you are not close-minded. I mean mindless robot.
Click to expand...

​
Sure thing. Offer me a link to your Scripture and I'll gladly read it as time permits.

​


​


​
Not in the Qur'an makes this statement lose strength.

The Imams can say whatever they please, the Qur'an is the final authority. Imams are humans and make mistakes just like anyone else. In fact critical views have strengthened my faith in Islam because I am constantly learning more and more and gaining a deeper understanding on certain verses and topics. Maybe these Imams have good intention in what they say, but I don't agree with them on this specific issue you mention.




If we perfer disbelievers yes. Don't disagree important context to support your misunderstandings.


Any verse picked out from a holy-scripture should be good and perfect. Be it in full context or not. If You are saying that i' only select quotes from the quran and saying these are misleading than KNOW, THAT THE QURAN IS IMPERFECT. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

If understood properly, yes. But you are taking single verses and attributing misunderstanding and misinterpertations disregarding all important context and disregarding the applications of other decrees in the Qur'an. It works together, once you just pick out bits and pieces you are bound to generate grave misunderstandings which is shown right here.


If I said : "Put these disbelievers in Jail!" and you sit there and think "Why? What did they do? This is wrong!

but then next I say "They have raped believing women and murdered believers" then it comes together. Context is important, don't deny it. Every point you have made has been refutted simply by context. I can take your Scripture and butcher it by selective quoting and mixing and matching non-related text just like you have with the Qur'an. Proves nothing.

You have yet to prove the Qu'ran imperfect, but to you your opinion and I mine. Proving to you the perfection of the Qur'an isn't a goal I had in the first place.


Peace!
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat


I repeat:


I honestly hope you consider yourself intelligent. And I hope that we can cut the idle talk and dicuss the issue intelligently instead of your arogant comments popping up randomly from time to time.


"It still amounts to nothing more than justifying certain terrorist actions over others."

If you don't think my model is terrorism in the first place, then from your point of view I haven't justified "Terrorism" at all, but something else. The morality of the concept isn't dependent on the name of the concept, but what conditions that concept must follow. I offer conditions and according to my conditions came to two moral conclusions. Whether you believe my label to be correctly describing terrorism or not isn't going to make a lick of difference in justifying "Certain Terrorist actions".

And I still see no moral argument, I'll take this as a sign of weakness. I pretty much gathered you were talking out of your **** but gave you the benefit of the doubt and still am as I'll give you as much time as you need to offer me a moral argument why what I stated to be false.



"Show me just one organization that practices so-called "simple terrorism" as you like to call it."

This is irrevelant. We are talking of concepts, not actual events or organizations:

By defintion terrorism can be a THREAT OF VIOLENCE OR FORCE which is simply terrorism.

If you'd like a possible example maybe you could consider the tapes and messages that Osama made that threatened the use of violence as an example of Simple Terrorism. Osama's actions didn't cross over into possible Complex Terrorism until the acts were actually carried out. So in essence many Complex Terrorist events start out as Simple Terrorism (Probably because Simple Terrorism isn't seen as effective).


Peace!
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat


I'm only going to respond to Qur'an verses. Hadiths are not a subject I find worth debating over with a Non-Muslim.



Let's see if your claims are valid:

004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah;if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
KHALIFA: They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.


If they take an inital offensive against you, fight. Your misunderstanding once again, maybe due to contextual problems you seem to continually have.


009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
PICKTHAL: And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
SHAKIR: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
KHALIFA: If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.


Same as above, exact same actually...


033.015
YUSUFALI: And yet they had already covenanted with Allah not to turn their backs, and a covenant with Allah must (surely) be answered for.
PICKTHAL: And verily they had already sworn unto Allah that they would not turn their backs (to the foe). An oath to Allah must be answered for.
SHAKIR: And certainly they had made a covenant with Allah before, that) they would not turn (their) backs; and Allah's covenant shall be inquired of.
KHALIFA: They had pledged to GOD in the past that they would not turn around and flee; making a pledge with GOD involves a great responsibility.

033.016
YUSUFALI: Say: "Running away will not profit you if ye are running away from death or slaughter; and even if (ye do escape), no more than a brief (respite) will ye be allowed to enjoy!"
PICKTHAL: Say: Flight will not avail you if ye flee from death or killing, and then ye dwell in comfort but a little while.
SHAKIR: Say: Flight shall not do you any good if you fly from death or slaughter, and in that case you will not be allowed to enjoy yourselves but a little.
KHALIFA: Say, "If you flee, you can never flee from death or from being killed. No matter what happens, you only live a short while longer."

This is in war when the troops have promised in essence not to flee from the battle field in fright of death. This has nothing to do with people leaving the faith of Islam...


033.061
YUSUFALI: They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
PICKTHAL: Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
SHAKIR: Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
KHALIFA: They have incurred condemnation wherever they go; (unless they stop attacking you,) they may be taken and killed.

033.062
YUSUFALI: (Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
PICKTHAL: That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change.
SHAKIR: (Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah.
KHALIFA: This is GOD's eternal system, and you will find that GOD's system is unchangeable .

This is taking about hypocrites causing trouble, not leaving the Islamic faith. Sorry, try again.



Conclusion: None of what you stated supported your conclusion. The verses you supplied taken under the correct context reveal entirely different meanings then that which you have ascribed to them.


So far I have seen no order in the Qur'an to slay people simply because they leave Islam.


Now let me quote a verse that relates to the topic:

“And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever” (al-Baqarah 2:217)

No command to slay them at all. They will die just as anyone else.


I challenge you to offer a single verse that commands muslims to kill people simply because they desert the Islamic Faith.

Peace!
 
Upvote 0
M

maccoy77

Active Member
Mar 7, 2005
133
5
✟288.00
Faith
Other Religion
humblemuslim said:
I'm only going to respond to Qur'an verses. Hadiths are not a subject I find worth debating over with a Non-Muslim.
Click to expand...

Hadiths are sayings of the Prophet Muhammad whom you people revered him very high. Why are you running away from the hadith. Can't answer them ?






Nice spritual teachings from the Islamic God. People are divided based on beliefs only. Let me refute you one by one.

1. YUSUFALI : But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them

My Explanation is, If they belief in the islamic faith than treat them as friends if not kill them.

2.PICKTHAL: So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them

My Explanation is, When these people leave their familes and loved ones for Allah than treat him as a friend. If they go back to their familes kill them wherever you find them.

The simple conclusion is, If you do not belief in islam you should be killed. The other two translation have the same meaning.

You have fallen into your own trap Don't belief in Islam, You die, now i know how islam spread


Conclusion is. If a person Use his words to attack Islam you should use a knife and slit his throat or behead him. Thats normal for a muslim, beheading of infidels,kafirs,unclean souls is a normal practice.


​

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; [Anyone who disbeliefs in Islam and speaks against it is considered to be waging war against Allah and his messenger]




I pick Shakir Translation. Flight shall not do you any good if you fly from death or slaughter, and in that case you will not be allowed to enjoy yourselves but a little.

The blue highlighted wordings : Please explain.... Who is not allowing you to enjoy ???

I can't belief that you actually need a god to explain on these. Where's the human brain ??



Is this what your religion teaches : People causing trouble, Kill them ??? This is how Islam value Life ??

Anybody reading this post should take note of these verses given by a muslim himself, and see for yourself How dangerous islam is ,to man-kind.


Conclusion: None of what you stated supported your conclusion. The verses you supplied taken under the correct context reveal entirely different meanings then that which you have ascribed to them.
Click to expand...

If there is a different meaning than know that the Quran is NOT perfect.

So far I have seen no order in the Qur'an to slay people simply because they leave Islam.
Click to expand...

You don't need to Leave Islam ,as long as you don't belief it, you are doom. As you yourself stated in verse 004.089 Of the Holy Quran. Please see above


Now let me quote a verse that relates to the topic:


Why not quote from a Hadith and look at what the most holiest prophet have to say. Why aren't you listening to what the Prophet Muhammad says in the hadith . Why are you running away from the hadith.

I challenge you to offer a single verse that commands muslims to kill people simply because they desert the Islamic Faith.
Click to expand...

As along as a person do not have faith in islam kill him.
Example:


“Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:10]

i.e., if he has a kaafir wife, it is not permissible for him to stay married to her. He has to advise her and establish proof against her, then leave her. If he is in a place where there is an Islamic government and sharee’ah law, then he has to refer her case to the Muslim qaadi, for him to ask her to repent. If she does not repent then the ruling of Allaah should be carried out on her, which is execution, because the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion [leaves Islam], execute him.​

This is from a pure Islamic website in the questions and answers section.

http://www.islam-qa.com/QA/5|Jurisprudence_and_Islamic_Rulings(Fiqh)/Al-Riddah_(apostasy)/His_wife_has_left_Islam.23102000.7328.shtml


What a wonderful Religion from God. A perfect religion.

Peace
 
Upvote 0
H

humblemuslim

I am busy currently. Will be less active soon.
Mar 25, 2005
3,812
111
39
USA
✟27,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hadiths are sayings of the Prophet Muhammad whom you people revered him very high. Why are you running away from the hadith. Can't answer them ?
Click to expand...

As I stated. I don't discuss them with Non-Muslims. Anyways as I've stated in the past: Different times call for different measures. There is a reason why what is perscribed in the hadith may or may not be in the Qur'an. On this topic, you are going to have to show me where the Qur'an agrees, otherwise your argument is without strong support.




There is no command to kill them just simply because of their existance. Again this goes back to not perferring disbelievers to believers. There is however a command to kill them if they turn against you, which is a reference to the them declaring war on you.

Btw, all the translations have the same meaning, just different English words but may or may not present different connatations...


I'm not here to change your mind, you can believe the earth is flat for all I care. Although I will not have you spreading lies and misinterperts without check. I'll continue to state truth where ever you state falsehood.



Conclusion is. If a person Use his words to attack Islam you should use a knife and slit his throat or behead him. Thats normal for a muslim, beheading of infidels,kafirs,unclean souls is a normal practice.
Click to expand...

False. There are two conditions that must be met:

1. They break their oaths

2. They mock your faith

There is an "And" conjuction. Mocking alone doesn't give permission to kill them.

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033


Do you see something? I do, another "And" clause you ignored:

1. Wage war on Allah and His Messenger

2. Strive with might

3. Main for Mischief through the land

Can you verify the green portion at the end you stated with a Qur'an verse? (Wondering if you are just copy/pasting or if you know what you are taking about )





I would say God. Why? Because there is no command for muslims to hunt them down anywhere. Also the very next verse says:

033.017
YUSUFALI: Say: "Who is it that can screen you from Allah if it be His wish to give you punishment or to give you Mercy?" Nor will they find for themselves, besides Allah, any protector or helper.
PICKTHAL: Say: Who is he who can preserve you from Allah if He intendeth harm for you, or intendeth mercy for you. They will not find that they have any friend or helper other than Allah.
SHAKIR: Say: Who is it that can withhold you from Allah if He intends to do you evil, rather He intends to show you mercy? And they will not find for themselves besides Allah any guardian or a helper.
KHALIFA: Say, "Who would protect you from GOD if He willed any adversity, or willed any blessing for you?" They can never find, beside GOD, any other Lord and Master.

And what are you talking about? My brain is in my skull last time I checked
Is this what your religion teaches : People causing trouble, Kill them ??? This is how Islam value Life ??

Anybody reading this post should take note of these verses given by a muslim himself, and see for yourself How dangerous islam is ,to man-kind.
Click to expand...

I already explained this maccoy, read my past post. It isn't just "Oh he is cussing, kill him!"

Also you need to understand life on earth is a test. Maybe it is you that has placed TOO much value on human life, hum? For God can raise the dead even so if someone was slayen unjustly and can right any wrong. Therefore I don't see your point having much influence.

If there is a different meaning than know that the Quran is NOT perfect.
Click to expand...

Whatever, your opinion is for you, mine is for me. I already said I'm not here to change your mind, but to correct your mistakes and reveal the truth where you have uttered lies.



You don't need to Leave Islam ,as long as you don't belief it, you are doom. As you yourself stated in verse 004.089 Of the Holy Quran. Please see above


Now let me quote a verse that relates to the topic:
Click to expand...

A muslim can't kill someone simply for disbelif. The Qur'an makes this clear in verses you have ignored yet I brought up and you yet continued to ignore. And I'll repeat them again:



Not only do they support the original statement you wanted supported but they also support what I've been saying all along: Muslims aren't to go around killing disbelievers just simply because they disbelieve, other factors must be satisfied but you continually ignore this fact.



Why not quote from a Hadith and look at what the most holiest prophet have to say. Why aren't you listening to what the Prophet Muhammad says in the hadith . Why are you running away from the hadith.
Click to expand...

I and most any other muslim perfers Qur'an over Hadith any day. The Hadith has no guarntee that it is the true words of the Prophet, nor the guarntee of authenticity. If Hadith is the best you can do I suggest you back down from your lies about Islam.



I'll have to get to the rest later.


Peace
 
Upvote 0
F

farside

Regular Member
Feb 3, 2005
177
3
✟331.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Killing For Disbelief

humblemuslim said:
A muslim can't kill someone simply for disbelif.
Click to expand...

According to Bukhari, a Muslim can and should kill someone for disbelief.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:Narrated 'Ali: I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."

According to Islamic law, a Muslim must be killed for his disbelief if he does not repent. We have from The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (922 CE - 996 CE), a Treatise on Maliki Fiqh (one of the four Sunni schools of Law):

37.19c. Apostasy

An apostate is killed unless he repents. He is given three days to repent. The same ruling applies to a woman.

[ Someone who recants from Islam. Apostasy is disbelief after affirming Islam. If he does not repent, he is killed. One does not execute him immediately but repentance is offered to him. If he refuses then he is killed. It is obligatory to delay execution for three days. If he repents, there is no problem. If not, he is killed after sunset on the third day. This judgement includes men and women. A pregnant woman is deferred until she gives birth.]

source http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/RisAhkam.html


Farside’s Commentary: Allah does enjoy a good execution.

Kind Regards,
Farside
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
How should have Christians historically addressed Islam?
Replies
174
Views
4K
Christian Philosophy & Ethics
Ignatius the Kiwi
I
Pakistan allows Christian woman to remove Islam as her religion in years-long battle over ID card
Replies
3
Views
252
Current News & Events (Articles Required)
pastorwaris
All Meals in Yet Another German School Will Be ‘Halal’
Replies
5
Views
306
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
RileyG
Are All Religions Different Paths Up the Same Mountain?
Replies
2
Views
203
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Blessed Are Those Who
Replies
1
Views
138
Poetry & Prose
Hoping2
H
Menu
Log in
Register