7 of 12
7
The Problem of Islam
Posted: 29 July 2008 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
bongobongo - 29 July 2008 07:48 AM
mansoor531 - 06 May 2008 12:23 PM

...Sunnis and Shias have been living peacefully in Pakistan and other Islamic world….

Two words: Iran-Iraq.

Sunnis killing shias.
Shias killing sunnis.
Result:
1-2.000.000 killed by fellow believers of this
‘religion of peace’.

jonecc - 06 May 2008 07:41 PM

...
He also addresses problem verses generally by arguing that all verses have to be understood in the context of the Qur’an as a a whole. In practice, he always says that unpleasant verses are to be reinterpreted in the light of more benign verses, and never the other way round…

Which of cause is false.

The thing is that the quran does not
present the surahs in chronological order.

But when looking at the chronological order
one will see that all the
‘live in peace together blahblah’-surahs
comes first (early Mecca period, when M. was starting up)
and all the
horrific ‘boil all infidels’-surahs comes
in the later (Medina) period, after he was kicked out of Mecca.

..and the quran clearly states that
whatever text comes latest, is the one
that’s most valid.(Sounds stupid…naa..it IS stupid)

(2:106 Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that allah is able to do all things?)
Oh yes; allah is able contradict himself. Does it all the time

Jack Shooter - 27 June 2008 02:32 PM

...
And now, here is the truth about what Muslim attitudes towards terrorism: Around 7 % of Muslims condone terrorist acts, and for political reasons only, not religious ones.

BS!

Here are the real numbers:

Percentage of muslims that find it ‘justifiable’
to use suicide bombing and other forms of violence
to target civilians (commit actions of terror)
in order to ‘defend islam’:

Lebanon 73
Jordan 43
Nigeria 47
Bangladesh 44…and the list goes on.

and if we include the number that
answered yes about ‘Is it ever justifiable’

Lebanon 82
Ivory Coast 73
Jordan 65…..you get the picture.

...and one can only fear what the figures
are in other arab muslim countries, ruled
by this ‘peaceful’ religion.

Hey Bongo-head, where do you get your ‘facts’?  I suspect you dreamt them up while taking hits from the bong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2008 04:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
arildno - 24 July 2008 12:08 PM
Jack Shooter - 24 July 2008 01:18 AM
Wotansson - 23 July 2008 09:45 AM
Jack Shooter - 08 July 2008 09:57 PM
Wotansson - 07 July 2008 08:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:45 AM
Wotansson - 06 July 2008 08:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 04 July 2008 10:17 PM
arildno - 04 July 2008 07:10 PM

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these.  Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.

Jack
Would you care to make a direct and definitive response to arildno’s statement?

Again:

Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Since Islam is mandatory for all Muslims, is it permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the interests and image of Islam is threatened? Yes or no please, and give credible support.

Wassail
Wot

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html


No? I think you have a very keen sense of the image and interests of Islam since this is the topic of virtually all your posts. I am afraid that your refusal places you in the category of…well..Taqiyyah-practicing liars.


Wassail
Wot

When and where have I lied about Islam?  Please tell me.  Incidentally, you suggesting that I have been lying to make Islam ‘look good’ shows that you find something good about what I have been saying concerning Islam.  All that is left is for you to find out whether I have been lying as you say I have, so please go ahead an advise me once you find out.

From the link provided by Jack:
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

So lying to a spouse or lying to simply say something commendable is permissible. Is not the propagation of Islam a commendable activity?

And if harm or injustice is perceived by the speaker (whatever that might be), the permission for lying/misleading is extended and might be obligatory.

How can one expect to be regarded with any credibility under these ground rules?

Stay Well
Wot

You are confused, again.  Look.  The propagation of Islam is a commendable activity, but why would lying be required in spreading it?

Evasive action on your part, Jack.
We have never asserted that lying is “required” to spread Islam, but that it is an ALLOWED tool, if that propagates Islam.


For example, have you ever heard a Muslim deny the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Ayesha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine years old?  If Muslims were permitted to lie about Islam to make it seem more suitable to people like you, surely this fact would be denied.

Muslims DO deny this, towards people who don’t haver ACTUAL knowledge of Islamic doctrine as we do (for example by using a flimsy, unreliable hadith from a non-Sahih source).
You would have denied it, too, were it not for the fact that we had proofs of it.
Thus, since a lie wouldn’t benefit Islam in this case, you don’t deny it.


The fact of the matter is that every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE, whether he speaks the truth or lies is to be established on independent evidence for every utterance he makes.

What? Get outta here!  What can I say, I’m amazed that people like you even exist.  I mean are you for real?  Seriously.  “Every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE”??? You have to be kidding, right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2008 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Wotansson - 28 July 2008 10:32 AM
Jack Shooter - 08 July 2008 09:57 PM
Wotansson - 07 July 2008 08:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:45 AM
Wotansson - 06 July 2008 08:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 04 July 2008 10:17 PM
arildno - 04 July 2008 07:10 PM

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these.  Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.

Jack
Would you care to make a direct and definitive response to arildno’s statement?

Again:

Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Since Islam is mandatory for all Muslims, is it permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the interests and image of Islam is threatened? Yes or no please, and give credible support.

Wassail
Wot

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html


No? I think you have a very keen sense of the image and interests of Islam since this is the topic of virtually all your posts. I am afraid that your refusal places you in the category of…well..Taqiyyah-practicing liars.


Wassail
Wot

When and where have I lied about Islam?  Please tell me.  Incidentally, you suggesting that I have been lying to make Islam ‘look good’ shows that you find something good about what I have been saying concerning Islam.  All that is left is for you to find out whether I have been lying as you say I have, so please go ahead an advise me once you find out.


From:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/shia_belief_concerning_taqiyyah.htm

“A believer who does not dissimulate is like a body without a head.” (Tafseer al-Askari)

Since as a non-dissimulating believer, are you like a body without a head, are you asking me to prove you are a headless body or a non-believer?

He who does not act upon Taqiyyah is void of faith. [Tafseere Safi, part1, Faiz Kashani, page 253, New TehranEdition].

Are you asking that I prove that you do not act on taqiyyah or that you are void of faith?

Stay Well

Wotansson

I’m not Shia, nor are the majority of Muslims.  Why you keep throwing around the word ‘taqiyyah’ when it has nothing to do with Islam, or Sunni Islam anyway, is beyond me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2008 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  819
Joined  2004-12-21

Jack said:

I’m not Shia, nor are the majority of Muslims.  Why you keep throwing around the word ‘taqiyyah’ when it has nothing to do with Islam, or Sunni Islam anyway, is beyond me.

and Jack also said:

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

and from Jack’s link:

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

  Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

  Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

  Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

I keep bringing it up because you provided the link in the interests of our “enlightenment”. Now you wish to disavow you own links and the Shias as well. Understanding is not beyond you. It is the tangled web of your own deceptions which is entrapping you.

Wassail
Wotansson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2008 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
Jack Shooter - 29 July 2008 08:58 PM
arildno - 24 July 2008 12:08 PM
Jack Shooter - 24 July 2008 01:18 AM
Wotansson - 23 July 2008 09:45 AM
Jack Shooter - 08 July 2008 09:57 PM
Wotansson - 07 July 2008 08:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:45 AM
Wotansson - 06 July 2008 08:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 04 July 2008 10:17 PM
arildno - 04 July 2008 07:10 PM

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these.  Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.

Jack
Would you care to make a direct and definitive response to arildno’s statement?

Again:

Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Since Islam is mandatory for all Muslims, is it permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the interests and image of Islam is threatened? Yes or no please, and give credible support.

Wassail
Wot

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html


No? I think you have a very keen sense of the image and interests of Islam since this is the topic of virtually all your posts. I am afraid that your refusal places you in the category of…well..Taqiyyah-practicing liars.


Wassail
Wot

When and where have I lied about Islam?  Please tell me.  Incidentally, you suggesting that I have been lying to make Islam ‘look good’ shows that you find something good about what I have been saying concerning Islam.  All that is left is for you to find out whether I have been lying as you say I have, so please go ahead an advise me once you find out.

From the link provided by Jack:
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

So lying to a spouse or lying to simply say something commendable is permissible. Is not the propagation of Islam a commendable activity?

And if harm or injustice is perceived by the speaker (whatever that might be), the permission for lying/misleading is extended and might be obligatory.

How can one expect to be regarded with any credibility under these ground rules?

Stay Well
Wot

You are confused, again.  Look.  The propagation of Islam is a commendable activity, but why would lying be required in spreading it?

Evasive action on your part, Jack.
We have never asserted that lying is “required” to spread Islam, but that it is an ALLOWED tool, if that propagates Islam.


For example, have you ever heard a Muslim deny the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Ayesha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine years old?  If Muslims were permitted to lie about Islam to make it seem more suitable to people like you, surely this fact would be denied.

Muslims DO deny this, towards people who don’t haver ACTUAL knowledge of Islamic doctrine as we do (for example by using a flimsy, unreliable hadith from a non-Sahih source).
You would have denied it, too, were it not for the fact that we had proofs of it.
Thus, since a lie wouldn’t benefit Islam in this case, you don’t deny it.


The fact of the matter is that every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE, whether he speaks the truth or lies is to be established on independent evidence for every utterance he makes.

What? Get outta here!  What can I say, I’m amazed that people like you even exist.  I mean are you for real?  Seriously.  “Every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE”??? You have to be kidding, right?

Nope.
That is the morally correct attitude towards adherents of a doctrine that allows and glorifies lying as a means for “victory”. Islam is such a doctrine. You are violators of the basic moral obligation for honesty, and we, therefore, are no longer morally obliged to regard you as basically truthful individuals.

And:
Do you still deny that Islam allows for sex with pre-pubertal girls?
I would have thought that Tabari and Mawdudi knew a lot more about Islam than you..

[ Edited: 30 July 2008 12:49 AM by arildno]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2008 02:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  322
Joined  2008-04-17
Jack Shooter - 29 July 2008 08:53 PM

Hey Bongo-head, where do you get your ‘facts’?  I suspect you dreamt them up while taking hits from the bong.

Hey Jackinthebox, I suspect you dreamt up that post while
Shooting yourself up.

CLICK

That’s the summary.
The exact question asked was:

“Some people think that suicide bombing
and other forms of violence against civilian targets
are justified in order to defend islam from its enimies.
Other people believe that, no matter what the reason,
this kind of violence is never justified.
Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is
often justified to defend islam
sometimes justified
rarely justified
or never justified?”


.
The percentages in the chart below
of those who answered ‘NO’
includes those who answered
‘rarely justified’.


As Sam Harris points out in his book:
that’s a scary number of muslims that
supports
“..the deliberate murder and maiming of noncombatant
men, women and children in defence of islam..”

The last time I looked up ‘islam’
it was filed under ‘religion’.
So these peole support terror for
‘religious’ reasons
(not, as Jackshot claims, ‘political’ reasons)

But then again: it’s hardly surprising
as these people have been brainwashed
from early an age to believe that an invisible
man up in the sky commands them to do so
...heck; there’s even a ‘reward’ for committing
these hideous crimes.

 

 


.

[ Edited: 30 July 2008 03:31 AM by Bongobongo Smith]
 Signature 

Christian psychopaty:

Bruce Burleson
“.Tell me why it is wrong to rape, steal and kill….
…If I am a slaveholder in Alabama in 1860, why shouldn’t I enslave the niggers, fuck their women, and whip their children when they disobey me????
I’ll tell you why, and it is the ONLY reason why
..”

..he fears gods punishment.

Christians per definition has no moral.
They are governed by fear and fear only.

..and they don’t mind using the N-word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2008 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

Jackshooter

Please read the posts in their entirity.  The prophet (peace be upon him) consumated the marriage with Aisha (may God be pleased with her) when she was 9 years old, when she had reached puberty according to the consensus of Muslim scholars, that is, she was an adolescent, a teenager, an adult.  Of course, no reasonable person would have a problem with this.

Hope that clears things up for you.

The only thing it clears up is a confirmation that you believe sex with minor girls is OK and that Shiria law (and the Koran)  condones it.

Yes, 6 is a wee bit young.

But no “reasonable person” would have a problem with an adult male marrying/and then raping a 9 year old. Except of course if a “reasonable person” rapes a 9 year old girl—-in civilized nations—-he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

In Jack’s world, the “husband” wouldn’t be raping the 9 year old girl because he is “married” to her so it can’t be considered rape.

But in a civilized world 9 year old girls cannot give consent to have sex—or to get married for that matter—- so having sex with a 9 year old girl would automatically be considered rape in the most strictest sense of the word.

And just to add icing to the cake.  The Supreme Court was about “this” close to making rape of a 9 year old girl a death sentence. The majority did not support it but it indicates the degree of gravity and seriousness our courts place upon such an act.

It is “comforting” to know you find such egregious acts “reasonable.” I’m glad I live in a country that doesn’t.

Nujood Ali didn’t find much comfort in it either.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/10308/

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2008 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26

Also, there is no “consensus” between Islamic scholars that Aysha had had the onset of menarche at 9. There doesn’t exist the slightest evidence that she had done that, and one suggestive point is that she was still playing with dolls at the Battle of Khaybar, when she was 14.

Now, playing with dolls was then, as now, regarded as the activities of a CHILD, i.e, in the milieu of that time, previous to the onset of her menarche.

I emphasize:
There does not exist any evidence from the Quran, the hadiths or the sira that Aysha had reached the age of puberty when Mohammad consummated the marriage with her.
It is a complete fabrication and deception of modern day “scholars” of Islam, in order to preserve the image of their religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2008 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
Wotansson - 29 July 2008 10:47 PM

Jack said:

I’m not Shia, nor are the majority of Muslims.  Why you keep throwing around the word ‘taqiyyah’ when it has nothing to do with Islam, or Sunni Islam anyway, is beyond me.

and Jack also said:

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

and from Jack’s link:

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

  Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

  Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

  Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

I keep bringing it up because you provided the link in the interests of our “enlightenment”. Now you wish to disavow you own links and the Shias as well. Understanding is not beyond you. It is the tangled web of your own deceptions which is entrapping you.

Wassail
Wotansson

What don’t you understand?  Islam forbids lying except for very specific circumstances as noted above and in situations in which injustice would result from telling the truth.  What does this have to do with lying to spread Islam?  Again, what don’t you understand about this?  Seriously, you are yourself confused and try to confuse others as well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2008 03:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
arildno - 30 July 2008 04:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 29 July 2008 08:58 PM
arildno - 24 July 2008 12:08 PM
Jack Shooter - 24 July 2008 01:18 AM
Wotansson - 23 July 2008 09:45 AM
Jack Shooter - 08 July 2008 09:57 PM
Wotansson - 07 July 2008 08:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:45 AM
Wotansson - 06 July 2008 08:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 04 July 2008 10:17 PM
arildno - 04 July 2008 07:10 PM

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these.  Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.

Jack
Would you care to make a direct and definitive response to arildno’s statement?

Again:

Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Since Islam is mandatory for all Muslims, is it permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the interests and image of Islam is threatened? Yes or no please, and give credible support.

Wassail
Wot

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html


No? I think you have a very keen sense of the image and interests of Islam since this is the topic of virtually all your posts. I am afraid that your refusal places you in the category of…well..Taqiyyah-practicing liars.


Wassail
Wot

When and where have I lied about Islam?  Please tell me.  Incidentally, you suggesting that I have been lying to make Islam ‘look good’ shows that you find something good about what I have been saying concerning Islam.  All that is left is for you to find out whether I have been lying as you say I have, so please go ahead an advise me once you find out.

From the link provided by Jack:
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

So lying to a spouse or lying to simply say something commendable is permissible. Is not the propagation of Islam a commendable activity?

And if harm or injustice is perceived by the speaker (whatever that might be), the permission for lying/misleading is extended and might be obligatory.

How can one expect to be regarded with any credibility under these ground rules?

Stay Well
Wot

You are confused, again.  Look.  The propagation of Islam is a commendable activity, but why would lying be required in spreading it?

Evasive action on your part, Jack.
We have never asserted that lying is “required” to spread Islam, but that it is an ALLOWED tool, if that propagates Islam.


For example, have you ever heard a Muslim deny the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Ayesha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine years old?  If Muslims were permitted to lie about Islam to make it seem more suitable to people like you, surely this fact would be denied.

Muslims DO deny this, towards people who don’t haver ACTUAL knowledge of Islamic doctrine as we do (for example by using a flimsy, unreliable hadith from a non-Sahih source).
You would have denied it, too, were it not for the fact that we had proofs of it.
Thus, since a lie wouldn’t benefit Islam in this case, you don’t deny it.


The fact of the matter is that every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE, whether he speaks the truth or lies is to be established on independent evidence for every utterance he makes.

What? Get outta here!  What can I say, I’m amazed that people like you even exist.  I mean are you for real?  Seriously.  “Every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE”??? You have to be kidding, right?

Nope.
That is the morally correct attitude towards adherents of a doctrine that allows and glorifies lying as a means for “victory”. Islam is such a doctrine. You are violators of the basic moral obligation for honesty, and we, therefore, are no longer morally obliged to regard you as basically truthful individuals.

And:
Do you still deny that Islam allows for sex with pre-pubertal girls?
I would have thought that Tabari and Mawdudi knew a lot more about Islam than you..

You are insane, at best.  At worst, you are a compulsive liar, and this is plain to see if one only cares to go back and read your various posts.

Now, where exactly do Tabari and Maududi say that having sex with pre-pubescent girls is acceptable?  Please provide an exact reference, lest you prove yourself a liar, again.

[ Edited: 31 July 2008 04:59 PM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2008 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
lindajean - 30 July 2008 01:02 PM

Jackshooter

Please read the posts in their entirity.  The prophet (peace be upon him) consumated the marriage with Aisha (may God be pleased with her) when she was 9 years old, when she had reached puberty according to the consensus of Muslim scholars, that is, she was an adolescent, a teenager, an adult.  Of course, no reasonable person would have a problem with this.

Hope that clears things up for you.

The only thing it clears up is a confirmation that you believe sex with minor girls is OK and that Shiria law (and the Koran)  condones it.

Yes, 6 is a wee bit young.

But no “reasonable person” would have a problem with an adult male marrying/and then raping a 9 year old. Except of course if a “reasonable person” rapes a 9 year old girl—-in civilized nations—-he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

In Jack’s world, the “husband” wouldn’t be raping the 9 year old girl because he is “married” to her so it can’t be considered rape.

But in a civilized world 9 year old girls cannot give consent to have sex—or to get married for that matter—- so having sex with a 9 year old girl would automatically be considered rape in the most strictest sense of the word.

And just to add icing to the cake.  The Supreme Court was about “this” close to making rape of a 9 year old girl a death sentence. The majority did not support it but it indicates the degree of gravity and seriousness our courts place upon such an act.

It is “comforting” to know you find such egregious acts “reasonable.” I’m glad I live in a country that doesn’t.

Nujood Ali didn’t find much comfort in it either.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/10308/

The fact that a 9 year old female, by virtue of reaching puberty, is considered an adult in many cultures, falls on your deaf ears, or perhaps you think a person becomes an adult whenever the government of the day says so.  Regardless of what you think, females are having sex at 9, 10, 11, and even giving birth as early as 12, 13, 14 years of age, in my country and your country.  To deny this is delusional on your part.

As to the courts, unfortunately, they are not always reasonable.  The legitimizing of same-sex unions is just one example.  Likewise, I don’t take whatever their position is about the age of consent for sex very seriously, neither would you if you weren’t such a trend follower.

What can I say, lindajean, for a female, you make a pretty good jack ass of yourself when you respond to the facts I present you with by claiming sex with a 9 year old within the confines of marriage constitutes rape.

In the end, you need to stop being so ageist.  There are probably countless 9 year old girls, teens, adults rather, who possess a level of maturity that is far greater than a 30 year old.  In fact, I’m sure many young female adults could even teach you a few things about how to run your life.

[ Edited: 31 July 2008 04:07 PM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2008 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
arildno - 30 July 2008 01:13 PM

Also, there is no “consensus” between Islamic scholars that Aysha had had the onset of menarche at 9. There doesn’t exist the slightest evidence that she had done that, and one suggestive point is that she was still playing with dolls at the Battle of Khaybar, when she was 14.

Now, playing with dolls was then, as now, regarded as the activities of a CHILD, i.e, in the milieu of that time, previous to the onset of her menarche.

I emphasize:
There does not exist any evidence from the Quran, the hadiths or the sira that Aysha had reached the age of puberty when Mohammad consummated the marriage with her.
It is a complete fabrication and deception of modern day “scholars” of Islam, in order to preserve the image of their religion.

I’m glad that your finally begining to entertain the fact that Aisha was an early adolescent, an adult when the marriage was consumated, instead of insisting as you have done before, like a beligerent fool I must say, that the marriage with Aisha reflected child abuse.  It shows me some progression in your thinking, or else you just know you can’t sustain your tired lies against the truth, and are now moving to other tactics.  Either way, I’m happy to school you whenever I can.

Now, the strongest evidence that Aisha had reached puberty at 9 years old is simply that the marriage was consumated, and not before then.  In other words, one has to ask why didn’t the prophet (peace be upon him) consumate the marriage earlier, why wait 3 years after the marriage?  The answer is clear common sense.  Apparently, common sense is not so common around here.  Anyway, feel free to review further resources on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD6GKaLh74w&feature=related
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/d/aam1_e.pdf
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2008 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
bongobongo - 30 July 2008 06:31 AM
Jack Shooter - 29 July 2008 08:53 PM

Hey Bongo-head, where do you get your ‘facts’?  I suspect you dreamt them up while taking hits from the bong.

Hey Jackinthebox, I suspect you dreamt up that post while
Shooting yourself up.

CLICK

That’s the summary.
The exact question asked was:

“Some people think that suicide bombing
and other forms of violence against civilian targets
are justified in order to defend islam from its enimies.
Other people believe that, no matter what the reason,
this kind of violence is never justified.
Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is
often justified to defend islam
sometimes justified
rarely justified
or never justified?”


.
The percentages in the chart below
of those who answered ‘NO’
includes those who answered
‘rarely justified’.


As Sam Harris points out in his book:
that’s a scary number of muslims that
supports
“..the deliberate murder and maiming of noncombatant
men, women and children in defence of islam..”

The last time I looked up ‘islam’
it was filed under ‘religion’.
So these peole support terror for
‘religious’ reasons
(not, as Jackshot claims, ‘political’ reasons)

But then again: it’s hardly surprising
as these people have been brainwashed
from early an age to believe that an invisible
man up in the sky commands them to do so
...heck; there’s even a ‘reward’ for committing
these hideous crimes.

The question about killing innocent people to defend religion is set up to give misleading responses and problematic conclusions.  Think about it, why would any Muslim need to kill a non-combatant to defend Islam?  Any Muslim who knows anything about their religion knows that it is considered an enormous crime according to Islam itself to take the life of an innocent person, so how can this be done for religious reasons?  It is just not possible to justify from the Islamic perspective.

So perhaps what is meant by the question is whether Muslims would justify killing non-combatants for some political reason, like a land dispute (i.e. Israeli/Palestenian conflict).  This is a more sensible thing to ask, and the responses only make sense when the question is understood this way.  Likewise, Muslims, like any people, would have varied responses, as shown above, based on their emotions/attitudes towards the issue.  But don’t confuse political issues with religious ones.  And to be absolutely clear, defending one’s country against occupiers can be considered a religious duty, but nowhere in Islam is the killing of innocent people sanctioned even when defending against occupying forces.  Again, killing innocent people for any reason, is not justifiable in Islam, and Muslims know this.

Or perhaps, the question is a philisophical one not unlike asking Americans, if you had to kill innocent people to defend the US, would you do it?  I think you and I, Bong-man, both know the answer.

[ Edited: 31 July 2008 05:32 PM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2008 01:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
Jack Shooter - 31 July 2008 07:51 PM
arildno - 30 July 2008 04:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 29 July 2008 08:58 PM
arildno - 24 July 2008 12:08 PM
Jack Shooter - 24 July 2008 01:18 AM
Wotansson - 23 July 2008 09:45 AM
Jack Shooter - 08 July 2008 09:57 PM
Wotansson - 07 July 2008 08:05 AM
Jack Shooter - 07 July 2008 01:45 AM
Wotansson - 06 July 2008 08:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 04 July 2008 10:17 PM
arildno - 04 July 2008 07:10 PM

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these.  Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.

Jack
Would you care to make a direct and definitive response to arildno’s statement?

Again:

Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Since Islam is mandatory for all Muslims, is it permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the interests and image of Islam is threatened? Yes or no please, and give credible support.

Wassail
Wot

No.  Anyway, I don’t know what you mean exactly by ‘interests and image of Islam’.  I already told you that Islam has nothing to hide about its teachings, you should know that by now if you have been following my posts.  http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html


No? I think you have a very keen sense of the image and interests of Islam since this is the topic of virtually all your posts. I am afraid that your refusal places you in the category of…well..Taqiyyah-practicing liars.


Wassail
Wot

When and where have I lied about Islam?  Please tell me.  Incidentally, you suggesting that I have been lying to make Islam ‘look good’ shows that you find something good about what I have been saying concerning Islam.  All that is left is for you to find out whether I have been lying as you say I have, so please go ahead an advise me once you find out.

From the link provided by Jack:
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e86.html

Question (2) Under what circumstances is telling a lie permitted?

Answer: Settling disagreements to bring about good between people, especially in war or between a husband and wife; or simply saying something commendable.

Question: I have heard a hadith that it is permitted in :wartime, making peace between people, and some issues pertaining to a husband and wife (I can’t remember exactly). Can this permission be extended by analogy to other situations, or is it restricted to just these?

Answer: The permission (rukhsa) of lying / misleading definitely extends to any other situations where “telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth” unjustly causes harm or injustice or impedes the carriage of justice or the performance of something obligatory (in which case lying is obligatory) or recommended or even permissible, although the way of strictness (`azima) is “to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

So lying to a spouse or lying to simply say something commendable is permissible. Is not the propagation of Islam a commendable activity?

And if harm or injustice is perceived by the speaker (whatever that might be), the permission for lying/misleading is extended and might be obligatory.

How can one expect to be regarded with any credibility under these ground rules?

Stay Well
Wot

You are confused, again.  Look.  The propagation of Islam is a commendable activity, but why would lying be required in spreading it?

Evasive action on your part, Jack.
We have never asserted that lying is “required” to spread Islam, but that it is an ALLOWED tool, if that propagates Islam.


For example, have you ever heard a Muslim deny the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Ayesha when she was six years old and consumated the marriage when she was nine years old?  If Muslims were permitted to lie about Islam to make it seem more suitable to people like you, surely this fact would be denied.

Muslims DO deny this, towards people who don’t haver ACTUAL knowledge of Islamic doctrine as we do (for example by using a flimsy, unreliable hadith from a non-Sahih source).
You would have denied it, too, were it not for the fact that we had proofs of it.
Thus, since a lie wouldn’t benefit Islam in this case, you don’t deny it.


The fact of the matter is that every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE, whether he speaks the truth or lies is to be established on independent evidence for every utterance he makes.

What? Get outta here!  What can I say, I’m amazed that people like you even exist.  I mean are you for real?  Seriously.  “Every Muslim’s individual credibility must be given the NULL VALUE”??? You have to be kidding, right?

Nope.
That is the morally correct attitude towards adherents of a doctrine that allows and glorifies lying as a means for “victory”. Islam is such a doctrine. You are violators of the basic moral obligation for honesty, and we, therefore, are no longer morally obliged to regard you as basically truthful individuals.

And:
Do you still deny that Islam allows for sex with pre-pubertal girls?
I would have thought that Tabari and Mawdudi knew a lot more about Islam than you..

You are insane, at best.  At worst, you are a compulsive liar, and this is plain to see if one only cares to go back and read your various posts.

Now, where exactly do Tabari and Maududi say that having sex with pre-pubescent girls is acceptable?  Please provide an exact reference, lest you prove yourself a liar, again.

Look up in the last post in the “Child bride in Yemen” thread.
And, in contrast to you, I have never lied..

[ Edited: 01 August 2008 02:13 AM by arildno]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2008 02:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
Jack Shooter - 31 July 2008 08:57 PM
arildno - 30 July 2008 01:13 PM

Also, there is no “consensus” between Islamic scholars that Aysha had had the onset of menarche at 9. There doesn’t exist the slightest evidence that she had done that, and one suggestive point is that she was still playing with dolls at the Battle of Khaybar, when she was 14.

Now, playing with dolls was then, as now, regarded as the activities of a CHILD, i.e, in the milieu of that time, previous to the onset of her menarche.

I emphasize:
There does not exist any evidence from the Quran, the hadiths or the sira that Aysha had reached the age of puberty when Mohammad consummated the marriage with her.
It is a complete fabrication and deception of modern day “scholars” of Islam, in order to preserve the image of their religion.

I’m glad that your finally begining to entertain the fact that Aisha was an early adolescent, an adult when the marriage was consumated, instead of insisting as you have done before, like a beligerent fool I must say, that the marriage with Aisha reflected child abuse.  It shows me some progression in your thinking, or else you just know you can’t sustain your tired lies against the truth, and are now moving to other tactics.  Either way, I’m happy to school you whenever I can.

No, I’m not “entertaining” that fact at all.

Now, the strongest evidence that Aisha had reached puberty at 9 years old is simply that the marriage was consumated, and not before then.  In other words, one has to ask why didn’t the prophet (peace be upon him) consumate the marriage earlier, why wait 3 years after the marriage?

Alternative:
He was unable to push his dick into a six-year old’s vagina, he had to wait until she was physically able to receive it. (vaginas do deepen and widen over the years, you know).
The clearest evidence for that is, that PRIOR to full penetration, he enjoyed rubbing his dick between her thighs.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 12
7
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed