3 of 3
3
Brave Afghan women
Posted: 04 October 2007 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2007-03-13

So Talha, how are we really supposed to know that YOURS is the correct interpretation,

First of all I made my “interpretation” using clear proofs and verses from the Holy Quran. It was your suggestion that the Holy Quran preaches indiscrimate violence against disbelievers. I clearly proved that wrong with the many verses I quoted which clearly show that Muslims may fight with disbelievers in self-defense only. You could not respond to those verses, you did not even comment on them. However, I responded to the verses you quoted by putting them in their proper context. Now I will reveal to you a shocking surprise. This isn’t MY interpretation, it is the interpretation and understanding of every Muslim scholar and commentator of repute. Read the classical commentaries of ibn Kathir, Jalalain, and many others and you will find that they reinforce my point of view. Go to any online fatwa database and ask or search for this question, and the answer will agree with mine
Here is an example of such an authoritative fatwa from a Saudi alim:

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=21757&ln=eng&txt=jihad

Our attitude must be clear; we must explain to the kuffaar the ruling of Islamic sharee’ah concerning harming and killing others. We should tell them that Islam forbids harming innocent people in any way, whether that involves harming their bodies, their wealth or their honour. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” It is not permissible to kill a kaafir who is not hostile or who has a legitimate peace treaty with the Muslims; rather treating a non-hostile kaafir with kindness is part of the Islamic religion, especially if that is done to call him to Islam and soften his heart (towards Islam). Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes. Verily, Allaah loves those who deal with equity”[al-Mumtahinah 60:8]

At times of war against the kuffaar, it is not permissible for a Muslim to deliberately kill a kaafir child or woman who is not bearing arms against the Muslims or helping in the fight. It was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the Muslim army: “Go out in the name of Allaah and by the help of Allaah, following the way of the Messenger of Allaah. Do not kill any old man, infant, child or woman… spread goodness and do good, for Allaah loves those who do good.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2614; its isnaad includes Khaalid ibn al-Faraz, of whom Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb, he is maqbool (acceptable) i.e., if there are corroborating reports)

Now you also mentioned something about taqiya (concealing your beliefs), you are confusing this doctrine with mainstream Sunni Islam. Taqiya is a salient feature of shia islam, they believe it is allowed to hide one’s beliefs if it will endanger your life, due to their historic and unfortunate mistreatment by Sunni governments in history. However, as a Sunni Muslim this concept of taqiya does not apply to me, so I should not have to defend it.

And what about all those moslims who interpret it the way I did? It is very clear that many do. How will you convince them that they are wrong? I believe, quite sincerely, that if you try, they will probably want to kill you. I judge the religion on the actions of its believers.

Who are all those Muslims? Can you name me a single cleric (i.e. Imam, Shaykh, Alim, Mufti, etc.,) who says that indiscriminate killing of disbelievers is allowed in Islam? Not even Usama bin Laden, who is considered a heretic and deviant by mainstream Muslims, believes that indiscrimate killing of disbelievers is allowed in Islam. Al-Qaida targets Americans and other westerners, but why doesn’t it target Chinese, Latin Americans, etc., they are just as kafir and non-Muslim as Westerners.

So in short, you have made the accusation that Islam supports indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims under any circumstance. As a Muslim I find that a ludicrous and absurd claim. I believe therefore it is your burden to prove your ignorant accusation is true. Thus far you have failed miserably.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2007 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  653
Joined  2007-08-24
Talha777 - 04 October 2007 06:02 PM

So Talha, how are we really supposed to know that YOURS is the correct interpretation,

First of all I made my “interpretation” using clear proofs and verses from the Holy Quran. It was your suggestion that the Holy Quran preaches indiscrimate violence against disbelievers. I clearly proved that wrong with the many verses I quoted which clearly show that Muslims may fight with disbelievers in self-defense only. You could not respond to those verses, you did not even comment on them. However, I responded to the verses you quoted by putting them in their proper context. Now I will reveal to you a shocking surprise. This isn’t MY interpretation, it is the interpretation and understanding of every Muslim scholar and commentator of repute.

Apparently, these scholars aren’t very popular in places like Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from. There are plenty of religious leaders who use the interpretation I have presented. Its the interpretation of Osama binLaden. It seems to be the interpretation these guys are using:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0602/gallery.muslim.protest/01.uk.ap.jpg

It also seems to be the interpretation used by the president of Iran, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, and of the Takfir wal-Hijra.

Wikipedia

Takfir wal-Hijra takes fundamentalism a step further than most Islamic fundamentalist groups. It advocates armed battle against Jews, Christians and apostate Muslims to restore the unity of the Islamic world order (ummah). The ummah is to be led by a Caliph, who rules according to the Sharia. The group’s warriors are allowed to practice something akin to taqiyya. This means they can disguise their true principles for protection of their own faith. This allows them to blend in with Western society and also to disobey all rules of their form of Islam for the goal of destroying Western civilisation from within, a form of antinomianism. According to this ideology, the warriors will be martyrs in Paradise after death.

[ Edited: 04 October 2007 02:27 PM by SaulDeOhio]
 Signature 

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”

- George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2007 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2007-03-13

Please salvage what little academic integrity you have before you make another complete embarrasment of yourself? Wikipedia?

Apparently, these scholars aren’t very popular in places like Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

Actually the scholar I quoted (Shaykh al-Munajjid) is in Saudi Arabia. Likewise the late and legendary Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Shaykh bin Baz had this to say:

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/wahhabis_terrorsim.htm

“...Hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent…”

Now you are somehow equating the fact that become a majority of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi arabia, therefore majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia believe in indiscriminate killing of non-Muslims. That is just bad logic. Usama bin Laden was influenced by Syed Qutb, an Egyptian philosopher, not an Islamic scholar. Syed Qutb was a political activist who was highly influenced by revolutionary marxism but in order to appeal to the Egyptian masses presented his ideas with an Islamic coloring and symbolism to gain support.You should be educated about these matters before you start making such ignorant statements that Islam preaches indiscriminate killing.

It also seems to be the interpretation used by the president of Iran, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, and of the Takfir wal-Hijra.

So if it is the belief of the president of Iran, why didn’t he go on a killing rampage when he visited the US and had plenty of opportunity to kill American infidels? You were quoting verses from the Quran and saying that they teach Muslims to kill all non-Muslims without distinction. I clarified the issue by putting those verses in their proper context and explaining how they are dealing with the subject of war, the conditions for which are laid down elsewhere in the Holy Quran. Now you are saying that the president of Iran disagrees with my interpretation.  Also, there is no doubt there are many terrorists among Muslims, but is each and every Muslim, 1.3 billion of them, terrorists who are killing non-Muslims? I hope you can see reason and realize that the killing done in the name of Islam is political in nature, and religion is used for political reasons, it is not the inherent teachings of the Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa salam which command all Muslims to go on a kafir killing spree.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2007 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

.

[ Edited: 07 October 2007 05:40 PM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2012 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
Talha777 - 03 October 2007 12:05 PM

Women compete in different sports leagues because of differences in physical strength and endurance, which is an entirely separate and unrelated issue to sexual relations between genders and the moral issues surrounding it.  This is a complete non sequitur.  If your thoughts are this disorganized, no wonder to subscribe to backward and irrational beliefs.

My point is that women are inherently different from man, so you cannot always give them an identical standard. You yourself have said women are physically weaker than men, thus how can they compete with men in the same sports league? Likewise, women’s body is more sexual in nature compared to men’s body, therefore they have to cover their entire body with veil in public, whereas man must also dress modestly. Why in the West, for example, is it considered indecent for women to not wear a shirt but it is not considered indecent for men to do likewise. So how am I being “irrational”? I am just giving you the reality.

Horsecrap.  This is a complete BS justification of shutting women up inside a social prison, and rationalizing it by telling yourself that they create their own social network for themselves, and they’re really just as happy there as you are in your circles.  You should be ashamed of yourself.
There is no excuse for denying women the opportunity to live in the wider world around them.  It is also stupid and counterproductive to deprive your society of the useful talents of half the population.

It seems when you cannot answer a logical argument you resort to emotions and foul language. That is unfortunate and regrettable.

The alarming thing is, I think you might actually believe this shit.

Summation:  women need forced protection from Muslim men, and the problem arises from the women.

 

Odd how the bravest person in Afghanistan is a 14 year old girl, eh?

[ Edited: 10 October 2012 03:05 PM by Ice Monkey]
 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2012 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
Talha777 - 02 October 2007 12:46 PM

Defying a moral code once it has already been overthrown and there are no more worldly consequences for it can hardly be considered “bravery”. In fact it is more akin to shameless cowardice.

Defying Allah, however, well that can be considered “brave” in a sense, but it’s probably better described as stupidity and evil.

Perhaps, though grovelling in the dust over the invisible, the untestable, and the undetectable isn’t exactly a noble gesture, nor brave, on any level.

Of course, seeing how badly Mohammed and Allah need protection, bravery isn’t exactly the hallmark of Muslims as it perhaps was hundreds of years ago.  Seems the religion is terribly obsessed with their fragility these days…


Remember when gods could defend themselves?  It was a long time ago, eh?

[ Edited: 10 October 2012 01:50 PM by Ice Monkey]
 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2012 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
Talha777 - 03 October 2007 12:05 PM

My point is that women are inherently different from man, so you cannot always give them an identical standard.

(piles of steaming irrelevant statements snipped)

We can when it comes to personal freedom.  It’s what separates the civilized from the uncivilized.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed