Total posts: 1,201
- I unblocked you, quote me so I get notified. Don't like the hassle of not being notified.
Source for this.
I did read the article and will get to the rest of what you're saying within a day or two. I'll make a good case.
- Looking forward to it.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I don't worry about adultery because the bitch knows, I'll beat her ass.
- What if she goes with another woman?
Created:
Were the Iraqis happy under Hussein?
- Yes, they were. Iraq was one of the richest places on Earth & the most advanced country in the Arab world & Middle East under Saddam.
I am not supporting Blair and Bush in the reasoning they invaded nor the means that the troops took, I am asking if you're implying that the Iraqis were in a happy situation with their leadership.
- Why do you care? All the regimes supported & funded by the West, wether in the Arab world or Africa are brutal military regimes. Don't tell me you actually believe the hoax that the US invades other nations to "save" them from "bad" dictators...?!
Created:
Okay, so you support racism being allowed?
- I thought you'd say "absolutely vile" for the arrest of a boy. So you're ok with boys being arrested for spreading hate, just not when Pakistan does it. How does your mind even function with this level of hypocrisy!
First, I want to establish which side of the spectrum you're coming at me with the hypocrisy.
- So arresting a child for social media hate slurs is ok, & arresting another for actually going into a mosque to piss on prayer mats is not ok?
Are you for what they did or against it?
- Tell me about the millions of children kidnapped from their families for generations & still, are you with or against it?
Created:
She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, yet to be ratified by the court. Which is about the same sentence you will get if you blaspheme in Europe or the US, or less.
- It seems you haven't read the article. Oops!
Created:
this is a religious forum and not a historical or political onebut in case you've forgottenthe Palestinian mufti supported adolf hittler and the Holocaust you're talking about"When Hitler and al-Husseini met, both leaders clearly believed that Germany was going to win, and the bulk of their conversation dealt with what the Arabs should or should not do help bring that outcome about.Al-Husseini began the conversation by declaring that the Germans and the Arabs had the same enemies: “the English, the Jews, and the Communists.” "
- Hitler is no worse than Churchill or Leopold or Mitterand or the rest of them, they all human scum who killed millions of people. The reason why Hitler is so despised in the West is just because the object of his massacres were Europeans, whereas the other's were non-Whites, mainly Muslims...etc.
you mean the racist white couple ? that called them the N word
- Oh, it's not OK to hurt the feelings of an American family, but it's ok to hurt the feelings of 2 BILLION MUSLIMS. Got it! Your hatred for Islam is making you delirious. It's actually hilarious.
here's a shop selling t-shirts that have "fuck jesus" written in them blasphemy is protected under freedom of speech https://www.redbubble.com/shop/fuck+jesus+t-shirts
- Do that with "f*ck niggers" or "burn Jews" or "hail alqaeda"... & see where that gets you. Different nations have different blasphemy laws. What is sacred or sensitive to you is not necessarily the case for another peoples. – It's actually sad, that "f*ck Jesus" will get you pretty much the same punishment in a Muslim country like Pakistan as insulting the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), yet nothing but support in a supposedly Christian country like the US.
it's very vile to see kids writing extremally racist shit
- Or deliberately pissing in mosques. No?
we are not discussing countries we are discussing religion feel free to discuss countries on the historical or political forumwe here are on the religious forum we don't discuss about countries we discuss religion
- Then post this nonsense in the political forum.
, and I'm pretty sure that adultry is not accepted in christianity
- Would you please tell that to Whylied.
since islam copied that from christianity
- They had to copy that didn't they! Without Christianity no one would've known that adultery is bad... But didn't Christianity copied that from Judaism. Seriously, how old are you?!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
That is a disgusting point of view from somebody upholding laws to piss on freedom of speech. The only reason to stop free speech, is if you are wrong.Think about it, if you can defeat an argument, why ban people from making it, instead of just being scared to address it?
- So you're occasionally able to say sensible things... Glad you admitting there is no real freedom of speech in the West. That's why they don't allow alternative views in media or academia.
That's true. I wonder why the left when it concerns Muslims, just ignore a lot of the problems in their culture, they would certainly point out with other religions.I have seen some liberals such as Bill Mahar point out this sort of habit with other liberals, but have seen no explanations.
- LOL! Coming from a country with the worse record of jihad & invasion & holy war whatever you wanna call it in History. You people live in fake news bubble & think everyone is as stupid as you!!!
Some religions are more obviously false than others. Islam is one, but I think by far Mormonism is the most obviously false, and once you dig into the history, it gets pretty hilarious
- You mean Christianity* is obviously false, duh! Let's have a debate. Islam vs. Christianity, which is true or false.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Abubaker Deghayes rolled out that old excuse saying he was only explaining the meaning of Jihad by the sword as" self-defence ".
- He messed up when he said "for self-defense", he should've said "for invasion". He would've been awarded a knighthood like the war criminal Tony Blair.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I think Yasmine might be different from other Islamic people. For example he thinks Muslims should encourage and support homosexuality . He doesn't mind the degeneracy
- I think Whylied is lying here, as usual. Why are you so worried about homosexuality when adultery is fine in your country? That's hypocritical.
Created:
@RationalMadman
Last August, an eight-year-old Hindu boy, who was not named, became the youngest person in Pakistan to be charged with blasphemy.In December, a Sri Lankan factory manager working in Pakistan was beaten to death and set ablaze by a mob after being accused of blasphemy.Absolutely vile.
- You know what is absolutely vile? The systematic kidnapping of millions of 8 year olds & 8 months old from their families, due to race, religion or class in your own countries, & the systematic massacre & starvation of 8 years old & 8 old months in other countries. – Speaking of boys being arrested for blaspheme in the West, Police arrest 12-year-old over racist social media messages in West Midlands. ABSOLUTELY VILE! Spare us your false disgusting moral abyss. Ugh! DISGUSTING!
Created:
- She wasn't sentenced to death. Nothing happened yet. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, yet to be ratified by the court. Which is about the same sentence you will get if you blaspheme in Europe or the US, or less. Like that White couple who got 15 years in prison for insulting a Black family, -which is what anti-semitic slurs & Holocaust denying gets you in France or Germany. – It mustn't feel great when you're no better than a third world country like Pakistan.
Created:
Posted in:
Kosher (the most cruel) and Halal (almost as cruel) are excuses for animal-abusing ways of killing.
- I don't know about Kosher, why do you believe Halal is cruel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Thoughts on Turkey's regional geopolitical ambitions and relationships with other major regional Islamic powers?
- Very interesting question. Perhaps the short answer would be something like Ottoman legacy. Generally, where there is consensus on a foreign issue in the West, reality is the contrary. Turkey must be doing something right, at least according to the numbers. I like how you put "ambitions"! If Erdogan has anything, it's AMBITIONS! I believe there is an external story to these ambitions, & a deep covert side to the story, which I don't mind sharing here, since I'm trying to be genuine. It might get a little holy graily though. – Turkey's game is decidedly in the long haul, playing all the pieces on all the boards, on all fronts: economy, trade, industry, armament, technology, science, foreign policy, soft & hard power. The country's geopolitical position sharply accentuates its prospects: right in the middle between East & West, Europe & Asia, the EU & Russia & the Middle East. You can either become a battle ground, a buffer zone to the greater powers. Or, if you play your cards well, become the regional power, by taking advantage of your strategic location, balancing interests from all sides, & leveraging some over others.
- In 2003, Erdogan announced the Vision 2023, to make Turkey the regional power & one of the top 10 global powers. In GDP terms, the economy of Turkey more than quadrupled in the past 18 years, from $0.6T in 2002 to $2.7T last year, set to to reach $3.0T by 2023; putting the country's rank at 11th globally (in real GDP at current USD) [in contrast, the US economy less than doubled in the same period]. Vision 2023 also aimed to raise trade volume from $80B to $500B -more than a 6 times increase- by 2023. In 2021, trade volume already reached $497B. Income also rose significantly, from $9k to $33k in that same period -almost 4 times increase. Turkey was also set to become top 5 tourist destination by 2023, it's currently 6th. Turkey's S&E output grow more than 7 times the past two decades, today on par with native S&E output of countries like France & Italy. Similarly for patent applications. Also, in real industrial output, Turkey already surpassed traditional powerhouses such as France, Italy & the UK; in fact, by a significant margin (+50%). – To set such insanely ambitious goals at the onset of their campaign & even surpass them, the Turkish leadership must be discretely aiming at even greater ambitions.
- In fact, the president throughout the years made some bold announcements, which he never to deliver. For instance, joint space capabilities by 2023, & indigenous space self-reliance by 2028, by sending a man on the moon from Turkish soil with Turkish tech. Aircraft carrier, unveiled last year. 5th & 6th generation unmanned fighter jets by 2023 in prototype, & by 2028 in commercial distribution [if indeed completed, it would make Turkey the first in the race]. Nuclear reactor by 2023, & another two by 2028. The Istanbul Canal project by 2028...etc. All these illustrate the post-2018 distinctive rhetoric, aggressive & bold. After the failure of the 2016 coup d'etat in Turkey & the overly popular win in the 2018 elections, the Turkish cabinet came back with newly found solid grounds & political freedom to push their ambitions to the extremes. These were made even more tenable with the Karabakh victory in 2019, thereafter Erdogan's legitimacy shot up in the Muslim world, & especially in the Turkic world -along with the reputation of the country's defense industry. – For a while there, Erdogan seems to be at beef with literally every country in sight, aggressive rhetoric & non-compromise was the norm. After the victory, & since, the rhetoric changed into alliances & normalizations. This was one of the most transformative moments for modern Turkey in relation to its neighbors. Once Turkey proved its unyielding will & its might to back up that will with force if need be, the message was received by the others, thus a new regional dynamic emerged, where the sick man of Europe makes a leverage-replete comeback. – This can be seen clearly in the explosive rise of Turkish influence in the world. In hard power, Turkey is second only to the US in number of military bases on foreign soil, four (several other are being negotiated as we speak). In soft power, Turkey does not shy to come second only to the US in TV exports, ahead of Korea (known for their dramas).
- Turkey's population size, around 85 million today & set to breach the 100 in the coming decade, finds itself competing -economically & technologically- with second-league countries, such as Germany, Russia, Japan & Brazil. This already is regional power status. Regional powers have the ability to steer their region away from global power influence, by creating new interstate cohesion & raising the strategic leverage of neighboring countries. – Given its special geopolitical position, Turkey has more than one strategic card to play to achieve regional powerhouse. It is part of the Muslim world, the Turkic world, the Middle Eastern world, the European world, the Eurasian world, & the Asian world. Turkey is endeavoring to take leadership -or at least become an active partner- in all these worlds, in an effort to boost its international standing & gain independence from US & Western hegemony. – The recently upgraded Turkic League, with Turkish leadership, aims to recreate the EU experiment to boost trade & achieve a more stable economy. With the eastern part of Azerbaijan getting connected to mainland Turkey, Ankara gains uninterrupted access to the entire Turkic world, through the Caspian sea to Central Asia. For Turkey, this means inexhaustible energy supplies, thus energy security & additional leverage against regional competition (Russian, Iran & Saudi), also, independent trade access to much of Asia (western, southern & eastern) outside American or Russian prying hands. – Turkey's leadership in the D-8 (Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, & Bangladesh) may also bare significant long lasting fruits. Together, this block holds half the Muslim population (1/7th global population) & 60% of the OIC economy (1/10th global economy), will become even more imposing with their joint Islamic megabank based on Islamic finance & aimed at financing major projects & infrastructure (analog to China's ICBC) in the Muslim world, & facilitating trade with local currencies sans USD. In light of the shifting global state of affairs, the import of this move can not overstated.
- On another front, we've been seeing very close friendship & consistent cooperation between Turkey & some specific Muslim countries, which Erdogan calls brother nations: Qatar, Pakistan, Malaysia & Azerbaijan. The fruits of these alliances for Turkey are too manifest to ignore. One is the richest country on Earth with the 3rd global gas reserves, the other is one of the nine nuclear powers & the sole Muslim one, the next is one of the leading countries in chip manufacturing & high-tech industries at the shore of the premier straight in the Globe, & the last is the de-facto door of Eurasia between Russia & the Muslim world (Iran) & a gate to Central Asia -also with huge reserves of oil & gas. Probably the most important of all these alliances, is the intense extensive military collaboration between Ankara & Islamabad, a nuclear fusion. I heard many political experts from Turkey insist that the country either already possesses nuclear capabilities or is the process of obtaining them. This will surely constitute another categorical shift in the regional standing of Turkey, even global.
- Another more subtle yet paramount aspect of Ankara's regional ambitions, is in human capital imports. The country is developing world class health, education & innovation sectors. 3 of the 10 largest hospital in the world are in Turkey, along with some of the most advanced industrial facilities, & a great number of the best universities in the region. This results in an increasing influx of bright students, skilled workers, or researches from the MENA region & South Asia (even from Eastern Europe), who otherwise traditionally sought Europe (or the US) for similar access. This is exacerbated with the rising Islamophopia in Europe, which incite muslims there to find better opportunity elsewhere. So far, Turkey has been the favored destination. A modern developed country, with abundance of amenities & accessibility, low cost of living, Muslim & stable. Increasingly, highly skilled Turks & other muslims are fleeing to Turkey from the West, bringing with them invaluable experience & skills. This is apparent in yearly scientific publication, where European countries have peaked around the 2010-2015 & are on decline, Turkey is in constant rise.
- As a major player in the Islamic world, Turkey has a very critical role. Regionally, the country has to contend with another 3 Muslim powerhouses, from different & contradictory ideological & historical backgrounds: Egypt, Saudi, & Iran. All have quite the bitter history with the Ottoman heir. Today's Egypt is the legacy of Arab nationalism, which saw Turks (Ottomans) not as protectors of the Faith as was traditionally the case, but rather as invaders & exploiters. Saudi, even worse, legacy to the most despised dynasty to the Ottomans, who are the reason Turks today hate Arabs (for being traitors). Iran, well, they are Shia, & have been at war with the Ottomans for basically ever. Turkey itself, in an internal war between European secularism & Ottoman sufism. Truly, none of these sides has any intent whatsoever to cede this contest. However, Turkey has an advantage none of the others have. It will soon become the first Muslim country in the region (& probably globally) to reach true autonomy. That is the freedom to act according to Muslim interests sans Western pressure or interference. As long as the other contenders are tied to foreign pressure, they will not be able to maintain the race. A good example of this is the recent war on usury affair. As odd as this would seem, no Muslim leader before has actually made such a declaration & succeeded. Before Erdogan, president Erbakan made similar comments, he was deposed literally one month after, 11 months into his term. During the controversy in France regarding Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) drawings last year, none of these countries have officially voiced their disapproval, except Turkey. Erdogan immediately made a speech & called for the boycott of French goods. Not even the president of Pakistan was able to express such condemnation, despite the mass protests to kick out the French ambassador. Because Pakistan's interests were too tied to France's, that the nation's military aircraft maintenance was under French supervision. It was only when Erdogan promised to fulfill & take over the French role, that the ambassador was finally expelled. – Point being, leadership without autonomy is untenable. If Turkey achieves desirable autonomy, leadership ensues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
- You're going round in circles. When you have something meaningful to say or something tangible to discuss then come back, this here is Genuine Discussion -you shall be welcomed.
Created:
Yassine,do we even need allah ? or muhammad or any of the books of tafsir ? we have yassine who knows about islam more than his all-knowing god , let me guess homosexuality is not haram too"an adult non-elderly free woman either in worship, or in the presence of adult straight men who aren't kin, must cover her idle body ('Awrah), thus her hair along with the rest of her body except the hands, feet & face."according tothe four major Sunni schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) hold by consensus that it is obligatory for the entire body of the woman (see awrah), except her hands and face (and feet according to Hanafis) to be covered during prayer and in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family membersjust in case that you didn't see itand I'm suggesting to follow that by forcing all muslim women to wear hijab-which is basically obligatory on all muslim adult women in Islam- when they are at public lest other adult men who aren't their close family members see them , we get to be pro-muslims , and paying a fine is just to insure that muslims follow islam
- Have you checked your pulse? Maybe it's your eyes. Are you actually aware of what you read & write? It would be hard to talk to you if you aren't.
do we even need allah ? or muhammad or any of the books of tafsir ? we have yassine who knows about islam more than his all-knowing god , let me guess homosexuality is not haram too
- It is.
what are you going to claim next ? muhammad didn't order his followers to kill homosexuals by throwing them from high cliffs ? or crushing them under massive stones ? or to stone them to death
- He didn't.
"Whoever you find doing as the people of Lot did (ie homosexuality), kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done, and if you find anyone having sexual intercourse with animal, kill him and kill the animal."
- Where does it say "throw them from high cliffs" "crush them under massive stones" "stone them to death"?
Related by Ahmad and the four Imams with a trustworthy chain of narrators.
- No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Why does that matter? The subject here (though it should be religion) is that you have presented how YOU feel. Do you have a problem with someone pointing out that your statement is useful in understanding who YOU are?
- Is you ok? I'm not interested in rants. Do you have something tangible to say or discuss?
By "this" do you mean "with the right words to convey the right meaning"? If so, then yes, that's how I talk to everyone. I have said what I mean. Have you? If so, then you know your position.
- Are you playing riddles? I expected nothing less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Nope. I'm saying that by seeing how you word the issue and where you think it appropriate to mention it, I can understand your thinking and extrapolate from that to help me understand your thinking in other areas.
- So, do you or do you support flying rockets into babies?
It isn't any more wordy than meaning requires it to be. Are you saying you don't know your own position? You are the one who made the statement. Were you saying something other than what your words mean?
- Is this how you talk to everyone? Say what you mean, mean what you say. & what is my position?
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
Okay, Yassine, not only due to being cautious what to criticise in the faith but genuinely as you seem to be here for actual discussion despite being very opinionated (arguably biased)
- I don't disagree there. I believe the only way we can reach mutual understanding & common truth is when all sides speak firmly & openly about their convictions.
I will ask you this and it's a genuine question, it isn't loaded:Is Islam (the real Islam) the holy scriptures, the past actions of Islamic regimes, Sharia law itself or what Muslims choose to redefine it as, to adapt to modern (more liberal and egalitarian) times?
- That is an excellent question. – I appreciate your genuine interest, so I'm going to answer sincerely. I shall present the definition of Islam, & build from there to what this definition entails, in a question-answer format.
- What is Islam? – 'Islam' from the root word 'aslama' meaning: to surrender, to submit, to bring about peace, to hand over... in this sense, Islam is to surrender to & be at peace with God's Will.
- What does 'surrender to' or 'be at peace with' exactly mean for us? – God's Will is absolute, humans do not actually have independent agency to act on God's creation free from God's Will. Humans are, in truth, already subject to God's Will. – However, as cognitive beings -whom God bestowed with Reason- we have the volition to deny this fact & delude ourselves otherwise. Therefore, Islam (surrender to God's Will) is not to come under God's dominion after being free from it, for that was never the case to begin with; it is rather to internally realize (or be at peace with) that truth, of the relationship between the human being -the created, & God -the Creator: that God is the omnipotent omniscient sole creator & sustainer of the worlds, hence the absolute subjection & dependence of oneself to God. – denial of this truth is, therefore, delusion (kufr).
- What is the religion of Islam? – The Quran says: "Verily, the Deen [true religion] in the sight of Allah is Islam [surrender]" (3:19). 'Deen' (religion) from the root word 'dana', meaning: to be close, to yield, to conform, to be indebted... Deen is, thus, the debt & gratitude one has towards God, or the way one gets close to God. The religion of Islam is, thus, the universal primordial message taught by all prophets that the way to be close to God & be grateful to Him, is to surrender & be at peace with His Will. – [We believe Islam is the primal religion & the original teaching of all religions -which people's whims & desires pervert as time passes: "We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and shun false gods"" (16:36).]
- How does one practice Islam? – Follow the teachings of the prophets. But, since all these teachings have been altered or lost to time, the final & universal version of Islam conveyed by the seal of prophets Muhammed (pbuh) was to abrogate all others & last to the end of time. Therefore, the practice of Islam post-Muhammed (pbuh) until the end of time, is manifested in the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
- What Islam did the Prophet (pbuh) teach? – Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) taught Islam through the Quran (his revelation) & the Sunnah (his normative example), addressed to the human being in all his 3 dimensions: body, mind & soul. Particularly, he (pbuh) taught:
- Morality (Islam) = teachings about right actions for body, founded on the 5 pillars of Islam: Shahada (testimony of faith), Salat (daily prayers), Zakat (charity tax), Syam (fasting Ramadan), Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).
- Rationality (Iman) = teachings about right convictions for mind, founded on the 6 pillars of Iman: belief in Allah, in the Angels, in the Books, in the Prophets, in the Day of Judgment, & in Predestination & Divine Decree.
- Spirituality (Ihsan) = teachings about right intentions for soul, founded on the 2 pillars of Ihsan: to worship God as a witness to the divine presence, else as a witnessed in the divine presence.
- How do we recognize said Islamic tradition (or Islam) today? – Although the letter of the Tradition can be readily accessed in the Quran & the Sunnah (hadiths), the spirit of the Tradition can only be accessed through prophetic Isnad (chain of authority back to the Prophet (pbuh)). That is, the Prophet (pbuh) authorized some of his companions to teach or enforce the religion, who in turn later authorized their successors to teach or enforce it -generation after generation until today's ulama, who trace their chains of authority back to the beloved Prophet (pbuh). The ulama are the representatives of the Islamic Tradition, in both letter & spirit.
- Where are these teachings today? – The prophetic teachings propagated by the companions would shortly after crystallize into the Suuni mathhabs (the traditional schools of thought), in Law, Theology, & Mysticism. Specifically:
- Prophetic morality crystalized into the Fiqh tradition aka Islamic Law (or Sharia Law), expressed through the Four Madhhabs (legal schools of thought). Namely: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i & Hanbali.
- Prophetic rationality into Kalam = Islamic Theology, expressed in the 3 Sunni theological schools. Namely, Ash'ari (predominant), Maturidi (virtually the same), & Athari (minority).
- Prophetic spirituality into Tasawuf = Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), expressed in the many Sufi tariqas (orders). Namley, Qadiri, Shathili, Tijani...
- What of other Islam related teachings/interpretations not adopted by the Sunni mathhabs? – These opinions may very well be related to the letter of the Islamic Tradition (Quran & Sunnah), but will not be deemed valid opinions by the traditional ulama, for they are without the authoritative spirit of the Tradition, because they lack prophetic Isnad. Hence, such opinions are considered innovations or deviations.
- What is an -inadmissible- innovation? – It's a novel non-authoritative scripture (in letter) or interpretation of scripture (in spirit) pertaining to Islamic doctrine. This innovation can thus stem from a fabricated hadith, or from a deviant interpretation of established scripture.
- What is the difference between Sunni Islam & other sects in Islam? – The pillar of Sunni Islam is prophetic Isnad, which all other sects either lack or reject. In that respect, there are two ways sects appear in the Islamic Tradition. The founders of these sects either promoted innovations that were rejected by the traditional schools without authorization, or they did it while claiming fake authorization (i.e. without real Isnad).
- What are some of the major sects of Islam? – There are several sects in Islam which emerged from disagreement on tenets of doctrine:
- On human agency: Qadaryah believe in true free will, Jabryah in absolute determinism. [Sunnis = free will in intentions, determinism in actions]
- On political leadership: Shia = leadership is divinely appointed (specifically the descendants of the Prophet (pbuh)), Haruryah = leadership is fake news (like ISIS). [Sunnis = leaders are elected by the people]
- On reason vs. revelation: Mutazilah = revelation is subject to reason, Atharia = reason is subject to revelation. [Sunnis = reason & revelation are congruent]
- On God's attributes: Jahmyah = God is all transcendent, i.e. does not act on the world, Mujasima = God is all immanent, i.e. a literal body in time & space (like the Wahhabis). [Sunnis = God is transcendent & immanent]
- On faith vs. works: Murjia = in faith alone for salvation, Khawarij = works sufficient for salvation (like Wahhabis). [Sunnis = faith with works are required for salvation]
- Are the followers of these sects Muslim? – Yes, of course. Although they may not believe or practice the authentic & authoritative teachings of Islam, they are still in the fold of Islam. As Imam Ghazali said, "what takes one outside the fold of Islam is what brings one into it: belief in the truth of the Prophet (pbuh)". Generally, these follower may either believe that the Prophet (pbuh) said something which he, in fact, didn't. Or, they may believe he (pbuh) meant something which he, in fact, didn't. In neither cases does the follower discredit the Prophet (pbuh) -unless of course they do.
- Are liberal muslims Muslim? – Outwardly, as long as they profess to be Muslim, they are, unless they contradict themselves otherwise. Such as by saying, "I'm Muslim but I don't believe the Prophet (pbuh) (or don't believe in the Quran)", obviously that's nonsense. Inwardly, as long as they don't discredit the Prophet (pbuh) knowingly they are Muslim; else they aren't. For instance, if a liberal truly believes the Prophet (pbuh) did not prohibit fornication, & he commits it, then he has not left the fold of Islam. If a liberal believes the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited pork, yet he insists pork is permissible -whether he consumes it or not- then he is no longer in the fold of Islam.
- What does it mean to be in the fold of Islam? – It means one is subject to Taklif (accountability in Sharia). That is, one is liable to the judicial, social & public rulings of the Islamic state (in case there is one), & to the ethics of the faith. Contrasted to non-Muslims who are not liable to said rulings & ethics.
- What is accountability to God in Islam? – God holds us accountable for our true intentions, not our actions or thoughts. In this sense, a non-Muslim who's sincere in their pursuit of the divine may be better in the eyes of God than a Muslim who isn't sincere in his Islamic faith. Only God knows the true intentions of his creatures, & in the Day of Judgement nothing matters except sincerity.
- What of the different versions of "Islam" in modern times? – Islam is God's religion that the beloved Prophet (pbuh) taught, in letter & spirit, -in morality & rationality & spiritually. Therefore, Islam is not "whatever I want". Anything which does not pertain to the Prophet's true teachings is, course, not Islam.
- Can a muslim have his own opinion in the faith? – If a muslim is a Mujtahid, i.e. qualified to interpret scripture & receives authorization to advise (fatwa) or judge (qadaa) from licensed ulama (with prophetic Isnad), then his opinions in whatever he's qualified in (Ijtihad) are considered valid (as long as they don't contradict scripture or consensus). A Muqallid muslim (without qualification or permission) is not allowed to form opinions, deemed thus invalid, instead he is mandated to seek advise from the ulama; else accountable for his opinions.
- What is salvation for Muslims? – In Islam, there is no salvation in the sense of 'saved guarantee' or 'pass to Paradise'. Salvation in Islam is understood as right to intercession (shafa'a). That is, in the day of judgement, those who believe in the beloved Prophet (pbuh) have a right to his intercession, that he may intercede between them & Allah in asking Allah to forgive them & save them (same for every other prophet with his followers). Thereafter, Allah may chose to forgive or not. Although, Allah has promised to forgive all sins except Shirk (associating partners with Him), He does whatever He please. As the Prophet (pbuh) said, not even he is guaranteed salvation & Paradise, except by the Grace of Allah. A muslim can never appraise his own fate or the fate of others, that he is going to Heaven or that another is going to Hell, for that authority belongs to God alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I don't know what jidf is. I have no problem with what you said.
- Are you trying to say you support flying rockets into babies?
It was enlightening and revealing and I appreciate it as a wonderful piece of shorthand to help me understand your underlying position.
- That's a very wordy sentence. What is my underlying position then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Are you one of these liberal muslims who think it's okay for dudes to fuck each other?
- Sharia does not give a rat's a** what dudes or broads do behind closed doors as long as they keep it to themselves. That's between them & God, that He may forgive them if they repent, or punish them otherwise. As for non-Muslims, their disbelief itself is greater than any sin they might commit.
this can get a bit complex as a philosophy, but unlike humans, nation states are not punished in the afterlife. For individuals, we can be more forgiving. If somebody punches me in the face, God may give them their punishment. For nations, it is up to other nations to punish them.
- States consist of humans though. Do you not believe God would punish the commander who orders killing of innocents, or the soldier who kills the innocents?
I would say the verse you shared is too peaceful, which is in contradiction to my beliefs about Muslims,
- It's probably not that it is "too peaceful", it's rather that in Christianity there are virtually no rules for Just War, for Christ did not participate in warfare to constitute an example thereof, which leave Christians with the other biblical accounts of war. The wars in the Bible, at least outwardly, promote destruction & humiliation of all enemies, invaders or defenders, combatants or civilians. This is also true for the Western system, as Just War is a fundamentally antithetical concept to Western legal & political theory.
so I'm not sure if that is cherry picked or a genuine belief,
- You could say this is cheery picked, if you mean picking the worse verses from the Quran. Admittedly, "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" -without context- does sound pretty bad & violent, which is why Islamophobes love to quote it. As to what we actually believe, this relates to the concept of Abode of Peace (Dar Islam) & Abode of War (Dar Harb) in Sharia, or more broadly to the concept of Ismah – Inviolability in the Four Mathhabs (traditional legal schools of thought):
- The general position of the Four Mathahbs is that non-Muslims are fought for their hostility, not their disbelief. That is, hostile non-Muslims are not inviolable. Inviolability meaning: right to legal recourse for the victim or their family, & punishment for the perpetrator. Though, there is a difference of opinion of the definition of Hostility, whether it is contractual or it is natural.
- The Hanafi view is that the basis of inviolability is humanity (Ismah Adamiah – Human Inviolability). Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of Peace, unless otherwise the case. Hence, we are at peace, unless you start a war.
- The Maliki view is that the basis of inviolability is covenant (Ismat Ahd – Inviolability of Covenant). Thus, the default assumed condition of non-Muslims is that of War, unless otherwise established. Hence, we are either at peace under covenant, or otherwise at war.
- Those in the Abode of Peace are inviolable, & those in the Abode of War are not. Inviolability extends to the 6 sacred rights: faith, life, reason, family, property & honor –accordingly, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "whoever kills who has a covenant from Allah and His Messenger, then he has violated the covenant with Allah and His Messenger, so he shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise" & said: "The property of those who have been given a covenant is not lawful except for the dues which are levied."...etc.
- In summary, human beings are categorized according to the following in Sharia:
- The Abode of Peace is inclusive of:
- Ismat Millah – Inviolability of Faith = any Muslim anywhere.
- Ismat Dhimmah – Inviolability of Protection = non-Muslim permanent residents of Islamic state. <– Ahl Dhimmah or Dhimmis.
- Ismat Istiman – Inviolability of Asylum = non-Muslim temporary residents in Islamic state.
- Ismat al-Ahd – Inviolability of Treaty = non-Muslim residents in foreign territories under peace treaty with Muslims.
- Abode of War consists of:
- Muharib – Combatants = non-Muslim militarily enabled adult males in foreign territories at war with Muslims <– non-inviolable.
- Musalim – non-Combatants = non-Muslim non-combatant women, children, elderly, slaves, disabled, insane, peasants, laborers & monks <– granted semi-inviolability, for the Prophet (pbuh) said: "do not kill the women, and the children, and the elderly. Must not be killed are also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed". & also said: "you must not kill a woman or a laborer"...etc.
but I am curious as to why you ISIS would operate differently than the above, if it is a genuine belief that is common.
- That's indeed a very interesting question. ISIS are from the Sururi faction of the Wahhabi/Salafi sect, who are followers of the 18th century Muhammed Ibn Abd Wahab, a preacher who renounced the traditional schools & called for the return to -according to him- the "original" teachings of the Quran & Sunnah (prophet's example). Influenced by past sects, this dude taught very strange things, for instance:
God is a humanoid material body, albeit very huge, contingent on time & space. Hence, Wahhabis are anthropomorphists.
- If you follow the Four Mathhabs -which all Muslims have been for a 1000 years, then you're a Mushrik (polytheist) for doing Shirk (associating partners with God), hence a Kafir (disbeliever).
- If you seek intercession of the Prophet (pbuh) in prayer to God -which all other Muslims believe in-, then you're polytheist Kafir too.
- If you visit tombs of prophets & saints for blessing, then you're a polytheist Kafir too.
- If you don't make Takfir (i.e. believe the above muslims are Kafir), then you too are Kafir...etc.
- Consequently, ISIS do believe that Muslims in today's Levant & Iraq (& elsewhere) are either apostates or polytheists -for believing in the intercession of the Prophet (pbuh) or the blessing from prophets & saints. But, since there is no covenant or treaty between ISIS & these muslims, they believe "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is appropriate, therefore killing said muslims -polytheists in their eyes- is legitimate. In the process, they also reinterpret everything to fit that narrative, for instance "oppressors" as "disbelievers", "transgression" as "disbelief". They also blast the tombs of prophets & saints to prevent people from visiting them...etc.
There is a theory about war. That when war takes place, you have 2 options. Very quick and ruthless, like peeling a bandaid or very slow, like how the Iraq war happened. Before the era of and ease of mass propagandist was a thing, most preferred the quick and bloody approach, because it looked ugly, but resulted in less death and suffering than a drawn out affair. Now that cameras can catch every despicable aspect of war, and propaganda is so important to winning, most feel compelled to do the slow approach, so they don't look like monsters. It results in more suffering, but they save face.
- Weren't you saying, "love thy enemy", "turn the other cheek" just few posts ago. How do you reconcile that with this?
I didn't criticize those verses. It seems like a very honorable way to conduct yourself with other nations, I just don't think it is the approach that we should take.
- This isn't necessarily directed at you, although you're here. In reality, Christians -or westerners in general- do not adopt Just War practice or grant any rights to enemy combatants, prisoners of war or even civilians. In spite of this, why are they so adamant, then, on criticizing Islam & especially Muhammed (pbuh) regarding war?
If they refuse, than that is between them and God/Allah. The people who promote it, should be stopped in non violent ways though.
- 'Stopping' implies force & punishment. How else do you plan on stopping such acts?
I didn't say they were wrong. God gave certain directions to ancient Israelites. I told you the reason for those directions, which were to harden them and to make sure they were multiplying, so they could be a more powerful nation. Nothing hardens somebody, like having them lose their compulsion to kill, by stoning a homo to death. Those laws were for Jews in the times of Moses, they aren't for me or anybody living today.
- Does this apply to all the Ten Commandments & other biblical laws or just homosexuality? Didn't the beloved Jesus (pbuh) say he came to uphold the Law? What do you say of Canon Law (which pre-modern Christians followed)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Thank you for showing your true colors. Have a nice day.
- Are you JIDF? You seem to have a problem with what I said. By all means, do share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]I would disagree with them.
- Why?
My preferred national security strategy is to bring all the troops, home and stop playing world police. I want all wars to be defensive strictly. If attacked I would advocate a quick and very bloody retaliation, as I think quick and bloody is more ethical than long and drawn out war.
- On what ground? What do you mean by bloody?
if it is not a sanctioned attack, but accidental or something than we would have to lean towards what you suggested, but intentional military intervention is a different story.
- Then is your criticism of the Quran regarding those verses that they are not violent enough? Or is it that they are too peaceful? Or what?
I did watch the videos. I think there is a difference between not giving a shit of somebody kills fruits and actually advocating for the murder of them.
- Which they did, "try them, if found guilty, put them to death" "solve AIDS by Christmas, kill all gays"... these are in the West. Of course, elsewhere, in Latin America or Africa, this rhetoric is the norm.
I'd also say advocating for their death is unacceptable and that we should be completely intolerant of their sinning, while still helping them by leading them to a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle.
- What of those who refuse & promote the normalization of the practice in your society?
As far as the old testament laws that Moses encouraged the stoning of Homos, it was understandable for their situation. You are looking at a group of slaves that need to be hardened with these strict punishments, while also being a small group, so people being okay with gay shit, would prevent them from being fruitful and having lots of children.
- Why have the Jews & Christians always understood the letter to mean death for homosexuals? What makes your opinion more credible than theirs?
There are 13 muslim countries where you will be killed for being a fruit cake. There are zero christian countries like that. Why is that? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/14/countries-where-being-gay-is-legally-punishable-by-death/39574685/
- First of all, these laws are either for homosexual rape or public sodomy, there are no laws in these countries against people for just being fruit cakes... that's a blatant lie. Also, I think there is some miscommunication between us. Homosexuality outside the West is a HUGE no-no, especially in the Muslim world & Africa.
- The West has been through a succession of phases that made LGBT normalization possible, to which the rest of the world is stranger. First, the collapse of religious cohesion in favor of individual liberalism, that led to the sexual revolution, accompanied by the second wave feminism, which sought to eliminate gender & chastity rationale from legal consideration, extramarital sexual crimes were ditched, adultery became norm & promiscuity celebrated, chastity laws replaced with statutory rape laws, which effectively made martial relations taboo among teens at the height of their sexual desire, in favor of open relationships & casual sex culture, greatly exacerbated with the diffusion of abortion & adoption & contraception rights. In such a sexualized & liberalized society, systematic exposure to the LGBT cause in media & academia for more than two decades (since the 90s) is surely expected to bear fruit, especially when done under the umbrella of civil rights & sexual liberty & "free love" & such... This whole thing started with long periods of prosperity & wealth generation after generation the West had enjoyed, that they stopped thinking about food & education, into entertainment & self-gratification.
- Contrastingly, -with the exception of Latin America who are seeing the onset of a sexual revolution, NONE of this happened in the rest of the world. The Muslim world has just started gaining back its prosperity, & religious cohesion is still totally predominant -& it is not going away either, & . To expect sodomy decriminalization or LGBT normalization in Muslim countries, is to assume that long periods of prosperity will cause Islamic adherence to be abandoned in society, that religious cohesion will be replaced by other things to allow for a sexual revolution to take place....etc. All of it is virtually impossible to take place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What convinced you that Islam is true?
- That is a packed question. The short answer is the truth of the Prophet (pbuh) & of the Quran, & the love for the Prophet (pbuh) & for Allah. I don't wish to go into a complex theological discourse on the subject, but I can summarize the outlook as follows:
- Reason leads us to seek an ultimate explanation to this world, which we recognize as God. This God must be All-Knowing, therefore All-Wise. It's not sensible for an All-Wise being to bestow us with Reason to seek Him yet not give us a path to know Him. Therefore, there must a way to know God thereafter seeking Him; that is guidance, hence a guide as well. The guide is the messenger from God (prophet), & the guidance is the message (revelation). – Indeed, such is God's message, in the all various religions. All great religions start with a messenger -the man- & a message -the book-.
- The truth of Islam, thus, rests on the truth of the man & the book: Muhammed (pbuh) & the Quran. Particularly, someone who claims to come from God, must show us power only God can grant sans humans -that is miracles, & knowledge only God can bestow a human He sent -that is prophecies. Similarly, a book claimed to be of divine origin must contain divine knowledge a human may not invent, & divine power a human may not impose. – Miracles, if true, are extraordinary events. Prophecies, if true, are records about the future. Therefore, to know the truth of a miracle is to know that the event of said miracle has, in fact, occurred. Respectively, to know the truth of a prophecy is to know that the records of predicted events, in fact, came before the actual events.
- Also, a divine messenger must exemplify the divine message he is promoting, else loses credibility. Muhammed (pbuh) must therefore be the best example of his own teachings, to show the epitome of virtue & piety; in compassion, patience, forgiveness, justice, forbearance, bravery, manners, generosity, humility...etc. If anyone reads the honest biography of this man, he can only be filled with love for him (pbuh). Although I'm more inclined to the rational, without this emotional component -of love for the Prophet (pbuh) & his noble character, I doubt I would be Muslim.
- In the Islamic tradition, miracles are verified by the condition of Tawatur, i.e. congruence of sensory testimonies by a great number of witnesses, such that it is inconceivable they could have all conspired to tell the same lie, at each level throughout the chain of transmission. – Although there are hundreds of reported miracles related to the Prophet (pbuh), only about 20 of them do fulfill the condition of Tawatur.
- Example: The story of water gushing out between the Prophet's (pbuh) fingers in the desert when his army run out of water, that hundreds of people drank, washed & filled their containers with it. – The miraculous nature of this event is evident, but how do we know it actually happened? – According to Gawami Kalim (encyclopedia software containing 1400 Hadith collections), this story is reported in 427 chains of transmissions, by 125 independent sources (i.e. compilers like Bukhari, Muslim, Tarmithi...), who report it from 106 independent earlier sources (i.e. narrators or scholars of Hadith), who report it from 52 independent earlier sources (i.e. later successors / followers), who report it from another 36 independent earlier sources (i.e. successors), who report it from 17 companions to the Prophet (pbuh) who witnessed the event. – Independent here meaning these sources are from different places, times, backgrounds, circumstances, ethnicities... spanning then Islamic world, which stretched from Spain to China. The number of such sources is also sufficiently great that it is strictly inconceivable that they could've all conspired to tell the same lie. This is true for each level of the transmission, from the companions, to their successors, to their followers, to the narrators after, up to the compilers. Thus, the condition of Tawatur is fulfilled. Therefore, certainty of faithful transmission from every level to the next, all the way up to the compilers (whose collections we have today). Hence, the story is, in fact, true.
- As to prophecies, it is harder to establish the truth of prophecies predicting events which occurred before these predictions were positively recorded. Because, these could just be after-the-fact accounts made to look like predictions. – Thankfully, a lot of the Prophet's (pbuh) predictions are about events which came centuries after the compilations of Hadith were codified.
- Examples: "My Ummah will be chased three times by a people with flat faces like shields and small eyes, until they push you [my Ummah] back to the Arabian peninsula" some said: 'O! Apostle of Allah, who are they?' He said: "They are the Turks. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! They will tie their horses by the pillars of the mosques of muslims”. predicting the mongol invasion in specific details. – "There will come a time when there will be no one left who does not consume usury (interest), and whoever does not consume it will nevertheless be affected by it”, predicting the unique & unprecedented state of today's world. – “if you see the ground of Mecca cleft open and through it dug out river-like passages [i.e. wide tunnels] and the buildings of Mecca rise higher than its mountain tops, then the Hour has cast its shadow”, predicting modern infrastructure & skyscrapers in today's Mecca.
What would convince you that it is false?
- That would be hard to conceive of at this point, especially after the spiritual experiences I've been through in Islam, which can only be described as overwhelming truth. But, the only thing that may cast doubt on my faith is a serious doubt about the Quran's truth, such as in finding a factual error in one of its statements.
Created:
four madhabs my ass , you're talking about the yassine madhab which you've just invented
- Let's see:
- Here is what your source says:
the four major Sunni schools of thought (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali) hold by consensus that it is obligatory for the entire body of the woman (see awrah), except her hands and face (and feet according to Hanafis) to be covered during prayer and in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family members
- Here is what I said in #20:
"an adult non-elderly free woman either in worship, or in the presence of adult straight men who aren't kin, must cover her idle body ('Awrah), thus her hair along with the rest of her body except the hands, feet & face."
- I guess your source is close enough.
I guess that allah and his prophet are wrong too ,only yassine knows about islam
- Are you like a dumb person or you just playing dumb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So do I. There is nothing about that which suggests one should be close minded and not try to understand.
- Sure, this time I wish to be even more understanding. Do you wish to discuss something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
None of those people advocated murdering fags, they just talked about how they were sinners.
- I suspect you keep going back to this just to say that word again... You could've at least watched the videos before commenting! Let's see, the first guy says gays should be tried & put to death, the second says the solution to AIDS is to kill all gays, the third says put gays in electric fence, & the last dude says good riddance for the gay massacre. Point being, these are the true teachings of the Bible, at least it's the letter of the text & what these christians believe.
We condemn homosexuality also, we just don't think they deserve to be murdered.
- Sure! In Sharia, there is no punishment for homosexuality, rather for public sodomy, which can range from house arrest, lashing, & up to the death penalty -according to the Four Madhhabs. – I'm curious as to your take on the Bible verses which sanction death for gays. Obviously, you disagree with those who call for death of homos, on what ground do you disagree?
- I'm also keen on knowing your answer to the question: should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
Created:
Posted in:
Women's rights and animal rights and Sharia culture don't go well together.
- This does not address what I said at all, & it strictly contradicts reality. You have to actually show that the rights of women in Sharia are not rights, idem for animal rights. I have shown illustrated some the rights of women, & enemies, & animals... You have to show how these are not rights, or not good, or immortal, or whatever you need to do to negate what I said.
- On that note, women's rights & animal rights in the modern West are, of course, inspired from Islam & the Islamic World. There were virtually no animal rights in Europe since ancient Greeks. Aristotle thought animals were soulless tools, Church fathers thought them property, Descartes thought them simple automata. The first proponents of animal rights in Europe who spoke against the consensus of their time, like Locke & especially Rousseau, were heavily influenced by Muslim thought. Locke's professor in Oxford Pococke studied in Syria & brought back more than 400 Islamic works to Oxford. Rousseau's father was a watchmaker in Istanbul, his cousin an ambassador to the Turks. His novel Emily –a journey to Algeria– got him into trouble with the French authorities for its unacceptable –"Islamic"– content, he had to flee to Switzerland pretending he was Persian. There he met his patron, Lord Keith, who was fond of Islam, & Ematulah, a Turkish Muslim. Their ideas thus born from influence in thought & enchantment with the Islamic world & Islamic knowledge. Rousseau would then grow to become the foremost proponent of animal rights in the continent....etc.
Not from the start during the entire Hadith nor now.
- This is just a bare assertion. You can't persuade anybody with that. You have to show that your claim is indeed the case.
Have fun rewriting the Hadith and cherrypicking the Qur'an.
- I'm sure some do. I follow the Four Mathhabds, we don't cheerypick anything.
If it says 'equal' in one part but completely and utterly contradicts that in others and how to treat women in action, there's a real issue.
- Sure thing, which part with what? You have to be more specific. 'I said there is, therefore there is' is not a valid argument.
As for the west and colonialism, I know. How much do you know about Islamic colonialism and how Islam spread in the first place?
- Yes, I know Islamic History almost in its entirety. Greatest thing that ever happened, especially the early conquests. Justice galore.
I won't argue back, I just ask, you want genuine conversation right?
- Yes, you gotta be more specific about your objections or your claims. Very vague & very general statements or bare assertions can not advance this conversation.
- This didn't happen, & all the quotes are grossly mistranslated. I suppose to fit the author's agenda. If you wish to talk about a specific hadith or hadiths, or verse, do mention them. I can't respond to links.
- This is hilarious coming from a Christian website. I can't take this seriously, it's all emotional nonsense – Christians telling us what Islam teaches about women... – Not that the Bible has a positive view of wives to begin with, for marriage itself is not desirable & women are seen as impure "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.". In another place: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." "the head of the woman is man". Besides all the other places that calls for the slaughter of women, I found this one particularly shocking: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.". DAMN! I reckon Christians who attack the Quran in all devious manners must do it to appease their hearts a little about the atrocities in their book, maybe to feel a little better about their faith.
- This is from David Wood, Really?! Nah man, I'm good. – Let us start over. First of all, the opinions of Christians about what Islam teaches or doesn't is factually obsolete & irrelevant to what Islam actually teaches. The same way my opinions about what Catholicism teaches are irrelevant to Catholicism. I'd ask the Pope if I want to know. Second of all, I provided a number of Islamic teachings & practices by the Prophet (pbuh) already. You have two choices, either show that the Prophet (pbuh) did not do these things or say those things (which you can't because he indeed did), or that these things that he said or did are actually wrong/bad/immoral/evil/irrelevant...etc. You can also show that these things he said or did are inferior to western practices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Lemming, If you have a country that is predominantly muslim like Iran, and you have a predominantly christian country like America, why is it always the mostly muslim countries, where terrorists come from. Even the terrorists in the united states largely come from muslim countries or descended from them.
- I hear what you're saying, but follow me here. It is estimated that the US has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since WWII, & the displacement of several times more. So, my question is, what is it to be expected from Americans, if say Muslims attacked the US in turn & killed 30 million of its people & displaced half its population?
Hell, even tolerant liberals acknowledge that Muslims have a problem with violence.
- I feel the enthusiasm, but this is factually false. According to Gallup, close to 80% in MENA (Middle East North Africa) see violence against civilians as never justified, while almost half in North America see it as sometimes justified -in contrast to only 13% in MENA. Even among Americans, Muslims are the least to say violence against civilians is sometimes justified: 21%, compared to 58% of Christians, and 43% non-religious. This may not be very flattering for Christians, but it does put things into perspective, between state fear-mongering & reality.
When trump announced he would use statistics to determine where the most foreign terrorists come from and make it harder to travel from there, every muslim and liberal in the country, automatically assumed the statistics would show that mostly muslims would be effected. They called it anti muslim, when he merely mentioned using statistics to shut down travel from countries where statistically the most terrorists come from.
- I'm afraid if he used statistics he'd have to ban America from coming to America, with all those mass shootings every other day. Ask yourself, why does this issue seem so big when in reality it isn't. Statistically, Muslim immigrants to the US have a much lower crime rate than the American average. Between 75% & 80% of S&E researchers & engineers in the US are foreign, of which a fifth to a quarter are Muslim. The whole issue is moot. If the US truly wishes to stop people disturbing its soil, it should cease laying waste to their homelands.
If even Muslims can admit they are violent and be upset at that measure, why can't you?
- Can you admit Christians are violent?
That's pretty much what muslims were like back when Salidan was murdering thousands of christians.
- It's Saladin (or Salahdeen). I'm honestly curious though, where do you get your information from? Seems these people are taking you for a ride... Contrary to what you believe, after retaking Jerusalem, Saladin offered amnesty to all Christians -who just priorly spent decades massacring millions of Muslims. He offered them food, ships & even allowed them to take their families & belongings back home. Saladin is considered by many prominent church patriarchs a saint, despite being a Muslim, for the amazing compassion & forgiveness he showed the defeated christians. – Contrastingly, the Christian crusaders massacred entire towns, men, women & children, in the most cruel ways, from genocide to impalement to cannibalism. I know this isn't what you wanted to hear, but for the sake of full disclosure.
They legit have not changed in tactics.
- That's accurate indeed. Saladin was an adherent to Shafi'i Law, Ash'ari Theology (like myself), & Qadiri Mysticism.
They wish to slowly hunt down and kill all non muslims. They probably feel guilty if they are on their death beds and have not managed to kill one.
- I'm starting to think you're trolling...
Not every belief system is good lemming. I think we start from an assumption that all religions are like judaism and christianity and buddhism, where we are ultimately taught to love one another and be peaceful. Islam is a very unique religion.
- You make good points, not every belief system is good. Indeed, Islam is a unique religion. Whichever is good or better is the very point of contention, it must be proven before it's granted. One must make a comparison between Christianity & Islam, or Western Secular Liberalism & Islam, to know wether what you said is true.
They even have verses in the quran that allow them to lie to non muslims, if it helps them advance islam in it's global conquest.
- This is actually hilarious, LOL! Wow! These fantasies would've never occurred to me if you didn't share them... Joking aside, what Quran is this? It's not in ours for sure...
look up takiyya
- Taqiyyah is a Shi'a concept. In fact, it's one of their tenets of belief. You should talk to a Shi'a about that. There is no Taqiyyah in Sunni Islam. But I agree with you, Taqiyyah is a huge issue, albeit historically. Today the issue is irrelevant.
The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the "best deceiver" or "schemer." (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia's worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses "revealed" later in Muhammad's career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.
- This is nicely put. Simple & safe. For the uninitiated it sounds almost scholarly, albeit entirely fake news. In case of doubt, they made sure to include Taqiyyah in the beginning, trapping the reader into perpetually believing the author, by readily mistrusting Muslims 'who will use taqiyya to conceal their true beliefs'. – So, what if, in fact, the author is lying & the Muslim is telling the truth, how do you get out of this trap? – You must believe that billions of Muslims for 1400 years conspired on a systematic global level to conceal their beliefs in the millions of books they wrote down... This isn't funny anymore, it's just pitiful. Sad for the lengths these haters go to to smear Islam, & even sadder for poor souls who actually believe this asininity.
Who do you believe when it comes to Muslims Lemming. CNN reporters calling it a religion of peace, and never studying it, or the people who base their life on the koran and believe so much in it, they are willing to sacrifice their lifes. Is don lemon more educated on islam or the members of ISIS?
- I'm pretty sure Lemming is more educated on Islam than ISIS. The problem with Islamophobes is that they conflate everything & confuse different beliefs, which makes them fall into these awkward situations. For instance, don't bring up Taqiyyah to a Sunni. It means nothing to him. Or ISIS - Don't mention ISIS to a Sunni like myself (They are a deviant sect, who consider virtually all Muslims kafir); Or even Wahhabi/Salafi doctrine & practices to a traditional Muslim. – If you wish to criticize Islam to a Sunni Muslim, refer to the Four Mathhabs if your objection is moral or legal, & to the Ash'ari/Maturidi schools if your objection is theological or doctrinal. To us, everything outside the traditional schools is simply not Islam. – If you wish to use ISIS as a basis for criticism, find a sympathizing opponent, maybe a Wahhabi from the Sururi faction.
I have much more respect for Yassine, who by morning I assume will take the time to teach me a few things, even if he is to bullheaded to learn from me.
- A backhanded compliment is better than an insult I guess. If you have things to teach me which I'm unaware of, please be my guest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The late verses are all about war.
- Of course that's nonsense. Why don't you read the Quran yourself & save yourself the wonder... It's a short book, about a sixth of the Bible. – Now, why do Islamophobes always bring this up then? The answer relates to the chapter revealed third before last, that is Surat Tawba (chapter 9: Repentance); particularly, Ayat Sayt (the verses of the sword), verses 1-15 from said chapter. Maybe you've heard of this before: "kill the polytheist/pagans wherever you find them" (from chapter 9:5), a most favorite of Islamophobes, although always conveniently without any context. I'm sure if they put the whole passage, their agendas will be exposed. – Anyhow, chapter 9 is revealed in response to the Quraysh coalition violating their treaty with the Muslims by attacking the tribe of Khuzaa & killing many among them, only 2 years into the 10-year truce established between the two parties. It reads:
- [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. [who violated their treaty]
- So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months [...]
- [...] So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah.
- Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
- And when the inviolable months have passed, then –kill the polytheists wherever you find them– and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
- And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. [...]
- [...] So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous.
- How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? [...]
- [...]
- They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
- [...]
- And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then combat the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
- Would you not fight against a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time?
- Anyone who reads this passage should immediately understand the folly of Islamophobes in this matter. The first half of this passage dictates the steps that should be taken to deal with the peace violators, following the 4 pillars of Sharia, Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Good. – The second half is an emphatic affirmation that fighting is indeed done in self-defense (as underlined). Over & over again, the emphasis is put on these violators, that they broke the treaty, that they are the aggressors, that they attacked first, that they planed to expel the Prophet (pbuh), that they defamed the faith, that they discarded kinship... Should
- This is an honest question to all Islamophobes out there, should the US abide by the instructions prescribed in these verses (9:1-8)? – Such that, if the US is attacked (for instance, by al-Qaeda or the Japanese Navy), it should respond according to chapter 9 of the Quran in the following steps:
Declare disassociation with these attackers, [from verse 1]
Offer them a 4 months grace period for repentance, [from verse 2]
Forgive them if they repent, [from verse 3]
Keep peace with those who have not attacked its people or helped the attackers, [from verse 4]
Fight & kill those who have not repented by the end of the grace period, & forgive them once they repent, [from verse 5]
Grant asylum to anyone among the attackers who seeks protection, [from verse 6]
Release them back safely if they change their mind. [from verse 6]
Nuff said...
Even peace treaties in the book are just meant to be temporary, so they have time to rebuild strength before going to war again.
- I said I will be open-minded & genuine. But honestly man, the amount of BS I had to deal with in this post is just monumentous.
- First of all, no such thing is mentioned, whatever your source is, they are trying too hard. Generally, the party with the bigger leverage with seek longer terms to maintain favorable conditions; & the party with the weaker power will also seek longer terms for better readiness.
- Second of all, Christians (in most denominations) do not even have that to begin with, for treaties with non-Christians are non-binding to them. Hence, their incessant treaty violations since the Crusades. This is also true for western countries, which adopt offensive realism as foreign policy & international relations.
- Third of all, Treaty or War is the de facto international political dichotomy. A state is either in Treaty or at War with another, there is no in between.
- Finally, building strength & being prepared for war is a paramount Islamic obligation, for how else would one defend oneself without the preparedness or capacity to do so. "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies" (8:60).
You don't really see Jews flying planes into buildings,
- They just fly rockets into babies.
or Christians actually beheading muslim reporters and soldiers on camera for fun.
- Because you're not looking for them. You should be warned though, the sights are hard vomit inducing. The truth is, sadly, most times Christians don't care about Muslims to even bother. Just bomb them & burn them to crisp.
There is just one religion that creates these sorts of extremists, who feel they have a duty to kill as many non muslims as humanly possible.
- Honestly, this is why I said that such attitude is very dangerous. Dehumanizing & demonizing others makes the person numb to injustice against them. In actual fact, no Muslims are actually invading or bombing or pillaging any western country, millions of people in the West are not being killed by Muslims, & several dozens of millions are not losing their homes & livelihood in Europe or America. This is happening to Muslims though. – On the surface, American humane awareness seems to have developed greatly since the civil rights movement, especially in regards to life & dignity. Yet in turn, the remaining latent supremacy & disdain appears to have instead been directed against "enemies", be it communists, Muslims, or now potentially Chinese.
read the politically incorrect guide to islam, by robert spencer
- Robert Spencer is an Islam critique & an Islamophobe, devoted to smear Islam. Reading him may give you an idea of what Islamophobes think of Islam, but decidedly not what Muslims actually believe or what Islam actually is. If you wish to know what Muslims believe, ask Muslims. If you wish to know what Islam actually is, read Muslim ulama. What Spencer or co. says about Islam is a figment of his imagination posing as Islam. There are countless American authors & academics who have written on Islam, or the beloved Prophet (pbuh) without Spencer's dripping hate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You can walk into any christian church, even wearing muslim garb, and you will be welcomed like a brother.
- I know for a fact if I walk into a particular church there is a good chance I will be shot, or at least beaten. I personally have terrible experiences with some racist Jesus loving right wingers. I don't generalize though, I know most christians are peaceful & hospitable people.
I very much doubt, I could enter one of your temples and leave alive.
- I can't tell if you're being serious here. Go to your local mosque, you will be most welcomed.
RM was brave enough to admit his fears, so I will admit mine. I'm sure it will make you happy that people fear you,
- FEAR ME YOU PEASANTS! For real though... No, but I am sure it will make the CIA, IDF, & the US Military happy though. I reckon this is for two reasons:
- The first, there is an immemorial anti-Islam collective memory in Western Christendom, & its legacy is still alive today. That is to be expected, for the main opponent of Western Christendom the past 1000 years was the Islamic World. There was a 50 year break where Islam retired to the background with the rise of Nazis & then Communism, but immediately after the collapse of the USSR the old enemy came back to find its place. Hence, the first Iraq War, & the several other invasions & attacks on Muslim countries & Muslims since.
- The second relates to Power, especially state power through fear-mongering. During the Cold War, in their fight against Communism, the US instigated many invasions, assassinations & military coups against other peoples, which led to the death of millions & the exodus of dozens of millions of people. As shocking as it is, these received huge popular support (until they didn't). Even against citizens, close to a majority of the American population in the 50s supported the government's heavy handed crack down on communist advocates, in systematic persecution, large scale incarcerations & punishments going up to death penalty. It would be hard for the US government to carry out an invasion of a foreign nation, such as Iraq, without popular support, which can only be gained through fear-mongering. Hence, all the anti-Islam & terrorism propaganda. In fact, the political scientist Mearsheimer argues that the most common state lies internationally are in western democracies against foreign enemies, through fear-mongering, cover-ups & nationalistic myths. [from Why Leaders Lie, John Mearshwimer]
because as Muslims say "We love death, like you love life".
- No they don't, & they shouldn't. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "let none of you wish for death, or pray for it before its time. If virtuous, he may do more good. If a sinner, he may be able to repent". A Muslim may say that in war though, to instill fear in enemy combatants.
I too worry. Any critcism of islam might result in some muslim attempting to kill you. They'll murder you, probably to shut you up, because they fear the truth.
- Yet, criticism of Islam is the norm in the West. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Thousands of channels & websites & books wholly dedicated to this purpose. Money & time well spent I suppose. As to "they'll murder you", that's honestly a childish thing to say. There are TWO BILLION Muslims in the world...
I have probably watched maybe a dozen videos of muslims beheading soldiers and journalists.
- I assume you're referring to the ISIS videos. I've already commented on ISIS & co. in another post. These people have nothing to do with Islam, & their main target are Muslims themselves, as they consider any Muslim who doesn't adhere to their ideas a greater kafir than non-Muslims, & their blood permissible. As a matter of fact, they will decidedly kill me if they know my beliefs. – This pours again into the 'a christian did this, therefore Christians' nonsense, & the targeted fear-mongering campaign against Muslims in the West. This begs the question though, what are these foreign soldiers & journalists doing in such distant lands? Giving out flowers? Of course not, rather death & cruelty. The War on Terror caused the death of some 1.2 million people & the displacement of over 35 million -given that 90% of US veteran soldiers are Christian. Imagine what the people of the Middle East think when they see so much cruelty & misery caused by Christian soldiers to their own children, spouses, parents, kin & friends... How do you explain to them this isn't Christianity? Or how do you tell them to not be fearful of Christians?
- My take: holding such a callous attitude is destructive & unsustainable. Grievances die hard & injustice is never forgotten, but power withers. Each person is responsible within their ability to alleviate oppression & remedy grievances, in action, words, or at the very least in realization. If you hold grievances about aggression done against individual co-nationals by Muslims, imagine what terrible grievances those the US & allies invaded, bombed & pillaged hold. "How many 9/11s the US committed after WWII? 10000 9/11s"... Your government may be able to overpower any retaliation from all that oppression today with sheer military might or economic pressure, but this will not always be the case. Inciting such an averse collective memory into so many peoples on a global scale is a recipe for self-destruction. The average young Chinese who may otherwise be sympathetic to the West & the US is today antagonist to them; this will naturally translate to the nation as whole as it grows & gains its superpower status. – This is even truer for the Muslim world. - at the hight of the Colonial Period, the Christian West had twice the population of the Muslim world, today the ratio has reversed, by 2060 the Muslim world will become 4 times more populous than the Western world. Last year, the Muslim world surpassed the West in real industrial output -behind China, while closing in 60% of the West's real total GDP, though expanding at a 5 times the growth rate. Point being, without the strength to overpower retaliations, the West is as good as done. There is great need in the West to rectify these transgressions & seek reconciliation in anticipation for a future where they won't be the dominators, just like they weren't before 2 or 3 centuries ago. This is true for all nations just the same. The atrocities & injustices ISIS or the Wahhabis in general have committed (& still) around the Muslim world are not forgotten. They may have had the support of the West for the past century & an exhaustible oil wealth to spread their virus & destabilize nations, but this will not always be the case. One that dominion or wealth dwindles, all their past becomes a due debt.
I have seen Muslims cheer when a speaker mentions stoning a homo to death.
- Examples of American Christian pastors & preachers doing the same thing:
...
I don't agree with their lifestyle, but your response is to murder fags, while we try to help them turn away from their sin.
- I remember addressing this in a prior post.
Most religions are about peace and love, Islam is the only main religion that is the opposite.
- This brings us back again to the previously mentioned points: legacy of antagonistic memory of Islam, systematic fear-mongering, & insincerity in seeking truth. Is Judaism truly about peace & love? Is Christianity? Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam? The answer is no. These religions are about the Submission to & the Love of God. As such, they all enjoin virtue, such as compassion, patience, justice, love, forgiveness..etc, & condemn sin.
- The Islamic view is that all God's religions share a divine origin, but have been altered with the passing of time to incorporate human whims & vices: "Verily, the religion in the sight of Allah is surrender [Islam]" (3:19), Islam here is in the general sense, which means submission to Allah, not particularly the Islamic faith.
All prophets brought the same universal message, that is "Islam is submission to the Creator and mercy to the creation". Noah, Abraham, Moses & Jesus (pbut) are the most important prophets in the Quran. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) also spoke of Zoroaster as a true prophet with a revelation, whose book has been burned & lost; & about Krishna in the same way. Some Muslim scholars (like Isfarayini & Shahrastani) equates Buddha with Khadir that Muhammed (pbuh) spoke of, for both share a lot of similarities in their origin story (being a prince, renouncing life, preaching, reaching enlightenment, gaining immortality...etc). That said, the original teachings of all these prophets have not been faithfully preserved, & what we have today are altered versions. Therefore, what conforms to "submission to the Creator and mercy to the creation" is probably divine, what doesn't is definitely manmade.
The earlier books are like that. The book itself says later verses when contradicting the earlier ones, supercede the earlier ones.
- If it's too good to be true, it probably is. I love the effort though. You're an intelligent man, don't you think this trick is just too convenient for the anti-Islam advocates to convince their audience to ignore the nice verses!... Abrogation is a vast topic to discuss in this short post, it's a science in itself; but I'll try to share the idea at least. Abrogation is the supersession of a prior established legal precedent by an isolated analogous later injunction [that is, abrogation does not extend to non-injuctional, non-legal, non-analogous & non-isolated statements in the Quran]. Meaning: utterances which relate to customs, past laws, beliefs, events, doctrines, facts, conventions, universals, or moral values, are not subject to Abrogation. For instance, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors." can not be abrogated, for it relates to a the moral value of non-transgression (which is justice) & also the doctrine of God's disapproval of transgressors. God can not dislike transgressors today then love them tomorrow, for God can not change! Hence, non abrogation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
This is the problem with Islam. No amount of self reflection. The West and christians can look at themselves and say "how can we be better", so saying the west and christianity is wrong, is what we do all the time, so we can improve.
- This is irrelevant to the point made in my post, which was more about refuting claims against Islam from incoherence, than it is about Islam per se. That said, let us unpack your statement:
- One must define self-reflection & one must know what Islam does, to know whether Islam does any of it. Based on the context, I assume you mean by self-reflection the ability to admit wrong & improve. Wrong assumes an objective reference, & improvement implies a direction towards an objective standard, else all is equal. Indeed, one may improve given the standards they adhere to. However, if one were to undermine their moral standards, improvement is absurd, for lack of reference or direction.
- Does the Islamic Tradition have the ability of self-reflection? In truth, self-reflection is obligatory in Sharia. In fact, it is the third dimension (spirituality) of the faith: Ihsan (to do best, to be excellent). On the level of the individual, one must strive (jihad nafs) to improve through mujahada (constant struggle), muraqaba (self-awareness), & muhasaba (self-accountability) - the three pillars of Tarbia (self-discipline), as mandated by the beloved Prophet (pbuh). On the level of the tradition, the savant (jurist, judge, theologian...) is obligated to always admit & rectify what is wrong, from the hadith: "let not yesterday's conviction prevent you from admitting truth from today's reflection, for truth is timeless".
- "How we can do better" as christians (or secularists) only makes sense given a Christian (or Secular resp.) moral reference. This, however, is not actually the case. On one hand, there is a dissonance between the moral adherence of the individual & the normative practice in society, imposed by law or policy, or customs, which most often than not do not conform to the individual's source of morality. On the other, Christians -especially in the West- have been undermining the foundations of their morality & faith in the process, hence a deterioration not an "improvement".
- My honest take: In essence, what you're saying stems from the belief that 'newer is better', which is a self-negating stance, for every newer is thereafter older. Your moral "improved" standards of today are, in effect, deteriorations to your predecessors. By the same token, tomorrow's moral standards -when incest, zoophilia, pedophilia & such become norm (naturally from sexual liberalism)- are not seen as improvements to today's standards either, for if that were the case, these future standards would've already been adopted today. This makes the Western system akin to a tribal system, where laws are effectively customary & morality is constantly changing in accordance to social norms & whims - Except, these changes are made to be universal at each turn, & constantly expected from other societies. A system that constantly undermines itself & constantly legitimizes itself with universalist power is a fragile system bound to collapse once that power dwindles.
Muslims are generally unable to self reflect and try to improve the general community.
- I don't know how to address this, as it is too vague. Though, this could mean two things: Muslims do not believe in (or adhere to) self-reflection & improving the general community; Or: Muslims are unable to improve like us by keeping up with our values. Which is it?
I saw this one instance of a guy saying Muslims are violent. The Muslim response was too get angry and say "This guy said muslims are violent, lets get him", and there was indeed threats on his life from muslims, mad that he said muslims were violent.
- First, I don't have to tell you that 'example, therefore general statement' is nonsense. Second, 'Muslim' is not a valid qualifier for the given response just because the responders happen to be Muslim. 'A christian did this, therefore this is Christian practice' is also nonsense.
This is really a huge lack of introspection.
- I don't know the particulars of the incident, therefore I can not comment. Maybe there were prior grievances between the guy & those muslims, maybe his accusations had other undesirable consequences...etc. Regardless, this does not inform anything about Islam or Muslims, or otherwise.
A lot of that stuff is metaphorical or in some very specific instances.
- That might be the case, or not. Point was, the texts are there, & were often foundational in the Christian conquest of the Globe. Also, you will not find such texts in the Quran or the Hadith, nor do we believe they are divinely inspired. We believe the Bible is altered.
The koran speaks of constant war.
- That is obviously not true... There are a little over 200 verses -from 6136- in the Quran that speak of War, most are either stories or about Peace & Justice, only 70 are actually about fighting, all of which in self-defense.
You don't hear about forgiveness of your enemy.
- This is not surprising, there is a huge lack of understanding in the West about Islam & the beloved Prophet (pbuh), for a variety of reasons. Forgiveness & Compassion are, of course, paramount in the Islamic faith. The Quran opens with: In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful the All-Compassionate. All praise be to Allah, the All-Merciful the All-Compassionate. I've seen some here share some references in regards to this already, such as: "Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant"..
- The Islamic take on forgiveness & enemies follows the 4 pillars of Sharia, Mercy, Justice, Wisdom & Good:
- In Justice, that self-defense & alleviating oppression is a right, & that transgression & treachery are forbidden: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors." (2:190) "And fight them on until there is no more oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to against the oppressors" (2:193)...
- In Mercy, that patience, forgiveness & compassion is paramount. "And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for those who are patient" (16:126) "Those who defend themselves when they are oppressed. Let harm be requited by an equal harm, but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation – his reward is due from Allah, He does not like the wrongdoers" (42:39-40)...
- In Wisdom, that freedom to faith & dialogue are prescribed. "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29) "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious" (16:125)...
- In Good, that peace & benefit are the objective. "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah." (8:61) "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous" (49:13)...
Or turning the other cheek, like Jesus promotes. Instead it is "kill your enemy"
- In Islam, the prophets' teachings are seen as equivalent & harmonious. Thus, the beloved Jesus (pbuh)'s teachings are similar to those of the beloved Muhammed (pbuh). In fact, in more than 400 instances in our tradition, Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) quotes Jesus (pbuh):
- For instance, Muhammed (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Jesus son of Mary said: 'Virtuous action does not consist in doing good to someone who has done good to you—that is merely returning a favor. Virtuous action consists in doing good to those who have wronged you'" & also said: "Jesus son of Mary said: "Do not, like lords, look at the faults of others. Rather, like servants, look at your own faults. In truth, humanity is comprised of only two types, the afflicted and the sound. So show mercy to the afflicted, and praise God for well-being'". & also said: "Jesus son of Mary blessings of Allah be upon him stood among the Jews and said: 'O! People of Israel, do not speak wisdom to the ignoble so that you wrong it, and do not deny it those to whom it is due so that you wrong them. Do not oppress nor reward an oppressor lest your deeds become futile'"...
- Equivalent teachings from the Prophet (pbuh): "Forgive those who transgress against you, keep ties of kinship with those who severe them, be good to those who wrong you and speak the truth even against yourself", "He will enter Paradise only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind", "The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens"...
- As to "turn the other cheek". If meant in the sense of patience & forbearance, then it's in agreement with the prophetic teachings. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "who is deprived forbearance is deprived of all good", "with forbearance things are adorned, and without it things are blemished"...etc. However, if meant in the sense of pacifism & facilitating oppression, then it would be at odds with Islamic teachings, that harm & oppression must be alleviated.
- My honest take: "turn the other cheek" -& the rest of the speech- can only be a prophetic statement, calling for forbearance & humility. I believe the beloved Jesus (pbuh) did indeed say those words. An ordinary persecuted jew from the 1st century would be expected to speak of vengeance & justify it instead. Nevertheless, the Bible contains a lot of extremely violent passages, of massacres, killing of innocents, vengeance, slaughter of women & children & even babies, rape, mass scale injustice & so on. Christians bringing up "turn the other cheek" & "love thy enemy" every time does not impress the non-Christian. It sounds more like an excuse to wash off the anger & hate they hold or the violence they practice, to boost their self-righteousness even greater. In effect, this was the modus operandi of Christian conquests, from the Crusades, through the Age of "Discovery" & the Colonial Period, to today. Mass scale genocides & injustice followed by 'look at these violent barbaric people, we are saviors and the people of turn the other cheek'.
- What to do? It is natural & a given for one to seek to establish one's own convictions & deny others'. This, however, should not prevent one -be it Christian or Muslim or otherwise- to seek Truth in life, in sincerity & humility. Christians must come to terms with their scriptures & history, sans whims or denial. It is the only way to build a strong tradition. – Europe has been the bastion of Christianity in the 19th century, the US took that role in the 20th century. Christians elsewhere -especially in Africa or Asia- are very recent & bitter adopters, i.e. they adopted the faith under domination to emulate the dominator. Once the US either loses its domination or its Christianness, the fate of Christianity in these places would solely depends on the strength & soundness of the religious tradition itself, without a polity to support it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is the Bible written in English worth the paper it is written on? I personally wouldn’t want to see this ancient work destroyed.I think it is well known of me by now that on the surface I find the Bible (New Testament in particular) to be a book of contradictory, ambiguous, anomalous, vague, enigmatic and problematic half stories surrounding a man that believed or was led to believe he was a rightful king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem and the power struggle that he had to endure in the times of ancient Palestine under Roman occupation and between the many other factions and sects that existed at the time. And not to be taken literally at all times. i.e. a man didn’t rises from a physical death to be alive again after being physically dead for three days.Others think to the contrary. For instance, there are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?
- This is the most lucid post of yours I've read so far. I think the translated Bible should still be available for the average Christian to be able to relate to their faith & practice it. Interpretation of the Bible & its meanings, however, should be left to those qualified to do so. A deep understanding of the culture, history, languages, rhetoric, variants...etc of the text is required. – Is this referring to a particular passage or are you speaking in general?
I'm unfamiliar with Islam, so I'm unsure of what I offer, 'but,Yes and this is forgiveness offered to only those that agree convert.
- Dude, you literally made that up yourself.
This is what is known as the abrogation. i.e Muhammed says he was deceived and that these earlier verses were given to him in revelation by the Satan . The book then turns intolerant of, and violent towards, the unbeliever - the kuffar
- Honestly though, where do you get all this stuff? I must know.
Islam the 7th century ideology will never be compatible with western civilisation for the simple reason Muslims believe the Quran to be " the last unalterable revelation from god". i.e it cannot reform.
- It's arguable indeed. 21st century Western Civilization has ways to go to catch up still.
The Rushdi novel affair ( for which there is still a fatwa - bounty - on his head, $6 million the last time I looked) should have been a wake up call for the West, although there were much earlier warnings about the Islamic threat many years before.
- Alright, what exactly is your point here?
Sir William Muir (1819-1905) said; “the sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilisation, liberty and truth which the world has ever known... an unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will".
- Muir is a Colonial priest, the worst kind of Christian to ever exist. A Christian with a fervor hate towards Islam & the beloved Prophet (pbuh), & non-Christians to facilitate the colonial project.
Winston Churchill 1874 - 1965: "Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog".William Gladstone 1809_ 1898 Quran, an accursed book, so long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.Winston Churchill 1874 – 1965 The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed. The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. Propagated by the sword, and a form of madness.Winston Churchill 1899: “Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
- You shouldn't be quoting Colonial war criminals responsible for millions of deaths as if some authority on mercy & tolerance. It strictly undermines the point you're trying to make. I don't understand why many English people love Churchill so much, literally all people despise him, even in his own country. The Scotts despise his guts, the Welsh too, the Irish piss on him. I heard some Americans being fond of this monster as well. He was decidedly more racist than Hitler, with a very close death toll to go with that.
- I hope for once you'll be open to honest discussion without all the antics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Have you heard of Mohammed Hijab. If so, what is your opinion of him?
- I've seen some of his videos, yes. Muhammed Hijab is not a traditional Muslim, he does not follow the Madhhabs (traditional schools of thought). Although he is not Salafi, he shares a lot of their views. His understanding of the faith & familiarity with the tradition is limited, albeit better than most social personalities out there. He makes some good points against Liberalism though.
- What is a traditional Muslim? It is a Muslim who adheres to the Sunni schools of thought through an Isnad (chain of authority) going back to founders of these schools, & thereby the Prophet (pbuh) himself, in the three dimensions of Islam:
Morality, namely the Four Madhhabs: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, & Hanbali.
Rationality, namely: Ash'ari, Maturidi, & Athari.
Spirituality, namely: Qaderi, Shatheli, Rifai'i, Naqshabandi, Tijani...
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
ISIS didn't attack in bangladesh, the government's enforcers who brutalise those that stand in the way of Islam did.
- On one hand, this is contrary to the facts in the ground, for it was the government who made an end to the issue & arrested heaps of people back in 2016. On the other, this is an even lesser incentive to avoid debates on Islam. If as you profess the Bangladeshi government itself is responsible, then unless you're in Bangladesh the danger is null. Do you honestly believe that you'd be in danger if you instigate a formal debate on Islam?
In many places internationally, they plot and wait for anyone bold enough to oppose them, whether it's an author of 'satanic verses' in Norway or some cartoonists in France and/or Denmark as well as in Britian or really any place at all on the planet that they have the ability to instill fear and attack you.
- Who is 'they' specifically? Sounds like you're talking about the Jewish lobby or something.
Islam has always ruled by this method, from the start through to now,
- Which method specifically? – Historically, Islamic empires & states offered total freedom of religion to their subjects, regardless of faith. Legal & fiscal pluralism was the norm. In contrast, Europe had virtually none. Hence, the Northern Crusades, the Thirty Years War, & the Hundred Years War, & all the other civil wars... So, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.
Muhammad was a very sadistic leader no matter which part of the Hadith that's observed
- Which hadith is that? I personally have Isnad (chains of authority up to the Prophet (pbuh)) of close to 8000 hadiths. You need to be specific, we can't discuss a nothing. – As to being a sadistic leader, of course that's fantasy. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) brought Mercy & Justice to Mankind.
- He enjoined compassion for all creatures: (“Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.”), compassion For Mankind (“He will enter Heaven only he who possesses Mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all mankind.”), & forgiveness even for oppressors: "Forgive those who transgress against you, keep ties of kinship with those who severe them, be good to those who wrong you and speak the truth even against yourself"
- He (pbuh) is the first recorded human to teach Equality of Birth (“Every child is born in the state of Fitrah”), Equality in Humanity (“Humans are equal, like a set of a tooth-comb” “there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety”) Human Dignity ("Verily we have dignified all Mankind.")
- He is the primary advocate of Women Equal Rights, in declaring Equity of Genders, (“Indeed, Women are but the equivalent of Men. Those honorable among men will honor them, and those ignoble among men will dishonor them”), in granting equal property rights regardless of origin, in guaranteeing their inheritance rights. He (pbuh) established mutual consent in marriage, permitted women to initiate divorce, & mandated equal education for both genders.
- The Prophet (pbuh) is also the father of Animal Rights, he enjoined treating animal with kindness (“There is a reward for serving any animate (living thing), feeding them if they are neighbors even if just ants, saving them from death even if not your own, releasing the quarry if otherwise her children will die. He (pbuh) prohibited taking them as targets ("Do not take any living creature as a target."), the killing of predatory animals or insects in their shelters, or killing animals for no just cause ("There is no person who kills a small bird or anything larger for no just cause, but Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, will ask him about it –it will beseech Allah on the Day of Judgment saying: "O Lord, so and so killed me for no just cause".– "[just cause] is that you slaughter it and eat it, and do not cut off its head and throw it aside."), or for experimentations ("A doctor consulted the Prophet about extracting medicine from a frog but he prohibited killing it"), or cursing them, or over-feeding them by force, or inciting fights among them, or cutting or maiming any part of the animal for no just cause (except ear holes), or overworking them, or separating them from their mothers, or even killing them in war...etc.
- He (pbuh) is the first proponent of Just War, he prohibited the killing of women, children, elderly, the sick, monks, peasants, slaves, laborers, & all civilians ("do not kill the women, and the children, and the elderly. Must not be killed are also the chronically ill, the blind, the monk, and the slave must not be killed" "you must not kill a woman or a laborer"), he prohibited killing non-combatants ("whoever enters the temple is safe, and whoever enters his house is safe"), he prohibited unnecessary destruction ("do not destroy a temple, do not ruin a house" 'do not cut a palm-tree or burn it, do not cut a fruitful tree) & the killing of animals in war ("do not slaughter sheep or cattle except for food"), he also prohibited unlawful behavior in battle ("you must not mutilate a body", "do not desert, do not rob, do not be treacherous")...etc. Even for POW (prisoners of war), he (pbuh) commanded that they be well treated, well fed & clothed. That they be exchanged, freed, or ransomed. If not, that they must not be left astray & must be integrated into Muslim society bondage guardianship, & that they be offered chances to gain back their freedom.
- Remarkably, this may shock many, but no western country actually prescribes any rights whatsoever to enemy foreign nationals, innocent civilians or enemy combatants, or even prisoners of war -actually to any foreign national, period! None! I can then understand if you call Western states sadistic for this, which they are. But, my question is, which part of any of the above points about our beloved Prophet (pbuh) is "sadistic"...? – I hope you don't avoid this by "I'm afraid" or something...
it's just he would pretend not to be because he'd preach something about being merciful
- Try to be a little sincere man, I'm being open-minded as well. This is just too petty. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) is preaching mercy & compassion & forgiveness, & you say he is just pretending. You're digging your heels in too deep don't you think?!
while Khalid and Muhammad's other enforcers did the dirty work for him.
- Do what? Who? Listen, I don't know what you're imagining, the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) may have been the head of state, but he was also a legislator & a judge. If he (pbuh) commanded an act or preached a deed, that means it's law - & that applies for everyone equally. There is no "dirty" work. When his tribe pleaded to him in regards to a thief to drop the punishment, he (pbuh) stood & addressed the people & said: "the people before you were ruined because when the noble amongst them commits theft, they leave him, but when the weak amongst them commits theft, they punish him. By Allah, were Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, to commit the theft, I would have cut off her hand." – I don't know why you keep mentioning Khalid, but if he committed an illegal act he would simply be punished accordingly, which is indeed what happened.
I will not be saying any more on this. I will respect that they rule by fear and admit I fear.
- That's a circular stance, & an appeal to emotion. Express your thoughts openly, say what you mean & mean what you say.
Nothing at all is unrealistic about this fear. I know who I am messing with and don't want to say anything more as they really can harm me and potentially those close to me if I anger them too much.
- Who the F* is 'they'???
Also, the difference between me and others here (except Lunar709 who actually will call Islam out) is that I can admit my fear, the rest are just as scared, it's why they're not posting here and just upvote your posts back at me because they haven't got shit to say out loud about Islam.
- If you were sincere in your engagement here you would not have resorted to these maneuvers. It is one thing to say, ISIS is beheading soldiers in 2016 & that's scary blahblah. It is another to play this hide & seek when we are on an internet Forum. Come on man! You're pulling my leg too thin.
Not really, no. If the West is wrong in some way, that has to be addressed.
- What do you say about the close to 100 invasions, bombing, coups, assassinations, interference, the West perpetrated on the Muslim world since WWII? What of the resulting dozens of millions of deaths & more of displacements? What of the 150 years of Colonialism with mass genocides & global pillaging? A third of the Algerian population was massacred once, then a fifth a century later. A quarter of the Egyptian population as well. Millions of Indians...etc..etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Considering our answer to this has been 'let girls going through an awkward puberty saw their tits off and castrate any young boy who looks sideways at a Barbie', tbh I could go for some more cultural chauvinism and a refusal to 'improve'.
- Hahahaha... this made me laugh more than it should. Any topic you wish to discuss openly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm unfamiliar with Islam, so I'm unsure of what I offer, 'but,
- Thanks for participating. I like your attitude. Anything you wish to discuss?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Why is this not your approach all of the time?
- This is a debate website. I come here to debate & argue. Do you have any topic in mind you wish to discuss?
Created:
Posted in:
Just some things to consider,as well as things like this:
- You have to be more clear as to your reasons. News about ISIS attacking this or that are simply not relevant to the point in question. In the real world, Islamic debates takes place all over the world on a daily basis -including in the US, & thousands of channels criticize Islam & Muslims 24/7. You're yourself doing that this very moment & on every occasion you find to respond to me. It is obvious that 'I am afraid to debate Islam, because ISIS attacked someone in Bangladesh in 2016, or some dude got assassinated in Iran' is not a valid defense. If I was among them, I'm sure they will behead me immediately too, for I am Ash'ari & Sufi. Yet here I am speaking leisurely about my faith.
- As to ISIS, they are mostly followers of the Sururi faction of Wahhabis, who are anti-Saudi government; contrasted against the Jami faction, the mainstream in Saudi Arabia & loyal to the state. Sururis are followers of Juhayman (the guy who caused the 1979 Holy Mosque crisis), who is also a follower of Ikhwan-men-tahllah, a branch of the Saudi military. In early 20th century, this group along with other Wahhabis was supported & funded & armed by the British to undermine Hashimite control of Arabia, to dismantle the Ottoman Empire. Sururis -hence ISIS- believe that followers of the traditional schools of Islam are either innovators or straight kafir, that Sufis are kafir, & that anybody can interpret the Quran & Hadith without need for scholarship, contradicting the traditional schools. In fact, during the Saudi Wahhabi conquest of Arabia, Ikhwan-men-tahllah massacred entire Muslim towns with their women & children, such as Taif & Hayl in Arabia. ISIS is actually not as bad as its predecessor.
I am not a Christian for starters, so your attack is mostly irrelevant, neither are most of those you debate against.
- So, if I say "West is wrong" you don't find appropriate to say "Islam is wrong too"?
Christianity doesn't have lines like this though:
- If you mean, the Bible does not have lines exactly like this, then I suppose you're right. If you mean, the Bible does not have lines as bad or worse than this, then that's inaccurate.
"And now, slay every male among the infants, indeed, slay every woman knowing a man by the lying of a male, and all the infants among the women who have not known the lying of a male you have kept alive for yourselves." Numbers 13:17-18
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.".
"Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Matthew 10:34-35
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” Luke 19:27
Those who said about their brothers while sitting [at home], "If they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed." Say, "Then prevent death from yourselves, if you should be truthful." And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,
- I'd preferred if this was brought to its full conclusion, i.e. what is the point of objection, & why is that objection the case. I'll try to fill in the blanks myself then. First thing's first. This verse has been revealed in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud, in which the Quraysh attacked the Medina (the beloved Prophet's city). Over 70 Muslims died, including the Prophet (pbuh)'s uncle. Objections that may be raised here:
- The killed is dead, contrarily to the verse stating those killed are not to be thought of as dead. – Objection: statement contradictory to reality. – Answer: they are indeed physically dead, for they are killed, but spiritually alive with their Lords in the next life.
- Death in the cause of Allah is good, for those killed in the cause of Allah are special to Him. – Objection: death in the cause of Allah should be bad. As to why that might be the case, I'll leave it to you. – Answer: death in the cause of Allah, aka Shahada (Martyrdom), means death while in the struggle to defend or pursue the cause of Allah, which is Justice & Compassion. Examples of people the beloved Prophet (pbuh) deemed martyrs: who is killed in battle fighting to defend his nation, who is killed defending his family or his property, who is killed speaking truth against a tyrant ruler, who sunk while in a good cause, who died by an accident while performing a good deed, a mother who dies giving birth...etc.
Created:
I'd say your opinion is the random one .
- I don't have any. What I cited are the positions of the Four Madhhabs.
listening to you one would think you are Muhammad who came with islam
- You wanted to say the Four Madhhabs are Muhammed (pbuh) who came with Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you know what I find amusing about your idea of 'genuine', your only comeback when one reveals horrors of your religion and Sharia cultures and the historical acts of them is to retort 'but your bullshit Christianity and the West'.
- That is one of my comeback styles indeed, but not the only one. The intent here is three-fold. On one hand, showing the inconsistency between the opponent's accusations & their own basis serves to illustrate the incoherence of their claim. On another, I believe that the best equalizer of bias is when the shoe is on the other foot. & finally, if the opponent can not justify their own basis in light of the same accusations they are making against others, then they are NOT justified to make those accusations.
That's not defense, that's saying you see what they did wrong and know Islam did as wrong (if not worse).
- That is the point of contention itself. Whether Islam dis as wrong or worse or otherwise is the very object of difference of opinion. I may claim Islam is better & you may claim the opposite, either must be demonstrated to conform to Truth first before concession. For best such arguments, one must show all the following:
- That Islam, in fact, did such & such.
- That such & such, in fact, is wrong.
- That wrong, in fact, is the case.
This is going to be precisely how this thread goes, I already know it and have interacted enough with you to know that.
- What would be your own approach in response to me (hypothetically) posting threads about 'West is wrong' & 'Christianity is wrong'...? What is a good argument look like to you? What is it exactly you find objectionable about pointing out hypocrisy & incoherence?
I also have reasons to fear saying anything too negative about the faith of Islam due to what some adherents would do to me the moment they could if I were ever doxxed.
- What do you mean exactly by "too negative"? Who are the "some adherents"? You can always instigate a formal debate, why don't you?
That's not a baseless fear, I have lots of genuine reason to be afraid.
- What are your reasons? Honestly, at least to me, this sounds like an excuse to avoid actual debate.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, the 1920's created it with flapper, the roaring 20's, etc. US ww2 plane art was downright pornographic
- Yeah, but mostly in some cities, especially the West Coast. Indecency became norm after 1950s with the second-wave feminism & the sexual revolution, & became law in the 1980s. On that note, this women "freedom" nonsense originate in European & American lower class culture. With global Colonialism & the Progressive Era, Western societies have seen unprecedented influx of wealth from the early to mid 20th century. The "commoners" essentially jumped up a class & dominate the middle class, bringing their crude & vulgar culture with them.
Those are examples of religious wars between Christians and Muslims. The religions are incompatible
- More like between Catholics & Muslims. Though, Catholic wrath touched literally everyone else, including other Christians, not just Muslims. Middle Eastern Christians co-exist with Muslims in harmony. Regardless, why does that matter today?! Most Europeans aren't even religious, let alone Christian, let alone Catholic!
Created:
Posted in:
- Since I joined this website, I've always been argumentative. Evidently! That's why I'm on a debate website to begin with, duh! I love destroying opponents. However, I wanna try something different instead.
- In this thread I will genuinely discuss with you absolutely any topic you wish to discuss, with open-mindedness. I will try my best to be understanding of your viewpoint, while sincerely sharing the Islamic perspective, hopefully without being argumentative.
- I hope you too share my initiative.
[For reference, I'm a traditionalist Muslim, I adhere to Maliki Law, Ash'ari Theology & Junaidi Mysticism.]
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your absolutely correct, I hate the western savior complex of trying to save women from islam.
- Alright.
Western fashion was very modest until the 1920's
- I'd say the 1950s. In the 1950s, exposing legs in public was still illegal in many places in the US.
even in the past, Reconquista, malta, crusades, etc. It's not that I hate Islam per say,
- What about Reconquista & the Crusades?
it's that we should stay seperate
- Exactly how? & why?
Created:
yassineso obsessed with the west
- You're obsessed with Islam. All you do is "IZLAAM" & "MOOSE-LIMBS", why are you surprised when I respond with "West"...?
, quite funny how muslim women in IRAN are fighting for their rights of NOT WEARING HIJJAB some of them are even getting attacked for it , while muslim women in the west are fighting to wear hijjab
- Those who want to wear it hate it when they're forced to remove it, & those who don't want to wear it don't like it when it's forced on them.
If we force it on them the same way that IRAN do , or like how islam made it mandatory for women to wear it , they will fight to be freed from it
- You don't have to, those who want to dress less will always protest against decency laws, like the 'free-the-nipple' nutters in the West.
nice , empty claims with no evidence , I would love it if you could provide a hadith or a book , or any thing supporting this story
- Do they spoon feed you your breakfast too...?
- Actually there is no mention of Hijab (as head covering) in the Quran or the Hadith, or the first 13 centuries of Islam. It's a pretty recent terminology. The issue is about Awrah (private body), i.e. that which must be kept private. The person's 'private body' varies from nothing to the entire body, depending on the age, status, gender, practice, environment & legal school of said person, & also on the age, gender, sexuality, faith, relationship & decency of the others around. – which makes a very long & complicated list of rulings. The designation of 'Hijab' as a head covering is, in fact, a 19th century invention to push back against Colonial allegations accusing Muslim women of being oppressed by men to cover their heads. This was back when European women had no property rights, no divorce rights, no contraception rights, no education rights, no vote rights, no inheritance rights... & so on, contrary to their Muslim counterparts... I guess the only thing the dumb Colonials could feel good about is how the "oppressed" Muslim women wore head-scarves while their "free" women wore fancy hats.
so al the muslim scholars/shiekhs/imams are wrong when they want women to wear hijjab and you're right.
- I am always right, yes. 'Hijab' is pop culture designation. The Fuqaha (jurists) do not talk about hijab or schmijab, they talk about Awrah (private body which MUST be covered) which, as I said, depends on the age, status, gender, practice, environment & legal school of the person concerned, & also on the age, gender, sexuality, faith, relationship & decency of the others around... Particularly:
- Age: below 5 = has no private body – between 5 & puberty = private body is private parts (front & back) – above puberty = private body is idle body – old age = private body is indecent body.
- Status: free = private body is idle body – slave = private body is indecent body – foreigner = private body is indecent body.
- Gender: male = idle body is from the navel to the knee (minimal) to all except face, neck, arms & feet (maximal) – female = all except face, hands & feet (minimal) to all except eyes & hands (maximal).
- Practice: worship = private body is idle body for women / private parts for men – habitual = private body is private parts.
- Environment: alone = no private body – in private = private body is indecent body – in public = private body is idle body.
- Others' age: below 5 = no private body, between 5 & puberty = private body is indecent body – above puberty = private body is idle body.
- Others' gender: different sexes = private body is idle body – man with men = private body is minimal idle body – woman with women = private body is private parts.
- Others' sexuality: straight = private body is idle body – gay = private body is indecent body.
- Others' faith: Muslim = private body is as specified accordingly – non-Muslim = private body is idle body.
- Others' relationship: with partner = no private body – with kin = private body is indecent body – with others = private body is idle body.
- Others' decency: with decent = private body as specified – with lewd = private body is idle body.
The Qur'an instructs both Muslim men and women to dress in a modest way, yet there is disagreement on how these instructions should be followed. The verses relating to dress use the terms khimār (veil) and jilbāb (a dress or cloak) rather than ḥijāb.[7] Of the more than 6,000 verses in the Quran, about half a dozen refer specifically to the way a woman should dress and walk in public.And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their private parts; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.In Surah 33:59 Muhammad is commanded to ask his family members and other Muslim women to wear outer garments when they go out, so that they are not harassed:[26]O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed.hadithThe hadith sources specify the details of hijab (Islamic rules of dress) for men and women, exegesis of the Qur'anic verses narrated by sahabah, and are a major source which Muslim legal scholars used to derive their rulings.[29][30][31]
- Narrated Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya, Ummul Mu'minin: "When the verse 'That they should cast their outer garments over their breasts' was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows hanging down over their heads by wearing outer garments." 32:4090. Abū Dawud classed this hadith as authentic.-sahih-
- Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: "Aisha used to say: 'When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils (khimaar) over their breasts (juyyub)," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and veiled themselves (Arabic: فَاخْتَمَرْنَ, lit. 'to put on a hijab') with the cut pieces.'" Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:60:282, 32:4091. This hadith is often translated as "...and covered their heads and faces with the cut pieces of cloth,"[32] as the Arabic word used in the text (Arabic: فَاخْتَمَرْنَ) could include or exclude the face and there was ikhtilaf on whether covering the face is farḍ, or obligatory. The most prominent sharh, or explanation, of Sahih Bukhari is Fatḥ al-Bārī which states this included the face.
- Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad ibn Zayd ibn Qunfudh that his mother asked Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "What clothes can a woman wear in prayer?" She said, "She can pray in the khimār (headscarf) and the diri' (Arabic: الدِّرْعِ, lit. 'shield, armature', transl. 'a woman's garment') that reaches down and covers the top of her feet." Muwatta Imam Malik book 8 hadith 37.
- Aishah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "The Salat (prayer) of a woman who has reached the age of menstruation is not accepted without a khimār." Jami` at-Tirmidhi 377.
===========================================================================================================================is sahih al bukhari wrong ? yassineor is the hadith deemed Abū Dawud classed this hadith as authentic.-sahih- wrong ?
- What is the point of all this??!! Are you trying to teach me my own Faith?! First of all, I don't see the word 'hijab' (as head-covering) in any Ayah or Hadith, for the simple reason that it does not exist. I will give you a 1000$ if you can find it. Second of all, the headscarf 'hijab' is a tiny component of the practice that is Hayaa (Modesty). What women (or men) must cover or not, as explained above, has to do with a lot of factors & depends on circumstances. It just so happens that an adult non-elderly free woman either in worship, or in the presence of adult straight men who aren't kin, must cover her idle body ('Awrah), thus her hair along with the rest of her body except the hands, feet & face.
directly from muslim mouths
- I don't care what Muslims say or do. Islam is God's religion, not some random opinions.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If Muslims are not oppressing women, they are making a big mistake. Look at what happened to the west when they stopped oppressing women. Women are statistically less happy now, more divorced and bigger sluts.
- LOL! The West did not stop oppressing women, they just went from one type of oppression to another. In the 19th century, even much of the 20th century, you still had chivalry; men took care of women & protected their family. Commitment & devotion between husband & wife were the norm.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I don't care if they wear one. None of my business. I'm not obsessed. I was just saying it i strictly utilitarian for a desert environment
- Yet, pre-Islamic desert Arab women did not wear head covering... despite the fact that Arab women in Rome & Persia did. Funny fact, Arab women used to go around the Kaaba fully naked to perform repentance. Until the beloved Prophet (pbuh) came & banned that practice. The more you know...
and not something MUHAMMED would have considered religious garb
- Actually there is no mention of Hijab (as head covering) in the Quran or the Hadith, or the first 13 centuries of Islam. It's a pretty recent terminology. The issue is about Awrah (private body), i.e. that which must be kept private. The person's 'private body' varies from nothing to the entire body, depending on the age, status, gender, practice, environment & legal school of said person, & also on the age, gender, sexuality, faith, relationship & decency of the others around. – which makes a very long & complicated list of rulings. The designation of 'Hijab' as a head covering is, in fact, a 19th century invention to push back against Colonial allegations accusing Muslim women of being oppressed by men to cover their heads. This was back when European women had no property rights, no divorce rights, no contraception rights, no education rights, no vote rights, no inheritance rights... & so on, contrary to their Muslim counterparts... I guess the only thing the dumb Colonials could feel good about is how the "oppressed" Muslim women wore head-scarves while their "free" women wore fancy hats.
Created:
- Examples of footage of women in England wearing Hijab not even a 100 years ago, before Feminism. Hijab, or head covering, was the norm -& still is- among free women or noble women in all human societies (except the post-modernist West & the like).
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hijabs wont solve anything, I can't do anything against hijabs themselves and to be honest I don't see them as a problem, I CAN advocate for no muslim immigrant as islam is incompatible with western civilization
- Post-modernist Western civilization, absolutely. Get those Muslims out, else they be a hindrance to the progressive project.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It's honestly odd. They think just because the desert dwelling Muhammed wore desert clothes, that they should as well.
- Much less odd than believing the desert dwelling Jesus is God incarnate though...What even more odd is the disturbing Western obsession over this extraordinary garment!
It's just a random low IQ take by Muslims who haven't actually studied the Koran
- This must feel like a high IQ take by a Christian who has actually studied the Quran...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Do you know many Chinese people?
- I work with Chinese.
They take the idea of familial legacy to extremes, and I say that being generally favorable to the idea. It's absolutely a problem in the military if you can't count on you men to act in a way that puts them in severe danger.
- It's also part of their familial legacy to honor their nation & state by dying in battle. China has seen some of the worst civil wars in History, even more devastating that the Thirty Years War, at every dynastic change. Today, Chinese nationalism is exploding. The Chinese I talked to last years who were sympathetic to the US are today disdainful towards it. Anti-Americanism & anti-West is a huge cause in today's China, especially among the younger population.
Yes but if they start taking loses they'll have simmering unrest on their hands, and the Chinese couldn't fight off a rebellion after starting a war that could quickly burn out of control.
- How do you imagine that happening? In war, even the most indifferent becomes patriotic. I very much doubt China would invade weaker countries like the US & create Vietnam or Iraq situations. One, the new superpower is expanding in a multipolar world, putting pressure on other countries will only push them under the wing of the enemy. China can not afford to lose allies like that. Two, other parts of the world are also growing alongside China, namely the Muslim & Hindu world. By the time Chinese influence peaks, they will have to deal with these new contenders as well, both with a greater population than their own. Finally, China's growth is contingent on the success of other nations, unlike the US. 5% of global population can easily afford to live off the other 95% even if most are lower income. 20%, however, can not achieve higher level of income without a good portion of the world being at least middle income.
They've been working on all that for a while now. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of the OBOR projects are scheduled to wrap up in roughly 30 years time, a point at which the present baby boom will be entering their fighting prime.
- The first phase, most concentrated on Energy security, will finish by 2030. That's already a huge leverage against US hegemony. China is the only country in today's world truly independent from US influence, maybe for lack of strategic insights on the American front. The US has consistently prevented or hindered China from benefiting from its global order, in turn the latter developed their own. For instance, GPS, Internet, Social Media, Space Program, Stock Exchange, Free Trade... now they are even working on a new Payment gateway. China, effectively, has its own new sphere of influence isolated from the US.
Created: