ask me a question about islam

Bruce Wayne said:
No, I think it's yours. Never have I heared one use the verses you quoted.

Whether they are competing with Allah to "instill terror in the hearts" of their enemies or they emulate Allah, none can tell other than them. But it seems they believe in instilling terror in the hearts of enemy. If you insist, i can provide evidences/links to their declarations, manuals, sermons. But that is obvious to everyone.

In fact they say that we are in a defensive war. They say look at Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechenya, the Arab dictators...and many other instances. That is their line of reasoning. They say because the enemy does, we do. Their reasonning is reactionnary and pragmatic. They say that if the enemy does not feel the pain he will not stop.

And their reasoning is wrong because it is gainst Islamic teachings, as in: killing the innocent is forbidden ground. Simple as that.

Bruce, i am sure most of the muslims agree with their cause , and i don't find it would be odd or wrong. We are discussing their ways. Causing pain to the families of the innocent victims don't deter the retaliation by the respective govts. In most cases their actions gave excuses for much more powerful retributions. The sufferers were innocents on both the sides. Instilling terror in the hearts of unsuspecting innocent people is different from waging jihad against uncalled for aggression against muslims. Salladin knew the difference, i presume.

Peace be upon you too.
 
OliverJ said:
I am NOT trying to be smart here........ but that's what the Christians God is NOT!

Now I understand why there were all these slaughters all these centuries.... and still going on.

I know Mr. Christian , your God is most merciful..... but Forgiver....... NOT, never was!!!! he is to Holy for that.... but hold on......... hold up!!!! , just a second here....... we have an out ya'll...... and it goes like this...God had a son!!!....wait one more second.... its not really his son... its really him himself..... but its not really....... why we call God Jesus is for anyone to interpret....... hey just take your pick Mr. Christian.

Islam --- Mohammad's convenient cover for the absurdity.
Christianity --- Jesus was that same very convenient cover.

Ok I got it !

Now I understand. :bugeye:



Oliver,
Hello.....1st of all Im not a Christian.Ive been very vocal on these boards about being a muslim but i do understand your confusion about your Jesus (saws) comments but that would be better answered by a Christian as to why they feel that way....peace


p.s. those verses i quoted were from the Koran not the Bible
 
path said:
Bruce WHY were they having 100,000 hindu prisoners to begin with!? Do you understand that? What were they doing in India? If they hadn't been spreading islam by the sword in the first place those people wouldn't have been killed or sold as slaves!! The rules of warfare were applied to those people and they suffered for it.

i am not denying that islam is now prerceived to be required to be spread by the sword, that is anyones right to believe. and the way some muslims preach it sure seems as though it is.

but what i dont understand, is why people word their comments as if the crazees of the religion are the ones that invented violence.

regarding india, ...."spreading islam by the sword"..... and how did the british spread their civilised manners in india? thorugh love?

how are the americans and the british now spreading democracy?

whatever the motive behind Oklohama was, it sure didnt seem like a peacefull one.

genghis khan wasnt really known to be a nice guy.

even during the ancient roman wars, it wasnt easy living on the other side of the empire. especially if you werent roman or a roman lover.

my point is, if one really wants to understand a belief then look at the teachings. i am sure fingers can be pointed at all religions, all races, all civilizations. the issue is to understand the form.

peace.
 
GuessWho said:
How did God reveal these revelations to Mohammed? By speaking, dreams or just feelings? Whatever the method, was there any witness to confirm?

the verses were revealed to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel. there are a few instances when the revalation happened in front of his companions, but not many.

peace.
 
everneo said:
Whether they are competing with Allah to "instill terror in the hearts" of their enemies or they emulate Allah, none can tell other than them. But it seems they believe in instilling terror in the hearts of enemy. If you insist, i can provide evidences/links to their declarations, manuals, sermons. But that is obvious to everyone.



Bruce, i am sure most of the muslims agree with their cause , and i don't find it would be odd or wrong. We are discussing their ways. Causing pain to the families of the innocent victims don't deter the retaliation by the respective govts. In most cases their actions gave excuses for much more powerful retributions. The sufferers were innocents on both the sides. Instilling terror in the hearts of unsuspecting innocent people is different from waging jihad against uncalled for aggression against muslims. Salladin knew the difference, i presume.

Peace be upon you too.

can i add to this?

most muslims agree with the cause. sadly, alot agree with the methods.

i hope people can look beyond and understand that this is wrong.

there are a couple of facts that never pleases muslims when brought up. prior to the invasion of palestien, many jews bought land and legally moved. the thing was is that alot of land was sold to the new residents. so how can you expect to get the land back if you werent going to buy it back. now of course it is a little more complicated than that. but the issue there is land not religion.

afghanistan. a war torn country, supported by the west during the cold war and abandoned later after all that died down. they had their oppurtunity to make things right. but noooooooo, they chose to fight each other. then decided on a dictatorship govenment that wouldnt even allow television. its funny, the Taliban officials seemed to have access to the internet, satellite and cell phones, obviously the news (TV), but banned them for everyone else in the name of religion. they banned women from going to school, forced men to grow beards (which by the way is a preference not a requirement) all in the name of religion.

look at japan, after the war the decided to dedicate thier lives to work. now they dominate the worlds economy. same with germany, not the same economic strength as japan, but doing pretty good for herself.

the end does not justify the means. especially if the means involve violence, murder, and destruction.

for the muslims who disagree: during the first battle to defend their right to live as muslims, badr. even though that battle invloved pretty much all the abled muslims, and a defeat could have pretty killed the religion alltogether, the muslims were still forbidden to kill the elderly, children, women, cut down trees and destroy buildings. this was even though they were fighting for existance.

there are other ways, look at ghandi.

peace.
 
Knife said:
you choose to pick the lesser of two evils. in the case of the pork. if there is food there (yes i consider pork food, its just food that cant be eaten by muslims -- they do have other purposes but thats another story), and i intentionally not eat the food, and die. then from one perspective, it could be said i commited suicide (a very bad thing). so i choose the lesser of the two and eat just enough to survive healthly until something else comes along.

There is NO such thing as a lesser of two evils. That is like saying pick the lesser of two goods. Obviously there is no such thing of either. It seems to me that Muslims are frightened to be martyred for their idol, a thing Christians are not capable of by the grace of the eternal Spirit of Holiness. It would of course not be suicide since you did not kill yourself. In that case, if you were so poor that you had to kill someone to steal some food, I am sure you would justify that too. Glad to not be in your family. ;)
 
Last edited:
Knife said:
i am not denying that islam is now prerceived to be required to be spread by the sword, that is anyones right to believe. and the way some muslims preach it sure seems as though it is.

but what i dont understand, is why people word their comments as if the crazees of the religion are the ones that invented violence.

regarding india, ...."spreading islam by the sword"..... and how did the british spread their civilised manners in india? thorugh love?

how are the americans and the british now spreading democracy?

whatever the motive behind Oklohama was, it sure didnt seem like a peacefull one.

genghis khan wasnt really known to be a nice guy.

even during the ancient roman wars, it wasnt easy living on the other side of the empire. especially if you werent roman or a roman lover.

my point is, if one really wants to understand a belief then look at the teachings. i am sure fingers can be pointed at all religions, all races, all civilizations. the issue is to understand the form.

peace.

Again I am misunderstood in trying to make a point. Knife again I agree with you fully it seems we think very much alike. I was using that example to illustrate for Bruce Wayne (aka BATMAN)the fact that islams coming was not a blessing for all and the fact that islams "divine" rules for warfare have been used to justify violent actions historically as well as now. I am not trying to claim that anyone else was much better though ;)
 
Knife said:
can i add to this?

most muslims agree with the cause. sadly, alot agree with the methods.

i hope people can look beyond and understand that this is wrong.

there are a couple of facts that never pleases muslims when brought up. prior to the invasion of palestien, many jews bought land and legally moved. the thing was is that alot of land was sold to the new residents. so how can you expect to get the land back if you werent going to buy it back. now of course it is a little more complicated than that. but the issue there is land not religion.

afghanistan. a war torn country, supported by the west during the cold war and abandoned later after all that died down. they had their oppurtunity to make things right. but noooooooo, they chose to fight each other. then decided on a dictatorship govenment that wouldnt even allow television. its funny, the Taliban officials seemed to have access to the internet, satellite and cell phones, obviously the news (TV), but banned them for everyone else in the name of religion. they banned women from going to school, forced men to grow beards (which by the way is a preference not a requirement) all in the name of religion.

look at japan, after the war the decided to dedicate thier lives to work. now they dominate the worlds economy. same with germany, not the same economic strength as japan, but doing pretty good for herself.

the end does not justify the means. especially if the means involve violence, murder, and destruction.

for the muslims who disagree: during the first battle to defend their right to live as muslims, badr. even though that battle invloved pretty much all the abled muslims, and a defeat could have pretty killed the religion alltogether, the muslims were still forbidden to kill the elderly, children, women, cut down trees and destroy buildings. this was even though they were fighting for existance.

there are other ways, look at ghandi.

peace.


Knife,
Salaam Alikum brother....All parties involved are part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict today including Jordan and Egypt because After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.Of course in the 1967 Israel took the Jordan and Eygptian territories (west bank gaza strip)and Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.....peace unto you
 
This is a serious question, and not intended to insult you or your beliefs. When a suicide bomber is a female, what are they promised in paradise ? Do they get male virgins?
 
Who is angel Gabriel and how does anyone know that this was really an angel but not a devil claiming to be an angel?

How many is "few" and what happened the the lives of these people including Mohammad?
 
Islam is based on belief in 'ALLAH'.

Without knowing what Allah is as Mohammed explained, we are at risk of labelling a god image in our minds as 'Allah' and believing in that 'God's religion' as Islam throughout our lifetimes.

Those who would like to learn what is referred to as 'Allah' in the Koran as different from any concept of god, may read the book 'Universal Mysteries' for free at www.ahmedbaki.com/english.

As 'there is no god' and as 'Allah is not a god out there', then it is only possible to understand the sign in the Koran that "the religion at the sight of Allah, is Islam" only after we understand what is denoted by the noun 'Allah'.

Otherwise, we only discuss about an image of god and an image of religion in our minds.
 
Last edited:
No offence Sufi, but can you kindly give up on the book advertising. This is a debate forum, not Amazon.com, and in your total of 4 posts, that's all you've managed to do.
 
Yeah I am interested to hear your point of view since we haven't gotten a POV from a sufi before ;)

PS I started reading the material you posted.
 
Knife said:
it would not surprise me if the state of affairs of muslims around the world do not change. peace.

Salam,

chill bro, we are at the final stages of exsistenence and this era we are living in now is called the Dajaal era - the Dajal soceity has emerged and the Dajaal country and govermant has emerged and soon the actual Dajaal will descend, this situation we are in now will soon end and Imam Mahdi will descend. only Allah know when he will come, but im predicting in about 20 years onwards. until then Muslims have got to work towrads this but the we have worse to come for Muslims until the Mahdi

check this site out

http://www.jesuswillreturn.com/signs/signs_index.html
 
path said:
Again I am misunderstood in trying to make a point.

Point taken. But you seem to think that I am oblivious to what war means. You sounded to me, to say that Muslims were particularly brutal in their way of fighting. And that I do not agree with. As for the fact that they conquered many grounds, I don't think you would see that as a bad thing if we were discussing Alexander the great or Rome.

Point is that Muslims have conquered a lot. But even when they conquered they never went amoke like the others. Off course there might have been errors at times but on the overall and when people were behaving on Islamic grounds they were not easy to fall in sins and brutalities that many others viewed as the way war is.

An example: Saladdin himself vowed to slaughter every christian in Al-Quds (Jerusalem) when he retook it. He didn't though, because of Muslim scholars.

path said:
I was using that example to illustrate for Bruce Wayne (aka BATMAN)the fact that islams coming was not a blessing for al...

Although it might not have been for everybody, which is totaly naturall, it was for many more.

path said:
... and the fact that islams "divine" rules for warfare have been used to justify violent actions historically as well as now.

You still haven't been able to do that. Nor have you been able to proof that they can be used, and this is where this discussion started, to decapitate.

path said:
I am not trying to claim that anyone else was much better though ;)

Very good.

May peace be upon you.
 
everneo said:
Whether they are competing with Allah to "instill terror in the hearts" of their enemies or they emulate Allah, none can tell other than them. But it seems they believe in instilling terror in the hearts of enemy. If you insist, i can provide evidences/links to their declarations, manuals, sermons. But that is obvious to everyone.

First Muslims don't compete with Allah.

They do believe that instilling terror in the hearts of the enemy would divert the attacker. I don't agree with how they go about doing that, though.

I note that your argument has shifted from decapitating to instilling terror. As for decapitating it is not of Islam (so we get rid of that point). As for instilling terror, in order to discourage attacks, this is, but it has its rules. In Islam there is no machiavellian principle that the goal justifies the means. The means have to be just too. The people that are supposably Muslim fanatics and the like know this better than anyone. But they make a pragmatic choice not a religious one. And so they do not justify they actions with the word of God. The may insert it but they don't.

everneo said:
Bruce, i am sure most of the muslims agree with their cause , and i don't find it would be odd or wrong.

Yes..

everneo said:
We are discussing their ways. Causing pain to the families of the innocent victims don't deter the retaliation by the respective govts. In most cases their actions gave excuses for much more powerful retributions. The sufferers were innocents on both the sides.

I agree, But there is something here that I find very important. Here it serves to tackle the specific instances. For instance; I personally think that 9-11 and nick berg were a dirty masquarade. Especially 9-11 was, again in my opinion, the first stage of the campaign we are seeing now. On the other hands, the beheadings that were happening in Arabia, have, again in my opinion, been committed by Muslims. And as far as their victims were innocent, which I believe was the case with most of them, then I believe they are wrong. But here I tell you why I believe they are wrong. It is because Islam doesn't leave any space of doubt that killing those that are innocent is not allowed.

Btw, it serves to know that the battle in Arabia, is more internal than it is international.

everneo said:
Instilling terror in the hearts of unsuspecting innocent people is different from waging jihad against uncalled for aggression against muslims. Salladin knew the difference, i presume.

Even those that do it know that. But they make pragmatic choices not religious ones.

IMy point is that people might do wrong. But it cannot be atributed to Islamic scipture because it is cleaa, it instill people with a spiritual independence from the wordly, and because it's law is to a far extant mainstream. To the contrary of other religions, our scriptures are not concentrated in the hands of a few, they and knowledge of them are widely circulated. Another important matter is that Muslims do interpret the Qur'an. This is a tautology. Everyone interprets every written text differently. Even technical secular laws of nowadays. But the manner in which we do it is different from for example christianity. It is not chaotic. We do not take one passage at face value. Muslims take the hole into account.

May peace be upon you.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Wayne said:
Point taken. But you seem to think that I am oblivious to what war means. You sounded to me, to say that Muslims were particularly brutal in their way of fighting. And that I do not agree with. As for the fact that they conquered many grounds, I don't think you would see that as a bad thing if we were discussing Alexander the great or Rome.

On the contrary Bruce War IS ugly no matter who wages it one of the main differences is that no one tries to make any claims that greek or roman conquests were inspired by god. Perhaps I was assuming you beleived that islamic jihads were better than they were, sorry if I did. I have had many discussions with muslims who just refuse to see anything but good in the way muslims spread islam, even when it was with jihad, stopped posting on Bismallakuh forum because of it ;)

Point is that Muslims have conquered a lot. But even when they conquered they never went amoke like the others.

Actually depending on the time and place they did in fact go amok. I can post many examples but lets not go there.


Off course there might have been errors at times but on the overall and when people were behaving on Islamic grounds they were not easy to fall in sins and brutalities that many others viewed as the way war is.

I doubt on the whole they were much better, war is hell war is ugly and peopel are people. You know that the knights templar, the warrior munks of the crusades (who were never ransomed when captured by muslim warriors) had a small mosque in their headquarters in Jerusalem for visiting muslims.

An example: Saladdin himself vowed to slaughter every christian in Al-Quds (Jerusalem) when he retook it. He didn't though, because of Muslim scholars.

Saladdin was legendary in christian europe for his chivalry, Richard the lionheart even proposed that he (Saladdin) marry his sister as a means of sealing the peace between christians and muslims.



Although it might not have been for everybody, which is totaly naturall, it was for many more.

That is debatable but it would be impossible to prove either way.



You still haven't been able to do that. Nor have you been able to proof that they can be used, and this is where this discussion started, to decapitate.

Prove what that many people were killed because of islamic jihads and warfare?



Very good.

May peace be upon you.

Salaam :)
 
You said i could ask any question about islam, i have, but you have`nt replied. Iasked a genuine question. Women in islam appear to be treated as second class, so when i see reports of somebody blowing themselves up, and its a female, what are they informed of what to expect in paradise?
 
Mohammed's Allah

http://www.ahmedbaki.com/english/books/allah/

I have been posting this over and over for a reason.

"THEY HAVE NOT COMPREHENDED ALLAH WITH THE COMPREHENSION DUE TO ALLAH!" (6:31)

They took it literally as Allah being a god and thus do things in his name when it is not necessary at all to carry out things in the name of existence as you serve your purpose perfectly in any action you take part in. I suppose they are just as important of a role in the function of time.
 
Back
Top