Jihad Misunderstood

[path]

Not all Hadiths and only the Hadiths that dont contradict the Koran(Koran is always 1st and foremost) :m:

Also there are verses in the quran that say that allah will kill or has killed disbelievers etc (look at my post in another thread that you said "cute path" to) so killing an apostate isn't really contradictory to the quran.

 

[surenderer]

A moment ago you said it was a lie!?

Path I was talking about the practice being used today...... in the Prophets(pbuh) day that was a rule (I think of it as executing someone for treason)

 

[path]

I dont call you names dude ....anyways I should have been more specific....the Ayat before it states:


[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).



So this is speaking of a specific agreement that the Prophet(pbuh) was adhering to :m:

Well looking at these it sounds more like a general rule of thumb when dealing with non-believers than an outline of a specific time.

009.004
YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
PICKTHAL: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

It says if you have a treaty with the idolaters fulfill the treaty til the end of its term, you could find similar things in business law that don't denote any specific time or year.

 

[path]

Path I was talking about the practice being used today...... in the Prophets(pbuh) day that was a rule (I think of it as executing someone for treason)

How many examples would you like?

 

[surenderer]

Only hadiths that are sahih right?

Well the most respected Hadith's are Bukari(Sahih as you say) Muslim( his name)........Sunnah is divided into confirmed (Sunnah mu’akkadah) and optional (Sunnah ghair mu’akkadah).

 

[surenderer]

How many examples would you like?

Sigh.....I'm getting a headache I'd say, this Noble Verse clearly proves my point: look at Verse 8:61


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


Gotta go though will chat with ya later :m:

 

[marv]

Thank you for makin my point(even though you werent trying to) Using OBL to represent all Muslims.....Well done Marv :m:

Not so fast, surrenderer. In case you haven't noticed, OBL does in fact represent Islam to the world. It's been said elsewhere that not all muslims are terrorists, but in today's world, almost all terrorists are muslims. That casts all of Islam in that mold.

Unless all of Islam rises up and disavows terrorism, the rest of the world will only associate Islam with terrorism. And until then, it is a religious war declared by Islam against the rest of the world, and it will probably be a war to the death - of Islam.

 

[Leo Volont]

Unless all of Islam rises up and disavows terrorism, the rest of the world will only associate Islam with terrorism. And until then, it is a religious war declared by Islam against the rest of the world, and it will probably be a war to the death - of Islam.

But we really need to differentiate between Terrorists and Insurgents. When the West invades other nation's sovereign terroritories, one can't simply call all those who oppose the invading army by the name of 'Terrorists'.

The Israeli Palestinian problem is a good example of how the appellation of 'terrorist' is misapplied and abused. It has become the habit of the Israeli Defence Forces to call all legitimate Palestinians forces in the field by the name terrorist when in fact it is the Palestinians who are on the moral defensive. The Israeli's go to the extent of listing dead 9 year old girls as 'terrorists' because they don't want to publish that they have been slaughtering 'civilians'. In this case, are the Terrorists NOT the Zionists?

So I believe that whoever invented the catchy little cliche "Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims", must have been some kind of a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer. There is simply too much unwarranted violence in the world today, being conducted by non-Muslims, for anybody to seriously put it all upon Muslims. Certainly we must concede to them the right to defend themselves. We must acknowledge that the Insurgent Freedom Fighter is NOT simply a terrorist.

 

[marv]

When the West invades other nation's sovereign terroritories, one can't simply call all those who oppose the invading army by the name of 'Terrorists'.

But I wasn't talking about Iraq. I refer to the WTC and earlier events such as the USS Cole, the African embasies, the Kobar Towers, etc.

And I first came across the phrase "Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" some time back in the "Arab News" in an article discussing the changing world attitude toward Islam as a 'peaceful' religion following 9/11.

 

[Ophiolite]

but in today's world, almost all terrorists are muslims.

If I wanted to set up a terrorist movement I would consider declaring it to be a muslim movement because it would give me improved global access to money, expertise and cannon fodder.

 

[surenderer]

But I wasn't talking about Iraq. I refer to the WTC and earlier events such as the USS Cole, the African embasies, the Kobar Towers, etc.

And I first came across the phrase "Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" some time back in the "Arab News" in an article discussing the changing world attitude toward Islam as a 'peaceful' religion following 9/11.

Sorry Marv you cant pick and choose your examples......but I have once again taken notice that you choose 4 acts all commited by OBL.....good job

 

[Brutus1964]

The problem is not us misunderstanding Jihad. The greatest danger is Osama Bin Laden, and others like him misunderstanding Jihad.

 

[Leo Volont]

The problem is not us misunderstanding Jihad. The greatest danger is Osama Bin Laden, and others like him misunderstanding Jihad.

I understand your point, but doesn't it tend to blame the students for the sloppiness in the thinking of the Professor? Should we not have expected that Mohammed, if he truly had the Help of Allah, could have phrased his Doctrine of Peaceful Persuasion so that it was not so easily mistaken for all out bloody warfare?

I run into the same problem with the Catholic Bishops when I am petitioning them to jettison their "Apostle" Paul for being a dangerous fraud. They insist that Paul has only been repeatedly and seriously misunderstood. But I always wonder that if he was so thoroughly incoherent, why does the Catholic Church insist on practically deifying him.

So, if every time a Teaching is left in its Stark Purity, all the Students screw up and fail miserably with it, we need to evaluate whether it is the fault of the Students or of the Teaching itself. If you have to radically alter, adjust, amend, and elucidate a certain Teaching before you can trust it not to do serious damage, then wouldn't it just be better to scrap the whole thing and start again with a Clean Board and just get it right from the Start.

 

[marv]

A fundamental problem in Islam is its tribalistic structure. There is no pope, archbishop, synod president, etc. to say, "You are doing wrong!" There is no single muslim with the authority to stand up and declare, not just say but declare, OBL and his followers to be apostate.

Another problem is that it encompasses all political, societial and military aspects of life. Virtually every minute of every day of life is dictated by a religion that proclaims itself to be unchanged and unchanging since its inception. Islam is firmly locked in the seventh century.

 

[path]

Sigh.....I'm getting a headache I'd say, this Noble Verse clearly proves my point: look at Verse 8:61


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


Gotta go though will chat with ya later :m:

Actions speak louder than words. Here is a commentary piece from Malaysia arguing against banning the death sentence for apostasy, a snippet.

It is without a doubt that apostasy is a very serious offence in Islam, and there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ about it. However, individuals like Shairul are from the flock of ‘liberal Muslims’ who prefer to abandon the Qur'an and Sunnah injunction with regard to apostates in favour of their ‘values’ from the West concerning freedom of religion.

Have zero tolerance for apostasy

 

[surenderer]

Actions speak louder than words. Here is a commentary piece from Malaysia arguing against banning the death sentence for apostasy, a snippet.



Have zero tolerance for apostasy

So?!.......one dudes editorial on a law and thats suppose to mean what?

 

[path]

So?!.......one dudes editorial on a law and thats suppose to mean what?

As that one dude's commentary is asking Malaysia's govt. not to scrap laws against apostacy, it means that your claim that it is a myth in the modern world

I guess you put to rest the lie that Muslims kill those who leave Islam

Path I was talking about the practice being used today...... in the Prophets(pbuh) day that was a rule (I think of it as executing someone for treason)

is false.

This is only one example there are many more out there.

 

[surenderer]

As that one dude's commentary is asking Malaysia's govt. not to scrap laws against apostacy, it means that your claim that it is a myth in the modern world





is false.

This is only one example there are many more out there.

Come on Path I can search the Net and find a white asking the Goverment to make blacks slaves again......alotta people are crazy and holding this one persons views up to represent anyone more than himself is not like something I would think you would do (we have had this conversation before) :bugeye:

 

[Truth51]

Then to say that it is no worse than Protestant Christianity, is to only condemn Islam further still. Protestant Christianity, don't you know, believes in the absolute Forgiveness of Sins, and so Protestant Christianity regards no moral excess as detrimental to them. Indeed, all of the Violence in Europe and coming out of Europe for the last 5 Centuries has been because of the Freedom to Sin which Protestantism instructs. So, to be as bad as Protestantism, Islam also must have something in its content which makes ordinary Muslims suppose that they are permitted violence. Again, I insist that Mohammed conducting raids and instigating Battles was perhaps not providing the best Moral Example to his religious constituency.

Protestantism believes in the absolute forgiveness of sins, provided you repent. It is common for "Christians" to sin, say "OOPS! God forgive me!", then go do it again. The trick is learning to stop doing what you did. Consequently, you receive true forgiveness.

 

[path]

Come on Path I can search the Net and find a white asking the Goverment to make blacks slaves again......alotta people are crazy and holding this one persons views up to represent anyone more than himself is not like something I would think you would do (we have had this conversation before) :bugeye:

Surrenderer I provided you with an example the malaysian govt has anti-apostacy laws this is a govt not some fictitious white guy.