Arsalan:
You have to understand how atheists define intelligence first; basically its a test at which mostly Asian people excel.
You mean IQ tests? I think they're funny. I don't really like 'em though. Even though they can be funny, to me, they seem like crap. For example, I have taken several IQ tests, online and offline (My dad's a psychiatrist yay
), and apparently my IQ is somewhere in the range of 150. I can join MENSA as well. But the reason I know these tests suck ass is that I cannot pass an advanced maths or physics test to save my life :bugeye: So much for that. I blame my first maths teacher, he never showed up for lessons
WOW! When you sink your teeth into something, you really go all out!
Maybe you would like to quote the whole post instead of quoting a sentence? You know, like the part where I said that this will probably be done over the weekend? Did you miss that? Or did you do this on purpose? Why did you lie? Why did you try to deceive?
Regarding:
Taqiyya translated: Dissimulation: Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information. Dissimulation commonly takes the form of concealing one's ability in order to gain the element of surprise over an opponent.
"[Yusufali 16:106] Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith, but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." [5]
And the following
"[Yusuf Ali 3:28] Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."[6]
You say:
Yes, we know what the verse is about. It's clear. Islam condones and promotes lying.
Of course, there are certain conditions, but that makes no difference. Like many other things exploited and abused in scriptures, this is just another one. Many Muslims have been taught it's perfectly acceptable to lie in order to settle conciliation, not with other Muslims, of course, but to non-believers; infidels.
Let’s take a look at the verses in question:
Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed—save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith—but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment (16:107)
And:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for friends in preference to believers,---and whoever does that has no connection with Allah—except that you cautiously guard against them. And Allah cautions you against His punishment; and to Allah is the returning (3:29)
Let’s start with the 2nd verse first because this verse has nothing to do with what you accuse the Quran of. This verse was revealed during a time when Islam was gaining political power, as promised in the preceding verses, and it became important for the Muslim State to form alliances with other countries. The verse under comment embodies the guiding principle that no Muslim State should enter into any treaty or alliance with a non-Muslim State which should in any way injure or conflict with the interests and safety of other Muslim states. The phrase “in preference to believers” means that Muslims should not form any connection with non-Muslims that may harm the interests of other Muslims and Muslim states. They are, however, free to contract friendly relations with such non-Muslims as are friendly to them as seen in verses 60:9-10. Verse 3:29 also instructs Muslims to be on their guard against any plots and machinations of non-Muslims which would harm any Muslim or Muslim State.
So verse 3:29 has nothing to do with lying, it is a verse revealed about political power and how any treaties or alliances should be formed with non-Muslims. Not a single word about lying. Yet you quoted this verse. Why? Oh, don’t answer that, we already know don’t we? You just copied-and-pasted it from an anti-Islam website. And no, not Wiki, since it was put on Wiki by the anti-Islam website.
Anyway, let’s move on to the real verse which seems to be so intriguing to anti-Islamist liars. Verse 16:107 fits in with the main theme of the Surah, namely that Muslims would endure great trials and tribulations before they would be accepted. But the vast majority of anti-Islamists, like you, are too blind to actually ponder the verse and study the history of it. The verse says that recanting is not seen favourable in the eyes of God, rather, it angers God, but, if a Muslim uttered any unbelief during torture or fear of death, they should not be afraid of God’s wrath for recanting their belief in God. That is the main point of the verse, the mercy of God which states that people should not be afraid that they will be punished by God for saying things while they are being tortured and in fear of their life. The point that anything said under torture will not be seen as valid. Nowhere does this verse mention lying, yet you see that in here somehow. Now let me illustrate why this verse does not condone lying.
Firstly, I’ll talk about something which you should know well, or at least you would, if you had any real desire to do anything besides lying about a religion in front of people whose knowledge of that religion greatly exceeds yours. That is: the
Law of Duress. According to Wiki (I’ll use Wiki for now since everyone can access it and not accuse me of making stuff up, otherwise I’d use my law books):
Duress or coercion (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible legal defense, one of four of the most important justification defenses, by which defendants argue that they should not be held liable because the actions that broke the law were only performed out of an immediate fear of injury. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
It goes on to say:
In order for duress to qualify as a defense, four requirements must be met:
1. Threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. Harm threatened must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. Threat must be immediate and inescapable
4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own
A person may also raise a duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge one.
The Wiki for
Duress in English Law states:
Duress in English criminal law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another.
It goes on to say:
...the defendant must have a reasonable and genuinely held fear of death or serious harm, usually in the form of specific threats directed at the defendant, his immediate family or someone for whom he feels responsible. In R v Graham 1982 1 AER 801, the threat was immediately and directly made to the defendant. In the Australian case of R v Hurley & Murray 1967 VR 526 escaped criminals compelled H to dispose of two corpses by holding his wife hostage, such that the threats to her "would have been operative during the entire period of his absence" and "his only concern must have been for the safety of the woman". Following R v Conway 1989 QB 290 and R v Wright 2000 Crim. LR 510, (where the threat related in part to the defendant's boyfriend) the specimen direction of the Judicial Studies Board suggests that the threat must be directed, if not to the defendant or a member of his immediate family, to a person for whose safety the defendant would reasonably regard himself as responsible which, if strictly applied, would be consistent with the rationale of the duress exception.
Sound familiar? Even our current Western, non-Islamic law, evolved through centuries, acknowledges duress as a defence. This is no different from the situation described in the verse you like to copy and paste from anti-Islam websites. The verse states that if a Muslim recants as a result of torture or fear of death that should not be held against him and he should not fear that God will punish him. The law of duress in England, and probably the US, says that a person should not be held liable for any crime committed if he is in fear of his life or in fear of the life of any loved ones or under any threat, coercion or physical intimidation. See the similarities? If you still don’t, tell me, so I can lecture you on duress from my law books.
Secondly, another point the verse raises, is that of torture and any testimony obtained by means of torture. My question to you is: Do believe that torture is right? Do you believe that testimony obtained under torture should be seen as completely valid? Do you believe that a person who testifies under torture should be punished because of his confession? Let me make this a bit more clearer: if someone arrested you, put you in a cell and one night when you were sleeping, men burst into that cell, put a hood over your face, tied you to a board, put towels on your face and poured water on the towels, on your face, to get you to confess, what would you do?
Would you tough it out or act like any normal human and give up? We all know what you would do. Why? It is the natural human reaction. Or you can substitute waterboarding for any other method of torture. How about if we tied car batteries to your genitals and made you fly? Would you confess or tough it out? How about if we forced you to have sex with another man in front of 10 people who are laughing at you and recording it all, would you tough it out? How about being locked up in a soundproof or heat room that is smaller than you for days on end? Would you tough these out or say whatever these people wanted to hear to get this to stop? If you do confess, should your confession be seen as completely valid without any duress or torture and should you be punished with the crime they wanted you to confess about? That is the point this verse raises. A point accepted by every Western interpretation of the law of duress and torture. Once again, we see that something that the Quran mentions has become the accepted law in the vast majority, even non-Muslim, countries. Law relating to verses which were revealed after Muslims were tortured and killed for just claiming to be Muslim. Muslims forced to lie on hot desert sand and then giant rocks put on them so they’d burn in the desert sun. Muslim women flogged, beaten and raped just because they were Muslim. The vast majority of those people did not confess to what the Meccans wanted to hear. Some did and they were told to have no fear of any punishment from God, because what they said did not come from the heart. Because testimony obtained under torture is worth nothing.
Yet, there are anti-Islamists, who only seemed to show up on the internet after 9/11 btw, who will do anything to present a false image of Islam and the Quran and try to undermine it. They abuse the things they know people like you don’t have: knowledge and the ability to reason and understand. So they present people like you with these falsehoods and you accept them blindly. They lie to you and you spout the same lies all over the place.
Thirdly, why do you want to paint the picture of Islam being the only religion that condones lying (which is false as I have proven above)? Why don’t you mention other religions? Why don’t you mention, for example, the story of
Rahab in the Bible, where she lies and is rewarded and blessed by God for her lie? Or the
"lying spirit" by Jehovah in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles? Why didn’t you mention
Shalom bayit where Jewish commentators have the nerve to accuse God of lying and or deceiving Abraham and therefore its seen as permissible? Why didn’t you mention the blatant use of
casuistry by Moses and the Jesuits among others? Why didn’t you mention
Pikuach Nefesh which, as Jewish Law, requires Jews to violate
almost all prohibitions in order to preserve human life? Why didn’t you mention
Baba Kamma 113 where Jews can lie to non-Jews? Why didn’t you.... there’s no point is there? We all know why you didn’t mention all these other instances yet you seemingly see in a verse that never even uses the word lie or deceive that it commands people to lie. We all know why you lied.
The fact of the matter is that these verses do not condone nor promote lying. On the contrary, they show the mercy of God to not accept any testimony of anyone under torture. Something which even you should agree with. It’s called Human Rights, it is part of international law and the law of the vast majority of countries and it was laid down over a 1000 years before other countries even thought about law regarding torture and duress. There are various verses in the Quran damning liars, explicitly using the words “lie” and “liars”. None of those words are seen in these verses, yet somehow you see them.
We have mountains of evidence within these forums alone that would demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Do you now? Present us with these “mountains of evidence” please.
Do you have anything else that you wish to "gum" for us today?
You got any chewing gum?
So is this like the opinion of the muslim pope?....Oh wait muslims don't have any central authority so there is no official policy.
Are you actually this retarded? The Pope a central figure of authority for the Christians? I hate to break this to you my friend, but a lot of Christians and Christian sects and Churches regard the Pope as the Devil and the Anti-Christ. They have nothing but contempt for the Pope. All Christians listen to the Pope? Get real.
A million clerics can say a million different things and none has authority over the other.
In essence it is useless and dishonest to quote any of them and try and represent them as any sort of official policy makers for anyone but thier constituency.
It’s obvious you know nothing about how Islamic law works. You don’t know how much debating it takes to make sure everyone agrees and you don’t know what happens when the vast majority of clerics agree. In fact, the point you are making about Muslims can apply to Christians as well. Every evangelist, preacher, bishop or any other “authority figure” can say what he wants, doesn’t mean that every other “authority figure” agrees with it. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to know all this.
Hence they can only be judged by thier actions in countries not at war (and all this judge by thier scripture not by thier actions, ala ghost, DH and arslan is just a crock)
Let’s see, there is no war in the US atm. Yet, the US government has tortured and killed people. An American scientist working for the army was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Preachers are telling their church congregations to kill homosexuals and bomb abortion clinics. Presidential candidate John Mcain is singing “BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN!!” and then he says he wants to kill all Iranians with cigarettes. In Italy the government has started to force gypsies and others to get their thumb inked so they can be recognised and “taken care of”. We all remember the pics of the dead Roma girls lying on an Italian beach while caring Christians were enjoying a day of sunbathing just a couple of meters next to the dead Roma girls. In Brazil, Christians kill each other every single day by the hundreds and thousands, priests and churches and gangs go hand in hand, while the police sell drugs. These are some of the things that happen in Christian countries that are not fighting a war in their own country atm. So, does the US constitution condone and promote torture? Does Christianity endorse killing others, Christians and non-Christians? Does Christianity endorse labelling and killing Roma? The idiocy of your statement is astounding to say the least.
just kidding, but you forgot jews are dhimmmis. and we all know how they were treated.
In the vast majority of the Muslim Empire, Jews were treated very good. Every time they were kicked out of Europe by the Christians, the Muslims welcomed them back. It was because of the Muslims that the Jews were able to create strong trading routes and live without fear in the vast majority of the Muslim empire. And you don’t know what a dhimmi is, so I suggest you shut up about that. Or maybe you could enlighten us about the situation of the Arabs in Israel, where rabbis endorse killing Arabs because the Talmud (Or was it Torah?) calls them dogs?
No muslims in egypt, saudi arabia, syria, algeria, libya, yemen, iran etc. moaning about living under dictators but doing nothing to change it.
You clearly know nothing about the history of the Middle East and Northern African nations. I suggest you read books on them before attempting to debate any issues relating to those countries. Then you will see that every time the Muslim population tried to something about it, either via rebellion or protests, they were violently put down by the Western Christians during the age of colonisation. After that, the colonisers installed extremely violent and brutal leaders so they could keep the countries under control. Everyone remembers what happened to Mossadeq. A democratically elected leader of Iran, killed and replaced with the Shah by the US. The Shah, whose brutal dictatorial rule led to the US then nurturing Khomeneism and helping it overthrow the Shah. We also remember the hitman-turned-President that the US has just recently killed in Iraq. Then there is Saudiland, where the extremely vile and brutal House of Saud, after slaughtering hundreds and thousands of Muslims in Muslim Holy Places and Cities gained control and then asked for help from the US military, which now has bases in Islams Holiest Lands. The US military protects these bastards from any opposition by the population who don’t like them. The Siege at the Grand Mosque was a perfect example, where Western Nations were asked to send the military to end a rebellion by the Saudis. And then there is Bin Laden, who would not have made the US his number one enemy had they withdrawn their military troops from Muslim Holy Lands and stop protecting the House of Saud. Instead of choosing to let the people rule, the US sided with the House of Saud, a family which has killed millions of Muslims and funded the destruction of Iraq and other places.
So, before you start accusing people of doing nothing, you better read up on the history. If you don’t, you’ll be made to look like a fool.
Finally, I expect 2 things: either a rebuttal by (Q) and MW or an apology from (Q) and MW for calling me a liar and for saying that my religion condones and or promotes lying. I'm waiting.
