Yeah and it has everything to do with the fact that those people who are retaliating are immigrants, not native born Muslims.
Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
Yeah and it has everything to do with the fact that those people who are retaliating are immigrants, not native born Muslims.
From the link:
"The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."
fight in the cause of Allah...
kill them wherever you meet them...
fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed for Allah...
punish him for his transgression to the extent which he has transgressed against you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him...
the conditions which should regulate a religious war and which were made binding on Muslims.
the verse calls upon Muslims to fight against only such disbelievers as take up arms against them...
The verse goes on to say “persecution is worse than killing” which provides another argument in support of defensive war. The disbelievers were persecuting Muslims in diverse ways with a view to turning them away from their faith and they were also creating disorder in the land."
That post of mine was in response to a link Sandy gave to a hate site. That is what the hate site said about that particular verse and that is not what I said.
Nice try, but if you're going to copy and paste the verses and their explanation I posted, make sure you copy and paste the whole verse and explanation instead of nitpicking
and tell me why the verse is wrong. Surely, you agree that persecution is wrong and must be fought.Just to make sure that people see how you have tried to manipulate it I hope people will click on the link I gave and read it for themselves.
Last edited:
Not really. I dont see a suicide bomber reciting those verses and leaving confessions behind that he did it cos of those verses :shrug:
And thats been answered a long time ago. So instead of saying lets go back to the original debate stop posting and help let this topic die
Are you implying the Americans are killing terrorists in Iraq on a religious basis? When you say "people", do you make the assumption that their campaign is against civilians? Or do you prefer to think so?
Well, it is, in dar-al-islam. It's ironic - the verses were supposedly invoked to prevent oppression of muslims, but now get used in the context of supporting the persecution of everyone else. War on Terrrroorrr...?
Uh, actually that's exactly what one sees. Try to keep up, ok?
Best,
Geoff
And thats been answered a long time ago. So instead of saying lets go back to the original debate stop posting and help let this topic die
Believe what you wish. It's not like any debate here is going to yield a public denunciation of terrorism by the Muslim community at large which is the very reason their Prophet is being mocked in the first place, their tacit approval of terrorist tactics.
Persecution of whom, how, and by whom, tolerated by whom ?SAM said:
I think the US should tolerate a good deal in other places that it should not at home, for example.
Such as the persecution of neo-Nazis, by various European states. Some have an unusual history, with residual effects they must handle as best they can. If they start killing them in the streets for making Nazi propaganda, maybe less tolerance would be in order.
Persecution of women under Islamic law in some places would be another judgment call, for US tolerance. I'm of the opinion the Saudis should not tolerate it, in their own country.
tbh, i'm not even going to worry about whether the verses really tell the faithful to kill unbelievers and apostates, all i know is that in practice any perceived slight against islam in general and the prophet in particular leads to an outcry and calls from the lunatic fringe (or not so lunatic fringe ?) for the offender to be killed in a variety of unpleasant ways
it's one thing to hold strong beliefs, it's quite another to make it a matter of life or death
Does one now? Show me. Prove it. There have been numerous "Muslims" terrorist attacks according to people. Give me proof for all of them.:shrug:
Do you not click the links I give? For Gods sakes man! The Muslim community has time and time denounced terrorists and 9/11. Since its too much trouble for you to read what I posted some time ago, ill just give you 1 link this time. Maybe that wont overload something: Muslim Denunciations of al-Qaeda and Terrorism
Some people make it a matter of life and death. The majority dont even care what other people say about their religion. And if they really are offended, they protest by sending letters and denouncing it. And the fact that you dont want to go into verses is telling since the Quran is the source of Islamic Sharia.
That post of mine was in response to a link Sandy gave to a hate site. That is what the hate site said about that particular verse and that is not what I said.
Nice try, but if you're going to copy and paste the verses and their explanation I posted, make sure you copy and paste the whole verse and explanation instead of nitpicking
What I don't agree with is a religion that authorizes violence and war, under any circumstances. Muslims are now free to act violent and wage war on whomever and whatever they deem is persecution, like cartoon drawings, for example. And if offers absolutely no other alternatives but violence and war.
No religion should ever have to authorize violence or war for any reason. Aren't religions supposed to promote peace and good will?
Are you NOT of the opinion there are other alternatives to violence and war?
International Law allows for self-dfense when attacked. You dont agree with International Law either?
Not really. Drawing cartoons is not persecution. The Quran gives an example of persecution. And it also says youre only allowed to fight back to the extent that you are being fought or persecuted against.
It does. If you had clicked on the link and actually read what I said instead of looking for something with which you could make me look like a fool, you would see it tells Muslims to onl fight when fought against and when the aggressors ask for peace Muslims are to accept peace.
Thats just stupid. War and conflict are things which have been going on for a long, long time. If a religion doesnt deal with these then its not perfect, as simple as that.
Does fighting always mean violence and war?
According to a Hadith from Bukhari, there are many ways to fight persecution:
"When you see an evil action you must change it with your hand; if you cannot do so, with your tongue; if you cannot do so, change it with your heart."
The Prophet described jihad as being with the tongue, the pen, the hand and the sword.
The first refers to sermons, lectures, exhorting one another to good. The second includes scholarly work, jurisprudence, articles, inspirational poetry. The third is working for good with your wealth and your time -- charity and volunteerism. The last refers to military struggle.
International Law has many alternatives to violence and war, Islam does not.
Then, why were Muslims violent?
That is exactly the problem, the fox in control of the hen house. It is the Muslims use of the word 'persecution' that is also the problem.
What I did was to extract that which Islam authorizes violence and war and that it is the only alternative.
Ah, then you freely admit that Islam promotes violence and war rather than trying to put an end to it.
I agree there are alternatives to violence and war, Islam does not, and Muslims will dictate whatever the want to deem as being "attacked or persecuted."