Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[Michael]

Arsalan,

Is it possible to justify killing someone and still be able to remain a Good Muslim? That is: Can one be a Good Muslim and still be able to kill someone - and this killing be in line with Islam (not break any of Gods Laws for regulating Human beings behavior)?

Is it possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslim to be able to use the Qur'anto justify killing someone?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Arsalan,

Is it possible to justify killing as a Muslims? That is, can one be a Good Muslim and still be able to kill someone and this be in line with Islam?

Is it possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslims to be able to use the Korean to justify killing someone?

Michael

Is that North or South Koreans?

One can demand recompense for murder, but the right way is through the law.

However, even there, one is recommended to forgive.

A second reason for killing someone is if they were terrorists (also through the law)

As the Quran says, killing one person is like killing the whole of humanity.

On that account We ordained for the Children of Isra`il that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading fitna(ordeal, terror, mischief) in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear (guidance), yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (5:32)


http://islamicperspectives.com/TafsirOfSurah5_32.html

 

[Michael]

S.A.M.,

This is from your own link:

Bernard Lewis takes issue with this view, arguing its modern use is ahistorical and apologetic:

The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.[2]

Mark Cohen, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, in his landmark 1995 book on the subject, Under Crescent and Cross, argues that the "myth of an interfaith utopia" was first promulgated by Jewish historians such as Heinrich Graetz in the 19th century as a rebuke to Christian countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) for their treatment of Jews. This view went unchallenged until it was adopted by Arabs as a "propaganda weapon against Zionism",[3] who wanted to show that the establishment of the modern State of Israel shattered an alleged previously existing harmony between Jews and Arabs in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire; they pointed to the supposed utopia of the so-called "golden age" as an example of previous harmonious relationships. This "Arab polemical exploitation" was met with the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" by historians such as Bat Yeor,[4] which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality".[5]

Frederick Schweitzer and Marvin Perry agree that there are two general views of the status of Jews under Islam, the traditional "golden age" and the revisionist "persecution and pogrom" interpretations. They argue that the 19th century idealized view of Jewish historians was taken up by Arab Muslims after 1948 as "an Arab-Islamist weapon in what is primarily an ideological and political struggle against Israel", and ignores "a catalog of lesser-known hatred and massacres", including Muslim pogroms against Jews in Córdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066.[6]

 

[Michael]

Is that North or South Koreans?

Hey I fixed that before your posted!

Michael: Today 12:54 AM
SAM: Today 12:58 AM

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M.,

This is from your own link:

Bernard Lewis takes issue with this view, arguing its modern use is ahistorical and apologetic:]

Oh well if Bernard Lewis says it, it must be true.

So at what other time (pre-Holocaust) did the Jews do so well?

And why was it that there were Jews in Jerusalem only under Muslim rule?

And how did the Jews and Moorish Muslims enjoy the Abu Ghraib of the times

 

[Michael]

One can demand recompense for murder, but the right way is through the law.

Look Biblical writings can go one way or the other. Eye for an Eye or turn the other Cheek. I'm sure so does Qur'anic cryptography.

My specific questions are:

Is it possible to justify killing someone and still be able to remain a Good Muslim?

Is it possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslim to be able to use the Qur'an to justify killing someone?

 

[S.A.M.]

Look Biblical writings can go one way or the other. Eye for an Eye or turn the other Cheek. I'm sure so does Qur'anic cryptography.

My specific questions are:

Is it possible to justify killing someone and still be able to remain a Good Muslim?

Is it possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslim to be able to use the Qur'an to justify killing someone?

Not really, though I think people can find justification in many ways.

e.g. take the clause of terrorism and law.

One could argue that as the elected representatives, Hamas is only doing what it should be doing, killing those who have taken over. However, once they target civilians instead of soldiers, they lose that moral ground. You cannot attack a defenceless person when you are armed (and they are not, obviously). Or attack a defenceless person who is incapable of fighting back. Thats haram.

That is what Ramadan is supposed to teach you. Under hardship, be patient, be calm and have faith.

 

[Kadark]

Is it possible to justify killing someone and still be able to remain a Good Muslim?

Killing can be justified. If you're killing an oppressor, or killing to protect yourself, then you can still be a devout Muslim.

Is it possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslim to be able to use the Qur'an to justify killing someone?

It's possible for someone who thinks they are a Muslim to do anything. We have Muslims in the world who believe homosexuality and alcohol are lawful in Islam, so why not murderers? Point is, if you look hard enough, you can find people justifying their actions using whatever they supposedly believe in.

 

[S.A.M.]

Killing can be justified. If you're killing an oppressor, or killing to protect yourself, then you can still be a devout Muslim.

Thats during war, not in everyday life. You can't go around killing people if you feel oppressed by them.

And even during war, you are urged to try for peace and stop fighting as soon as the enemy indicates they don't want to fight.

 

[Kadark]

Thats during war, not in everyday life. You can't go around killing people if you feel oppressed by them.

No, it's not only for war. Despot, corrupt rulers and ruthless tyrants who brutally rule over their dominion of citizens are subject to the same laws of war. If a ruler is oppressing its nation, and is not showing signs of improvement, and is not backing down as the public has demanded, then you're entitled every right to kill them. Oppression is worse than slaughter.

 

[Michael]

Oh well if Bernard Lewis says it, it must be true.

So at what other time (pre-Holocaust) did the Jews do so well?

Hellenistic Judaism.

Do you agree that legally discriminating based on beleif is wrong SAM?

Your example is:
Hey, Jews had it a bit better living as second class citizens under Muslim rule than Xian rule - so ergo what exactly SAM?

Apply your logic to how Jews were treated in China.

In a section of the 1512 stele talking about how Jewish soldiers and officers in the Chinese armies were “Boundlessly loyal to the country.” One source even claims that Israelites served as soldiers in the armies of Yue Fei.

maybe the Jews were treated with SO much equality that this is why their religion simply disappeared in China. They were simply absorbed along with anyone else that stepped into the Middle Kingdom. See what you treat people like shit they often cling to their ancestral bullshit, when you treat people EQUAL then they become your fellow citizen. Another thing a wise person would have understood - huh?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

No, it's not only for war. Despot, corrupt rulers and ruthless tyrants who brutally rule over their dominion of citizens are subject to the same laws of war. If a ruler is oppressing its nation, and is not showing signs of improvement, and is not backing down as the public has demanded, then you're entitled every right to kill them. Oppression is worse than slaughter.

A despotic ruler is subject to law just like any citizen. It is the job of the judiciary and the clerics to keep him on his toes (like in the Ottomans)

Citizens are not supposed to riot or kill people if the ruler is a despot.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hellenistic Judaism.

Do you agree that legally discriminating based on beleif is wrong SAM?

Your example is:
Hey, Jews had it a bit better living as second class citizens under Muslim rule than Xian rule - so ergo what exactly SAM?

Apply your logic to how Jews were treated in China.


maybe the Jews were treated with SO much equality that this is why their religion simply disappeared in China. They were simply absorbed along with anyone else that stepped into the Middle Kingdom. See what you treat people like shit they often cling to their ancestral bullshit, when you treat people EQUAL then they become your fellow citizen. Another thing a wise person would have understood - huh?

Michael

Strange, the Jews still cling to their bullshit in India. And if they abandoned their faith in China, its possible they found better alternatives.

 

[Arsalan]

Apply your logic to how Jews were treated in China.

Just as Jews, Christians, Muslims, Romans and Perians were completely loyal to the Muslim empire during the Caliphs. They fought with the Muslims and died with them. They ate with them and lived with them. Ofcourse, you wont happen to know anything of that

 

[Kadark]

A despotic ruler is subject to law just like any citizen. It is the job of the judiciary and the clerics to keep him on his toes (like in the Ottomans)

Citizens are not supposed to riot or kill people if the ruler is a despot.

Yeah, and not rioting lead to the deaths of how many million Indians under the 200 year Raj?

Give me a break.

Tyrants who refuse to back down deserve to be killed, mainly because it is their corrupt outlook and self-concerned policies that have killed so many civilians. Most of the time, a nation's biggest threat comes from within. The most successful Islamic nations today are the nations whose citizens have not tolerated despotic governments and corrupt rulers, and have responded by force. Nations with apathetic citizens are always used and abused by the system.

To restore order, there are no limits as to what people can do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, and not rioting lead to the deaths of how many million Indians under the 200 year Raj?

Give me a break.

Tyrants who refuse to back down deserve to be killed, mainly because it is their corrupt outlook and self-concerned policies that have killed so many civilians. Most of the time, a nation's biggest threat comes from within. The most successful Islamic nations today are the nations whose citizens have not tolerated despotic governments and corrupt rulers, and have responded by force. Nations with apathetic citizens are always used and abused by the system.

To restore order, there are no limits as to what people can do.

Rioting killed a million people after independence.

Without self discipline, society is nothing but a waste of life.

 

[Kadark]

Rioting killed a million people after independence.

Without self discipline, society is nothing but a waste of life.

How many did the famines kill?

Self-discipline is ideal until the tyrant refuses to relinquish power. Do you think it would be haraam for a citizen a decade ago to kill Saddam? Many of my family's friends have been killed by him, whom you would call a "despot ruler".

Am I not justified in killing him? With Iraq's former system of power, no other method would have worked.

 

[S.A.M.]

How many did the famines kill?

Self-discipline is ideal until the tyrant refuses to relinquish power. Do you think it would be haraam for a citizen a decade ago to kill Saddam? Many of my family's friends have been killed by him, whom you would call a "despot ruler".

Am I not justified in killing him? With Iraq's former system of power, no other method would have worked.

What do you think? Do you think all the Arabs should kill their kings and dictators? Will that "free" them?

 

[Kadark]

What do you think? Do you think all the Arabs should kill their kings and dictators? Will that "free" them?

You have yet to answer my question.

Citizens revolting and taking matters into their own hands is the only option. With the way things are, there are two methods you can undergo: wait to be invaded and become a satellite nation whose wealth, nearly in its entirety, goes to a few rich men thousands of miles away; or, continue living under substandard conditions and backward laws, whilst your overlords enjoy the major portions of the nation's wealth and are not subject to the same bizarre rules.

Would the Iranians have been as powerful as they are today without the revolution, or would they have remained another puppet nation whose citizens were poor and misrepresented? Would modern day Turkey exist if it weren't for the countless efforts of the Young Turks and Turkish nationalists, who refused to accept the doling of their land amongst foreigners?

Clearly, there is a time for everything. If the rulers fear retribution from the civilians, then surely they will give into their demands. Back when Islam was at its zenith, Empires would take over other ones when a decline was apparent. Nowadays, you simply have a lot of small, divided nations who continuously grow weaker and weaker.

 

[S.A.M.]

You have yet to answer my question.

let me put it this way. We fought for 200 years, there were many extremists, insurgents, terrorists etc. But all that did was to make the British retaliate against the citizens (the Jalianwala Bagh massacre is only one example)

But what did win us independence was claiming the higher moral ground. It was the likes of Nehru and Gandhi who showed the British that we were perfectly capable of managing our own country and they could leave us TYVM.

If the Iranians had not been distracted by the war immediately after the revolution, they would have escaped the fundamentalists in power now.