It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israeli forces storm courtyard of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem !!

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: Ove38
a reply to: Kapusta

I was on the Temple Mount recently and did not feel welcome nor safe. That's why i suport actions against hostile muslims on the Temple Mount.



Right , please share your story . .

Here is what you and most other people don't understand about Islam ,

Its forbidden meaning its Haram , meaning a great sin! to cause Fitna (Chaos ) at any Masjid or holy site . The only stipulation would be if that place was under attack , then action can be taken to restore order .

In all the cases we see about conflict in this region we see who the aggressor is and clearly Israel .


Well, I guess that would all depend on their definition of "Under Attack"

Funny how they can bend and redefine to suit their immediate needs.

Like the "Temporary Marriage" so they can have sex with women. Only a SLIGHT bending of what should be a solid rule.


Oh boy... Digging up old roots are we ?

Let's have a look into that inquiry.

Questioner :

Could you please tell if there is such a concept as 'temporary marriages'in islam. I would like to know because a friend of mine has read a book by professor Abui Qasim Gourgi and is under the impression that if they are already married it is okay for them to do muta(the name for a temporary marriage according to islamic shariah). His definition for a temporary marriage is that if you like someone it is okay for you to have your nikah read with them for a short period of time. Please could you tell me more about the issue of muta and which schools of thought believe in such an idea (could you support your answer using references from ahadith and quran).


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.
Mut’ah or temporary marriage refers to when a man marries a woman for a specific length of time in return for a particular amount of money.

The basic principle concerning marriage is that it should be ongoing and permanent. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement.


The the fatwa goes on to a deeper explanation and provides evidence that this act is indeed haram .

And the logistics of how it was at first permissible then later made harman it came down to a matter of misunderstanding




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: Kapusta

Well, somebody better tell them then,

www.gatestoneinstitute.org...

www.bbc.com...

www.motherjones.com...

www.thedailybeast.com...




What is expressed in these news clippings are actions of Shia and Khuaraij ideologies . They completely disregard the evidence , If they had been properly following the Quran and sunnna they would know that these acts are Haram .

We see the evidence in the hadith

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”


The problem is that these people reject the Hadith even though its been classed as a strong hadith that was traced back to the Shahaba and the Prophet (pbuh).


Here is the Invalid evidence they use to support their claim .


They quote the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“…so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed…”

[al-Nisa’ 4:24]

They say: this verse indicates that mut’ah is permissible, and the word ‘their mahr (ujoorahunna – lit. their dues or their wages)’ is evidence that what is meant by the phrase ‘you have enjoyed sexual relations’ is mut’ah.

The refutation of this is the fact that prior to this Allaah mentions the women whom a man is forbidden to marry, then he mentions what is permissible for him, and He commands the man to give to the woman he marries her mahr.

The joy of marriage is expressed here by the word enjoyment (‘of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations’). A similar instance occurs in the Sunnah, in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Woman is like a bent rib, if you try to straighten her you will break her. If you want to enjoy her, then enjoy her while she still has some crookedness in her.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4889; Muslim, 1468.

The mahr is referred to here as ajr (lit. dues or wages), but this does not refer to the money which is paid to the woman with whom he engages in mut’ah in the contract of mut’ah. The mahr is referred to as ajr elsewhere in the Book of Allaah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage)…”

[al-Ahzaab 33:50]

Thus it becomes clear that there is no evidence in this verse to suggest that mut’ah is permissible.

Even if we were to say for argument’s sake that this verse indicates that mut’ah is permitted, we would still say that it is abrogated by the reports in the saheeh Sunnah which prove that mut’ah is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection.

(b) The reports that some of the Sahaabah regarded it as being permissible, especially Ibn ‘Abbaas.

The refutation here is the fact that the Raafidis are following their own whims and desires, because they regard the companions of the Prophet (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, then you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others.

With regard to those who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”


So their you have it , This is the sort of stuff I deal with everyday when refuting extremist . They plunder religious text and innovate it to commit such acts as they deem permissible when its NOT .

Then we have the Media feeding off of the stuff and pushing it out to the masses as a "fact of Islam" when it's not at all ...

Sad really.

Any other Inquiry's ?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

Nope.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
I wonder if the forming of Israel was entirely for this purpose?

to fulfill some biblical prophesy?

.. for the development of a third temple and it becoming - "the center of all national life—.. governmental, judicial and religious.."

----

One thing is certain that this is all some weird ass antiquated sh#t.


I think it more likely that Israel was formed after WWII because most of Europe felt guilty about what happened to them during WWII and how no one really did much about it. At the same time, Europe has never been overly friendly to the Jewish, so they sure didn't want to keep them around as a reminder. So they sent them off to their homeland because they figured it wouldn't last very long before the surrounding Arabs would take it out.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I noticed another thread in this forum, started more or less at the same time as this one:

Syrian GENOCIDE hits 250,000-330,000+ as Mass Refugee Deaths ensue (media blackout)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, another soap drama between Israelis and Palestinians does steal the show as usual, generating way more comments, flags/whatever than the human tragedy next door.

I just thought that was important as perspective, now please go on to rant about the Jews...



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: maddy21
Israeli forces storm courtyard of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem !!

You mean courtyard of the destroyed jewish temple.

Prove it. Because if you can then you can do better than anyone living in Israel. No one knows where the temple was really located at.


Doesn't really matter.

The 'Muslims' were the 'invaders'.

Hell lets take a look at REAL history.




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Kinda how the Christian Spaniards invaded the "new world" and almost completely exterminated the indigenous people? America sits on top of an Indian burial ground. Maybe that's why we're going to hell in a hand basket, we're cursed, we live on stolen ground.

Also Israel invaded Palestine. I guess their motto is "do as we say and not as we do"? Seems like it.

You have a deep hate for Islam, I can see it in your posts. You both worship the god of Abraham. ISIS does not represent the entirety of Islam just like WBC or LRA don't represent the entirety of Christianity. You'd do well to remember that instead of hating nearly a third of the world's population based on the actions of very few.
edit on 9/13/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
All Jews convert to Christianity just before the end times, when they realize that Jesus is the messiah [Jeremiah 31:33]. Right now Jews only accept that Jesus was born a Jew, but they don't understand what Jesus preached. They are being blocked from understanding, until the appointed time [Jeremiah 31:34]. The Muslims know what Jesus preached, but they don't understand that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, they think he was just a prophet [Matthew 10:41]. They are yet to discover the difference between a Son of God that is a created being, like Genetic Scientists creating lifeforms in the lab, and a Son of God that is begotten and born of a natural womb coming out of a woman. At the end times the Scientists will create men, all people will be factory born, and their descendants will be "Sons of God" with power to create living things with their scientific knowledge. But, none of these Sons of God will be "born of womb" or "begotten". In the cycle, Jesus is the only one that is begotten. We know that this cycle repeats over and over again, because it is the only way the "three wise men" could look at the pattern of stars in the heavens and know that it was time for Jesus' birth.
edit on 13-9-2015 by AMPTAH because: spell



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




Kinda how the Christian Spaniards invaded the "new world" and almost completely exterminated the indigenous people?


Not really. European powers came the the 'new' world for GOLD, and SILVER. Mostly.

Religion had nothing to do with it.




Also Israel invaded Palestine.


Even bothered watching the video?

Sure doesn't sound like it.





You have a deep hate for Islam, I can see it in your posts. You both worship the god of Abraham. IS


Maybe I do, and if I did SO WHAT ?

I sure don't use their political talking points.

Sure can't tell the difference between the Israel haters, and the likes of ISIS.
edit on 13-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It doesn't matter what they came for, they believed they were appointed by God to conquer any or all territories that they wished, so yes, religion had a lot to do with it.

They came conquering and killing in the name of Christianity then taking land from those they conquered. Ring any bells with current events today? It should.



Maybe I do, and if I did SO WHAT ?


Oh boy, you seem to have totally missed the point of your saviors teachings then.


Matthew 5
44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you


No surprise though, this seems to be a common theme with the over-zealous Christians.
edit on 9/13/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




It doesn't matter what they came for, they believed they were appointed by God to conquer any or all territories that they wished, so yes, religion had a lot to do with it.


Well that was hilarious. Because everyone who has ever picked up a history book.

Knew Columbus motivations wasn't religious. He wanted $$$.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yet Christians still came and stole land and committed genocide on the indigenous people.

I guess since it wasn't because of religion that makes it A-OK then? Lol. Double standards everywhere.

Check the edit on my last post in case you missed it.
edit on 9/13/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Still going on with that red herring. I see.



The overall purpose of the settlement of the New World by Spain was to acquire new wealth - See more at: www.elearnportal.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yet their conquests for that money were predicated by them believing their God appointed them to do such things.


In the words of one member of Cortés's band of conquistadors, the Spanish came to the New World "to serve God, and to get rich as all men want to do."


Source

Straight from the horse's mouth. Their conquests were in the name of Christianity and its god.
edit on 9/13/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Religion - Christianity, Islam, Judaism - has, and always will be a blight on humanity. Humanity's extinction will not be caused by asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis or any other natural disasters, but will be caused by these fictitious beliefs.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

I missed which religion Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao massacred their people for.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Religion is losing its control everywhere well except the middle east. So id say eventually there won't be a religion. So there's still hope.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: UnBreakable

I missed which religion Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao massacred their people for.



True they massacared a lot of people but it still didn' t spell the total extinction of humanity.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Should have the crane instead...lol



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join