It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why Muslims should be treated with more respect

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:56 AM

Originally posted by babloyi
Christians and non-muslims are not necessarily 'kafir'

I have given you a link to a well frequented Muslim Forum where the word Kafir is sinonimous with unbeliever.

Despite what you say, Muslims do call all unbelievers ( Chistians, Jews included) Kafirs, Muslims are Momins the rest of the world is Kafir. Kafirs are scum. I have seen the word used in that contest on many placards.

Originally posted by babloyi
There is no such thing as 'offensive physical jihad' (at least not in the way I perceive you to mean it), and the criteria for fighting is definitely not 'until "all" are submitted to the will of Allah'.

The prophet divided the world in two contending spheres--darul-Islam(the zone of peace where the mulsims were the dominant element) and darul-Harb (the zone of war where the kafirs or non-muslims held sway)

"The gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords."

Taking the initiative in fighting

This means pursuing the kaafirs in their lands and calling them to Islam and fighting them if they do not agree to submit to the rule of Islam.

This kind of jihad is fard kifaayah (a communal obligation) upon the Muslims. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
See also 9:36 and 9:41

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah, If they do that then their blood and wealth is safe from me, except by the laws of Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allaah.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 24; Muslim, 29.

Originally posted by babloyi
'Casting terror' is what God does to who God does it to... nothing to do with people doing it.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand."

Mohammed is not God, Mohammed bragged about it and Mohammed is "the example" to be followed by Muslims.

YUSUFALI: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Etc etc...

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Ersatz

Last post first: I told you about the MOST AUTHORITATIVE muslim sources (The Quran and Hadith), and again you quote me the same Qutbah from the al-qaeeda linked wahabi guy. Whatever links you poted, I'll speak about the verses quoted therein.

As far as the "I have seen..." argument goes, it can swing both ways, and neither side is correct. I have seen military persons, persons in high ranks, etc. talking about "Nuke 'them' to glass" and "Bomb them back to the stone age". I'm reasonable enough to assume that not all (in fact not most) people are like that.

It's getting very tiring to keep posting the same things again and again...I don't know what to do.. I have shown you that the QURAN differentiates between those that are kafir, and those that are the People of the Book, and those that are polytheists. Since the Quran is the MOST AUTHORITATIVE source on all things islamic, it definitely trumps anything "this 'muslim' guy said".

The second point: The term dar-ul-harb is found NOWHERE in the Quran or Hadith.....sorry. The Prophet Muhammad did no such thing. And if you read (or even knew where is) the hadith from which comes the so-often quoted "The gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords." is something that Muhammad said to the muslims he was with when they faced the enemy in Battle, (ie. don't be scared of dying). All the verses you quoted have their qualifiers and restrictions, if you care to read the passages they were lifted off from carefully- wanton bloodthristy battle is not allowed (and even condemned): stop if they cease (8:39), fight those who cause tumult and oppression- clarified as preventing worship (2:217), "people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you" (9:13), etc.

About casting terror, if you see what I said, you'll notice you haven't proven me wrong. GOD casts terror into the hearts of those who fought against the Muslims, as only he can...

I'll respond to the others in a've done a very odd job of copy-pasting (even to the extent of misnumbering references), so it's hard to read through what you provided.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by babloyi]

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by babloyi

I'll respond to the others in a bit...

[edit on 20-8-2008 by babloyi]

Dear babloyi,

Please do not bother to respond as this is probably my last post on this thread.

I am bored with it and so must everybody else be.

Believe it or not I genuinely try to understand the Muslim mind frame but in discussions we always reach the same impasse.

The only consolation is that both you and I will have arrived at the same conclusion:
"You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

It is always interesting to talk to clever individuals.
Thank you for all your responses and may your God bless your steps.

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:39 AM
A few days back I received a Private Message asking me if I would at least consider responding to this remark from babloyi:
(I apologize it took me so long to reply but I had prior commitments)

Originally posted by babloyi:
I have shown you that the QURAN differentiates between those that are kafir, and those that are the People of the Book, and those that are polytheists. Since the Quran is the MOST AUTHORITATIVE source on all things Islamic, it definitely trumps anything "this 'muslim' guy said".

Muslims believe that the Quran cannot be translated. A translation would void the prophet's words and meanings.
Since Muslims revere the Qur'an as miraculous and inimitable (i'jaz al-Qur'an), they argue that the Qur'anic text can not be reproduced in another language or form.
Furthermore, an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context, making an accurate translation even more difficult.

What matters in Islam is who interprets the Quran, there are thousands of Imams, Mullahs, Sheiks, Ayatollahs, Grand Muftis.
Many assign their own meaning to the words of the Quran.... The interpretations of thousands of Hadiths / Tafseers sometimes in conflict with each other, plus heaps of sects like Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Yaqubiyya, Hanafiyah, Malekiya, Hanbaliya, Shafaaya,Ismieliya, Quran Alone etc,etc each one has its own tafseers.
Muslims believe that the Quran is explained by hadiths. So if the Quran says the sky is blue and the hadiths say the sky is green, then the sky is green.

Most Muslims do not have a clue, they just go to the mosque and pray, the great majority can not even read Arabic; they don't know what the Quran is saying but recite it anyway. Usually by memory or sometimes they learn how to just read Arabic so they can recite it. Recitation is seen as an act of worship.

Summing up, that the Quran differentiates between the terms is true in theory but not in practice.

I am a frequent visitor to the Maghreb region and I have never heard Muslims addressing Unbelievers as other than Kafir.
Somehow "People of the Book" and "Polytheists" doesn't roll off the tongue so well.

Babloyi is presenting another half truth, I guess he cannot be blamed for emulating his own God.

Allah Himself claims to be "the best of the deceivers/schemers " Quran 3:54.

posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by Ersatz

Hello again, Ersatz!
I'm happy to see you return to this discussion, and even happier that someone is actually reading through all of it to want a response from you.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument, isn't it? There is no half truth in what I said. Just because you cannot go past that, now you say 'yeah, well the quran need's the hadith, and thus the hadith are right and the quran is wrong', and since the hadith is not 100% reliable, it is all up for grabs? I'm sorry, but even according to the Hadith, the Quran comes first, THEN the HADITH. And how does what 'people in the maghreb' say trump what I showed you in a quranic verse? I mean, if you go by what 'people' say, there are some who call muslims kafir, there are some who call humans 'sons of b___hes", and there are some who call children born in wedlock 'ba______'. It is best to always go directly to the source.

You'll notice that all the sects you mentioned, despite all their differences, consider the the Quran to be the final word in an discussion. They may disagree on which hadith is reliable, and which is not, or whether eating of shellfish is permitted in Islam, but all of them agree on the Quran.

And of course the Quran can be translated. It's just that the translation is not called 'The Quran' anymore. That doesn't mean that the translation cannot be used to understand what is written.

That particular verse doesn't really suffer much from translation. There is no problem in 'interpreting' it. It's clear as day. Here, I can give you a word by word blow of it, if you want. Check the last three lines here. Notice especially, the very definitive 'min' (من) , meaning 'from among':

Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 105

(And remember, arabic is read right to left, so the word-by-word translation is also from the right to left).

I hope you don't take offence to me for asking this, but aren't you grasping at straws now? Are you finding wrong in Islam for the sake of it- you have an opinion, and you seek to justify it through finding of evidence, instead of collecting evidence and then forming an opinion. Also, if you don't mind too much telling me, what is your field of work? What do/did you do for a living?

[edit on 25-8-2008 by babloyi]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:02 AM
Although you like to minimize and dismiss the effects of Qur’anic interpretations, I am satisfied that my concerns are more serious than “straws”.

I am beginning to think you are suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance, you do not seem able to notice your own contradictions.

Originally posted by babloyi:
You'll notice that all the sects you mentioned, despite all their differences, consider the Quran to be the final word in an discussion. They may disagree on which hadith is reliable, and which is not, or whether eating of shellfish is permitted in Islam, but all of them agree on the Quran.

The above implies that differences between interpretations of the Quran are minimal, superficial and innocuous.
(Infact Shia and Sunni agree so much they can't stop killing each other)

Originally posted by babloyi:
I told you about the MOST AUTHORITATIVE muslim sources (The Quran and Hadith), and again you quote me the same Qutbah from the al-qaeeda linked Wahabi guy.

The above implies that some sects (like Wahabi) interpret the Quran in the completely wrong way.
(These innocuous differences appear to give momentum to terrorist acts.)

I am also satisfied that the Quran prescribes hate towards non Muslims: all unbelievers are evil.

Please explain the following three verses from the Quran….(dozens more like these)

YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?

YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

I was shocked to discover that I am reviled and considered scum by people who do not know me. Why am I the “worst of creatures” ? Why should my neck and all my finger-tips be smitten ?

Sites like “Islam on line” and “Wikipedia” confirm that Kafir is derogatory term.
I have also given you links that show that the word Kafir is freely interchanged with the word disbeliever.

Please explain why your words carry more authority than theirs, have you written books, are you a famous commentator, do you have a following or the ability to influence Islam ?

Originally posted by babloyi
Also, if you don't mind too much telling me, what is your field of work? What do/did you do for a living?

I am a "Belly Dancer".

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:44 AM
reply to post by Ersatz

I said the Quran was the most authoritative source, nothing about 'interpretations of the Quran'. If you notice, I've steered clear of using anything involving 'interpretations'- I quoted directly from the source, and when you questioned the validity of the translations, I provided a word-by-word translation along with the original arabic.

I'm not sure why you quoted 98:06 when it's an almost word-for-word repetition of the verse I quoted above from Surah Al-Baqarah. You can check here and here. It says basically what I said before...that a 'kafir' is not necessarily a non-muslim.

If you read Surah 4 verse 144 in context, you'll notice that it's not talking about non-muslims, but about hypocrites (showing once again, that while a non-muslim is not necessarily a kafir, people who call themselves 'muslims' may also actually be kafir). Also, to note, it uses the same word 'awliya' (اوليا) that was brought up earlier in this thread: better translated as protectors, or allies, or helpers, or guarders, or givers of patronage.

About Surah 8, verse 12: if you actually read the passage, you'll notice it is about a battle that the muslims were involved in. It mentions how God promised to aid the muslims, and ordered 1000 angels, who were then given the instructions that you quoted. Are you suggesting that militant extremists consider themselves to be angels?!

I never said that 'kafir' was not a derogatory term. I have written no books at all on the subject, but I showed you conclusive, irrefutable, definitive proof in plain black and white writing, from the Quran, which is indisputably the most authoritative text on Islam. Are you suggesting that truth is relative to the number of books one has written, or how large one's following is?

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:09 AM
You are slowly cutting the very branch on which you perch.

Christians and Jews may be people of the Book, but they are also infidels and infidels are kafir. Polytheists are Hindus, but they are also kafirs.
Christians and Jews are also called by some Muslims Pigs and Apes.

The Quran contains a massive amount of hateful, hurtful and evil things said about the kafirs/ disbelievers.

Yes, the Arabic term awliya', has several meanings including "friend," "helper," "protector," "ally."

The most widely used English translations are those of Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir (two Sunnis and one Shi’a).

It is significant that all three translate it as “friends” : Do not take unbelievers for friends.
It is also significant that Muslims do not take unbelievers for friends.

Verse 8:012
I was not suggesting that militant extremists consider themselves to be angels. I was merely pointing out Allah’s fine example/treatment in store for the disbelievers.

YUSUFALI: This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment
YUSUFALI: Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

Allah invites Muslims to taste of the infidels’ punishment? Um, by slaughtering them? Are they supposed to relish the fact that they’re butchering people, cutting off their heads and fingers?

Some instructions, this God really loves his creation! !

And you know what? None of these instructions are for a single event or a single conflict, there is no “sell by date”; the Quran is the final guidance for Muslims for all time.

80% of the world population is made up of disbelievers, infidels and kafirs.

I too am one of them… you haven’t explained why my neck and finger tips should be cut, nor have you told me why I am “the worst of creatures”.

What have I done to Muslims or for that matter, what have Eskimos, Chinese, Brazilians etc ever done to Muslims?

I am not exactly a Christian but it sounds like the opposite of Jesus’ teaching: Love your neighbour as yourself;
Mohammed teaches: Hate your neighbour “if not” like yourself.

How can you take these ugly thoughts to bed every night?

Confucius He says:

"If you go to bed with itchy bum, you wake up with smerry fingels.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by Ersatz

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, it doesn't seem that you want to accept it. I just showed you where the Quran differentiates between 'kafir's and 'People of the book' (Christians, Jews, etc).

About the Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir translations- no, they are not the most widely used (I've never seen a Shakir translation at any bookshop), they are just the ones that are available at . And just because the Yusuf Ali and Pickthall are famous translations, doesn't make them right in every case (and I have found the occasional mistake).

Once again, I don't think you really noticed what I said about 8:12 (or even read the passage it was in). The original verse you quoted didn't show anything to do with punishment in store for unbelievers. It was talking about the help God had ALREADY given to the muslims- via the angels. There are no instructions for muslims in that passage. Unless you are at least one and a half millennia in age, and have powers of invulnerabiliy, your neck and fingertips weren't cut by any angels.

I believe the actual line is "A man with an itchy bum, wakes up with a smelly thumb". Another one I like is "A man who eats jellybeans, farts in technicolor".

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:04 AM
babloyi & Ersatz

This is generating a lot of heat. (And smell.)

As I understand it Ersatz is particularly concerned with how interpretations that involve promoting violence have become widespread, whereas babloyi is saying the interpretations are incorrect.

Would the solution perhaps be that people like babloyi with an in-depth knowledge of the Koran found ways of being heard more widely, as they undeniably have something worth saying? babloyi - I trust you can see this is meant as encouragement, not criticism.

Ersatz - do you not welcome the fact that there are knowledgeable Muslims who say that the Koran is being misused to promote conflict? I.e. could you not take on board the possibility that Islam has been hijacked by extremists? In any case I see as constructive the fact that you are very knowledgeably laying before people like babloyi
the reasons why many non-Muslims doubt that it is at heart a peaceful religion.

babloyi - would you say that that answering Ersatz' many serious points is always straight-forward because of your knowledge of the language, or are there parts of the Koran that at least sometimes give scope for aggression against non-Muslims for no other reason other than their failure to accept Islam?

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by pause4thought

Hello pause4thought!

Truth is, I wouldn't really say I have an unusual amount of knowledge about the Quran. Arabic is not my first language (or my second
), although I can speak a few words in contemporary, colloquial arabic. I own an arabic-english dictionary, as well as a quranic-arabic dictionary. I have a number of Qurans with different translations, and have read through the entire book twice.
When someone brings up a point about something, I usually check it up with a combination of all these things.

The thing is, for example, with those 'anti-islamic' sites with there huge lists- they usually seem to work with quantity over quality, trying to drown out any responses in an avalanche of "10,001 things wrong with Islam" and such. Almost all these points can be discounted by just reading the passage it was in (instead of lists where they are quoting out of context, cutting out pertinent parts of the verse, etc)- the very small amount of remaining points can be understood with a little research.
Now I'm not saying that there aren't terrorists and extremists who work under the guise of Islam. They do the same thing as well. However, more often I've seen they don't even quote from the Quran, or instead, just say "According to Muhammad (SAW) I am right!".

The reason I am taking such pains to respond to Ersatz is because, as I said in a previous post, he believes that these problems come from the core of what is Islam, as opposed to some people who decievingly use Islam as a platform for their nefarious acts.
Don't get me wrong, if someone say something along the lines of "I don't believe in Islam because they reject that Jesus was God", there isn't much I can say to disagree with them (I may bring the ball over to their court, and discuss things written in the Bible). However, if someone says (for example) "I believe Islam is evil and Allah is satan, because they practice honour killings", I'd be sure to point out to them that Islam in no way sanctions honour killings.

Confucius says: "He who farts in church, sits in his own pew"

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by babloyi


I was with you till the last sentence. (I presume you were expressing annoyance with some of the ways Ersatz has challenged you?)

It's very refreshing to hear a serious Muslim speak eloquently in defiance of extremist radical Islamists. And although it seems many people really need to hear such sentiments more frequently in order to have their fears of Islam/Muslims allayed, I personally simply accept that even many of those within the Muslim community who fear to speak out against extremists are in reality decent, peace-loving members of society.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by pause4thought annoyance at all! I was just carrying on the joke, and remembered another one. No offence meant to anybody's church, it was just a subtle (hah!) punnish play on word pew and....oh, never mind!

Sniff...Nobody ever gets my humour....

About fearing to speak out, I don't think there is any fear, really. I've become friendly with many conservative, 'traditional' muslim families in many parts of the world, and whenever such a topic came up, there was always unequivocal condemnation. Even local newspapers had the same tone. Perhaps fear may play a part in some of the more dangerous places, like Taliban Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia (?), or current Iraq, but in the rest of the muslim world (I can vouch for Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.), there seems to be no problem.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by babloyi]

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:41 PM
Guys, first of all I would like to say, that if you don't want to be confused as a female, then you shouldn't put up femine avatars.

Ersatz - Great job, you have been ganged up on, but you have held your own. While your opponents have done a good job of showing that Islam is not all about agression, or discrimination, they have failed to address your central points.

Phoenix - I hope the numbers of Moderate Muslims willing to speak out against terrorism continues to grow. There are a great many Muslims who see that this type of warfare is wrong. All cultures have their fair share of groups who try to dominate the whole through aggressive behavior.

babloyi - Any religion that practices such an act as Honor killings is evil. Now, is the practice of honor killings acceptable to Islam? I hope not. Honestly, I think that most likely those who practice such an attrocity are among the extremist, and that Mainstream Islam sees such a practice as the evil that it is, or at least I hope this is the situation.

pause4thought - Do you recognize that the crusades were started in response to Islamic aggression? The Muslims captured Jerusalem, and began abusing Christians who made pilgrimages there. This stirred up hostility against the Muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries against Christianity. The Crusades were completely justified.

This is the big thing I would like to bring up about this discussion that I think goes to the heart of the matter, comes from these verses in the Koran.

[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.

[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

This concept that "you may evict them wince they evicted you", and the statement "Oppression is worse than murder" leaves things open for a very broad interpretation.

This statement that "you may evict them wince they evicted you" doesn't define who had what rights. What if you took up claim to property that was not yours to claim? Throw in this concept that "You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely." pretty much gives people the right to be agressive any time they feel they are being oppressed, or their religious beliefs are being compromised. What I read here is that when ever you disagree with others, you have a right to fight them. These verses speak nothing about seeking out justice. If unfairly evicted, you should seek out justice, not start a fight. You have to consider that you were evicted for just reasons, and counsel should be sought, but that is not what these verses say. When you religious belief contradict the beliefs of others, that should not give you the right to fight. When ones religious beliefs conflict with anothers, and the worship of ones vision of God conflicts with the worship of anothers belief in God, who is allowed to worship God Freely. Fighting is not the answer.

We all have different interpretations of all things, especially words in books like the Koran and the Bible. Actions speak louder than words. When others attack you, you have the right to defend yourself. People who deny Muslim aggression are denying reality.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Dear Poet1b

Thank you for your support !

Here is one of very few contemporary historical record of warring Arabs.

Thomas The Presbyter (Writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH) :

“AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region”.

Isn’t it ironic that they unnecessarily slaughtered so many Palestinians!

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by pause4thought

Babloyi says to you:

I wouldn't really say I have an unusual amount of knowledge about the Quran. Arabic is not my first language (or my second), although I can speak a few words in contemporary, colloquial arabic. I own an arabic-english dictionary, as well as a quranic-arabic dictionary.

Babloyi says to me:

And just because the Yusuf Ali and Pickthall are famous translations, doesn't make them right in every case (and I have found the occasional mistake). .

Somebody who says that, is no “usual” “casual” “ordinary” Muslim; one needs to be almost a fanatic to claim such in depth knowledge.

Babloyi is a wolf dressed up as lamb. He is using the well known tactic of wearing down opponents by arguing irrelevant details only.
Whilst we are debating how many Angels will fit on the head of a pin we all forget that a pin can pierce your skin and hurt.

In my view all problems come from the core of Islam.

When the Twin Towers were hit, Al Jazeera’s images from the Middle east recorded great celebrations and shouts of Allah Akhbar.

There has been no march on Mecca or anywhere to protest against terrorism, no high level indignation or condemnation.

Please read the Medina verses and see how the Quran defines non Muslims and what can be done to them.
No one wants to be insulted, raped, robbed, killed, threatened or tortured. No one wants to be treated badly. No one wants to be rejected as the "other." The dirty kafir.

The Golden Rule, (centered on ethics rather than god) is universal to all cultures, except Islam..

By the Golden Rule I mean “treat others as you wish to be treated”

The Golden Rule removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the unbelievers.

What is amazing is how much the Golden Rule removes from the Quran.

Over 50 % of the Quran vanishes.

Muslims are aware of the ugliness in the Quran and many of them have tried to make reforms;
Quranists or Quran Alone are the most coherent and advanced in this attempt.

Although I only care about Islam treats non Muslims, the Golden Rule would also remove all of the dualistic rules about women in Islam.

Unfortunately Muslims will never accept, on any level, removal of parts of the Quran.
Their reasoning is: if the Quran is the word of God, then whom are we to "correct" or "censor" his words?
I happen to believe that the Quran is not the word of God.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Ersatz]

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by babloyi

I notice that you have once again you have omitted to answer some questions I asked.
Is it because you find them awkward ? Are you showing me how Taqyyia works?

The online English version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir also translates it as “friends.” Do not take unbelievers as your friends.

( The translation is based on the ten-volume translation done by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri. It is published by Darussalam Publishers & Distributors located in Riyadh, Houston, New York, and Lahore.)
Do you have problems with this one as well?

Why do you not give the link of an internationally accepted on line translation that does not translate it as “friends”

Furthermore the Quran also tells us:
Those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God or the Trinity were denounced as blasphemers/ unbelievers (5:72, 73) and therefore Kuffar.

YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

You appear never to grow weary of discussing irrelevant details.

You seem unwilling to address your own contradictions and the wider issue.

A well known tactic to prevaricate and avoid uncomfortable truths.

The Quran is full of hate towards all non Muslims… Christians, Jews, idolaters polytheist, unbelievers and kafirs. Muslims are instructed to hate everybody who has not submitted to Allah.

Where does it promote Universal Brotherhood?

Terrorists and extremists do not work under the guise of Islam, They exist because of Islam.

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden--such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book--until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

And of course Osama Bin Laden favorite verse :
(Bin Laden speaks fluent Arabic and He seems in no doubt on what the Quran says)

From his Sermon in 1993.

Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood. Praise be to Allah who said ‘When the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them captive, lay siege to them and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayers and give alms, let them go. For God is most forgiving and merciful.’

P.S. Babloyi, I liked the jelly beans joke….

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 01:42 AM
To all the Christians, Jews, idolaters polytheist, unbelievers kafirs who read this post and do not know what Allah has in store in the hereafter; the following is a glimpse of Hell that Allah created specially for us:

(To avoid Hell you must submit to Allah; Islam means submission.)
3.085 YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

Allah will peel off your skin head to toe while you are conscious.
Allah will then cut you into pieces.
He will then put salt and pepper on your flesh.
If you become unconscious with pain, then he will provide you with more consciousness to ensure you feel maximum pain.
Then he will burn you on fire.
If you ask for water to drink, all merciful, compassionate, Almighty Allah will give you molten lava to drink.
If you started to die, Almighty Allah will give you another life and another, and yet another to be sure you suffer forever.

But if you Submit you will go to Paradise; specially alluring if you are a man….

"As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed virgins for companions: a truly overflowing cup."

"Verily! The righteous will be in Paradise. Among Gardens and Springs; Dressed in fine silk and also in thick silk, facing each other, and We shall marry them to Houris with wide, lovely eyes."

"Verily, for those who fear Allah there will be Gardens in Paradise, filled with Delight. Enjoying in that which their Lord has bestowed on them, and the fact that their Lord saved them from the torment of the blazing Fire. The Lord will say: ‘Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do’. They will recline with ease on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes."

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Hello poet1b!
As I said before, Islam does not allow honour killings. The situation is that there are some backward, tribal areas that sanction honour killings (or give a weak punishment to offenders), but this is more a tribal practice than anything to do with Islam.

About those verses you posted, you may be getting hung up on the translation as 'evicted'. The quran does not mean this in the legalistic sense it is taken today. You could also translate it as 'turn them out from where they turned you out' or 'drive them out from where they drove you out', or 'expel them from where they expelled you'. Added to the fact that you can't really take over someone's property, your problem seems to have disappeared. Also, consider that it also talks about fighting those who wage war against you, or with those who are the aggressors, and if they stop, you stop.

(PS: what translation are you using? Because some sentences seem to be combined together and such...or did you just do that yourself to more clearly make your point?)

reply to post by Ersatz

It's getting very difficult to converse with you, Ersatz. While you claim that I "wear down opponents arguing irrelevant details only", and that I'm a "wolf in sheeps clothing" (hahahahahah!), you on the other hand seem to ignore all my previous posts, and repeat the same arguments again and again. I have explained where and when the practice of taqiyya is acceptable (and even have backing from Islamic texts), yet you continue to ignore that.

The Tafsir-Ibn-Kathir was written some time in the late 14th century. As far removed from the time of Muhammad and the Quran as it is removed from today, where english is the main spoken language.

As for "Internationally accepted" online translations that don't use friends: the Rashad Khalifa translation, the Hilali-Khan and Hilali-Khan/Saheeh Translation, The Quran As It Explains Itself (Shabbir Ahmad), the Free Minds translation, the Hassan Al-Fatih Qaribullah translation, the George Sale translation and the Muhamad Asad translation.

Ersatz, I address whatever you talk about. Should I ignore a certain point that you got wrong, simply because you consider it an 'irrelevant detail'?

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by babloyi

Ersatz, I address whatever you talk about. Should I ignore a certain point that you got wrong, simply because you consider it an 'irrelevant detail'?

I can count a good number of questions that you have not addressed, instead you seem to be morbidly interested in the translation/meaning of words and have concentrated your response on the significance of the the Arabic term awliya' ( friends or ally) and the term Taqiyya.

You are wrong on both occasions and the fact that you have given “an explanation” does not make it true.

Do you understand the concept of “by their fruits shall you judge them” and “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” ?

Whether the translation is friend or ally, the reality is that Muslims do not make friends with non Muslims, they do not integrate in western society.
ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.

This behavior causes reciprocal distrust.

Why didn’t your enlightened God foresee this obvious problem? (Question)

With regards to Taqiyya you said:

“taqiya, the practice of lying about ones faith when one's life is in danger? I'm sorry, I can't use taqiya right now, because you don't have a gun to my head.

It is only allowed when one is in mortal danger if they speak the truth- for example if a person was going around asking people their religion, and then shooting Muslims. In this case, a muslim would be permitted to say they are non-muslim”.

I replied :

“According to your logic all those Muslims who are intent on killing innocents and spend years plotting, lying and deceiving do so under duress because someone is pointing a gun at their heads”.

Must I remind you that all the participants to the 9/11, Madrid and London bombings must have lied and deceived all the people they met. What guns did they have at their heads months before the events?

What about the doctors that lived and practiced in England for years before turning terrorists;
Did they have a gun at their head when they were disguising their hate for the non Muslims? (question)

Here is more about Taqiyya:

Isn’t it irresponsible on the part of Allah to reveal words that have a meaning for some Muslims and a completely different meaning for other Muslims? (question)

And if you want to see what kind of preaching goes on in Mosques that are supposed to be spreading tolerant and peaceful Islam then go watch "Undercover Mosque".

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in