U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-07-2015, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
Modern societies have nothing like offensive Jihad? I really-really hope you aren't serious.

Here's a wonderful list of wars in the name of "spreading freedom & democracy!!!!"...also known as spreading imperialism through outright invasion & takeover and/or attempting to force the hand of certain countries to put Governments/dictators in place that are friendly to "modern societies" imperialist interests.
...list snipped ...
The above deflection is a fallacy. Note I wrote this in another post;
http://www.city-data.com/forum/40323292-post130.html
This deflection does not serves any strength for your argument but reflect badly upon your intellectual competence and integrity due to desperation. I know you have at least average intellectual competence, but drowning in a religion [faith = belief without reason nor proofs] forces and drag one's intellectual integrity down.

When resorting to such a fallacy, it actually reinforces the opponent's point. You are readily admitting Islam does promote evil and violence [which is a fact any way] but you are trying to claim [falsely] it is lesser than others.

If you want to compare Islamic-related evil and violence with those of the secular, I believe Islam pose a much greater threat to humanity from hereon towards the future and could even cause humanity to be extinct prematurely. This has to be done on another thread.


 
Old 07-07-2015, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
The only time Jihad can be physically violent is when it is called for by Allaah(swt) under the direction of a Caliph. That will not happen again until Jesus(as) returns.
Say what you want from your own bias perspective which not all Muslims will respect.
The reality is Muslims from SOME [20% = 300 million ] are very zealous to comply with Allah and Muhammad message on Jihad and committing real evils and violence. Since there are no central authority, WHO is decide whether they are right or wrong!

Juju had provide a listing from the Quran [there are other 300++ verses supporting Jihad] Hadiths, and Sira.

At another level what really trigger the Jihadist to act is likely to be from other very authoritative texts like the
Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik: Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib, Noah Ha Mim Keller: 9780915957729: Amazon.com: Books
The Reliance is a further exposition of the Quran with support from the Hadiths and Sira.
In his introduction to the Umdat al-Salik, Keller notes that: The four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions,
Here is a listing re Jihad from the Reliance of the Traveller;

Pay particular attention to the the text following the citation to 4:95. It informs us that there is an annually recurring obligation to attack kuffar. Al Shafi'i has made the matter perfectly clear.
"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."
The Reliance of the Traveller has advice/instructions of how Muslims should treat the Kuffar [non-Muslims] in the most vile and abominable nature that is beyond any basic human dignity.

In the zeal to as close as possible to Allah, SOME Muslims will do their best to comply with the interpretations and message of the above texts.
Worth repeating:
Since there are no central authority, WHO is decide whether their action as Muslims of the religion of Islam are right or wrong!
 
Old 07-07-2015, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess View Post
A quote from a different thread from a Muslim here:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
Aggressive Jihad exists and can be halal! However...there is a lot of fiqh (jurisprudence) behind it and it requires a proper Islamic ruler and/or Caliph to lead it. In other words there can be no attack on foreign lands without an order from the commander in chief, very similar to how most militaries and societies work. No we will not apologize for this type of Jihad, and further this type of Jihad hasn't existed for nearly 100 years because we've been without a Caliph for nearly a century thanks in large part to the British and French colonialists.
Of course, modern societies do not really have anything like aggressive jihad in them. It would be seen as completely immoral.

What we are talking about here, is the pure evil of Islamic mass murder and oppression of unbelievers.
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
If what you were referring to in the OP was halal offensive Jihad done under a Caliph, then no we will not apologize for it. If this was more than a century ago and we had a Caliph that ordained Jihad, I would pray to have been able to join them.
And this poster would happily have taken part in the violence!!
War itself is very evil as driven by basic human nature.
Whilst wars will happen at present and the near future, humanity must strive to prevent wars in the future.

That PDXNative2Houston support aggressive Jihad is a terrible negative moral mistake which is influenced by religion. It is unfortunate that his religion has elements that condone wars [regardless of whatever nature] that influence him/her to take such an evil stance.

The purpose of religion is solely to deal with the existential dilemma which should be personal and private, and NEVER should it be a Way of Life.
As such wars should only be confined to politics at present while we need to strive hard to get rid of wars in the future.

There is no grounds at all for any religion which is supposed to the Peaceful to be involved in wars that causes untold human sufferings.

What grounds? The following are groundless.
1. The message of God from a human - this is impossible because
2. It is impossible for God to exists as real
3. Religions are purely to deal with personal psychology.

It was an immoral mistake to associate wars with religions in the past.
Any war elements in any religious contexts must be disencumbered and disengaged from a religion to prevent religion related wars in the future.
 
Old 07-08-2015, 03:08 AM
 
226 posts, read 123,550 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Jihad is defensive and not aggressive

Yes, well, many other Muslims disagree with you.
 
Old 07-08-2015, 03:15 AM
 
226 posts, read 123,550 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
Modern societies have nothing like offensive Jihad? I really-really hope you aren't serious.

You have openly said you support the mass murder and oppression of non-Muslims. (Which is what aggressive jihad involves.)

Trying to find a comparison with the Vietnam War etc. is really very silly, and even if it worked, it would do nothing to change the extreme evil of your version of Islam.
 
Old 07-08-2015, 09:53 AM
 
1,666 posts, read 768,750 times
Reputation: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess View Post
You have openly said you support the mass murder and oppression of non-Muslims. (Which is what aggressive jihad involves.)

Trying to find a comparison with the Vietnam War etc. is really very silly, and even if it worked, it would do nothing to change the extreme evil of your version of Islam.
You make a faulty assumption based off of a lack of knowledge of what a proper Jihad is and what it entails. The early Sahaba in their conquest of Egypt from the Byzantines actually garnered the local support of the Coptic Christians because of two reasons, #1. The Muslim State allowed complete free practice of worship to those Coptics, while the Byzantines viewed them as deviant Christians. #2. The Jizya tax they imposed was significantly less than what was imposed by the Byzantines. Not only was their little resistance but some of the Coptics joined the Muslim army! Surely if this offensive Jihad was "mass murder and oppression" then such people wouldn't have came under rule of Muslims so easily.

This above example was duplicated in Palestine whereby the Bishop of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre offered the invading Muslim Caliph Omar (ra) to pray in the Church unto which Omar (ra) refused as he did not want the Church to later be declared a Muslim-associated site. Further the Muslim Caliphs allowed your people (the Jews) not only to return to Jerusalem, but to pray on the Temple Mount next to Al-Aqsa Mosque!

Then even further to drive the point home, the Ottoman caliphate at one point had a *majority* Christian population, and a court system which completely exempted non-Muslims from Sharia law. Let that sit in for a moment.

The vision you have of Jihad has been shaped by people like OBL, ISIS, Sam Shammoun, Pamela Geller and so on and it's unfortunate. Normative Islamic thought simply doesn't support these views and Islam would not have spread as it did without a high degree of tolerance for non-Muslims that came under their domain. That would simply be illogical.
 
Old 07-08-2015, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
The vision you have of Jihad has been shaped by people like OBL, ISIS, Sam Shammoun, Pamela Geller and so on and it's unfortunate.
Normative Islamic thought simply doesn't support these views and Islam would not have spread as it did without a high degree of tolerance for non-Muslims that came under their domain. That would simply be illogical.
From my analysis, the first 9 chapters of the standard Quran contain the following;

1. There are 898!! negative [evil-laden] verses of various degrees to the vilest form directed at the Kuffar.
2. There are 201 verses supporting warfare on the Kuffar.

Note the above quantum are a very serious issue.

First impression is critical and thus as it really had happened, the above evil laden verses from the first 9 chapters generate the thrust of warfare in the Cause of Allah or 'Way of Allah.' This is what form the Normative Islamic thought of most Muslims and acted upon by SOME evil prone Muslims.

I believe OBL, ISIS, Boko, and others who had caused terror and havoc upon humanity in the past and will do so in the future are subliminally driven by this current supporting the 'Cause of Allah' as dictated in the Quran. It is only natural and normative for them to follow as close as possible to what God dictated in the Quran to ensure they are the 'successful' and favored ones [re 56:7] to go directly to paradise.

Sam Shammoun, Pamela Geller, Spencer, Wood, many ex-Muslims etc. are merely responding to the real serious potential threats to humanity as braver human beings. Unfortunately I admit I am a coward as anonymous critique of Islam. Perhaps Geller, Wilder, and the likes make noise [albeit relevant], but Shammoun, Spencer, Wood are very serious scholars of the Quran and Islam. They may be slightly bias but they cannot stray far. This is because they are making reference and quote from the original sources re the holy texts of Islam which any one can counter check to form their own opinions.

As for tolerance of non-Muslims, that is because the conquerors has to have a majority to leech from but that is conditioned upon the subjugation and treating them as dhimmis.
As for the aggressors they [Muslims] would prefer to exterminate the non-Muslims if they can form their own nation. They only tolerate not because they are genuinely and unconditionally compassionate [no such provision in the Quran] but because they have to rely on non-Muslims for various reasons, e.g. Saudi depending on security from US and allies.
 
Old 07-09-2015, 09:14 AM
 
1,666 posts, read 768,750 times
Reputation: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
From my analysis, the first 9 chapters of the standard Quran contain the following;

1. There are 898!! negative [evil-laden] verses of various degrees to the vilest form directed at the Kuffar.
2. There are 201 verses supporting warfare on the Kuffar.

Note the above quantum are a very serious issue.
I'd want to see how you came up with the figure of 898 or 201...is that copy-pasted from some website? Further what you're deeming as "evil" is due to a misunderstanding of context, tafsir and the realization that specific cherry-picked verses really tell you nothing. One must encompass the verses in totality as well as encompass the Sahih-hadeeth on a particular topic in order to come up with conclusions and determine what the fatwa should be for a given place and time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
First impression is critical and thus as it really had happened, the above evil laden verses from the first 9 chapters generate the thrust of warfare in the Cause of Allah or 'Way of Allah.' This is what form the Normative Islamic thought of most Muslims and acted upon by SOME evil prone Muslims.

I believe OBL, ISIS, Boko, and others who had caused terror and havoc upon humanity in the past and will do so in the future are subliminally driven by this current supporting the 'Cause of Allah' as dictated in the Quran. It is only natural and normative for them to follow as close as possible to what God dictated in the Quran to ensure they are the 'successful' and favored ones [re 56:7] to go directly to paradise.
It is neither natural or normative in Islamic thought to place mass explosives in a Mosque on a Friday prayer in order to make a political point or start sectarian based wars. What is a correct understanding is what is found here: *Muslim attitudes towards violence and how to react to kaafir aggression against the Muslim community - islamqa.info and I quote, "At times of war against the kuffaar, it is not permissible for a Muslim to deliberately kill a kaafir child or woman who is not bearing arms against the Muslims or helping in the fight. It was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the Muslim army: “Go out in the name of Allaah and by the help of Allaah, following the way of the Messenger of Allaah. Do not kill any old man, infant, child or woman… spread goodness and do good, for Allaah loves those who do good.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2614)

"But when you can achieve your purpose with gentleness and kindness, it is not right to resort to violence and force. Muslims should only use force when they are compelled to, and as a last resort. They should not initiate fighting, unless there is some cause on the part of the kaafirs, such as their fighting the Muslims, or helping other enemies of the Muslims, or preventing them from following the path of Allaah and establishing the law of Allaah in the land."

Therefore we can gather from the above that terrorism in it's entirety is clearly-clearly haraam. One may fight enemy *combatants* in Jihad but doing something akin to 9/11 is strictly forbidden and those individuals will be held accountable for it in front of Allah (swt).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Sam Shammoun, Pamela Geller, Spencer, Wood, many ex-Muslims etc. are merely responding to the real serious potential threats to humanity as braver human beings. Unfortunately I admit I am a coward as anonymous critique of Islam. Perhaps Geller, Wilder, and the likes make noise [albeit relevant], but Shammoun, Spencer, Wood are very serious scholars of the Quran and Islam. They may be slightly bias but they cannot stray far. This is because they are making reference and quote from the original sources re the holy texts of Islam which any one can counter check to form their own opinions.

As for tolerance of non-Muslims, that is because the conquerors has to have a majority to leech from but that is conditioned upon the subjugation and treating them as dhimmis.
As for the aggressors they [Muslims] would prefer to exterminate the non-Muslims if they can form their own nation. They only tolerate not because they are genuinely and unconditionally compassionate [no such provision in the Quran] but because they have to rely on non-Muslims for various reasons, e.g. Saudi depending on security from US and allies.
Oh gosh, Shammoun, Spencer and Wood are far-far from being scholars of Islam. Please refer to my response on another post of what it takes to even study Quran at an accredited Islamic University. These people are cherry-pickers and their opinions and conclusions are about as valid as a first year pre-med student's conclusions on what will cure breast cancer.

Your second conclusion regarding minority religions in an Islamic state is patently false. Our stance on them is neither from compassion nor greed, but rather we abide but what we are commanded to do. Further if it was the case that we wanted to "wipe out" minority religions, Judaism would most likely not exist today (as the Caliphs had always protected that community and further explicitly invited them to leave the pogroms of Europe for protection in Muslim lands) and Christianity would have never eclipsed a majority in the Ottoman Caliphate. We certainly could not be accused of "leeching" off of them as the Muslims were the enlightened, progressive and scientifically most advanced society in the world at their peak of power...there is nothing we could have garnered from European Christians or Jews at that time but they did learn a lot from us...spurring on their renaissance.
 
Old 07-09-2015, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,580,662 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston View Post
I'd want to see how you came up with the figure of 898 or 201...is that copy-pasted from some website? Further what you're deeming as "evil" is due to a misunderstanding of context, tafsir and the realization that specific cherry-picked verses really tell you nothing. One must encompass the verses in totality as well as encompass the Sahih-hadeeth on a particular topic in order to come up with conclusions and determine what the fatwa should be for a given place and time.
I have done extensively 'scholarly-standard' research on 'what is evil' from the philosophically perspective. I have gone through with Woodrow on this point.

'Evil' is a very loose term. As such we have to define what is 'evil' and preferably get consensus before we proceed.

I define 'evil' as anything [re human beings] that is negative to the well-being of other individuals, groups and humanity.
What is evil as defined comes in degrees, e.g. 1-(lowest) to 100(highest).
Note this blog post:
http://www.city-data.com/blogs/blog3...vil-prone.html

The 898 or 201 types of verses are based on my own fine-toothed comb analysis.
What I have done is I put the 6236 verses of the Quran in one EXCEL column [presumed you know this popular spreadsheet software?].
Then analyzed each verse across 300+ columns of different variables of main topics and sub-elements. Each verse may contain up to 10 elements.
With this I can analyze the variables in terms of the whole of the Quran, by chapters, chronological order, Mecca/Medina phases, elements of each verses and cross-referring to other verses.
I have spent a LOT of time on this analysis and still have a long way to go.

I don't think it is enough to check the verses merely in the context of the Quran, Hadiths, Sira, but we should check it against the wider context of humanity and the universe.
As for the wider context note this blog post:
http://www.city-data.com/blogs/blog3...fectively.html

Quote:
It is neither natural or normative in Islamic thought to place mass explosives
in a Mosque on a Friday prayer in order to make a political point or start
sectarian based wars.
What is a correct understanding is what is found here: *Muslim attitudes towards
violence and how to react to kaafir aggression against the Muslim community -
islamqa.info



and I quote,
"At times of war against the kuffaar, it is not
permissible for a Muslim to deliberately kill a kaafir child or woman who is not
bearing arms against the Muslims or helping in the fight. It was narrated
that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the Muslim
army: “Go out in the name of Allaah and by the help of Allaah, following the
way of the Messenger of Allaah. Do not kill any old man, infant, child or woman…
spread goodness and do good, for Allaah loves those who do good.” (Narrated
by Abu Dawood, 2614)

"But when you can achieve your purpose with gentleness and kindness, it is not right to resort to violence and force. Muslims should only use force when they are compelled to, and as a last resort. They should not initiate fighting, unless there is some cause on the part of the kaafirs, such as their fighting the Muslims, or helping other enemies of the Muslims, or preventing them from following the path of Allaah and establishing the law of Allaah in the land."

Therefore we can gather from the above that terrorism in it's entirety is clearly-clearly haraam. One may fight enemy *combatants* in Jihad but doing something akin to 9/11 is strictly forbidden and those individuals will be held accountable for it in front of Allah (swt).
1. I said it is very natural and normative for any Muslim to be act as close as possible [even to perfection] to what God dictate in the Quran.
2. Now there are say about 20% = 300 millions!! of Muslims who are evil prone of various degrees [1-low to 100-high). Note even one lone wolf is dangerous, e.g. Tunisian Beach Terror.
3. It is the combination of point 1 and 2 that result in real terrible evils and violence around the word.

There are thousands of hadiths of good to the very evil.
Since there is no central authority to decide what is wrong or rights, who is to tell those jihadists whether they are right or wrong. The jihadists are very certain they will go straight to heaven with double credits and Muslims can only be certain on Judgment Day.

It is for Allah to judge not you or any experts [they cannot be better than Allah] to make judgment on earth.
The jihadists would have a checklists of the verses from the Quran and they are doing exactly what is stipulated therein without fail.

It is the moderates who are not VERY good Muslims because they twist and turn the verses to suit their own expectations which is in fact good human attributes.

My point, a VERY-good-Muslim* cannot be a VERY good progressive human and vice versa.
*One that has to follow the Quran to the 't'.


Quote:
Oh gosh, Shammoun, Spencer and Wood are far-far from being scholars of Islam.
Please refer to my response on another post of what it takes to even study Quran
at an accredited Islamic University. These people are cherry-pickers and their
opinions and conclusions are about as valid as a first year pre-med student's
conclusions on what will cure breast cancer.
Have you read and listen to most of what they have written? I researched the Quran very thoroughly and I can verify there are reasonable scholar of Islam. I agree they have some bias and oversights but they are not significant enough to be intellectually impaired. After all whatever the quotes they made I can cross check to the Quran and other texts and make my own opinion.

Btw, the best Islamic scholars [Muslims] of Islam can the worst-scholar from the academic perspective. This is because ultimately Islamic scholars are heavily influenced by very deep psychological, emotional elements and blind faith. There is no way they can be objective at all, e.g. like in science and others.

Quote:
Your second conclusion regarding minority religions in an Islamic state is patently false. Our stance on them is neither from compassion nor greed, but rather we abide but what we are commanded to do. Further if it was the case that we wanted to "wipe out" minority religions, Judaism would most likely not exist today (as the Caliphs had always protected that community and further explicitly invited them to leave the pogroms of Europe for protection in Muslim lands) and Christianity would have never eclipsed a majority in the Ottoman Caliphate. We certainly could not be accused of "leeching" off of them as the Muslims were the enlightened, progressive and scientifically most advanced society in the world at their peak of power...there is nothing we could have garnered from European Christians or Jews at that time but they did learn a lot from us...spurring on their renaissance.
Noted 'our stance' in your post above.
As I said, how do you know your stance is the correct one. Did you and others discussed with Allah. Has any one came back from heaven or hell to confirm what is Allah actual intentions within those ambiguous verses.

Your other points can be justified from other perspectives which can be or more true than what you had expressed above. It is long story.

The point is what is it to be a true Muslims must be in compliance with what in the Quran and only Allah can be the final judge on Decision Day. IMO, unfortunately the jihadists comply very closely with what is dictated in the Quran.
 
Old 07-10-2015, 01:46 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,272,269 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess View Post
Yes, well, many other Muslims disagree with you.
and many that agree with me.

But, that is all meaningless the important thing is I always do my best to never stop seaerching as an individual and always verify what I believe to the best of my ability.


We each have to discover what it means to submit to Allaah(swt) The Qur'an tells us why we should. The How comes down to our own personal searching. The Tafsir of the scolers and Ulema along with ahadith, sunnah and Sira are tools we use as guides, but like all tools we are responsible if we misuse them to cause harm to others.Allaah(wt) has no needs, wants or desires. We have nothing to offer him. The Proof of our serving Allaah(swt) is measured in how much benefit we are to that which He created. The true worship is measured in the good we do to improve life for all living beens and to reat all creation with love, dignity and respect. The Third Pillar and center most piller is charity to all. ALL not just those who strive to perom Islam. It is our responsibility to desire more for others than what we want.for outself.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top