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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-09-2015, 07:43 PM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,951 times
Reputation: 435

Advertisements

"No houses were burned down."

So what? Muhammed was talking about burning humans. It doesn't matter about houses. The point is Muhammad orders his men to burn alive those who do not present themselves at the mosque for prayer."

Why would Muhammed do that if it was forbidden by allah. Or....is Muhammed really allah? I think I'm on to something there.....

"Do not place much trust in Ibn Ishaq. "

I trust him more than I trust Muslim apologetics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2015, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazira View Post
1. Again, i'm sunni so i use both Quran+sunna
2. Isis are not Quranist, they also use hadiths so they are supposed to know that (of course we may disagree about the understanding or the authenticity of some hadiths but that's an other subject)
So just that you know in Islam fire is forbidden -like tattooes, plastic surgery (except for accidents etc), mutilations etc- . And in the world (like or not) the majority of muslims are sunnis or shia not Quranists.
And no, there no verses about the tatooes in Quran nor plastic surgery (even if there's a verse that we can interpret that way). But do you really think you'll find an Isis member authorizing tattoes or plastic surgery centers in they "State" ?
You stated it is forbidden in the Hadiths to burn someone alive, but as Juju highlighted above, there are hadiths that condone such burning of people alive. This is not the critical point.

I am not supporting the Quranist.
My main point is whatever the source [Hadiths, own thinking etc.], the elements MUST conform with what is in the Quran [the 6,236 verses]. The Quran must prevail in all circumstances.
Now there are verses in the Quran that support the burning of infidels in relation to the World and the hereafter. Example the tribes of Thamud were stricken by lightning and people were terribly tortured by Fire in the hereafter.
The followers of ISIS were following as close as possible to what Allah had done and is doing.
Now, who are you and anyone to judge them?
On J-Day, it is between the jihadists and Allah, and Allah to decide as final.
In addition if they are pious and dutiful in their intentions to SERVE in the Way of Allah they can be forgiven for any wrong deeds.
If Allah permit the killing of infidels when Islam or Muslims are wronged, the method of killing become secondary.

You can argue your interpretation is right till the cow come home, but the reality is without any central authority in Islam where only Allah is to decide, real terrors, evils and violence will be continued to be committed by SOME zealous Muslims from potential pool of 300 million evil prone Muslims around the World.
This is the reality that your [& 80% of Muslims'] arguments cannot stop!

I suggest you face reality and avoid the Voldemort Effect [Maajid Nawaz]


Quote:
Well, the "idols" are not worshipped anymore, they are part of history.
If someone go to a museum or to see some antiquities he will not start to worship the statues.
If it would be the case then why the first caliphs (or the muslims who came after like the Fatimides, Ottomans etc) didn't destroyed their statues ?
The greatest exemple is Egypt.

But like you have see ISIS destroys the statues in Irak & Syria.
Why the caliphs didn't destroyed sooner those idols then ? Syria and Irak were muslim lands sooner after the death of the Prophet (saw).
Why we have had to wait 1400 years ? This should have be done by the first muslims if it was right.
100% of Muslims are against idols as dictated in the Quran. However, I understand 80% of Muslims may not want destroy 'idols.' 10% may destroy if they can. 10% will go all the way out to destroy 'idols'.
Praying to idols [ascribing partners besides Allah] is one of the greatest sin of Islam. Allah and Muhammad condemned and destroyed idols as per verses in the Quran.
There is no verses in the Quran that stated Muslims cannot destroy idols.
Therefore destroying idols and thus preventing from being idolized in any way should be a merit to any Muslims.
Again who are you [or any human] to judge?
Based on my understanding of the Quran, I believe Allah will NOT punish any Muslim who set out to destroy idols either current or of the past. Instead those Muslims may have the opportunity to gain extra merit points for their efforts in destroying idols for good thus leaving no possibility for people and Muslims be converted to idolize them in any way.

The point is such elements of anti-idolatry should not be presented in any holy books at all in such a negative and violent mode.
In contrast, Buddhism do not agree with idolatry but Buddhism is flexible enough to allow idolatry till the lower Buddhists improve and wean it off naturally as they progress spiritually.


Quote:
Exactly.
That's what is said in the hadiths : the fire is how ALLAH punishs people. Not us, humans.

“No one may punish using fire other than the Lord of the Fire (Allah).”

“Do not punish with the punishment of Allah!”

Hadeeth Study: Only Allaah Punishes With Fire | Bakkah.net

Have you ever seen someone burned in a muslim countries before that ?

Answer to that question. Before Isis who did that ?
We don't even use it for dead people (cremation).

And i don't remember that Allah burned people in the Quran except that it's reserved for the hereafter.
Note my reply above.
The main point is whether the acts by the followers of jihadists conform to the 6,236 verses in the Quran. That Muslims countries and others did not burn people is not relevant.
I have argued above what they did [the burning] comply with the Quran.
In addition it not for you or anyone to judge them.


Quote:
Because they also did things not in accordance with the Quran.
And because when people act in that way they can do whatever they want to please God so even things in excess.
That's why i put the verses about justice. I have quoted them on purpose to show you that justice in one of the most important things in Islam.

Exemple : your children don't practice Islam or went out of Islam.
The parents do some magic that they may come back to the religion or be good muslims.

Those parents think what they did was good, for the interest of their children and to please God but they were doing magic (which is even enought to be out of Islam) one of the worst sin in Islam.

If those people don't ask forgiveness before they die, they'll have to respond of this act before Allah.
And even of they were good muslim, they can enter to Hell.

If someone start to do things, without knowing correctly his religion then it's HIS fault.
In Islam you are responsable of what you do.

An other exemple : some people pray "saints", prophets etc
Not only christians do that but i've seen some muslims doing it to.
Well, it's shirk. They may not be aware what they do is wrong and thing it's something who will get them closer to God, but it's still the first and unforgiving sin.

So Isis and other extremist groups fall in that category.
I agree not everything that the followers of ISIS did will be in accordance to the Quran.
This is then a question of the degree and seriousness of the sins.
What is critical is how dutiful is a Muslim to the covenant with God.
If a Muslim is dutiful to the core, some sins will be forgiven by Allah on J-Day.

I have argued burning an infidel who is a threat to the Muslims is in accordance to the Quran and not a sin.
You tell me what else has the followers of ISIS done that is not in accordance to the Quran?
If any, I don't believe they are serious and overall theirs will be a NET-GAIN on J-Day when Allah do his reckoning from the Sijjin سِجِّينٍ 83:7

Therefore what the followers of ISIS and others jihadists did would not be considered wrong if based on the 6,236 verses of the Quran as the core of Islam.

Therefore what others and you viewed ISIS as evil is a judgment based on universal human values.


Quote:
I remember a muslim once stealing some products in a market.
He justified it like that : "as it's an israelis/jew product i'm just stealing from them (the supermarket in his sight) but the brand (so the jews) because they stole the palestinians so it's not really stealling and it will be a loss of money for them"



When people start some sins excusing themselves, that doesn't mean God will acccept it.

So if people kill others for this or that reasons (adultery, homosexuality,etc) they have to bring proofs (which is not as easy we already explained it).
Murder stays the sin number 2.
If you kill yourself for the cause of God even if it's not against innocent people but let say the ennemies (so the army), it's still suicide then it's still a sin. Because only God give life or take it, not you. You can't decide when you'll die.

You understand what i mean ?
If you are wrong even if you wanted at the end doing something good, it's still wrong.

If i steal money from the government and give it to a charity organization i will probably go to jail isn't it ?
If i take an orphan from a poor country to adopt him and to love and provide him everything (without asking anyone to do so but on my own) i'll probably go to jail right ?

If i kill someone who is suspected of the killing and rape of a child, i'll go to jail right ?
Even if there's proofs he did it, in our modern society i still commited murder, right ?

So, if you want to do something good you have to know your rights and duties toward the governement/society and also what you can't do.
Or it will be the jungle, anyone will do something he thinks it's "good" for the society, the environnement, etc.

You are responsable and can't say to a court " ah i didn't know i can't do this, sorry !"
Same thing with God. you can't say "Sorry i didn't check the Book, the Sheikh"
In a court you are responsable, same for the religion.
We are not in a human court.
The discussion is based on Allah's court which can only be based on the 6,236 verses of the Quran, i.e. God's word as revealed to Muhammad. Humans' words are not valid in Allah's court.
To know what is right or wrong, one Must refer to the 6,236 verses of the Quran and ultimate it is for Allah to decide. This is why I suggested elsewhere we must use the 6,236 verses of the Quran as a checklist.

Base on this, stoning to death for adultery is not permitted because [while in the Hadith] it is not in the Quran. However burning of infidels is permitted as it is represented by verses in the Quran. So the casting of terror upon and killing of infidels under the right circumstances are permitted together with other good acts as long as they conform with the verses in the Quran.


Quote:
The scholars and followers (of the first centuries) didn't destroyed the old statues, people of different faiths were living with muslims etc
I'm sorry but Isis do things that weren't done before.

It's like saying the KKK knows more what Christianity is than the first christians.
It's not because some christians killed black people and discriminated them (in the churches, buses etc) that those people are right.
If you were living in the 60's would have you think that those people are following the "real Christianity" ?

So why saying that Isis and theirs scholars are right if before the pious people didn't do what Isis do today ?
You have to be logical and fair.

And by the way, the dressing have nothing to do with the religion, it's cultural.
I wear jeans most of time not dresses (too cold where i live and not practical) so what, i'm not pious ?
It is not a question of doing things that were not done before but whether the acts comply with the Quran, i.e. the sole words of Allah.
Note I am sure Islamists of the past had destroyed towns, cultures, statues in their conquest of other lands but they did not destroy all. We need to do further research on this historical matter.

Re Christianity, if any one acts is based on the verses in the NT, then we have to condemn the NT. Christians had destroyed idols in the past and even currently because Jesus [& verses in OT] had condemned idolatry, then we should condemn the NT for such acts. This is off topic as this thread and forum is on Islam.

I agree dressing is not critical [except if indecent] but the way of dressing do reflect the zeal, drive and intent of the person in trying to be as close as possible to the dictates of the religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2015, 10:28 PM
 
2,057 posts, read 1,122,447 times
Reputation: 2101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Do not place much trust in Ibn Ishaq. Much if not all of his writings were destroyed and what we have are interpretations of interpretations along with fabricated additions etc.
Is this akin to the non-cannon religious texts of Christianity?

El Nox
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2015, 04:59 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,286,660 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox View Post
Is this akin to the non-cannon religious texts of Christianity?

El Nox
Ishaq was one of the earliest writers of the biography of Muhammad. Apparently his book was not accepted as no copies were made. Eventually his writting was either lost or destroyed. After which one of his students attempted to reconstruct it from memory. That was also destroyed and a person (Hisham) who had read that copy attempted to reconstruct it. Which is what we now have,

There are no independent writings that verify most of the events in the book. There is strong doubt what exists is not what Ishaq wrote. There is also doubt that much of what Ishaq did write, was verified to begin with/



Some more criticisms of what exists as Ishaq's book can be read here:

The-Problems-with-Ibn-Ishaq

This next link reflects more on Ishaq and does indicate he was a very trustworthy man and had high scruples. It also shows that in some of his work the authenticity was not certain.

Quote:
Throughout his work, Ibn Ishaq precedes every statement with the word za`ama or za`amu, he (they) alleged). It carries with it more than a hint that the statement may not be true, though it might be sound. This attitude reflects Ibn Ishaq's caution and fairness.
The phrase 'God knows best' speaks for itself and needs no comment. It is sometimes when the author records two conflicting traditions and is unable to say which one is correct. Another indication of the author's scrupulousness is the phrase 'God preserve me from attributing to the prophet's words which he did not use."
How Authentic is Ibn Ishaq's Biography of Prophet? - Muslim Character - counsels - OnIslam.net


Quote:
mam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaq's to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-Nisa'I and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith. [] Though some thought his use of collective isnad (chains of tranmissions) problematized his Hadith, several people went so far as to call Ibn Ishaq a liar on matters of Hadith. Others claim Ibn Ishaq included verses in his Sira that he knew were not authentic.
( Jones, J.M.B. Ibn Ishak. Vol. IV, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Ch. Pellat, and J. SchachtV.L.M.B. Lewis. London: Luzac & Co., 1971: pages 810-811. )


Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was asked about the solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq if they are considered reliable. He said “No!”. ( Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Da’ira Ma’arif Nizamia, Hyderabad, 1326 A.H. vol.9 p.43 )


There are several chainless stories that exist in Ibn Ishaq's work. We don't know who these missing people are. We don't know if they are Muslims, non-Muslims, hypocrites acting as Muslims and purposely spreading lies, etc. So if we are not sure who the people in the missing links are, how can we apply the principle of embarrassment to the narrations? We can only apply this principle if we were to know that the person is a trustworthy Muslim who would definitely have no motive to lie and make up something derogatory about the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, for all we know, the people in the missing link could be people known for fabricating narrations. You can't apply this principle to these narrations. Since we are not sure who the people in the missing link are, we can't confidently go ahead and apply this principle to this situation.


"As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally serious defects. The first is the UNIVERSALLY RECOGNISED UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF AL-WAQIDI. Details of his unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several pages, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam ash-Shafi'ee, who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Ash-Shafi'ee has the following to say: ""In Madinah there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi." ( Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p. 194, in a footnote )
How reliable is Ibn Ishaq/Hisham ? - Call to Truth


Ishaq's book has become a very popular "Source" of Islam for opponents of Muhammad(saws) It is often quoted on the anti-Islam sites
__________________
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2015, 05:36 AM
 
144 posts, read 107,508 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
"That's what is said in the hadiths : the fire is how ALLAH punishs people. Not us, humans."

But Allah says it's good for Muslims to torture and slaughter non-believers in all sorts of horrible ways, so why not fire? Is it because burning someone alive is the most horrible pain of all and Allah wants to reserve that for himself? Seriously, this whole concept of allah is just horrible....to deal in threats and torture and submission and hate and egomania and slaughter, it's awful.
Were does it say that ?
You need to give the verses you have in mind that we can discuss them and see if it's torture or not and how you define torture and in which context.

The fire is a specific punition of God for the hereafter.
The fire is an horrible punishement like you said because when people hear about it they refrein themselves to do some things.
If you say to someone if you kill somebody you'll go in jail some times, have tv, food, visitors etc will you think it will stop people to kill ?
If it was the case we'll have less people in jail.

But if you say you'll be severly punished for you sin, the person will think twice before doing a bad thing.
I think fire is more frithening than jail.

The fire is something you are supposed to fear, so it's enought to avoid some sins.
It's detterent. That's why it's a lot in the Quran, so that people think at the consequences of their acts :

20.113 Thus we have revealed it as a Lecture in Arabic, and have displayed therein certain threats, that peradventure they may keep from evil or that it may cause them to take heed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
This brings up an interesting point....is it the 'duty' towards the government and society, or is it MORALITY? What if the government or society demands the immoral....do you then do the immoral? If you do the immoral (bad) to accomplish good, then you are still immoral. The point you miss is that society, government, religion....none of these sets moral standards. Horrible evils have been done in the name of all these things. Do you know what sets moral standards?
In general a society don't ask people to do immoral things.
I don't think in your constitution you have something bad asked to you to do.
Of course a constitution may not be perfect and be changed in the time, but it was first made to protect people and the country. To define what to do in this or that case.

Do you prefer not law at all and everyone doing it's own justice according to it's own morality ?
People may disagree about what is moral for you and for them.

For exemple for some people it's ok to kill people accused of murder or drugg dealings in some countries, because it's prevents the society.
For others it's not moral to kill people even if convinced of murder.

At the end of the day, you need a law because you can't do your own justice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
This is what is so wonderful about the USA and what is so horrible about Islam and Shariah Law. Our constitution recognized inalienable individual rights as moral and inalienable. These are rights that cannot be given or taken away. A right is exercised without anyone’s permission. If you exist only because society or the government or a religion permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only slaves act on permission. A permission is not a right.
Yeah well, we can discuss about what is "wonderful" in Usa.
I don't thing for exemple in the right to possess an arm to defend yourself because the police/army are here for that.
Even thought sometimes the police is very brutal especially against black people.
We always hear about killings in some neighbourgs because of druggs, and of course in highschools.
Or because of racism... Is that moral to let anyone to have a gun ?

So it depends what you mean when you talk about "individual rights", some are great others no.
Religious or not, everyone has its own system of law.

You praise your country and its constitution but just before you asked what if the society ask you for something immoral and that you want to be free. You are not completely free because you have limits imposed by your system.
Go do justice yourself and everything you want thinking with your own personal morality of what's good/just or not and you'll see if you are that free in your country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
Our country was built to protect us from groups like Muslims that want to destroy individual rights.
Your country was built to be hegemonic and be the cop of the world.
It protects its own interests but think have the right to interfer in other people businesses and creates what benefits him.
This is not democratic to put an embargo on Cuba because you don't like communism or to make some "coup" in latin american countries or anywhere else.

So no, your country was first of all a colon country built on the blood of native americans who were stealed their rights and lan.
It's a young country who have been into many wars for no reasons.
Maybe someone can explain me the reason of the Vietnam war.
Maybe you should ask yourself why not only the muslims but many countries in general don't like America (in a political point of view).

So we can also say that this country destroyed other people individual rights.

I don't want to play the "anti american" card because i dont hate the people, but the system -especially the foreign policy- is not quite good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
That want to install Shariah Law and make us submit to nonsense about Allah.
Yeah well, if the Usa didn't put its noise into other countries buisness and didn't fight other people to steal their ressources they wouldn't fear the muslims.
And in muslim countries the majority don't even really apply the Sharia.
Even Saudi Arabia is not really the Sharia, but many frabricated laws who have nothing to do with religion.
You have a limited vision of history. You seem to only look at what happen to the Usa and in a very limited time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
For example, the constitution protects our right to our own property. That is why you can't take my property to give away, no matter what your reason. My life and my property are MINE.
Same in Islam.

Are you aware that some non-muslims live abroad ? And that they have properties ?
I don't understand what you mean by your exemple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2015, 07:53 AM
 
144 posts, read 107,508 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You stated it is forbidden in the Hadiths to burn someone alive, but as Juju highlighted above, there are hadiths that condone such burning of people alive. This is not the critical point.
Woodrow Lee says it many time in different posts that Ibn Ishaq is very discussed among muslim schoolars.
Some think he is a liar like the Imam Malik. And Imam Malik is very respected (his madhab is called the Malikism and is one of the 4 madhabs)

Ibn Hanbal (madhab "Hanbalism") and Ibn Kathir (very respected schoolar) said he was weak in the hadiths. Because he doesn't give enought precision in the chanel of transmission. Or that he didn't say clearly that some hadiths came from unknown people or even people who were reconized to be liars.
This is a very grave accusation, but many schoolars said it.

Even Ibn Hisham who made a simplified copy of the famous Sira of Ibn Ishaq said he took off the Sira of Ibn Ihaq many hadiths because he thought they weren't true.

I completely agree with Woodrow Lee, you can't really trust the hadiths of Ibn Ishaq, some are true others not at all. Even some schoolars like Bukhari don't know if some were ok or no even though the sometimes quoted his hadiths.

Like i told you just look yourself at the muslim societies of today or centuries before, we don't put in fire people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Now there are verses in the Quran that support the burning of infidels in relation to the World and the hereafter. Example the tribes of Thamud were stricken by lightning and people were terribly tortured by Fire in the hereafter.
The followers of ISIS were following as close as possible to what Allah had done and is doing.
Now, who are you and anyone to judge them?
On J-Day, it is between the jihadists and Allah, and Allah to decide as final.
In addition if they are pious and dutiful in their intentions to SERVE in the Way of Allah they can be forgiven for any wrong deeds.
If Allah permit the killing of infidels when Islam or Muslims are wronged, the method of killing become secondary.
You know what annoyes me with you ?
Is that you try to find anything in favor of the extremists.
You say "give me a verse" and when i give it to you you ignore it.

For exemple when God said "judge in accordance with my Law and don't deviate from Justice, you have to reunite this and that condition to punish people" you ignore all those verses and talk according to your OWN opinion : "Well, if the intention is good then God will forgive them ...."

Then you have to bring your proof for that.
Give me a verse confirming what you say. That if the people knows the Law but ignore God's commandements then they will be forgiven. You say that we should act by what is written in the Quran, ok so give me back a verses confirming what you say.

It's not possible to talk with you if you made up things just to contradict me.
You don't care about Islamic jurisprudence, of what muslims believe, you use weak hadiths even when you know it perfectly (Woodroo have said it many times about Ibn Ishaq weakness hadiths) and only want to find anything to put in the side of Extremist to say they are right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore destroying idols and thus preventing from being idolized in any way should be a merit to any Muslims.
Again who are you [or any human] to judge?

The main point is whether the acts by the followers of jihadists conform to the 6,236 verses in the Quran. That Muslims countries and others did not burn people is not relevant.
I have argued above what they did [the burning] comply with the Quran.
In addition it not for you or anyone to judge them.
Ok you win.

Al Quaida & Isis have understood everything. All they do is to please Allah so it's good.
They will be forgiving for everything even if they transgress the Law of God knowingly and that those sins are known to be among the worst.
And of course they are better and more intelligent and pious than the first muslims and the caliphs. They KNOW.
Burning wasn't made before but Isis is always right. It's not relevant that hadiths forbid it and that no muslims did it nowadays or before.
Muslims have failed to kill all the disbelievers and have even made illegal pacts with them.
After 14 centuries we have finally real muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You tell me what else has the followers of ISIS done that is not in accordance to the Quran?
If any, I don't believe they are serious and overall theirs will be a NET-GAIN on J-Day when Allah do his reckoning from the Sijjin سِجِّينٍ 83:7
Thanks to you now i know that they will be forgiven for everything.
No need to give you any exemple, they will fatally be rejected because Isis is right, always.
Like you said, if there's any, they're not serious. That's obvious, hello ?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore what the followers of ISIS and others jihadists did would not be considered wrong if based on the 6,236 verses of the Quran as the core of Islam.
Of course, not. Now i know.

But i think we should get ride of some verses. I don't think the details like bringing witnesses for killing people for exemple are necessary or anything that give others any right.
Plus that may bring some doubts and zeal to some muslims who will ask us to follow correctly the rules.

Who cares if it comes from Allah and if we transgress the limits and do some great sins even among the 70, this is not important. Heaven is sure whatever is done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The discussion is based on Allah's court which can only be based on the 6,236 verses of the Quran, i.e. God's word as revealed to Muhammad. Humans' words are not valid in Allah's court.
No need to know anything about Muhammad and what he said.
Who cares about what he said after he recited the verses ?
We didn't asked him to explain anything or give any advices to people who follow him.
All that he says is not true if not in the Quran (the he have bring) even if he's a prophet and not a liar and that we love him etc, only what he said about the Quran, IN the Quran is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
To know what is right or wrong, one Must refer to the 6,236 verses of the Quran and ultimate it is for Allah to decide. This is why I suggested elsewhere we must use the 6,236 verses of the Quran as a checklist.
No, not 6,263 verses. We need to erase those about the details of some Laws.
And all the verses that can contradict our enter to the Paradise.
It's Allah who decides but in reality ... well we just need to hide some verses. Just saying.
Some may bring them to say "well no i'm not sure, look this verses ..." Annoying

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Base on this, stoning to death for adultery is not permitted because [while in the Hadith] it is not in the Quran. However burning of infidels is permitted as it is represented by verses in the Quran. So the casting of terror upon and killing of infidels under the right circumstances are permitted together with other good acts as long as they conform with the verses in the Quran.
Muslims were too kind all those last centuries, they were sleeping or what ?
The burning is a nice idea. Don't know what we were waiting to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Re Christianity, if any one acts is based on the verses in the NT, then we have to condemn the NT.

We don't care what Jesus said, like Muhammad this is not relevant. The NT is the hadiths of the christians.
What is not in the Book (the OT), is not from God. This is just sayings of Jesus, we need to follow the 158 259 120 verses of the Old Testament.
The stoning is in the OT, the christians who follow it are the real christians they are not extremists and will be rewarded by God in the JD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Christians had destroyed idols in the past and even currently because Jesus [& verses in OT] had condemned idolatry, then we should condemn the NT for such acts. This is off topic as this thread and forum is on Islam.
Thanks God he said exactly the same things that in the OT, if not this would have been rejected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2015, 09:02 AM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,951 times
Reputation: 435
"Were does it say that ?
You need to give the verses you have in mind that we can discuss them and see if it's torture or not and how you define torture and in which context. "

How many times do I need to post them? And why do I need to post verses, but you don't?

One torture would be raping captive women in front of their husbands. Or any rape at all, yet the Quran condones rape of slaves and captive women (whom your right hand possesses).

"The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do coitus interruptus. A soul that which Allah has destined to exist will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)

Have you ever seen a beheading? It is so terrible a torture that I am unable to watch it. But allah demands this torture:

"[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
Quran 8:12

Here's an account of Muhammed and his men attacking and beheading a whole tribe of people:

Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews

"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. " 9:5

"When he [Muhammad] asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr bin al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad bin Maslama and he struck off his head.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764) - This story is also confirmed by Ibn Kathir, vol 3 p. 268.

I would think what goes on before the actual killing would be torture. Back then, there were no guns, so death was probably a slow process. For example, beheading takes some time. It's not just WACK and the head is off. It seems to take sawing off of the head. Let's take a look at some Muslims beheading people (actually, YOU watch it, I cannot):

http://www.barenakedislam.com/catego...dings-graphic/

"They were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died." (Sahih Muslim 4131 -this account is also confirmed by at least three other narrations).

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds." 47:4

I also think that raping a little 9 year old child is torture. A 53 year old man ramming his penis into a little vagina is horribly painful! I know because I worked with little girls who were raped. Some could not even urinate properly any more. The psychological damage may have been the worst of it!

Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old."

There's plenty more. Let me know if you want more.

Meanwhile, YOU need to post verses to back up what you say. I've not read the rest of your post to give you a chance to add in the verses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2015, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,584,535 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by fazira View Post
Woodrow Lee says it many time in different posts that Ibn Ishaq is very discussed among muslim schoolars.
Some think he is a liar like the Imam Malik. And Imam Malik is very respected (his madhab is called the Malikism and is one of the 4 madhabs)

Ibn Hanbal (madhab "Hanbalism") and Ibn Kathir (very respected schoolar) said he was weak in the hadiths. Because he doesn't give enought precision in the chanel of transmission. Or that he didn't say clearly that some hadiths came from unknown people or even people who were reconized to be liars.
This is a very grave accusation, but many schoolars said it.

Even Ibn Hisham who made a simplified copy of the famous Sira of Ibn Ishaq said he took off the Sira of Ibn Ihaq many hadiths because he thought they weren't true.

I completely agree with Woodrow Lee, you can't really trust the hadiths of Ibn Ishaq, some are true others not at all. Even some schoolars like Bukhari don't know if some were ok or no even though the sometimes quoted his hadiths.

Like i told you just look yourself at the muslim societies of today or centuries before, we don't put in fire people.
As I pointed out whether it is from the Hadiths, Sira or any one's thinking, the element must comply with the Quran as the final arbiter. So the above is no issue for me.


Quote:
You know what annoyes me with you ?
Is that you try to find anything in favor of the extremists.
You say "give me a verse" and when i give it to you you ignore it.

For exemple when God said "judge in accordance with my Law and don't deviate from Justice, you have to reunite this and that condition to punish people" you ignore all those verses and talk according to your OWN opinion : "Well, if the intention is good then God will forgive them ...."
I don't see any verse from the Quran in here.
A question about homosexuality and sharia law
Thus I have not ignore it.
Obviously the followers of ISIS and the likes did not think they have deviated from 'Justice' since what they did was to justify what they [as Muslims] have been wronged.

Quote:
Then you have to bring your proof for that.
Give me a verse confirming what you say. That if the people knows the Law but ignore God's commandements then they will be forgiven. You say that we should act by what is written in the Quran, ok so give me back a verses confirming what you say.
I did not say Muslims will be forgiven for ill deeds where they deliberately ignore God's commands.
What I implied was, if Muslims strive their best efforts in the cause of Allah but if any of such acts happened to be an 'ill deed' [due to ignorance or vague interpretations] then they are forgiven.
Here are the relevant verses; [mine]
47: 2. And those [Muslims] who believe and do good works and believe in that [revelations - Quran] which is revealed unto Muhammad and it is the truth from their Lord. He riddeth them [Muslims] of their ill deeds and improveth their state.

46:16. Those [Muslims] are they from whom We accept the best of what they do, and overlook their evil deeds. (They are) among the owners of the Garden. This is the true promise which they [Muslims] were promised (in the world).

11: 114. Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill deeds. This is a reminder for the mindful.

2:271. If ye [Muslims] publish your alms giving, it is well, but if ye [Muslims] hide it and give it to the poor, it will be better for you, and will atone for some of your [Muslims'] ill deeds. Allah is Informed of what ye [Muslims] do.

Note there are many verses in the Quran that reflect the above in various degrees.
I have spent a long time reading and researching the Quran thus what I stated is supported by verses from the Quran. I do not quote the verses at times because I want to save time as it is tedious to extract the verses as above.

Quote:
It's not possible to talk with you if you made up things just to contradict me.
You don't care about Islamic jurisprudence, of what muslims believe, you use weak hadiths even when you know it perfectly (Woodroo have said it many times about Ibn Ishaq weakness hadiths) and only want to find anything to put in the side of Extremist to say they are right.
Me, use weak hadiths?
You got it wrong here and putting words into my mouth. Note I wrote this in my earlier post
Continuum wrote:
You stated it is forbidden in the Hadiths to burn someone alive, but as Juju highlighted above, there are hadiths that condone such burning of people alive. This is not the critical point.
I am not supporting the Quranist.
My main point is whatever the source [Hadiths, own thinking etc.], the elements MUST conform with what is in the Quran [the 6,236 verses]. The Quran must prevail in all circumstances.
A question about homosexuality and sharia law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Therefore destroying idols and thus preventing from being idolized in any way should be a merit to any Muslims.
Again who are you [or any human] to judge?

The main point is whether the acts by the followers of jihadists conform to the 6,236 verses in the Quran. That Muslims countries and others did not burn people is not relevant.
I have argued above what they did [the burning] comply with the Quran.
In addition it not for you or anyone to judge them.
Quote:
Ok you win.
It is not a question of winning. The main point is, for any Muslim, whether it complies with the Quran, i.e. God's word. Allah is the Greatest according to Muslims. So if a Muslim follows as close as possible to God's words, then s/he can be certain of Success.

Quote:
Al Quaida & Isis have understood everything. All they do is to please Allah so it's good.
They will be forgiving for everything even if they transgress the Law of God knowingly and that those sins are known to be among the worst.
And of course they are better and more intelligent and pious than the first muslims and the caliphs. They KNOW.
Burning wasn't made before but Isis is always right. It's not relevant that hadiths forbid it and that no muslims did it nowadays or before.
Muslims have failed to kill all the disbelievers and have even made illegal pacts with them.
After 14 centuries we have finally real muslims.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are merely examples.
It is the principle that is most important for any Muslim, i.e.
Whatever the Muslim does in the Cause of Allah, it must comply within the 6,236 verses of the Quran [God's words].
"Real Muslims" ???, that is not a good assessment in this case.
I would rank [as per Quran] a Muslim as a 'true Muslim' in terms of how much they comply to the terms and conditions of the covenant they entered into with Allah. Note we had discussed in another post using the 6,236 verses in the Quran as a checklist.

Over 14 centuries I am sure there are true Muslims. To assess whether they are true or truer Muslims we will need to assess whether their acts comply with the 6,236 verses of the Quran.


Quote:
Thanks to you now i know that they will be forgiven for everything.
No need to give you any exemple, they will fatally be rejected because Isis is right, always.
Like you said, if there's any, they're not serious. That's obvious, hello?!
I have discussed what is 'Islam' and 'Muslim' proper in other threads and the main criteria of who is a Muslim is centered solely on God's words, i.e. the Quran as revealed to Muhammad.
What I have been stating is based on this principle from the Quran, thus I have not made it up myself.


Quote:
But i think we should get ride of some verses. I don't think the details like bringing witnesses for killing people for exemple are necessary or anything that give others any right.
Plus that may bring some doubts and zeal to some muslims who will ask us to follow correctly the rules.

Who cares if it comes from Allah and if we transgress the limits and do some great sins even among the 70, this is not important. Heaven is sure whatever is done.
Get rid of some verses in the Quran???
If that is what you meant, that is impossible for a Muslim to do as;
God's word is immutable, i.e. cannot be changed nor edited.
The Quran is Perfect and complete.


Quote:
No need to know anything about Muhammad and what he said.
Who cares about what he said after he recited the verses ?
We didn't asked him to explain anything or give any advices to people who follow him.
All that he says is not true if not in the Quran (the he have bring) even if he's a prophet and not a liar and that we love him etc, only what he said about the Quran, IN the Quran is true.
The Quran stated and emphasized in many verses, Muhammad was illiterate and was merely a Conveyor of the message, a Warner, & bringer of good news.

In addition Muhammad is not a Warder and not to guide Muslim as Allah is the sole guide.
All these major points are to indicate the Quran is directly from Allah via Gabriel and not from Muhammad's invention as the Jews and Christians were accusing him of.

Thus if Muhammad sayings are allowed then there is no control to ensure the pureness of the Quran as inspired directly from Allah. The inclusions of Muhammad sayings will leave open the hole for the Jews and Christians to accuse the Quran was Muhammad's invention and corrupted by his own words. Note the many verses in the Quran where Muhammad was accused as inventing a lie and making up the Quran from his own thoughts.

Therefore the Quran as the only God's word delivered should be the most important and the final arbiter. Whatever is from the Hadiths, Sira or anywhere else must comply with the 6,236 verses of the Quran as conveyed by Muhammad on behalf of Allah. Making sure this "control" is intact is most critical for Islam.

There are many verses exhorting Muslims to obey Muhammad and that he is given wisdom and teachings, but this can only imply such obedience and wisdom must be within the confines of the Quran and no where else. Otherwise, the control - to ensure Quran is not invented by Muhammad - is loosen and lost.


Quote:
No, not 6,263 verses. We need to erase those about the details of some Laws.
And all the verses that can contradict our enter to the Paradise.
It's Allah who decides but in reality ... well we just need to hide some verses. Just saying.
Some may bring them to say "well no i'm not sure, look this verses ..." Annoying
Whatever you intend to say, the Quran is immutable and the verses cannot be changed, edited or erased by Muslims.


Quote:
Muslims were too kind all those last centuries, they were sleeping or what ?

The burning is a nice idea. Don't know what we were waiting to do that.
You are an expert historian? Are you so sure Muslims were not complying with the Quran to the 't' as true Muslims over the last 14 centuries. We need to refer to historical accounts and I am sure you will note the truth has been recorded, discussed and debated by expert historians and others.

Quote:
We don't care what Jesus said, like Muhammad this is not relevant. The NT is the hadiths of the christians.
What is not in the Book (the OT), is not from God. This is just sayings of Jesus, we need to follow the 158 259 120 verses of the Old Testament.
The stoning is in the OT, the christians who follow it are the real christians they are not extremists and will be rewarded by God in the JD.
Thanks God he said exactly the same things that in the OT, if not this would have been rejected.
The Gospels of the NT are from God via Jesus. The main principle is, regardless whether it is Christianity or Islam, God's word [wherever established] is final for believers. If other sources are referred they must conform to God's words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2016, 01:14 AM
 
23 posts, read 10,183 times
Reputation: 10
What's your question? Does Islam allow homo sex? No it doesn't just like the Torah forbids it and calls for stoning gays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2016, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Somewhere
440 posts, read 268,477 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
I'll make it more confusing:

"The 9-year-old boy with pale skin and big, piercing eyes captivated Mirzahan at first sight.

“He is more handsome than anyone in the village,” the 22-year-old farmer said, explaining why he is grooming the boy as a sexual partner and companion. There was another important factor that made Waheed easy to take on as a bacha bazi, or a boy for pleasure: “He doesn’t have a father, so there is no one to stop this.”

A growing number of Afghan children are being coerced into a life of sexual abuse. The practice of wealthy or prominent Afghans exploiting underage boys as sexual partners who are often dressed up as women to dance at gatherings is on the rise in post-Taliban Afghanistan, according to Afghan human rights researchers, Western officials and men who participate in the abuse."

Afghanistan sees rise in

And:

"Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for "horse sex" since 2004, "donkey sex" since 2007, "rape pictures" between 2004 and 2009, "rape sex" since 2004, "child sex" between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, "animal sex" since 2004 and "dog sex" since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.

The country also is tops -- or has been No. 1 -- in searches for "sex," "camel sex," "rape video," "child sex video" and some other searches that can't be printed here."

No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches? Call it Pornistan | Fox News

I hear that there is a massive Muslim porn industry. I don't even want to research that!!
I think you may be conflating homosexuality with pedophilia which are different things, but sadly, people keep mixing them up.

Men like those you mentioned who like kids and dress them as women (bacha bazi) is pedophilia; not homosexuality just like men liking under age girls is also pedophilia; not heterosexuality. I think it is important not to conflate both.

Homosexual men don't like kids nor do they find femininity attractive because the very definiton of male homosexuality is men who like men with clear developed characteristics of male nature such as mature body, body hair, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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