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.
What crime did he commit that was not first done by Muhammad?
Muhammad did not commit any crime such as killing innocent people or supporting those who killed innocent people. His mission lasted 23 years and Allaah had supported him all the way. The rest is just false accusation against that man.
A verse of the Qur'an would be ambiguous only if the "two truths" ("duck" and "rabbit") are only in one verse (image). In the Qur'an, two truths are not in one verse but one truth in more than one verses. Those who see only one truth (duck) in any one verse (image), haven't read the other verse (seen the other image) that shows and explains one truth (rabbit) in both verses (images).
That's how the revelation of the Qur'an over 22 years worked; truth in one verse was revealed and explained in another verse later on.
I agree there are some verses that need to be read with others verses. This can be easily resolved by pointing to the necessary references and their relation.
However, there are actual "two truths" ("duck" and "rabbit") in the following situations within the Quran;
1. In one verse only
2. Within a combination of verses
3. Within a paragraph, or combinations
4. Within a chapter or combinations
5. Within the whole of the Quran.
Here is one case re within one verse only; in [] = mine;
22:39. Sanction [permission authorised] is given unto those [Muslims] who fight because they [Muslims] have been wronged [by infidels and hypocrites]; and Allah is indeed Able to give them [Muslims] victory;
In this case, "wronged" is not very specific and can be very ambiguous.
This ambiguity will lead to different people seeing different truths within the same verse.
Note I wrote this earlier [now slightly edited].
For example, in general the Quran allow the killing of non-Muslims and even other Muslims if Islam and/or Muslims are wronged as with threats, hindrances, corruption, persecutions, mischiefs, etc.
The problem is these situations of wronged, 'threats' are NOT clearly defined in the Quran, thus open to different interpretations.
The examples below are how some viewed the two truths of "wronged" in the most extreme end and they cannot be blamed because they are obedient to Allah's words in the Quran.
This is why some very sensitive Muslims view the drawing of the cartoons of Muhammad as a threat to Islam and thus based on the Quran they have the sanction of Allah to kill non-Muslims.
The presence of foreigner soldiers and government officials in Muslim land [e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere] is interpret as a persecution or threat, thus warrant counter defensive actions to kill innocents within the country of the oppressors [USA, UK, France, etc.]
Western education is interpret as a threat and hindrance to the progress of Islam and thus warrant killing of non-Muslims, e.g. Boko Haram, Shooting Malala, etc.
The above is an example of 'two truths' in case 1.
There are two truths in the others 2-5, I need to compile them as while I have read of them, I have not compiled them for ready reference.
2. Within a combination of verses
3. Within a paragraph, or combinations
4. Within a chapter or combinations
5. Within the whole of the Quran.
And what's your views when G. W. Bush said, God told him to attack Iraq, in comparison to Bashir's statement?
G. W. Bush was a self-proclaimed Crusader. A Crusader is not a criminal but a Jihadist is. The other difference is that Bush was president of a powerful country but Bashir is not.
G. W. Bush was a self-proclaimed Crusader. A Crusader is not a criminal but a Jihadist is. The other difference is that Bush was president of a powerful country but Bashir is not.
lol haha
hmmm,,, perhaps the difference is that Bashir is brought under the weight of justice and serving his term for taking innocent lives?
By the way, what's the difference between a Jihadist and a Crusader?
Let me tell you the difference that is not for fainted hearted.
The difference is, Bashir was brought under the weight of justice and serving his term for taking innocent lives.
By the way, what's the difference between a Jihadist and a Crusader?
A jihadist on one that is inspired by the verses in the Quran itself.
I have just posted on verse in another post, i.e. 4:95
4:95. Those of the believers [Muslims] who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive a great reward above the sedentary;
There are many such verses that influence and inspire SOME [not all] Muslims with evil and warrior tendencies to go on a mujahideen mission to ensure they avoid going to Hell and are rewarded favorably in Paradise as promised by Allah in the Quran.
A Crusader is one who is not inspired by the New Testament which has an overriding pacifist Maxim, i.e. 'love your enemies' 'give the other cheek' 'love this and love that, etc.'.
A crusader thus made his own personal decision and followed a group due to his own human nature, feelings and interpretations of zealousness.
In a way, the Crusader has sinned because he did not follow the direct order of Jesus to be a pacifist and love his enemies.
Btw, Bashir was brought to justice based on universal human values and not based on Islamic values.
As for Islamic values and judgment, Bashir insisted he is right and ultimately it is for Allah to judge on Judgment Day and not for any human to judge for Islam and Allah.
Last edited by Continuum; 02-12-2016 at 11:55 PM..
It is quite obious to me that neither you nor Abu Bakar Bashir have fully studied the Qur'an in depth. Most Muslims today do the same; do not study the .this book full of wisdom.
The Qur'an is not like any other book. Its words are all from Allah and are full of wisdom and are also explained somewhere else in the Qur'an. Only in depth study will reveal what exactly is meant by each verse of the Qur 'an. There are no ambiguous verses in the Qur'an. One must read all verses on the topic before making any claim one way or the other.
How much does one have to study and restudy? I would suspect you would hope that it be merely to the point where they agree with you on anything you wish.
The Qur'ans and Bibles and Vedas and Tripitakas are JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BOOKS and the venerators of books are bibliolaters trapping their gods like genies inside of such pages.
Have you any idea who typed each stroke? Have you any idea who (what, when, where, and why) commissioned the publishing, authenticity, and legality of each sentence?
It is quite obvious.
However, a crusader relies on Apocalypse/Revelations and what their Church Authority says (often they base it on both OT and NT verses).
The idol scriptures show themselves as merely human constitutions of convenience, constitutions of hypocrisy. The idol scriptures we have thanks to Jesus, and the ones we have thanks to Muhammad have led the world to experience unspeakable crimes, justified merely by chosen words and imagined heavenly politics.
I agree there are some verses that need to be read with others verses. This can be easily resolved by pointing to the necessary references and their relation.
However, there are actual "two truths" ("duck" and "rabbit") in the following situations within the Quran;
1. In one verse only
2. Within a combination of verses
3. Within a paragraph, or combinations
4. Within a chapter or combinations
5. Within the whole of the Quran.
Here is one case re within one verse only; in [] = mine;
22:39. Sanction [permission authorised] is given unto those [Muslims] who fight because they [Muslims] have been wronged [by infidels and hypocrites]; and Allah is indeed Able to give them [Muslims] victory;
In this case, "wronged" is not very specific and can be very ambiguous.
This ambiguity will lead to different people seeing different truths within the same .
Read this verse with the next verse, find all the translations for the word in the verse 39 from which "wronged" is translated and you will find that the "wronged" is a very mild and general word. In the context, permission was given to Muslims in Madina to fight (back) when they were being attacked by Meccans after they had been "wronged" for 14 years just because of their religion. "Wronged" here means persecuted, many killed, expelled from their homes in Mecca, their properties taken away from them, and then attacked after following them to Madina. If Asad sends his soldiers to Europe to kill all Syrian refugees, should they not fight back?
That is when the permission was given to them to fight back. War was waged on them and they were required now to fight back. The Qur'an is clear, if the non-muslims live in peace with Muslims then Muslims too must live in peace with them.
There is only one truth in this verse, fight back if attacked in that specific case, and don't let them kill you without fighting back.
Reading the Qur'an and studying the Qur'an are not the same thing. Context of the verses, situation at the time of revelation of any verse, and all other related verses in the Qur'an must be taken into account when studying the Qur'an.
A jihadist on one that is inspired by the verses in the Quran itself.
I have just posted on verse in another post, i.e. 4:95
4:95. Those of the believers [Muslims] who sit still, other than those [Muslims] who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those [Muslims] who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those [Muslims] who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those [Muslims fighters] who strive a great reward above the sedentary;
There are many such verses that influence and inspire SOME [not all] Muslims with evil and warrior tendencies to go on a mujahideen mission to ensure they avoid going to Hell and are rewarded favorably in Paradise as promised by Allah in the Quran.
A Crusader is one who is not inspired by the New Testament which has an overriding pacifist Maxim, i.e. 'love your enemies' 'give the other cheek' 'love this and love that, etc.'.
A crusader thus made his own personal decision and followed a group due to his own human nature, feelings and interpretations of zealousness.
In a way, the Crusader has sinned because he did not follow the direct order of Jesus to be a pacifist and love his enemies.
Btw, Bashir was brought to justice based on universal human values and not based on Islamic values.
As for Islamic values and judgment, Bashir insisted he is right and ultimately it is for Allah to judge on Judgment Day and not for any human to judge for Islam and Allah.
Interesting.
What is the goal that a crusader wants to achieve being a crusader?
Interesting.
What is the goal that a crusader wants to achieve being a crusader?
The fact is All humans are embedded in the DNA with a subliminal* existential dilemma or crisis which generate a very strong primal psychological force. * you need to understand what is meant by 'subliminal.'
The majority of humans resolve this subliminal crisis by submitting or surrendering to a greater power and thus to theism and the likes.
Once theism is able to resolves this terrible crisis, believers will cling to it like there is no tomorrow to the extreme of killing without a blink to defend his belief.
What happened with the Crusaders was because they [the zealous and evil prones] felt their religion was threatened, so it order to defend their religion/beliefs they went out to eliminate the threat of whatever degree.
However, Jesus in the NT did not condone war nor attacking their enemies, but rather Jesus exhorted believers to love their enemies as an overriding pacifist maxim.
Without any backing from the NT, the crusaders could not control their very strong psychological impulse to defend their belief and they went on their own natural evil impulses.
The crusaders may have cherry picked some verses in the NT, but whatever verses that has a certain degree of evil is abrogated by the overriding pacifist maxim.
This is the same with SOME Buddhists who claimed they fight and kill others because they felt Buddhism was threatened. But Buddhism-proper do not have any verses [direct or indirect] that condoned killing others.
The issue with SOME Christians [crusaders] and SOME Buddhists was the problem of lack of impulse controls. Note this 'lack of impulse control' is heavily researched in the psychological and neuroscience community.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the problem with Islam is, it has elements in the Quran itself that are ambiguous that SOME evil prone Muslims are influenced and inspired to kill non-Muslims or other Muslims if Islam and/or Muslims are threatened.
For those who believe in the Ahadith, its influence on these evil prone to commit terrible evils is more worse as the Ahadith contain much evils and violent elements.
These evil prone Muslims also has lack of impulse controls just like those Crusaders and some evil prone Buddhists, but the difference is the evil prone Muslims can fall back on the sanctions and verses in the Quran from Allah to commit terrible evils and violence.
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.
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.
