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 03-22-2017, 02:02 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,594,359 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
Thank you
My friend
If a word comes in the way of Allah
It means it's offensive
Because jihad in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam
If you state,
"Because jihad [Arabic] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I can agree with you.

But if you state as above;
"Because jihad [Quran] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I cannot agree with you because no where in the Quran is 'jihad' = spreading Islam.


Quote:
If you rely on the Koran, it will fall into tattoos and gas can not be explained
Even the stories of the prophets
Must return to their main sources
-------------
This is a matter of life's principle and more so if a God is involved.
The principle is one's actions must always depend the source authority otherwise there will be chaos and wars.

Note the example I gave regarding Donald Trump's Executive Order is being cancelled by the Judges who judge based on the US Constitution and thus do not personally favor the US President. As for the USA, the Constitution is supreme. It is the same for other countries and organization.

In the case of Islam proper, the 'Constitution' MUST be the Quran from Allah and nothing else.
It is ridiculous and against all principles for a God to allow his Prophet to decide God's Law.

But note some of the Hadith that call for casting of terror and going to war are correct because they are the same as verses in the Quran.
Thus in principle whatever from the Ahadith and is not in line with the Quran-Only is not right, e.g. Camel Urine, stoning adulteress to death, sucking breasts by adults, etc.


Quote:
I respect your opinion
--------------
The duty of jihad can not be canceled
For God's sake
Because it is a continuous obligation until the Day of Resurrection
-----------------
This is the position of Muslim jurists
I think our friend Khalifa interprets the Quran as a temperament
It is contrary to Islam
It is for two reasons
The first is that he understands Islam well
The second is used Tkaya
----
If Khalifa believes that Islamic books of interpretation are not true
This means that all Muslims before the Khalifa were in vain
Only Khalifa and his interpretation is correct
---------------
That is why I call on Khalifa to be confident in Muslim jurists
Because they understand Islam more than he does and he has to follow them
And does not follow his hate
I disagrees with Khalif on many views but one thing I agree with Khalif and many other Quran-Only followers is the sole 'Constitution' [authority] of Islam must be from the Quran only and no where else.
This is purely based on Principles, objectivity, intellectual honesty & integrity.

All the Muslims actions' before Khalif are not in vain.
The greatest sins are those unpardonable sins.
The other sins can be forgiven by Allah if they are not the serious sins.
Therefore the Ahadith followers may not be as truer Muslims as the Quran-only Muslims but they are still rewarded by rewards of lower degree [DRJ; darajātin] for whatever good deeds they do.
If they strive [jihad] to perform martydom, Allah will cancel all past sins and reward them greatly as stated in the Quran.

Whatever Hadiths/Fatwa the Islamic jurists came up with, the critical point is they must comply with the Quran and nothing else. If comply then it is acceptable by Allah, if not then it will be a sin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2017, 04:20 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,047,626 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Those who use 'jihad [Arabic or English] = holy war' specifically are not semantically wrong at all because this meaning is in their dictionaries and represented by the relevant real actions by SOME Muslims.
Dictionaries are based on the wrong actions and, therefore, the wrong meanings and then wrongly copied by the terrorists. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is one wrong following another wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Those SOME Muslims doing jihad [English] are correctly named as 'terrorists' because they commit and spread terror. These are all true in accordance to the Arabic and English dictionaries.
But wrong according to the Qur'aan. They can't learn Islam from the dictionaries but only from the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
But as I had said, in the Quranic language all the 'jihad' words and other related JHD words are NOT specifically attributed to holy war.
In the Qur'aan, "jihad" is never related to holy or unholy war but only to peaceful self-striving. JHD is only triliteral root but the words with this root have different meanings, for example "struggle" ("jihad") in case of Muslims and "strongest" ("jahd") in case of some kuffar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
However many of the verses with the term 'jihad' and other JHD related words are somehow linked to the kuffar in various conditions including warring affairs.
JHD related does not always mean "jihad" only. Vast majority JHD related words are not "jihad". The most JHD related word in the Qur'aan is "jahad" (27 times). In fact even "jahd" in case of kuffar is stated in 5 verses whereas "jihad" is in only 4 verses. In the Qur'aan, "jihad" is never linked to war or fighting by Muslims but always with peaceful self-struggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Since a Muslims must 'jihad' strive, i.e. put in extra effort for the cause of Allah [spiritual, politics, etc.], therefore if the cause include war [politics], Muslims must put in extra effort in war as well.
Spiritual, Yes, political as in a war, No. Political/war effort is "jahad" according to the Qur'aan but never "jihad". This was the reason Uthman had recalled all the copies of the Qur'aan to have pronunciation marks put on almost each letter of the Qur'aan so that people do not pronounce "jihad" when they should be pronouncing "jahad". It is the "jahad" that can be used in both spiritual as well as political/war situations but "jihad" only in spiritual and peaceful self-struggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You may be only thinking of your own personal views but for me there are 1.5 billion Muslims with a range of different views and Allah will never appear to decide who is right or wrong. So these different views [good, bad and evil] will exists as long as there are humans and Muslims.
Here, in your statement, you are not basing your views of Islam on what is in the Qur'aan but on what some or most Muslims think. My views are not personal but based on what is in the Qur'aan. This is why your research efforts will be in vain because your views will always be motivated by the actions of some Muslims rather than the truth of the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The question of whether the warring [not the jihad] is offensive or defensive is contentions and subject to interpretations.
There is more than enough material (verses) in the Qur'aan that identifies clearly the warring is in defense only. When the enemy stops fighting, Muslims must stop too. The Qur'aan leaves no doubt about it. The truth is there for all to see. If they can't see it in there then they must be mentally blind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You have insisted all warring affairs in the Quran are defensive only, but my view is the warring intents include offensive and defensive intentions. We have gone thru this issue before and I do not want to go thru them again at present. [no time]
If the Qur'aan tells us that we can be friendly with anyone who has not waged war on us and treat them justly then we cannot start a war on those who have not waged war on us. Also, in a war situation, if the enemy stops fighting us, we must stop too. Under such guidance of the Qur'aan, war from Muslims cannot be offensive (initiated by Muslims) but only defensive (initiated by the enemy of Muslims).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
They can use "jihad" i.e. striving, struggle and the likes for anything but if they relate to Quran-Only, then 'jihad' cannot specifically meant 'holy war'.
Yes, I know that you too know so. This is why I argue that many Muslims have left the Qur'aan on top shelves to catch dust and are relying on hadith books only. Shaytan has made them deviate from the straight path shown to them by Allah through the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You need to understand how dictionaries are compiled.
Dictionaries don't give a damn about the element of truth or reality.
As long as there are sufficient numbers of people using a word, it will be included in a dictionary.
That's why Islam and truth about "jihad" cannot be learnt from the dictionaries. There is no point in arguing about what is "jihad" based on a dictionary instead of the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note the word 'Islamophobia' which from intellectually & philosophically perspective should be regarded as a very stupid word and those who use such a term insults their own intelligence. Despite the stupidity element, the word 'Islamophobia' is included in the English dictionary.
So there should be no issue with 'jihad = holy war' in the Arabic and English dictionaries.
That is expression of your double standard. If those who use the word "Islamophobia" that is not in the Qur'aan are stupid then those who use "jihad" as holy war when it is not holy war in the Qur'aan are also stupid. You cannot defend one and call the other stupid. You cannot use double standard in this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Nah, I am sure people of average intelligence can understand the limitations of the dictionaries and seek the truth from other wisdom philosophically.
That's why I decided to seek the truth about the word "jihad" from the Qur'aan rather than from dictionaries or deviated Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As I mentioned we have different views on these verses. When we read the verses in the context of the whole chapter, say chapter 9 and with the whole Quran, a different perspective will be revealed. As I had stated I don't want to go into the details at present. [no time].
In context, there is no way "jihad" or even "jahad" is offensive attack on anyone regardless of his religion or of no religion. Initiating war is never commanded in the Qur'aan. Any fighting commanded is in defense only. When enemy stops, Muslims must stop too. These are clear guidelines in the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As above, we need to read all the words related to J-H-D and understand their context in the background.
Then you would be going into field of kuffar doing "jahd" too. You want to be remote from the word "jihad" and stick to JHD, you will lose your direction in understanding different meanings of the words with JHD root. Also many words mean the same thing but they have different triliteral root such as "Islamists" and "jihadists".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Objectively, 'jihad' used in the Quran is merely 'striving,' struggle and the likes. "Jihad" [striving for their wrongs] is even used for the non-Muslims. So one cannot claim 'jihad' refer to only spiritual struggle and peace self-striving.
Now you are regressing from your earlier view. The word used in the Qur'aan for non-muslims striving for wrong is not "jihad" but "jahd".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
There is definitely a word "Islam" in the English/Arabic dictionaries.

I view there are a few grades of Islam, i.e.
1. Pure Islam = Quran-Only
2. Pseudo-Islam [2nd grade] = Quran + Ahadith
3. 3rd grade Islam = Quran + Ahadith + others [Ahamadiya, sufism, etc.]

If you insists all Muslims must adopt 'Pure Islam' then you will have to convince the 99% of Muslims to Quran-Only Islam. [In principle and objectively, I agree "Islam" should be based on Quran-Only].
I am not a guardian over them. As long as I stay on the straight path, I am happy. Bringing others to the straight path is not my duty nor was the duty of the messenger. Just as delivering the message was the messenger's duty, my duty is here is only to express my understanding, and in general obeying whatever is commanded in the message from Allah that is delivered by the messenger (the Qur'aan). On the Day of Judgment, I am not going to bear the burden of any other but my own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The point is the word 'jihad' in the Quran is merely a word used to represent 'striving' struggle, and the likes, to mean putting extra effort in any actions.
Not in ANY action but in action of staying on the straight path (Deen) and not become apostate by doing things that are not Islamic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is common word that is even used in the Quran to refer to the kuffar in applying extra effort [jihad] to their own actions which is evil in the eyes of Allah.
No. It is not "jihad" but "jahd". Therefore meaning of "jihad" used for Muslims is different from "jahd" used for kuffar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
So 'jihad' cannot be exclusively meant 'holy war' or killing of non-Muslims in the Quran-ONLY.
"Jihad" is neither exclusively nor inclusively used in the Qur'aan for war or killing of anyone. It is used only for peaceful self-struggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
But in reality, there are SOME evil prone Muslims [20%] who warred against non-Muslims based on their interpretations of the Quran [no one can judge and decide they are wrong] and these people like ordinary people put in extra effort [thus jihad] in their actions. This point of offensive warring [not jihad] is debatable and I prefer not to go into the details here.
Good thinking not to go into the details because your details will be based on actions of Muslims rather than what is stated in the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The proper approach is when such a sensitive word 'jihad' is mentioned, it must be presented in its respective perspective. i.e.

1. Jihad [Quran] = striving, and the likes
2. Jihad [Arabic -MSA] = holy war
3. Jihad [English] = holy war.
That way, all you will do is make a pudding of it. The only proper approach in understanding the word "jihad" is to understand the context in which this word is used in the Qur'aan only. All other ways are deviated ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Generally most people [due to habit or laziness] will not use 'jihad' in its respective perspective but will conflate the three, messed up the discussion and talking pass one another.
They make a pudding and like the taste of it. So they stick to it even if it kills them. At least they do put an extra effort in killing themselves. I am not going to eat the same pudding and kill myself that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2017, 04:26 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,047,626 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Not sure about "Paul Camel" but what does this has to do Islam Q/A?
Time wasting! If they like Paul Camel Beer, i suggest moving away from Islam forum and seek pub direction. They shouldn't ask me as I can't help them with that direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2017, 04:40 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,047,626 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
Thank you
My friend
If a word comes in the way of Allah
It means it's offensive
Because jihad in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam
-----------

If you rely on the Koran, it will fall into tattoos and gas can not be explained
Even the stories of the prophets
Must return to their main sources
-------------
I respect your opinion
--------------
The duty of jihad can not be canceled
For God's sake
Because it is a continuous obligation until the Day of Resurrection
-----------------
This is the position of Muslim jurists
I think our friend Khalifa interprets the Quran as a temperament
It is contrary to Islam
It is for two reasons
The first is that he understands Islam well
The second is used Tkaya
----
If Khalifa believes that Islamic books of interpretation are not true
This means that all Muslims before the Khalifa were in vain
Only Khalifa and his interpretation is correct
---------------
That is why I call on Khalifa to be confident in Muslim jurists
Because they understand Islam more than he does and he has to follow them
And does not follow his hate
And I think our friend mahasn sawresho interprets the Koran as a temperament. He THINKS Quran is temperament. Our friend here is trying to teach us Islam because he is not happy about Muslims killing his grandfather's father in Turkey. I do have some sympathy for our friend if he is really telling us the truth about his grandfather's father. Therefore, our friend's motive in this forum is quite obvious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2017, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,594,359 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
Dictionaries are based on the wrong actions and, therefore, the wrong meanings and then wrongly copied by the terrorists. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is one wrong following another wrong.

But wrong according to the Qur'aan. They can't learn Islam from the dictionaries but only from the Qur'aan.

In the Qur'aan, "jihad" is never related to holy or unholy war but only to peaceful self-striving. JHD is only triliteral root but the words with this root have different meanings, for example "struggle" ("jihad") in case of Muslims and "strongest" ("jahd") in case of some kuffar.

JHD related does not always mean "jihad" only. Vast majority JHD related words are not "jihad". The most JHD related word in the Qur'aan is "jahad" (27 times). In fact even "jahd" in case of kuffar is stated in 5 verses whereas "jihad" is in only 4 verses. In the Qur'aan, "jihad" is never linked to war or fighting by Muslims but always with peaceful self-struggle.

Spiritual, Yes, political as in a war, No. Political/war effort is "jahad" according to the Qur'aan but never "jihad". This was the reason Uthman had recalled all the copies of the Qur'aan to have pronunciation marks put on almost each letter of the Qur'aan so that people do not pronounce "jihad" when they should be pronouncing "jahad". It is the "jahad" that can be used in both spiritual as well as political/war situations but "jihad" only in spiritual and peaceful self-struggle.

Here, in your statement, you are not basing your views of Islam on what is in the Qur'aan but on what some or most Muslims think. My views are not personal but based on what is in the Qur'aan. This is why your research efforts will be in vain because your views will always be motivated by the actions of some Muslims rather than the truth of the Qur'aan.

There is more than enough material (verses) in the Qur'aan that identifies clearly the warring is in defense only. When the enemy stops fighting, Muslims must stop too. The Qur'aan leaves no doubt about it. The truth is there for all to see. If they can't see it in there then they must be mentally blind.

If the Qur'aan tells us that we can be friendly with anyone who has not waged war on us and treat them justly then we cannot start a war on those who have not waged war on us. Also, in a war situation, if the enemy stops fighting us, we must stop too. Under such guidance of the Qur'aan, war from Muslims cannot be offensive (initiated by Muslims) but only defensive (initiated by the enemy of Muslims).

Yes, I know that you too know so. This is why I argue that many Muslims have left the Qur'aan on top shelves to catch dust and are relying on hadith books only. Shaytan has made them deviate from the straight path shown to them by Allah through the Qur'aan.

That's why Islam and truth about "jihad" cannot be learnt from the dictionaries. There is no point in arguing about what is "jihad" based on a dictionary instead of the Qur'aan.

That is expression of your double standard. If those who use the word "Islamophobia" that is not in the Qur'aan are stupid then those who use "jihad" as holy war when it is not holy war in the Qur'aan are also stupid. You cannot defend one and call the other stupid. You cannot use double standard in this issue.

That's why I decided to seek the truth about the word "jihad" from the Qur'aan rather than from dictionaries or deviated Muslims.

In context, there is no way "jihad" or even "jahad" is offensive attack on anyone regardless of his religion or of no religion. Initiating war is never commanded in the Qur'aan. Any fighting commanded is in defense only. When enemy stops, Muslims must stop too. These are clear guidelines in the Qur'aan.

Then you would be going into field of kuffar doing "jahd" too. You want to be remote from the word "jihad" and stick to JHD, you will lose your direction in understanding different meanings of the words with JHD root. Also many words mean the same thing but they have different triliteral root such as "Islamists" and "jihadists".

Now you are regressing from your earlier view. The word used in the Qur'aan for non-muslims striving for wrong is not "jihad" but "jahd".

I am not a guardian over them. As long as I stay on the straight path, I am happy. Bringing others to the straight path is not my duty nor was the duty of the messenger. Just as delivering the message was the messenger's duty, my duty is here is only to express my understanding, and in general obeying whatever is commanded in the message from Allah that is delivered by the messenger (the Qur'aan). On the Day of Judgment, I am not going to bear the burden of any other but my own.

Not in ANY action but in action of staying on the straight path (Deen) and not become apostate by doing things that are not Islamic.

No. It is not "jihad" but "jahd". Therefore meaning of "jihad" used for Muslims is different from "jahd" used for kuffar.

"Jihad" is neither exclusively nor inclusively used in the Qur'aan for war or killing of anyone. It is used only for peaceful self-struggle.

Good thinking not to go into the details because your details will be based on actions of Muslims rather than what is stated in the Qur'aan.

That way, all you will do is make a pudding of it. The only proper approach in understanding the word "jihad" is to understand the context in which this word is used in the Qur'aan only. All other ways are deviated ways.

They make a pudding and like the taste of it. So they stick to it even if it kills them. At least they do put an extra effort in killing themselves. I am not going to eat the same pudding and kill myself that way.
I will address the critical points.

I understand the roots used in Arabic can represent different set of meanings. Some roots has many sets of meanings which are contrastingly different.
For example note Ka-Fa-Ra where the common words are related to the disbelievers with its set of related words, i.e. kafara, kafir, kuffar, yakfuru, ukfur, kufira, kufr, yukfaru, ..
However there is another set of meanings for Ka-Fa-Ra, i.e. kaffir [with two f's] which mean Allah 'absolve' sins of sinners. The other related words to this set are Kaffara,.
Other meanings are kafur [camphor] kufran [rejected]

As for the root J-H-D, this root used in the Quran is confined to the main meaning of striving, struggle, i.e. putting extra effort. There is no different set of meanings for J-H-D in the Quran.
The term 'jihad' is specifically used to represent a verbal noun in the set.
It so happen there are only 4 occasions a verbal noun is used in the Quran.

Allah did not use 'jihad' to represent internal spiritual struggle only. This is your own invention.

If you look at the English Dictionary for 'Strive' these are the following grammatical forms.

Strive, verb,
striver, noun [one who strive]
strivingly, adverb
interstrive, verb (used without object), interstrove, interstriven, interstriving.
outstrive, verb (used with object), outstrove, outstriven, outstriving.
overstrive, verb (used without object), overstrove, overstriven, overstriving.
There are no specific noun for 'strive' itself
If I want a noun for 'strive' the verbal noun [inflected] would be 'striving' [noun]. e.g.
Verb = He was striving to reach his goals.
Verbal noun = His 'striving' was in vain.

It is the same with the Quran, the main thrust is the verb 'jahada' i.e. to strive.
When it need a verbal noun, it use the term 'jihad'.
The purpose of this verbal noun 'jihad' is primarily for grammatical purpose and NOT spiritual purpose.
You cannot ignore the grammar aspect of it.

Therefore we must acknowledge the primary purpose of the term 'jihad' used in the Quran is used as a 'verbal noun.' The term 'jihad' was not invented by Allah to represent only an internal spiritual struggle. The verbal noun 'jihad' is solely to perform a grammatical function regardless of the context.

Now, whether the verbal noun 'jihad' used in the 4 verses are in the spiritual or warring contexts [overall] is debatable. You [confirmation bias] insist the 4 verses are in the spiritual contexts, I [objectively] disagree and claim the represent both contexts. We will have to debate this elsewhere and other times.

Quote:
But wrong according to the Qur'aan. They can't learn Islam from the dictionaries but only from the Qur'aan.
I agree, one cannot learn pure Islam from anywhere else except from the Quran. The Quran is the ONLY divine authority for Islam per se.

The Quran never specifically equate 'jihad = holy war.'
In the Arabic Dictionaries 'jihad = holy war.'
The 'jihad = holy war' is based on the popular meanings from the Arab community from long ago.

The general principle is the referent [the real physical rose] is more important than names [rose, etc.] for that specific flower that smell the same regardless of whatever name it is called.

The question is, does the Quran triggers defensive and offensive wars?
My argument based on research is the Quran do triggers defensive and also offensive wars [by SOME Muslims] on non-Muslims because of some evil laden verses within the Quran.

Since Islam emerged, these offensive wars had been committed by SOME [~20% not all] evil prone Muslims acting on evil laden verses.
Because of its successes, SOME Muslims identify such warring effort as 'jihad'. I don't think this is deliberate but it catches on over time [like the word 'gay'] to represent the warring efforts of the Muslims who interpret the verses in the right minded way. [Who can insist they are wrong?].
Btw, it could have been any word other than 'jihad', if someone has started using 'jahad' then the Arabic Dictionary will have 'jahad = holy war.' It could also have been 'jahid' or some odd words. What is critical is the real holy war [can be any name] that has happened, happening and will happen.

So the term 'jihad = holy war' is correct in accordance to the Arabic Dictionary because there are real holy wars by SOME Muslims who are inspired by SOME Quranic verses [no one can argue they are wrong].

Islamophobia is stupidity [*literally] because in our current age we are well informed but yet deliberately coined words that do not make logical sense. A phobia is an irrational fear but those who fear the manifesting acts of Islam by SOME Muslims are real. The more appropriate words should be bigotry, blasphemy, anti- against Islam or critiques of Islam.
Rightly 'Islamophobia' is a phobia itself because it is an irrational description and irrational fears.

*note stupidity is not meant to be pejorative [insulting] here. It is a real literal meaning for people who do not use their intelligence [or don't have the intelligence] to match the correct literal meanings between two elements correctly. The obvious example is if one insist a round-square exists

Another is calling those who critique Islam, racists. How can it be when Islam is not a race. Those people who has principles and integrity will never so such a thing as calling critiques of Islam racists. That is pure stupidity due to emotional desperation.

'Jihad [Arabic] = holy war' is etymologically correct because there is a real holy war by SOME Muslims who were inspired by verses from the Quran. But it wrong to insist 'jihad = holy war' is within Quranic Language as frozen within 610-632 AD and in the Quran.

There are people who commit blasphemy against Islam, bigotry on Islam and criticize Islam but that is not due to irrational fears [phobia]. So 'Islamophobia' is an irrational literally term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2017, 12:06 AM
 
2,050 posts, read 666,995 times
Reputation: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
And I think our friend mahasn sawresho interprets the Koran as a temperament. He THINKS Quran is temperament. Our friend here is trying to teach us Islam because he is not happy about Muslims killing his grandfather's father in Turkey. I do have some sympathy for our friend if he is really telling us the truth about his grandfather's father. Therefore, our friend's motive in this forum is quite obvious.
Please forgive me, my friend
I do not have the right to interpret Islam
But I have the right to present the position of Islam and the Muslim commentators and the words of the Koran
But personal things do not make me angry
Because I do not hate anyone
But I have only one weapon
It is the word of love only
It is a word that humanity loves
That is why I seek to prevail in the teachings of love and to reject the teachings of hatred

And the teachings of peace as well
I invite you to look for these teachings from the Koran and offer them to us to benefit from you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2017, 12:36 AM
 
2,050 posts, read 666,995 times
Reputation: 204
(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If you state,
"Because jihad [Arabic] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I can agree with you.

But if you state as above;
"Because jihad [Quran] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I cannot agree with you because no where in the Quran is 'jihad' = spreading Islam.



This is a matter of life's principle and more so if a God is involved.
The principle is one's actions must always depend the source authority otherwise there will be chaos and wars.

Note the example I gave regarding Donald Trump's Executive Order is being cancelled by the Judges who judge based on the US Constitution and thus do not personally favor the US President. As for the USA, the Constitution is supreme. It is the same for other countries and organization.

In the case of Islam proper, the 'Constitution' MUST be the Quran from Allah and nothing else.
It is ridiculous and against all principles for a God to allow his Prophet to decide God's Law.

But note some of the Hadith that call for casting of terror and going to war are correct because they are the same as verses in the Quran.
Thus in principle whatever from the Ahadith and is not in line with the Quran-Only is not right, e.g. Camel Urine, stoning adulteress to death, sucking breasts by adults, etc.


I disagrees with Khalif on many views but one thing I agree with Khalif and many other Quran-Only followers is the sole 'Constitution' [authority] of Islam must be from the Quran only and no where else.
This is purely based on Principles, objectivity, intellectual honesty & integrity.

All the Muslims actions' before Khalif are not in vain.
The greatest sins are those unpardonable sins.
The other sins can be forgiven by Allah if they are not the serious sins.
Therefore the Ahadith followers may not be as truer Muslims as the Quran-only Muslims but they are still rewarded by rewards of lower degree [DRJ; darajātin] for whatever good deeds they do.
If they strive [jihad] to perform martydom, Allah will cancel all past sins and reward them greatly as stated in the Quran.

Whatever Hadiths/Fatwa the Islamic jurists came up with, the critical point is they must comply with the Quran and nothing else. If comply then it is acceptable by Allah, if not then it will be a sin.
"Because jihad [Arabic] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I can agree with you.
----
Yes, this is true
Jihad is the means used to spread jihad
This is supported by other verses of the Koran
For fighting is also a jihad in the sense
--------------------
Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
For the first type: Jihad al-talb and start

Is to ask the infidels in their homes and invite them to Islam and fight them if they do not accept submission to the rule of Islam.
His ruling: The rule of this type imposed on the total Muslims.
(Anfroa Khvafa and heavy and (jahdo) with your money and yourselves in the way of God that is better for you if you know) al-toba / 41

-----------------------

But the great breast feeding and the drinking of urine and others are written in the books of Islamic heritage
It has been a large section Muslims over the past four hundred years do not differ on these novels
Why should they object to it today?
------------------------
The other point you mentioned
you are right
Which is that the Koran has all the laws which is to be governed by the Muslim ruler
This is called the principle of governance( al-hakmeaa)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2017, 06:30 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,047,626 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I will address the critical points.

I understand the roots used in Arabic can represent different set of meanings. Some roots has many sets of meanings which are contrastingly different.
That's why reliance of triliteral root is not important but actual meaning or meanings of a word in the Qur'aan. This is why "jihad" and "jahad" are pronounced differently and the two are written in Arabic in exact same way (jhhad) but are pronounced differently to clarify the meanings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
For example note Ka-Fa-Ra where the common words are related to the disbelievers with its set of related words, i.e. kafara, kafir, kuffar, yakfuru, ukfur, kufira, kufr, yukfaru, ..
However there is another set of meanings for Ka-Fa-Ra, i.e. kaffir [with two f's] which mean Allah 'absolve' sins of sinners. The other related words to this set are Kaffara,.
Other meanings are kafur [camphor] kufran [rejected]
That's why we cannot mix the words with same triliteral root to assume the same meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
As for the root J-H-D, this root used in the Quran is confined to the main meaning of striving, struggle, i.e. putting extra effort. There is no different set of meanings for J-H-D in the Quran.
Root JHD word "jahd" is used for non-believers and hypocrites too as you have pointed out. In this case it is for their effort in false sayings (pretension).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The term 'jihad' is specifically used to represent a verbal noun in the set.
The word "jihad" is noun for "struggle" (not verb struggling) to stay in deen (the way of Allah). It's "jahd" that is verbal noun and "jahad" and "jahid" as struggling (verb). To be more precise in understanding "jihad", it is never used for actual action in a war situation as if you are a soldier fighting kuffar. Such action (verb) is "jahad" and "jahid".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It so happen there are only 4 occasions a verbal noun is used in the Quran.
That wasn't an accident. Allah chose His words precisely and for specific reason. So it did not just "happen" by chance. "Jihad" is noun and name given to struggle of nafs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Allah did not use 'jihad' to represent internal spiritual struggle only. This is your own invention.
Wrong! All 4 verses relate to struggle of nafs under trying conditions. You need to study all 4 verses deeply. You won't find any of them as physical fighting in a war but their personal effort/conviction (Eeman) in staying in the Deen as Muslims. It is totally defensive "jihad" and involves no physical fighting as in a war/battle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If you look at the English Dictionary for 'Strive' these are the following grammatical forms.

Strive, verb,
striver, noun [one who strive]
strivingly, adverb
interstrive, verb (used without object), interstrove, interstriven, interstriving.
outstrive, verb (used with object), outstrove, outstriven, outstriving.
overstrive, verb (used without object), overstrove, overstriven, overstriving.
That is the way of another of our poster friend to understand "strive" and "struggle". He too puts these words in English in a translator and then God knows what comes out of it in Arabic. Now try the same for "struggle" and it won't be only the one who struggles to be noun but "struggle" itself can also be noun. The difference in Arabic Qur'aan is that there are different words used for struggling/striving as verb and "jihad" only as noun for self-struggle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
There are no specific noun for 'strive' itself
If I want a noun for 'strive' the verbal noun [inflected] would be 'striving' [noun]. e.g.
Verb = He was striving to reach his goals.
Verbal noun = His 'striving' was in vain.
Why only "strive" and not "struggle"? Struggle is noun in English as well as verb. But in Arabic Qur'aan, "jihad" is only noun as there are other words in Arabic for verb "striving" and "struggling". The collective noun for peacefully staying on course in deen (Allah'sway) under trying conditions is called "jihad".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is the same with the Quran, the main thrust is the verb 'jahada' i.e. to strive.
When it need a verbal noun, it use the term 'jihad'.
The purpose of this verbal noun 'jihad' is primarily for grammatical purpose and NOT spiritual purpose.
You cannot ignore the grammar aspect of it.
You have described the difference between noun "jihad" and verb "jahad". You fail to understand Arabic grammar why one word ("jihad") is used for noun and the others ("jahad", jahd" and "jahid") for verbal noun and verb. This is why you won't find "jihad" ever used in the Qur'aan for "jahad" during a battle situation.

The word "jihad" in the Qur'aan is never used for striving, struggling, fighting, killing in any physical battle/war but only for personal peaceful self-struggle under trying conditions such as during persecution and hardship during migrating from Mecca to Madina.

If you say that it is verbal noun applicable to striving in a battle situation on the battle field then quote a verse in which "jihad" is mentioned in the Qur'aan for such a situation. You won't find one. So the Qur'aan itself answers your misconception about "jihad".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore we must acknowledge the primary purpose of the term 'jihad' used in the Quran is used as a 'verbal noun.' The term 'jihad' was not invented by Allah to represent only an internal spiritual struggle. The verbal noun 'jihad' is solely to perform a grammatical function regardless of the context.
This is your misconception about "jihad" in the Qur'aan. It is used in the Qur'aan only in a peaceful and personal self-struggle on the part of a believer. The word is never used for aggressive striving during a physical battle between kuffar and believers. If you do not agree with me, quote a verse with the word "jihad" in it that is about aggressive action in a physical battle between kuffar and Muslims or even relating to an attack by Muslims on any peaceful person of any religion or of no religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Now, whether the verbal noun 'jihad' used in the 4 verses are in the spiritual or warring contexts [overall] is debatable. You [confirmation bias] insist the 4 verses are in the spiritual contexts, I [objectively] disagree and claim the represent both contexts. We will have to debate this elsewhere and other times.
Why not here?

Your accusation of "confirmation bias" against me is misplaced in view of the fact that my view differs from many Muslims' view of "jihad". My view is based on understanding of the Qur'aan verses, in which is the word "jihad" stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I agree, one cannot learn pure Islam from anywhere else except from the Quran. The Quran is the ONLY divine authority for Islam per se.
Then let go of dictionary terms and concentrate on terms in the Qur'aan and the context in which each term is used. The word "jihad" is never used for physical attack on anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The Quran never specifically equate 'jihad = holy war.'
In the Arabic Dictionaries 'jihad = holy war.'
The 'jihad = holy war' is based on the popular meanings from the Arab community from long ago.
To understand why "jihad" is not "holy war" or even unholy war in the Qur'aan, you have to understand the word used in the Qur'aan for such a war and how it differs from the word "jihad" in the Qur'aan. That's why Arabs are getting nowhere in deen today. They must have misunderstood "jahad" as "jihad". Originally there was no difference in the written word. It was written in exactly the same way. The "jahad" was differentiated from "jihad" when fathah was put on top of "j" to make it "jahad" and kasrah was put under "j" to make it "jihad". This was done so entirely to make sure that "jahad" is not pronounced as "jihad".

Do you understand why "jihad" that is stated only in 4 verses is known everywhere but "jahad" that is stated in 27 times in the Qur'aan is never mentioned by those who seem to be Islam and the Qur'aan experts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The general principle is the referent [the real physical rose] is more important than names [rose, etc.] for that specific flower that smell the same regardless of whatever name it is called.
Names of roses are absolutely vital as there are so many of them. Some are even wild roses. Others are Hybrid, Floribunda, Chinese and many varieties in each of them. I have over 300 of them in my garden and each smells differently. One is even called "Peace". It was named after "peace" at the end of WWII. It has very little fragrance.

Therefore, you must have guessed by now that I am not talking in general terms but have gone deeper to understand the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The question is, does the Quran triggers defensive and offensive wars?
The Qur'aan does not "trigger" any war. It is designed to stop triggering of war and then, once war is waged on Muslims, it tells us to take appropriate actions to halt the war. Once war is halted, Muslims can't carry on. This is what is stated in the Qur'aan. It is to stop fasad (war) and create peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
My argument based on research is the Quran do triggers defensive and also offensive wars [by SOME Muslims] on non-Muslims because of some evil laden verses within the Quran.
If you read the Qur'aan with open mind, you will not find the Qur'aan "triggering" any physical war. Triggering war is a no go area according to the Qur'aan. Fighting is ordained only in defense.

Your views are not based on the teachings of the Qur'aan but based on what SOME Muslims may do. There is big gulf between the two understandings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Since Islam emerged, these offensive wars had been committed by SOME [~20% not all] evil prone Muslims acting on evil laden verses.
Nonsense! If that had been due to the verses of the Qur'aan, MOST of Muslims would be doing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Because of its successes, SOME Muslims identify such warring effort as 'jihad'. I don't think this is deliberate but it catches on over time [like the word 'gay'] to represent the warring efforts of the Muslims who interpret the verses in the right minded way. [Who can insist they are wrong?].
SOME Muslims, politicians, media and now you, are publicizing "jihad" for the wrong reasons and wrong definition. All of these are part of its "successes". And then they say why they can't eliminate terrorism. All of the above are part of the failure to understand the Qur'aan. Even "love thy neighbor" in the Bible can be called a "Crusade" prompted by God. For the proper definition, should we stick to the Bible or JWB? The same applies in case of the Qur'aan and the word "jihad". Any other definition is false definition if it does not go along with the definition in the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, it could have been any word other than 'jihad', if someone has started using 'jahad' then the Arabic Dictionary will have 'jahad = holy war.' It could also have been 'jahid' or some odd words. What is critical is the real holy war [can be any name] that has happened, happening and will happen.
Anything can be holy war once they close their eyes and close their minds towards the Qur'aan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
So the term 'jihad = holy war' is correct in accordance to the Arabic Dictionary because there are real holy wars by SOME Muslims who are inspired by SOME Quranic verses [no one can argue they are wrong].
That kind of thinking is part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2017, 11:52 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,047,626 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
"Because jihad [Arabic] in the name of Allah is in order to spread Islam"
then I can agree with you.
How does one spread Islam? By dawah or jihad?
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
Yes, this is true
Jihad is the means used to spread jihad
How does one spread Islam, by dawah, by jihad, by sword or spread jihad by jihad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
This is supported by other verses of the Koran
For fighting is also a jihad in the sense
Fighting is jihad in the sense of those who have no sense.
--------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
His ruling: The rule of this type imposed on the total Muslims.
(Anfroa Khvafa and heavy and (jahdo) with your money and yourselves in the way of God that is better for you if you know) al-toba / 41
It's "jahdo" and not "jihad". Back to the drawing board or google translator!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
But the great breast feeding and the drinking of urine and others are written in the books of Islamic heritage
That is not "jihad" or "jahdo".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
It has been a large section Muslims over the past four hundred years do not differ on these novels
Why should they object to it today?
Because it is objectionable now. I don't know why should you do the objection as to how we believed except in the last four hundred years? Did your google translator eat 1000 years of our believing?
------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
The other point you mentioned
you are right
Which is that the Koran has all the laws which is to be governed by the Muslim ruler
This is called the principle of governance( al-hakmeaa)
Principle of al-hakmeaa or principle of jihad?

Greetings from peaceful mujahid
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2017, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,594,359 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
That's why reliance of triliteral root is not important but actual meaning or meanings of a word in the Qur'aan. This is why "jihad" and "jahad" are pronounced differently and the two are written in Arabic in exact same way (jhhad) but are pronounced differently to clarify the meanings.

That's why we cannot mix the words with same triliteral root to assume the same meaning.

Root JHD word "jahd" is used for non-believers and hypocrites too as you have pointed out. In this case it is for their effort in false sayings (pretension).

The word "jihad" is noun for "struggle" (not verb struggling) to stay in deen (the way of Allah). It's "jahd" that is verbal noun and "jahad" and "jahid" as struggling (verb). To be more precise in understanding "jihad", it is never used for actual action in a war situation as if you are a soldier fighting kuffar. Such action (verb) is "jahad" and "jahid".

That wasn't an accident. Allah chose His words precisely and for specific reason. So it did not just "happen" by chance. "Jihad" is noun and name given to struggle of nafs.

Wrong! All 4 verses relate to struggle of nafs under trying conditions. You need to study all 4 verses deeply. You won't find any of them as physical fighting in a war but their personal effort/conviction (Eeman) in staying in the Deen as Muslims. It is totally defensive "jihad" and involves no physical fighting as in a war/battle.

That is the way of another of our poster friend to understand "strive" and "struggle". He too puts these words in English in a translator and then God knows what comes out of it in Arabic. Now try the same for "struggle" and it won't be only the one who struggles to be noun but "struggle" itself can also be noun. The difference in Arabic Qur'aan is that there are different words used for struggling/striving as verb and "jihad" only as noun for self-struggle.

Why only "strive" and not "struggle"? Struggle is noun in English as well as verb. But in Arabic Qur'aan, "jihad" is only noun as there are other words in Arabic for verb "striving" and "struggling". The collective noun for peacefully staying on course in deen (Allah'sway) under trying conditions is called "jihad".

You have described the difference between noun "jihad" and verb "jahad". You fail to understand Arabic grammar why one word ("jihad") is used for noun and the others ("jahad", jahd" and "jahid") for verbal noun and verb. This is why you won't find "jihad" ever used in the Qur'aan for "jahad" during a battle situation.

The word "jihad" in the Qur'aan is never used for striving, struggling, fighting, killing in any physical battle/war but only for personal peaceful self-struggle under trying conditions such as during persecution and hardship during migrating from Mecca to Madina.

If you say that it is verbal noun applicable to striving in a battle situation on the battle field then quote a verse in which "jihad" is mentioned in the Qur'aan for such a situation. You won't find one. So the Qur'aan itself answers your misconception about "jihad".

This is your misconception about "jihad" in the Qur'aan. It is used in the Qur'aan only in a peaceful and personal self-struggle on the part of a believer. The word is never used for aggressive striving during a physical battle between kuffar and believers. If you do not agree with me, quote a verse with the word "jihad" in it that is about aggressive action in a physical battle between kuffar and Muslims or even relating to an attack by Muslims on any peaceful person of any religion or of no religion.

Why not here?

Your accusation of "confirmation bias" against me is misplaced in view of the fact that my view differs from many Muslims' view of "jihad". My view is based on understanding of the Qur'aan verses, in which is the word "jihad" stated.

Then let go of dictionary terms and concentrate on terms in the Qur'aan and the context in which each term is used. The word "jihad" is never used for physical attack on anyone.

To understand why "jihad" is not "holy war" or even unholy war in the Qur'aan, you have to understand the word used in the Qur'aan for such a war and how it differs from the word "jihad" in the Qur'aan. That's why Arabs are getting nowhere in deen today. They must have misunderstood "jahad" as "jihad". Originally there was no difference in the written word. It was written in exactly the same way. The "jahad" was differentiated from "jihad" when fathah was put on top of "j" to make it "jahad" and kasrah was put under "j" to make it "jihad". This was done so entirely to make sure that "jahad" is not pronounced as "jihad".

Do you understand why "jihad" that is stated only in 4 verses is known everywhere but "jahad" that is stated in 27 times in the Qur'aan is never mentioned by those who seem to be Islam and the Qur'aan experts?

Names of roses are absolutely vital as there are so many of them. Some are even wild roses. Others are Hybrid, Floribunda, Chinese and many varieties in each of them. I have over 300 of them in my garden and each smells differently. One is even called "Peace". It was named after "peace" at the end of WWII. It has very little fragrance.

Therefore, you must have guessed by now that I am not talking in general terms but have gone deeper to understand the Qur'aan.

The Qur'aan does not "trigger" any war. It is designed to stop triggering of war and then, once war is waged on Muslims, it tells us to take appropriate actions to halt the war. Once war is halted, Muslims can't carry on. This is what is stated in the Qur'aan. It is to stop fasad (war) and create peace.

If you read the Qur'aan with open mind, you will not find the Qur'aan "triggering" any physical war. Triggering war is a no go area according to the Qur'aan. Fighting is ordained only in defense.

Your views are not based on the teachings of the Qur'aan but based on what SOME Muslims may do. There is big gulf between the two understandings.

Nonsense! If that had been due to the verses of the Qur'aan, MOST of Muslims would be doing that.

SOME Muslims, politicians, media and now you, are publicizing "jihad" for the wrong reasons and wrong definition. All of these are part of its "successes". And then they say why they can't eliminate terrorism. All of the above are part of the failure to understand the Qur'aan. Even "love thy neighbor" in the Bible can be called a "Crusade" prompted by God. For the proper definition, should we stick to the Bible or JWB? The same applies in case of the Qur'aan and the word "jihad". Any other definition is false definition if it does not go along with the definition in the Qur'aan.

Anything can be holy war once they close their eyes and close their minds towards the Qur'aan.

That kind of thinking is part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem.
I have already stated as far as the Quran is concerned - objectively - the term 'jihad' as used in the 4 verses is not specifically and directly related to 'holy war'.
However some of the verses are indirectly linked to warring matters. Note the whole context of chapter 9 is heavily involved in a warring context and aggressive mode against the infidels. This is in contrast to the other Meccan verses where the focus is spiritual and eschatological.

Personally I am confident of my points that the Quran contain loads of evil laden elements that trigger SOME evil prone Muslims to commit evils and violence. This is supported by evidence from my ongoing project. The evidence is supported by the recent London lone wolf case.
I prefer not to discuss such issues in details [from the Quran, human nature, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, etc.] here because this forum do not provide a freer environment to express the truth.

Jihad[Arabic] is definitely equal to 'holy war' and this concept is not derived from the 4 verses that contain 'jihad' in the Quran.
This concept of 'jihad[Arabic] = holy war' exudes from a part of the whole ethos [Spirit] of Islam as expressed in the Quran.

As far as the politicians and others are concern, they are referring to jihad[Arabic] and jihad[English] which is the truth. But they don't have the intellectual and philosophical depth to link such a concept to the tons of evil laden elements in the Quran. Most people think a religion by definition must be peaceful, but they don't understand Islam's Deen is a way of life and an ideology with [partly] evil lurking in some dark corners.
It is the same for you [and most Muslims], because of your confirmation bias, you will never see that 'elephant' in the Quranic room. Many Muslims see that large 'elephant' after they have become apostate.

I'll state again, jihad[Quranic] is not equal to 'holy war.'

Re the rose thing, in Shakespeare's case, it referred to the same specific species of rose in different names in terms of different languages or any other literary formulation.

Note I only used 'strive' as an example to demonstrate the linguistic features. I have wanted to use 'smoking' and it could be some other words that can demonstrate a verbal noun.

Last edited by Continuum; 03-23-2017 at 07:42 PM..
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