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.
Same old - today - Islamist killings of tourists in Tunisia, a beheading in France, an attack and killing of one group of Muslims by another who doesn't recognize their brand of Islam in Kuwait.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by modernist1
Same old - today - Islamist killings of tourists in Tunisia, a beheading in France, an attack and killing of one group of Muslims by another who doesn't recognize their brand of Islam in Kuwait.
Yes, the religion of peace, in a Orwellian kind of way.
Same old - today - Islamist killings of tourists in Tunisia, a beheading in France, an attack and killing of one group of Muslims by another who doesn't recognize their brand of Islam in Kuwait.
From what I can find the terrorists in these attacks are/were members of ISIS which once agin has shoed it self to be an enemy of Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
ISIS is attempting to destroy Islam and take over the world.
Yes they have been condemned by virtually everyMuslim Nation and they have declared war against virtually every Islamic Nation in the Mideast and North Africa
and still.....I have yet to hear any so called "peaceful muslim" or so called "moderate muslim" say "this is wrong, this is bad, this must stop, i want no part of this"
i have not heard that once. no suggestions to stop it. no public denouncements. no public criticism. None.
all i hear repeated is "they are not muslim" and "the media is to blame" and "that's not true Islam" and the violence is justified, defended, rationalized, minimized and explained.
by the silence of the so-called "peaceful muslims" they continue to endorse, promote, condone, and approve of the violence. they have blood on their hands every bit as much as those who actually commit the acts.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-26-2015 at 06:16 PM..
wife of accused jihad killer Yassin Salhi in France (factory bombing, beheading) states “We are normal Muslims. We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family life,” says the wife of the suspect.
the wife has also been arrested; they have done Ramadan in grand fashion this year
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-26-2015 at 06:48 PM..
and still.....I have yet to hear any so called "peaceful muslim" or so called "moderate muslim" say "this is wrong, this is bad, this must stop"
i have not heard that once. no suggestions to stop it. no public denouncements. no public criticism. None.
all i hear repeated is "they are not muslim" and "the media is to blame" and "that's not true Islam" and the violence is justified, defended, rationalized, minimized and explained.
by the silence of the so-called "peaceful muslims" they continue to endorse, promote, condone, and approve of the violence. they have blood on their hands every bit as much as those who actually commit the acts.
They are Muslim. every person that says he is Muslim is considered to be Muslim.
Terrorism and ISIS are wrong not only in Islam but in virtually every Religion.
Muslims constantly speak out against Muslim terrorists. They are condemned world wide. What I do not see is the media ever publicizing it
A few examples of Muslims speaking out against terrorism and /or ISIS
1. Ali Sina is a bit inclined at truncating and making ayyats match his own concepts.
Because Ali Sina was paraphrasing, obviously he has to truncate and anyone can check out the full verses he quoted.
Quote:
or example Where he quotes 47: 8-9 (“All the good deeds of the non-Muslims are in vain. (47:8-9) He has pretty much butchered 47: 8-9 to suit his own agenda
47:8 (Picktall) And those who disbelieve, perdition is for them, and He will make their actions vain.
47:9 (Picktall) That is because they are averse to that which Allah hath revealed, therefor maketh He their action fruitless.
Isn't it quite logical that if a person does not believe in Allaah(swt) they should not expect to be rewarded by Him?
In this case, Ali Sina did not quote 47:8-9, he was merely paraphrasing in 10 words, the meaning of the two verses [which has 30+ words].
Just because disbelievers [non-Muslims] did are averse to Allah's words, he will punished them and ignore whatever actions they have done [including whatever good deeds]. This reflect the attitude of a very small minded God. God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he should have the power to teach those in error and be mercy to fallible humans.
In other verses of the Quran, God will to create disbelievers so he can punish them. [e.g. 35:8]
It is fair enough if a person do not comply, he is not rewarded, but following from here is disbelievers deeds are totally ignored and punished in hell.
Quote:
while those who disbelieve take their comfort in this life and eat even as the
cattle eat, and the Fire is their habitation. 47:12
Therefore, morally it is reasonable to critique such a cruel attitude.
Quote:
2. He does not appear to have been a Muslim as he claims. If he had been a
Muslim he would be aware that the name of a Surah is not related to the topic.
The purpose of a name is a bit of a mneomic to serve as a key to refresh memory
as to what Surah is being recited. Keep in mind for most of the History of the
Qur'an the primary preservation of the Qur'an has been memory. While today
there are only a few million Hafiz (a person who has memorized the Qur'an) in
the past every Muslim family had at least one member who was Hafiz. The Qur'an
was taught in the home by the parents and not in madrassas or by clerics.
I don't see any issue here re name of the topic. Sina stated correctly,
"The Sura 47 is named after Muhammad because he mentioned his name in verse 2.
The other name of this sura is ‘al Qital’ (fighting), which is derived from the sentence wa dhukira fi-hal-qital in verse 20 that encourage Muslim to fight."
Most of the name of the Chapter are named after certain word in the Chapter. However different compilers may use different words to name each chapter which most of the time do not reflect the actual contents of the Surah.
Quote:
3. He seems to have an agenda of presenting Muslims in the worse light possible. His Web site does not seem to be geared towards "converting" Muslims, although he claims it is to help Muslims It impresses me as being a venue to stir up fear, suspicions and hatred by non-Muslims.
Some more examples of how he is using erroneous interpretations of Surah 47
They are like cattle and will have for their dwelling hell fire (47:12)
Which actually says
47:12 (Picktall) Lo! Allah will cause those who believe and do good works to enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; while those who disbelieve take their comfort in this life and eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire is their habitation.
The saying they eat as cattle eat, is not calling them cattle. it essentially means they take with no thanks for what they are given
Ali Sina's mission is geared toward educating Muslims of the truth of Islam especially the negative aspects and let the Muslims decide for themselves.
47:12 likens disbelievers as cattle. If Islam is a religion of peace and mercy, why the need to made such dreadful, harsh and degrading/lowly comparisons 'as the cattle eat.' Some translations used 'like the cattle eat.' Many non-muslims who read of such comparson will naturally feel offended when taken in the whole contexts with thousands of other condemnations directed at them as the derogatory 'Kaffir'.
Quote:
Another tactic is he adds in unrelated ayyats from other Surat (Plural of Surah) This article is presented as a critique of Surah 47 but he adds in
Muhammad said the unbelievers are the worst animals, (8:55) hated by God and fuel for hell.
while Muslims are the best people (3:110)
Which to me is not only insulting Muslims but is portraying Muslims as being arrogant and self Righteous.
Firstly the verse 8:55 stating 'the vilest creatures' 'the worst of beast,' 'the worst animal' is definitely insulting to unbelievers, i.e. meaning me and other non-Muslims.
Therefore apostates like Ali Sina has the right to point this out. Non-believers are not insulting Muslims but merely pointing out the truth of what the Quran stated which in fact is insulting to non-Muslims.
Quote:
3:110 acually says:
3:110 (Picktall) Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
It's basic message is:
The Muslims have been instructed to learn lessons from the history of the people of the Book and also to guard themselves against their machinations, and to prepare and train themselves to establish virtue and eradicate evil. 102 - 120 Syed Maududi's Commentary for Surah #3
Note in 3:110 'but most of them [Christians] are evil-livers' is an outright condemnation of non-Muslims.
3:110 praise Muslims are best in comparison to most Christians who are evil-livers. This would appear to boost their ego. This is followed by the terrible condemnation of them in 3:111 and 3:112. This condemnation is in line with the condemnation of the Christians throughout the context of the whole Quran, starting from 1:7.
3:113 praise a section of the Christians who were monks but this was abrogated by Allah condemnation of monasticism 51 57:27 when the Christians rejected the call of Muhammad.
Quote:
In my opinion for his own reasons Ali Sina has an agenda of fostering hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims and uses his Web-sites and forums to suit his purposes. His biased opinions, in my opinion greatly reduces the reliability of what he writes.
Ali Sina may have his own reasons against Islam [as far as I know he is not against Muslims in general].
From the above I do not see Ali Sina portraying the Quran wrongly but state the truth of what is in the Quran. Ali Sina highlighting the condemnations of non-Muslims in the Quran is not his fault nor inventions except he is stating verbatim what is in the Quran, albeit in somewhat an 'angry' tone.
It is critical for Muslims to recognize the Quran [in part] has its negative bits [as pointed out by Ali Sina or they can read themselves] which can be malignant when read by SOME evil prone Muslims.
One critical point here is there is no central authority in Islam to decide who is right and who is wrong in being a truer Muslim.
The jihadists adopt what is literally stated in the Quran and expositions in the Hadiths without compromise and exceptions. Since the Quran is the word of God, it is only logical whoever adhere to God's words would be the greater Muslims.
The moderates do not have grounds at all from the Islamic perspective to declare they are the true Muslims than the jihadists.
The only ground available to them for their compromising stance is based on basic human dignity, rights and values which contradict many of those stated in the Quran.
One critical point here is there is no central authority in Islam to decide who is right and who is wrong in being a truer Muslim.
The jihadists adopt what is literally stated in the Quran and expositions in the Hadiths without compromise and exceptions. Since the Quran is the word of God, it is only logical whoever adhere to God's words would be the greater Muslims.
The moderates do not have grounds at all from the Islamic perspective to declare they are the true Muslims than the jihadists.
The only ground available to them for their compromising stance is based on basic human dignity, rights and values which contradict many of those stated in the Quran.
To a large extent I agree here.
Islam is not an organization. It is an act of worship. That act being Islam. Those who state they are performing Islam are considered Muslims.
It is not a question of true or false, Islam is a personal commitment between the Individual and Allaah(swt) no one except the individual knows if they have dedicated their life to serving Allaah(swt)
Islam is not an organization. It is individual responsibility. As such you are going to have people of all types that believe they are performing Islam.
As such those who do evil have to be addressed as individuals not with a blanket statement of being Muslim.
Actions need to be seen as the actions of the individual or in some cases the individual organization. Boko-Haram should be taken to task because they are Boko-Haram not because they are Muslim. IS should be taken to task bebecause they are IS not because they are Muslim.
As a Muslim I see IS choosing Ramadan as the time for their recent acts of terrorism because they want the world to condmen Islam. Indirectly they will can involve non-Muslim as unaware allies in their battle to conquer all Muslims. IS does want to form all Muslims into a homogeneous organization under control of IS. But in order to do so they need to destroy the majority of the world's Muslims. By getting the world to hate Muslims, they are setting the stage to accomplish too goals 1. Getting the world's non-Muslims to engage in battle against all Muslims which will 2. Force some Muslims to side with IS for survival. That is just my opinion and based only upon my own views of what I see happening in the Mideast.
But the overall solution is for all people to recognize that individuals and individual organizations are responsible for their acts. There is no organization called Islam to attack. To Attack Islam means attacking all individuals that call them self Muslim.
It is analogous to attacking all Christians because Kony and his Lord's Liberation Army call them self Christians. There are some Muslims and non-Muslims that do perceive the Qur'an as justifying violence. It must be kept in mind they are the minority.
I do not know if you have ever been in combat but many of us that have, have witnessed some of our fellow soldiers commit atrocities they justified as being allowed under the rules of combat. People that choose violence will find reason to justify be it Religious scripture or political manifestos or whatever they see as an authority.
Bottom line evil acts should not be labelled as the teachings of Islam. The individual that does them is the one responsible.
Bottom line evil acts should not be labelled as the teachings of Islam. The individual that does them is the one responsible.
but they are committing the evil acts because Muhammad commands them to, because Islam commands them to. Muhammad is seen as the ideal human to emulate in all ways. That is the essence and core of Islam. Not just that there is one God. But that "Muhammad is his prophet." And Muhammad is all about the evil acts that are being committed in the world at this time in the name of Islam. Just as he physically performed those very same evil acts during his lifetime 1400 years ago, so are the atrocities being committed today. In the name of Islam. As Muhammad commands.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-27-2015 at 11:33 AM..
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.
