Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic: Generally speaking does the Islamic religion encourage or discourage t

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charity
    replied
    Originally posted by xAvarice View Post
    toldailytopic: Generally speaking does the Islamic religion encourage or discourage terrorism by its adherents?



    It encourages it, it makes space for it and downright advocates violence.


    toldailytopic: Generally speaking does the Christian religion encourage or discourage terrorism by its adherents?



    Encourage


    toldailytopic: Generally speaking does the Hindu religion encourage or discourage terrorism by its adherents?



    Encourage

    --

    You can probably see where this is going.
    YES, catholicism orthodoxy and protestantism are Number as One army. christian, not One Jew bone left to be seen...As a waste of Book when it comes to the Fathers...
    No Need to terrorize when you have all the spoil, an the God that go's with it. an the people moved on to go on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Per the OP I cannot answer as I have never read the Koran [or however you spell it], but I don't know that I've ever known a Muslim to deny it.


    I think you need to learn the meaning of the word "fundamentalism." Just because leftists like to redefine words doesn't mean they have a new meaning.

    A fundamentalist, by definition, is one who adheres to the fundamentals of their belief system.
    Hi Lighthouse,
    Americans are fundamentalist, not a race... as Jewish, greek, hebrew, Roman, Indian, Asian. etc...on the page before the Land you standby should move.
    Last edited by Charity; May 4th, 2013, 04:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulla Sadra
    replied
    Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Islam is a political religion of violence, no matter how much others try to paint it differently.

    As cogently explained in the below, let's stop qualifying Islam and just call it what it is--Islam:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-f...m-islam/print/

    Muslims fail to follow the admonition given in Surah 10:94 for they know we would denounce any sort of such prophecy therein.

    "So, if you (O Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel)], then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it)."

    The Bible does not predict the coming of Muhammad, hence the Qur'an is in error. The Christian actually obeys Surah 5:47 and has found Muhammad and the Qur'an wanting.

    AMR
    Okay I am going to give you a sentence, You understand it, then "Light over Light" - as we Arabs say -, you don't then "Allah is free from need of the worlds." - as We Arabs also say -.

    Islam is a religion of peace for the sole individual, in the spiritual daily-life it advocates, but when Islam is talking about masses, it is a religion of Everything ie Politics, And it it is Peace for those who want Peace, and Violence for those who want Violence, because Islam when plays as Government Religion, then it gives them all rules, including rules when IN WAR.

    And between all aspects of Islam, Individualistic Peace, Government Institution Building, Flexible Constitution, You like to keep it to that small side that just makes up 0.001909499% of the Quran, So you leave the 99.9980905% timeline of a Muslim/Islamic Country for the 0.001909499% (which is the time of War, that usually only rules are to kill you enemy, but Islam was the first to make POW rules, Defectors rules, marching rules, civilian protection rules....etc Something Westerner didn't get to until 1945).

    I ask you, Islam is a religion of a country, what is it supposed to tell the country (as a constitution) if someone attacks them ?

    Give them Sweets and Chocolate ?!!

    About the verses in the Comment :

    1- Your Bible doesn't but Many Christians' Bibles in Jazeera and Iraq did predict and came to the prophet and became Muslims, We say the bible you got is phony, because we Believe Torah and Bible are Word of God (his own Words, all what Moses or Jesus do is to say them in their same sentences), while Bible you have is speech of God in the words of prophets, Messenger, Apostles....etc (Something we don't call "Divine Book" in Islamic tradition but we call it "Hadeeth" - the conversations - of those prophets with their companions)

    2-
    The other verse is :
    And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. [5:47]

    Yes, May you judge by what God revealed to Jesus and the prophets before him (because the Sharia of Jesus didn't abrogate the Sharia of Moses and Abraham), not by the Human-made constitutions.

    Note : In Debate, if you obey one verse of Quran, you obey all of it, I know you didn't mean that, but it is not an accurate word, because if you obey the verse you would also obey its continuation :

    And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

    PS : The subject was violence in the beginning your comment, how come it changed to if Muhammad is a prophet or not ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulla Sadra
    replied
    Originally posted by StanJ53 View Post
    So is Judaism and Christianity. It still defines Muslims in the collective.

    Your definition is self imposed to justify your position. Jews and Christians could say the same thing but it would be so self serving as to be supercilious.

    The nature of ALL mankind is one of carnality. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that we are given a new spiritual nature hen we confess Jesus as our savior. With the help of the Holy Spirit we walk in His righteousness, NOT our own.


    Judaism is from "Jew" = people
    Christianity is from "Christ" = man (or God)

    Islam is not, "Arabism" or "Mohammedanism" or "Allah-ism" but "Islam".

    It's part of the universality of the religion, they say.

    Leave a comment:


  • OriginalOatmeal
    replied
    Originally posted by bybee View Post
    Apparently, all it took was two for the Boston Marathon slaughter to happen?

    The Boston thing was staged.

    Some religions steer their people through the suppression of fear and through the seduction of power. Both fear and seduction does lead people to the dark side of the force. When we are under the influence of fear and seduction, we begin to do things that are a bit unnatural.

    However, the violence found in Christianity is not funded through fear or seduction but rather through Sacrificial Agape Love.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Per the OP I cannot answer as I have never read the Koran [or however you spell it], but I don't know that I've ever known a Muslim to deny it.

    Originally posted by Selaphiel View Post
    What is your basis for stating that fundamentalism is a more true version of any religion? Fundamentalism is primarily a modern phenomenon, so how can you state that a true version of old religions first emerged within modernity?
    I think you need to learn the meaning of the word "fundamentalism." Just because leftists like to redefine words doesn't mean they have a new meaning.

    A fundamentalist, by definition, is one who adheres to the fundamentals of their belief system.

    Leave a comment:


  • xAvarice
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    See?
    You want advocation of violence from a religious authority or scripture?

    Can you give me something more difficult to do?

    Leave a comment:


  • StanJ53
    replied
    Originally posted by Mulla Sadra View Post
    I guess, I have to make this clear.

    "Islam" is Monotheism in one word, when used in such sentences.
    "Islam" is the Sharia and laws the Muslims should take After Shahadah

    Islam that is part of "Futra", the nature of a human, is Monotheism.

    It's a proof of God, not a law.

    Means : We say that the nature of human to a one deity, is a proof of God. and this Islam is what Abraham and after him called for, the Monotheism.

    And it is not "Islam" in its narrow cult side.

    Plus, there's not even half cleric who justify such meaning, this is what you understand and conclude, and no Muslim concluded.

    Muslim is who believes in what Muslims believe in, in a certain way, more certain that "Futra", and the execution of Apostate need a confirmation from the Apostate of being a Muslim before changing, if that evidence is not acquired, the Judge is not allowed to give such verdict.

    "Futra" is not a Shahada, and never did one cleric put it as such.

    Good Night.


    So is Judaism and Christianity. It still defines Muslims in the collective.

    Your definition is self imposed to justify your position. Jews and Christians could say the same thing but it would be so self serving as to be supercilious.

    The nature of ALL mankind is one of carnality. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that we are given a new spiritual nature when we confess Jesus as our savior. With the help of the Holy Spirit we walk in His righteousness, NOT our own.
    Last edited by StanJ53; May 4th, 2013, 08:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Islam is a political religion of violence, no matter how much others try to paint it differently.

    As cogently explained in the below, let's stop qualifying Islam and just call it what it is--Islam:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bosch-f...m-islam/print/

    Muslims fail to follow the admonition given in Surah 10:94 for they know we would denounce any sort of such prophecy therein.

    "So, if you (O Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel)], then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it)."

    The Bible does not predict the coming of Muhammad, hence the Qur'an is in error. The Christian actually obeys Surah 5:47 and has found Muhammad and the Qur'an wanting.

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulla Sadra
    replied
    Originally posted by StanJ53 View Post
    Yes I have read that Islam considers ALL people born as Muslim and why they are so adamant about their Shahadah.

    It is a belief of course that ONLY exists with Islam. Christianity, Judaism, and Catholicism all teach different infant dedication but none of them believe a child is born into their faith, only that sooner or later they are baptized into their faith.
    I guess, I have to make this clear.

    "Islam" is Monotheism in one word, when used in such sentences.
    "Islam" is the Sharia and laws the Muslims should take After Shahadah

    Islam that is part of "Futra", the nature of a human, is Monotheism.

    It's a proof of God, not a law.

    Means : We say that the nature of human to a one deity, is a proof of God. and this Islam is what Abraham and after him called for, the Monotheism.

    And it is not "Islam" in its narrow cult side.

    Plus, there's not even half cleric who justify such meaning, this is what you understand and conclude, and no Muslim concluded.

    Muslim is who believes in what Muslims believe in, in a certain way, more certain that "Futra", and the execution of Apostate need a confirmation from the Apostate of being a Muslim before changing, if that evidence is not acquired, the Judge is not allowed to give such verdict.

    "Futra" is not a Shahada, and never did one cleric put it as such.

    Good Night.

    Leave a comment:


  • StanJ53
    replied
    Originally posted by moparguy View Post
    The bare bones of the pro-terrorist view of the islamic teachings, as I understand it, springs from the fact that in the holy texts of islam, EVERYONE is born as a muslim - so those who are not currently muslims have apostatized, and apostates under sharia can never be considered innocents, so the death of non-muslims is perfectly ok.


    Yes I have read that Islam considers ALL people born as Muslim and why they are so adamant about their Shahadah.

    It is a belief of course that ONLY exists with Islam. Christianity, Judaism, and Catholicism all teach different infant dedication but none of them believe a child is born into their faith, only that sooner or later they are baptized into their faith.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by xAvarice View Post
    I also answer my own questions before people can respond, it's the most reliable path to truth.
    See?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulla Sadra
    replied
    Originally posted by moparguy View Post
    What of 9:6 and 9:29?



    I don't see how I could have, considering that I didn't define "islam."



    I didn't claim that sira that are un-corroborated by bukhari/muslim/quran are authoritative. I am aware that there are sources that have more or less authority.

    I was simply listing all of the sources in Islam that I knew of.

    I gather it is the quran at the top, than bukhari, than muslim... who comes after that I have no idea.
    1- You know that if the verse is before or after in the Uthamani Quran, doesn't mean anything to its timeline surely. (it might or mightn't)

    Also, Naskh is in an exact law, and not in whole state, means if the verse is in the timeline of War, it doesn't do "Naskh" for the other verse, it just mean it is the law when we are in War, and the verse when not in War is the law to be used when we aren't.


    The verses you talked about :

    9:6
    And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

    9:29
    Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

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

    Both verses are in the same time (during the first war with polytheists), so there's no kind of "Naskh" whatsoever.

    The first means : if someone from your enemy DURING WAR came to seek peace in your land, then treat him well, but if he doesn't become part of your religion (country), then sent him out of the country to a place you are sure he's unharmed in from those whom he sought peace from.
    Hear Words of God might be 10 days, or 10 centuries, it is more to be identified by the one who came to seek peace.
    Means, Don't allow war-combatant enemies who come to your country in peace live permanently in your country. (So it is a legislation of POWs and defects, you are veteran, you should know about this).
    Note that the prophet added that, if a POW knows how to read and write, then he can teach that to 10 of the Muslims and then he can be allowed to stay or go wherever he wants.

    [If a non-muslim come to Country of Islam, not during a war with his country, he's allowed to stay, but in the terms that he accept Sharia Laws like any other muslim in the country of Islam, just like what is happening to American companies in Saudi Arabia]

    The second : is an order of the start of the first War with polytheists after they broke the treaty in attacking one of the tribes that allied the prophet, Check the context.

    Note : Naskh happened for instance, that Muslims weren't allowed to marry from people of scripture during war, but then it was allowed, not in the name of "No War" but in the name of "Always", because it was about Personal rights not Governmental laws, get it ?

    2- What would you say if I told you that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim aren't fully right source to go to for me and other 350 million shia muslim (and God knows how much Sunni).

    Leave a comment:


  • moparguy
    replied
    what the ... double post.

    Leave a comment:


  • moparguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Mulla Sadra View Post
    1- Naskh actually deleted some of the War verses not visa-versa.
    What of 9:6 and 9:29?

    2-You are making a loud fallacy of mixing "Islam" as supplication to God, and "Islam" as a religion.
    I don't see how I could have, considering that I didn't define "islam."

    3- BTW, Sira if not authenticated by Hadeeth is not a proof in Islamic Traditional Sciences, to separate them is one of the known mis-understandings of those who share their hatred of Islam.
    I didn't claim that sira that are un-corroborated by bukhari/muslim/quran are authoritative. I am aware that there are sources that have more or less authority.

    I was simply listing all of the sources in Islam that I knew of.

    I gather it is the quran at the top, than bukhari, than muslim... who comes after that I have no idea.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X