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

  • Clem
    replied
    Originally posted by Tambora View Post
    Anti-islamic behavior????
    They back up their behavior with Islamic holy writ.
    How is that anti-islamic?
    All 'religions' / 'ideology clubs' back up their policy-making
    with some kind of scripture,
    but some members understand their scripture better than others.
    And some religions deal with their hypocrites, but others don't.
    Good religions deal with their hypocrites; bad ones don't.
    Reasonable aggression in defense for self or others is reasonable;
    going 'over the top' is not, and it's the hypocrites who go 'over the top'.
    Christianity has a bad reputation in some quarters because it doesn't deal with it's hypocrites.
    Islam also doesn't deal with its hypocrites very well,
    but this doesn't matter much away from war zones
    because Islam tends to go hand-in-hand with a culture of uniformity/conformity.
    In war zones, however, where hypocrisy is tempting, this uniformity/conformity
    can and does cause big problems.
    Vocal Atheists, with the help of their leader Richard Dawkins,
    attack Christianity a lot more than they attack Islam
    because they see Islam as less of a threat (not because they're scared of Fatwas).
    Personally, I'm a lot more worried about bad Christians than I am about bad Muslims.
    Anyone can call themselves a Christian, and when they behave in unChristian ways,
    they're ignored, tolerated, prayed for or invited to pray.
    Christian Libertarianism can easily degenerate into debauchery.
    Muslim Disciplinarianism is actually anti- any kind of degeneration.
    Do you still not understand that the real enemy is hypocrisy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tambora
    replied
    Originally posted by Clem View Post

    I think the Muslim leadership could be speaking up more about anti-Islamic behaviour,
    Anti-islamic behavior????
    They back up their behavior with Islamic holy writ.
    How is that anit-islamic?

    Leave a comment:


  • Clem
    replied
    My understanding is that Islam is a tolerant religion until the peace, happiness and decency of its adherent communities are compromised, then they think of self-defense, if not effective counter-offense, with the backing of Allah (God). So I don't think much of their 'toughness' goes without godly approval.
    But how does any religious group persuade the most compromised of its adherents not to 'go over to the darkside', especially in a war zone.

    I don't think the Imams are either pro- or anti- restorative violence.
    I think they support individual Muslims in following their individual consciences with hearts cleansed by God but, as we all known, making our hearts pure, and keeping them that way, needs to be a lifelong concern.

    I think the Muslim leadership could be speaking up more about anti-Islamic behaviour,
    but why should they do this whilst the enemies of Syria (etc.) are refusing to speak up against unfettered culture-destroying and chaos-provoking decadence and also against unfettered counterproductive jingoism?
    Last edited by Clem; July 14th, 2016, 07:06 PM. Reason: Minor errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • moparguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Mulla Sadra View Post
    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.
    I'm aware that exact chronology of the ayat don't appear to be pinned down very well.

    However, it appears to be that the first 29 ayat in sura 9 are the last if not among the very last revealed.

    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.
    Pardon. I meant 9:5, no 6.

    As far as abrogation and these verses, if there is such a thing, these verses would abrogate chronologically earlier verses that contradict them.

    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.
    First - do you have a link for the the context you are referring to?

    Second, the verse as it sits in the quran doesn't have a limitation as to a single instance war versus the polytheists.

    Does not the quran supersede the hadiths in authority?

    If it does (and I am presuming it does), than how does one determine if any hadith can validly add to, subtract from, or modify any part of the quranic text?

    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).

    I wouldn't find it surprising. Even those of us in the west who know better than to consider the islamic world as a monolith have a hard time sorting out factions amongst those who claim islam as their worldview.

    It must be just as confusing for those from the islamic world trying to sort out factions among those who claim to be christians.

    Quick question - are there any collections of hadith that all of those who claim the name of muslim would say are authoritative?

    If not, would you mind listing out the top hadiths for the major branches?

    And feel free to correct me if I get my terminology screwed up.

    Leave a comment:


  • IMJerusha
    replied
    Originally posted by Knight View Post
    The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 3rd, 2013 05:00 AM


    toldailytopic: Generally speaking does the Islamic religion encourage or discourage terrorism by it's adherents?






    Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
    If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
    \


    Well, the media obviously believes Islam encourages terrorism with all their talk about how the Tsarnaev brothers became "radicalized" in their faith. For once, I agree with the media.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    OK, crack, whatever.


    Case in point.
    nO WONDER oBama is riping you all off? an no one will be interesting in helping in the end...such rudness

    your President is call OBAMA, thats not traditional. funderlise that for me smart mouth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Charity View Post
    Grow Up Lighthouse..told you before! an ILL TELL YOU AGAIN, i HAVE never Had POT! Mr visious!
    OK, crack, whatever.

    Originally posted by Charity View Post
    An your country's about to change...

    Tell me How Much you Know about this?

    I know more than you think I know.....
    Case in point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    And you continue to make absolutely no sense. When you bake pot into brownies you're not supposed to eat a whole brownie.
    An your country's about to change...

    Tell me How Much you Know about this?

    I know more than you think I know.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Charity
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    And you continue to make absolutely no sense. When you bake pot into brownies you're not supposed to eat a whole brownie.
    Grow Up Lighthouse..told you before! an ILL TELL YOU AGAIN, i HAVE never Had POT! Mr visious!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Charity View Post
    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.
    And you continue to make absolutely no sense. When you bake pot into brownies you're not supposed to eat a whole brownie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Letsargue
    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 when we confess Jesus as our savior. With the help of the Holy Spirit we walk in His righteousness, NOT our own.

    You said:
    (( "The difference between Christians and Muslims is that ( we ) are given a ( new spiritual nature ) ((( when we confess Jesus ))) as our savior" )).

    God didn't Say That, or anything that even appears to be anything like that. - You Did, and that doesn't mean anything toward the Salvation of anyone. -- There is no such thing as Confessing that Jesus exists, ( For Salvation ). ---- John 9:31 KJV – 31- “Now (( We Know ))that God ( Heareth not Sinners ): ( But if any man be a worshipper of God ), ( And doeth his will ), ((( "Him He Heareth" )))”. --- What does God say?? – How do you dismiss that Truth??? -- We are to ( Teach Jesus ), that is the "Confessing Him to others", not to yourself or to God when God can't hear him!! -- Satan and the Devils do that all the time; and God doesn't listen to them, does He?? ---- But that doesn't matter if one is only trying to prove a simple point of his own doctrine.

    Paul -- 050413

    Leave a comment:


  • Mulla Sadra
    replied
    Originally posted by Granite View Post
    Mulla,

    The Muslims I've encountered have told me that they are great respecters of "people of the book," meaning Jews and Christians, since you all share a common heritage. (Abraham caused us all a whoooooole lotta trouble.)

    Do you share this sentiment, and if so, what do "people of the book" mean to you?

    History has shown us that the three great monotheistic religions of the world do not need to live in strife and have indeed lived in peace, side by side.

    Do you believe such peace is attainable?
    Yes,

    "People of Book" and "People of Scripture", are known terminologies in Quran and Hadeeth.

    Like, We are not allowed to eat from an Atheist or such people (who are not monotheists).

    While we are allowed to live with People of Scriptures as much as we live with Muslims (Eat their food, marry from them ...etc)

    But, there's a margin, that makes a Muslim a Muslim, and others not, some people like to make it wide (like Salafists) and others don't.

    And Yes, I believe in that peace as attainable, but people on both sides don't like to.
    Last edited by Mulla Sadra; May 4th, 2013, 05:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick M
    replied
    Joey Arnold

    Leave a comment:


  • OriginalOatmeal
    replied
    A bully can say, "I only get in fights 1 out of 100 times."

    Leave a comment:


  • Granite
    replied
    Mulla,

    The Muslims I've encountered have told me that they are great respecters of "people of the book," meaning Jews and Christians, since you all share a common heritage. (Abraham caused us all a whoooooole lotta trouble.)

    Do you share this sentiment, and if so, what do "people of the book" mean to you?

    History has shown us that the three great monotheistic religions of the world do not need to live in strife and have indeed lived in peace, side by side.

    Do you believe such peace is attainable?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X