Beheading: Islamic ruling
-
A good an mature response.Originally posted by fymk:Islam is a good religion
Christianity is a good religion
Judaism is a good religion
Hinduism is a good religion
Taoism is a good religion
Buddhism is a good religion
In the above religions, I have known of good people who are trying to contribute positively to the society they are in.
Most religions are good religions and aim for the salvation of the human soul or preach righteousness as a good path to follow.
Mud get thrown on a religion when there are fanatical idiots around using the words to carry out their own personal agendas and history has alot of them - some being from christianity , judaism and islam. Even the taoist majority in China in some past ancient time tried to suppress buddhism. So it happens....fanatical idiots and their brainless followers subversing a good meaning path to life for their own selfish agendas...that is the way I see things.
I don't give a damn about suicide bombers - whether they are the tamil tigers or the al qaeda....they are just very selfish buggers or terribly misguided idiots to take a human life in the name of a religion which does not support their actions in the first place.
Except that Islam is not a religion.
Muslims do not recognise Islam as a religion.
They consider it a way of life, therefore it is political.
The religious aspect is just the "propaganda wing", until they attain political dominance.
Its all in their "manifesto". -
Would be very inereted if you cna provide a link for this,curious i cant find it in the hadith/sunnah.Originally posted by googoomuck:I realize that Muslims often oppose people who quote the offensive verses of the Quran with ‘out of context’ arguments.
So hereÂ’s small hint from an Arab in understanding Islam.
Understanding the concept of abrogation is very important in order to understand Islam. Within the Qur'an itself are statements which contradict others. For example, one person quotes this verse :
"the only permissible war (in the Koran) is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2:190)."
Another person quote verses from the Qur'an like: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256)
Theis verse seem to say clearly enough that the Qur'an teaches a peaceful response to those who oppose Islam.
But there are other verses in the Qur'an which say quite the opposite.
For example:
" But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”(9.5)
How to solve this conflict? and which verse should the Muslims follow?
HereÂ’s a brief explanation.
There is no conflict if one read the chapters and not just follow one verse.As i have said before,the Quran is alike a storybook,you cannot get the entire meaning of a chapter form one sentece,Each flows into another.
There is a concept called "Abrogation" in the Quran , and that is: The Quran was (supposedly) revealed to Muhammad in a sequence of events, the latter verses supercede and nullifies the earlier verses.
May i know who told you this?It is assuredly wrong,the enire Quran is important and every commandment is followed.
Out of the whole Quran, there are 124 verses that teach some tolerence towards non-Muslims...but here is the striking fact....all of these verses are void, and were abrogated by the last verse (supposedly) revealed upon Muhammad, and that is verse 9:5 (listed above)
Jalaluddin Suyuti (One of the most respected authorities in Islam) in his book "Istenbat al tanzeel" says: "Every thing in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5."(listed above)
can you provide more information about this,waiting for your reply.
Al-Shawkani in his book "Alsaylu Jarar" (4:518-519) says: "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case."
Can you provide a link for he book or maybe wher it can be purchased thanks.
Finally here is what Muhammad the prophet of Islam himself said:
Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, p. 529, narrates: Muhammad said: "I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter."
Salaam,
Hope you can reply o me thanks.
For the entire Quran..go here.
http://www.clay.smith.name/Parallel_Quran.2004.03.21.htmI shall reply to you in full once you have provided me wiht the link -
Salaam,Originally posted by fymk:Like I said , I know good muslims too and good people from other religions. I did not support the Iraq war at all for that matter, I took part in a protest against it in Australia. And on a personal level , I oppose the occupation of Palestine by Israelis.
I don't think what you are doing here is helping. Those certain people who felt misguided and went towards violence are using your religion to shield their own wrong doings. You should be concentrating on doing something in the muslim community to prevent such misguidance.
Those who would be interested in learning your faith will probably go to a muslim forum in sgforum , I think it is minaret or something. Do it there.
Don't mix politics with religion - it gets very messy.
Like i said before,the inforation is for muslim and non muslim,to create awareness.
And i agree with you,for those interested can easily go to an islamic website,bu i am not here to propogate Islam but to dispel untruth.
An exple of this thread..Does Islam condone beheading as what is done in Iraq and elsewhere,,the answer is NO.
I provided asnwers based ont eh Quran and Sunnah,if i ahd wanted to propogate Islam or perform dakwah,i would have started wtih the Quran and its miracles.
LOL... -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Is it not odd that [b]twice you have avoided addressing the crux of the weakness of a Religion that has been ''hijacked by the poor Human Interpretations'' of the ''Original Message''.
You avoided addressing the entire text in my opening remarks given in my post in this thread, as well as in the other thread which you had also started.
Actually i have already answrered you,it was in red..
And i think you did read it casue you used the words "hijacked by poor human interpretation"....and my aricle clearly say that it is not Islamic.
No, there is nothing to agree or disagree, as your original statement was simply misleading
So you dont agree that people wont fight for their desire?For land,honour,life and revenge?
Are you not attempting to justify the killings from your clear references made to the Quran ?
Neither i nor the Quran justify it,may i ask how did you come to that conclusion?
The supposed ''Words'' in the ''Great Book'' is supposedly from ''GOD'' as said by ''The Prophet'' - who is a ''Human''.
No one else were able to corrobrate those ''Words'' that ''The Prophet'' said was from ''GOD'', and some of these ''Words'' were supposedly recited from one generation to another since the ''Beginning of Time'' and 'BEFORE' the birth of ''The Prophet''; and his contribution were added into the ''Great Book'' after his own 'supposed Divine Experience with GOD'.
Even then these ''Words'' were NOT recorded into the ''written works to form the Great Book'' until much later in the adult life of The Prophet', with the writing effort ending in his death in 632A.D.
If - as you have mentioned - 'The Prophet' had compiled everything into ONE Book, and since he is known to be illiterate and dependent on others to write all the words into this ''Great Book'' - how can this Book be NOT Man-Made when the whole exercise is an entirely HUMAN EFFORT ?
It seems that you are misleading yourself with the wrong understanding of the events that have led to the existence of the ''Great Book'', which even the Jews will not deny that theirs is also a result of human writings, or that of the Christian Community to their Bible - considering that the Judaism, Christianity and Islam originate from one source.
I dont think you read my reply,the Quran is compiled and finalized in the time of the Prophet Muhammad saw.
And yes the Propeht Muhammad saw is but a man,"HUMAN".(wonder why must you capitalize the word..LOL
The Prophet is illiterate,and every ramadhan he would recite the entire Quran by heart,and he instructed the people how it is to be arranged.
And yes the Quran is compiled by man,copied by man into many more Quran,but the source of the words are from Allah.
If ''the Creator knows us well,'' and ''thus tell us to prohibit from transgression..'' - should we then say that the ''Great Book'' written by the ''Human Hand'' has even dared to trangress the Creator by illuding with ''the divine command to fight for peace but never go to excess'' ?
Is this not a contradiction in your own understanding of the 'Great Book''', and the inaccurate interpretation of the ''Original Message'' ?
May i ask in what way is it conradictory,hope you can explain yourself better.
Tell that to those Muslim Radicals in Iraq who beheaded their hostages and prisoners while video recording the process, and posting it on the internet.
Tell that to the Islamic Radical in Pakistan who calmly sliced off the head of a helpless journalist - Daniel Pearl, who was an American and an ethnic Jew - with the entire process video recorded and sent for broadcasting by the Arabic broadcast service.
continue below
If they say the Shahadah then they are muslim,but are they following Islamic laws? No,so their action are unIslamic.
[/b] -
Originally posted by Atobe:
[/color]
[b]Did you not state your understanding of God's Words' that '' the Creator knows us well,he did create us.He knows our weakness and thus tell us to prohibit from trangression '' ?
Are you attempting to justify the 9/11 incident as ''an eye for an eye'' - even as you contravene the ''Words of the Creator'' ?
Can you pls explian how did i ry to justify Sep 11 ?using eye for an eye?
As much as you have tried to point out the actions to be un-Islamic, you are also suggesting - ''An Eye for An Eye''.
Why do you contradict yourself ?
Are you being confused by the duplicity of the Human Interpretations of the ''Great Book'' - despite your best effort to defend a Great Religion ?
These acts were executed for the wrong and skewed justification in the interest of protecting and revenge on behalf of the oppressed World Muslim Communities- especially in the Middle-East region.
An eye for an eye,an arm for an arm,but if you fear Allah,then forgiveness is beter...a simple verse and easily undrstood.
What ever harm is done to you,you are right to have the same harm to be done on your enemy,but forgiveness is better
Thus the harm done must be equal to the infliction.
Were the suicide bomber inflicted by those they targted?
Yes or no,or were they trangers.
Thus Allah say no to trangression..
There is no contradiction,It is UnIslamic.
How many different ways do you wish to interprete your basic statement that the Creator knows us well,he did create us.He knows our weakness and thus tell us to prohibit from trangression... ?
How many different ways should our perception take ?
Are you not attempting to create the opportunity to trangress the ''Creator's Words'' ?
Actually no,i hav said many times the action are unIslamic,but you wish it otherwise.
My line were very simple,it is unIslmaic..
Like I said before, be your ''Original Self - as a Southeast Asian Malay'' , and you will at least be known as one closer to the neighours
[/b]
I ahve many neighbours ,we are cordial and friendly,we have the kampung spirit as you say.
Would like a Malays Muslim as a neighbour?
PS,can tell me wha is the differenc in your perception between malay and souheast asian malay?
Salaam ,
Read my reply in red.. -
Someone is acting too radically over....
When he saw a hadith or verse which is radical, he cannot accepts it...
I mean, we all know Islam is not an evil religion. And we accepted it, just the way it is....
But you are promoting it too, erm.... dunno laa...
Good luck... -
googoomuck has been quoting whole from dubious websites meant for shooting down Islam. I don't think that is any different from the online self radicalizing muslims who visits naughty jihadists website meant to influence recruits for dumb causes. Go on ahead, be their radical mouthpiece.Originally posted by googoomuck:I realize that Muslims often oppose people who quote the offensive verses of the Quran with ‘out of context’ arguments.
So hereÂ’s small hint from an Arab in understanding Islam.
Understanding the concept of abrogation is very important in order to understand Islam. Within the Qur'an itself are statements which contradict others. For example, one person quotes this verse :
"the only permissible war (in the Koran) is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2:190)."
Another person quote verses from the Qur'an like: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256)
Theis verse seem to say clearly enough that the Qur'an teaches a peaceful response to those who oppose Islam.
But there are other verses in the Qur'an which say quite the opposite.
For example:
" But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”(9.5)
How to solve this conflict? and which verse should the Muslims follow?
HereÂ’s a brief explanation.
There is a concept called "Abrogation" in the Quran , and that is: The Quran was (supposedly) revealed to Muhammad in a sequence of events, the latter verses supercede and nullifies the earlier verses.
Out of the whole Quran, there are 124 verses that teach some tolerence towards non-Muslims...but here is the striking fact....all of these verses are void, and were abrogated by the last verse (supposedly) revealed upon Muhammad, and that is verse 9:5 (listed above)
Jalaluddin Suyuti (One of the most respected authorities in Islam) in his book "Istenbat al tanzeel" says: "Every thing in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5."(listed above)
Al-Shawkani in his book "Alsaylu Jarar" (4:518-519) says: "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case."
Finally here is what Muhammad the prophet of Islam himself said:
Ibn Haban in his Sahih, vol. 14, p. 529, narrates: Muhammad said: "I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter."
I say context not to weasel dishonestly out of the arguments, I say context because it must be so. Understanding doesn't spring from a single verse taken in isolation, and it is intellectually lazy to confuse temporal verses with timelessness of other verses. You don't know anything near about Fiqh just like the nutty muslims and I hate it when you speak with an air of authority.
Only the anti-muslim bigots quotes those from Jalaluddin Suyuti and Al-Shawkani or the dumb hadiths to defend their proofs. If you want to know where those jihadists actually pull their nutty ideas from, it was mostly from the likes of Sayyid Qutb, a man of the 20th century. Bah.
I've seen and read that verse so many times. The pagans were given a time-honored period of four months to make peace after a violation of the peace treaty. They were attacking the muslims and driving them out of their homelands. How about posting the very next verse?
9:6 "And if any of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God seeks thy protection, grant him protection, so that he might [be able to] hear the word of God [from thee]; and thereupon convey him to a place where he can feel secure: this, because they [may be] people who [sin only because they] do not know."
The Quran almost always follows up with things like "If they desist, then all hostility shall cease."
The expression from 9:5,"if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)" is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility".
The timeless verses such as, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" still stands, forever.
Mancha: Lol.
Zulkiflim: It is easier really if you'd already say you do condemn terrorism, the killing of innocents and you support freedom of religion with no "but" clauses. -
Stop monkey around, Gauze.Originally posted by Gauze:googoomuck has been quoting whole from dubious websites meant for shooting down Islam. I don't think that is any different from the online self radicalizing muslims who visits naughty jihadists website meant to influence recruits for dumb causes. Go on ahead, be their radical mouthpiece.
I say context not to weasel dishonestly out of the arguments, I say context because it must be so. Understanding doesn't spring from a single verse taken in isolation, and it is intellectually lazy to confuse temporal verses with timelessness of other verses. You don't know anything near about Fiqh just like the nutty muslims and I hate it when you speak with an air of authority.
Only the anti-muslim bigots quotes those from Jalaluddin Suyuti and Al-Shawkani or the dumb hadiths to defend their proofs. If you want to know where those jihadists actually pull their nutty ideas from, it was mostly from the likes of Sayyid Qutb, a man of the 20th century. Bah.
I've seen and read that verse so many times. The pagans were given a time-honored period of four months to make peace after a violation of the peace treaty. They were attacking the muslims and driving them out of their homelands. How about posting the very next verse?
9:6 "And if any of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God seeks thy protection, grant him protection, so that he might [be able to] hear the word of God [from thee]; and thereupon convey him to a place where he can feel secure: this, because they [may be] people who [sin only because they] do not know."
The Quran almost always follows up with things like "If they desist, then all hostility shall cease."
The expression from 9:5,"if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)" is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility".
The timeless verses such as, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" still stands, forever.
Mancha: Lol.
Zulkiflim: It is easier really if you'd already say you do condemn terrorism, the killing of innocents and you support freedom of religion with no "but" clauses.
This is another tactic used by Muslims: calling them Fanatics or self radicalizing muslims.
You insist that the unbelievers had breached the treaty. There are others who view that the Muslims had breached the treaty.
I've provided the sources of the proof text in my post. You can do a yourself a favour by producing an Enlish translation of the treaty to support your claim and also for our reference.
It's the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. I googled hard by I couldn't find it. -
That wasn't referring to the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. That was referring to the Battle of Tabouk. Ironically, there was no casualties because no battle actually took place. But whatever I said I'm lying, I'm monkeying around.
-
Originally posted by Gauze:I've seen and read that verse so many times. The pagans were given a time-honored period of four months to make peace after a violation of the peace treaty. They were attacking the muslims and driving them out of their homelands. How about posting the very next verse?
That's no answer !Originally posted by Gauze:That wasn't referring to the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. That was referring to the Battle of Tabouk. Ironically, there was no casualties because no battle actually took place. But whatever I said I'm lying, I'm monkeying around. 
That peace treaty within verses 9:1 - 9:6 was refering to the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Yes or no?
Can you produce a copy for analysis? A treaty can be breached by either party who deems it unfair or unreasonble.
And don't give an Arabic copy, OK? -
What no answer? The verses 9:1-6 wasn't refering to the treaty of Hudabiyyah.
-
Originally posted by Gauze:That wasn't referring to the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. That was referring to the Battle of Tabouk. Ironically, there was no casualties because no battle actually took place. But whatever I said I'm lying, I'm monkeying around.
You are very persistent in trying to mislead the readers......and if you are innocent of of doing that, then you've been had !Originally posted by Gauze:What no answer? The verses 9:1-6 wasn't refering to the treaty of Hudabiyyah.
ItÂ’s the treaty of Hudaybiyyah!......and the treaty has no connection to Tabouk. There was no battle, of course there was no casualty.
So thereÂ’s no point in going on since you insists itÂ’s not the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. -
Salaam,Originally posted by mancha:A good an mature response.
Except that Islam is not a religion.
Muslims do not recognise Islam as a religion.
They consider it a way of life, therefore it is political.
The religious aspect is just the "propaganda wing", until they attain political dominance.
Its all in their "manifesto".
Islam is the religon from Allah.
May i ask,why do you say Islam is not a religion? -
Salaam,Originally posted by mancha:A good an mature response.
Except that Islam is not a religion.
Muslims do not recognise Islam as a religion.
They consider it a way of life, therefore it is political.
The religious aspect is just the "propaganda wing", until they attain political dominance.
Its all in their "manifesto".
Islam is the religon from Allah.
May i ask,why do you say Islam is not a religion?