Pentagon Briefing: Terrorists Are "Rational Actors" Following Their Holy Book

You still do not understand...what is important is, and I stress this, that a individual Muslims spiritual fate is not tied to that of another person, each Muslim is responsible for his own salvation. However as a communitarian faith it is how the individual fits into and contributes as a community that helps create a heavenly one.

What you claim, has not been my experince and I have had a lot of Muslim friends and aquaintances.... there are fanatics in all faiths but you are damning and entire community.

Originally posted by grover
...there are fanatics in all faiths but you are damning and entire community.

I don't have the power to damn anyone; much less an entire community. I might suggest that it is those literalists who are making a bad name for Islam but Muslims don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

Are you prepared to say in public (using your real name) that al Qaeda is an un-Islamic entity and that Osama bin Laden, as well as all those in that group are sick and evil-minded individuals acting completely outside Islamic doctrine?

If you can find Fatwas issued asserting as much I'd be interested to see them. I'd also be interested in any Fatwas issued calling for the immediate arrest and/or killing of the "actors" inside al Qeada; much like the Fatwa issued calling for the murder of Salmon Rushdie.

when I said that you are damning an entire community...unless you are so literal minded as to not understand metaphor, you know exactly what I meant.

I am not a Muslim. I am a Baha'i' so whatever I say has no impact in the Muslim community but yes I would state publically that from what I have read and studied that Al Qeada, and Bin Laden represent a perversion of Islamic teachings. AND, I think that if you actually want to look, there have been several fatwas issued that explictly state that as well. One from Saudi Arabia, I believe and another from the United States but I do not know how you would look them up.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
I will be sure to follow your topics from now on. Salaam. - Masseeh

Well; I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I put to you on the first page. Are you still in the discussion?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
If it weren't for 911, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, the subjugation of non-Muslims in Arab lands, honor killings, rioting Muslims because they're "offended" and Madrassas that teach the very information being taught by that Islam Q&A Website; I would never even given Islam a second look.

9/11 affected everyone in the world, especially Muslims, so stating that the attacks are basis enough to change your view of Islam is not very wise. Al Queda and the Taliban kill Muslims, so what makes them Muslim? If you view their acts as "Islamic" then show me where it is justified anywhere in Islam.

What exactly did Iran do to change your perspective of Islam? The "subjugation" of non-Muslims in Arab lands is not as common as you may think. I understand that you've visited an area in the Middle East, as have I, and I've found not one case where Christians were persecuted against in Jordan, any of the UAE (including Dubai), and Bahrain. I saw not only Christians, but other faiths practicing their faith freely. I even questioned some, asking if they felt there were any limitations to their faiths imposed on them. The only objection I heard from some had been that they can't perform any acts of proselytizing in public. This law, believe it or not, applies to all faiths, including Islam. I asked a Jordanian police officer if he would also arrest a Muslim trying to perform proselytizing in public, and his answer was (In Arabic of course), "Yes. The law is the law, and I will arrest those who break it."

Until "moderate" Muslims address these issues and root out the "extremists" hijacking their religion, I will contunue to highlight the ugliness that exists throughout Islam.

I already addressed the Taliban and Al Queda, as well as 9/11, and the riots in my other threads. The Taliban and Al Queda are a political organization, rather than religious, and kill all those who oppose their political views, even Muslims. They only use their teachings of Islam as a front to gain supporters for their political view, by teaching areas high in illiteracy and poverty. This is a means of them controlling the actions of the individuals, because the ones being recruited cannot question their decisions, due to their inability to read the Quran and see that the Taliban are going against the Quran’s teachings. I can understand if you don't find my addressing of those issues as sufficient enough, but let me ask how informed you are on the subject of moderate Muslims. How well have you looked through the net, or any media for their condemnation of any acts of terror? If you are saying you don't see the moderate Muslims addressing the issues because you haven't looked, then you should certainly try that before condemning Islam as a whole.

Pertaining to honor killings, it’s something that is not allowed in Islam. It’s a cultural teaching, rather than religious. It exists in many forms in all countries of the world. Whether it’s some in China killing their female born, some in India forcing the wife to kill herself after becoming a widow, or parents in the US forcing their un-wed daughters to have an abortion; all to keep honor in the family. In ancient Arabia, killing the female born baby was common, until Muhammad came and taught against it. (continued)

Once this aspect of Islam is gone--I'm gone too as there will be no reason to continue to criticize. You want me to stop showing how they justify their acts from Islamic texts? Get control and get rid of them!

Were you implying that I get rid of the text or the extremists? If the text in the Quran, then I'll have to ask you what you find as the problem in there. Like I demonstrated in other threads, each verse that people implied teaches violence asks for peace over violence, and the fighting is only allowed if it’s in self defense, and only until the opposing party asks for peace. If anyone asks for peace, no fighting is allowed.

I’m doing my duty by teaching Arabic to illiterate areas of the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, as my means of diminishing extremism. I will not resort to violence to teach peace.

They aren't "posting adulterated meanings"; they live their lives by the "adulterated meanings"!! Which is worse?!?

Both are just as equally bad. Do you find that the criminal who teaches crimes to others should not be held in the same account as the one who commits the crimes?

It is they who are decapitating innocents and displaying their proud behavior for all to see.

“They” as in extremists are not Muslims. Capital punishment is only allowed as a penalty for a serious crimes, in Islam.

It is they who strap bombs to themselves and kill as many, even women and children, as they can in the name of Islam.

They are doing it with no regards to the teachings of the Quran. The Quran does not permit suicide. They are far from being in the name of Islam.

It is they who imprison women who are raped because the woman's tesimony is only worth 1/4 that of a man's under Sharia law.

Incorrect. The 1/4th teaching is not a teaching of Islam. I think you’re mistaking it for Surrah 2:282 of the Quran. The Quran mentions that an account of a woman only ½ of a man in regards to financial transactions, where two witnesses must be present whether the signer of the transaction contract is male of female. The two witnesses can be male, or three witnesses if one of the males cannot be found. The ½ rule only applies to transaction purposes, because in Islamic cultures, the male is generally in charged of controlling the finances of the home. The Surrah I am referring to states :

Surrah 2:282:
[I]"Oh! ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligation in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing and get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses so that if one of them errs (becomes confused) the other can remind her."[/I]

There is another Surrah in the Quran that proves the 1/4th rule is not Islamic. Look in Surrah 24:6

Surrah 24:6 . As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves ; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, ( swearing ) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth

You will see that the female’s testimony here counts four times more than the male.

It is they who beat their wives because they are permitted under Surah 4:34.

I can see you’re being very deceptive here. You brought this issue up in your other thread to which I already replied about this Surrah here. I replied:

This Surrah describes wives who commit adultery on more than one occasion, while their husband is away. You're referring to the last line, in which it says the word "daraba." If you read Arabic, you will know this word has many meanings. In this case, it means to "hit." The Quran does not allow women to be treated harsh, as you're trying to make it out to be. It states that a husband must first ask his wife to ask for forgiveness from God for committing adultery. If she commits adultery again, he is to separate his bed from hers for a night. If she does it again, she is to receive a small hit. You may think this is harsh, but the hit is not to be forceful, only a light hit for committing adultery more than once. For no other reason than the wife committing adultery on more than one occasion can a husband hit her lightly. Hitting her for any other reason is a sin, and gives the woman the freedom to divorce.


I would like to ask you to stop being deceptive. If you merely forgot that you brought this up, then please accept my appologies.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by DJMessiah]

My question to you is: Why aren't YOU blaming them? Why aren't you pointing your finger at them and proclaim them as the evil entity they are?

You bare witness that I haven’t? Tell me, how much about my life do you know about? If you were to know me, then you would know I have been a major force in combating extremism and their teachings. I have done nothing but teaching peace and literacy to the less fortunate.

You seem to be more interested in protecting their behavior by arguing against those (like me) who point out their behavior and show how justify their actions using Islamic texts. Why?

Incorrect. You can see that in any of my replies I’ve made about them, I’ve never condoned their actions. I have never advocated any violence, nor have I supported any of their killings. I argue with you, because like the people you preach against, you tend to only preach the certain parts of the Quran without explanation as to why it’s being misquoted. If you were to post the entire section of the Ayats (before and after) what you are referring to and show how it’s being misused, rather than saying something to the extent of “Islam is violent because these Surrahs from the Quran says to cause violence.” I have already gone through the Surrahs you seem to post against, and showed you what their message really says. If you want to combat extremism, teach the actual teachings of the Surrah, rather than the teachings of the extremists.

Wrong!! They are justifying their cause for violence. I'm simply showing how they're doing it.

Who does this help, exactly? In your mind, you may see yourself as helping Islam, but in reality, you’re trying to hurt it (whether it’s intentional or unintentional). If you want to help, don’t just show “how they’re doing it,” but rather show why it goes against Islam.

The simple fact here DJ is that for every interpretation you put forth I can offer a alternate more nafarious interpretation. But attempting to convince me is wasted effort on your part becuase I am not the threat.

The interpretations I put forward are the real ones that can be confirmed by reading them in Arabic as well. What you find are false interpretations which can easily be proven false by reading the Quran. Honestly, I do view you as a threat. Not against Islam, but against wisdom. Many of your posts here have been teaching misquoted surrahs and false contexts as truth. I have now made it my duty on here, that when I can spend free time, to go through all of ATS and find where you posted about Islam and correct your fallacies. I’m up till 4 am typing these replies for you, with my classes starting in a couple of hours, so don’t think won’t put any effort into replying to your messages. You may not consider me as a friend right now, but my goal after all this is to gain your respect and friendship.

You're obfuscating the issue. It is Muslims inaction against those who are hijacking your religion that provides the tacit permission to those who have killed rioting.

I can show you that for every riot that has occurred, there have been Muslim leaders condemning them. There were many peaceful demonstrations which didn’t end in riot, but the media focused more on the riots. The people who rioted acted out in anger, not because of anything they were taught from the Quran.

When I was stuck in Dallas watching my company's aircraft being used as weapons of mass destruction it was reported/recorded (on CNN I believe) a group of Palestinian-Americans in Patterson New Jersey openly celebrating the attacks. […] Anyone who paid any attention that day saw this. I don't need to prove it! I don't care whether you choose to believe me!

You don’t have to prove it to me, but I would ask that you find the source of your claim and question its credibility. There was footage shown on TV after the 9/11 attacks with Arabic people dancing in the streets, but it was later proved that this footage was stock footage from the end of Kuwait conflict which occurred prior to 9/11. If you’re referring to the same footage, then research it. The only other news report of dancing in the streets after the attacks had been done on the Israeli agents who were arrested and found to be working for Mossad.

You can if you like; but again: you're wasting your time! There are many Islamic forums where you can fight the opinions of those who espouse fundamentalist Islamic thougt. Can you show me where you've engaged in dioloug on those sites?

I don’t find educating others as a waste of time. Like I said earlier, I haven’t found any extremists who I can have a theological debate with. My primary method of education has been first hand by combating extremism before it happens, by diminishing literacy in countries where extremism is known to occur.

By the way; here's a few questions for you so I can better assess your position:

1) Will you condemn the actions, means, and methods of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas?
2)Do you recognize Israel's right to her own statehood?
3)CAIR (Council on American-islamic Relations) is the self-proclaimed voice of American Muslims. Do you recognize them as your spokeperson for issues concerning Muslims in America (This assumes you're in the US. If not; desregard this question)?
4)Do you believe the Constitution should be amended to include aspects of Sharia Law?
5)Do you acknowledge that it was Muslims who attcked new York on 911?

1. Yep. They’re not Muslim for the simple fact that Muslims aren’t allowed to be the offenders or kill innocents.

2. Israel, as a non-Zionist state where all faiths, races, and ethnicities have equal protection and rights under the government, as well as a non-combative stance against its neighbors and allies, and as a state where no international crimes (including the ones in the Geneva and UN conventions) are committed should have a right to exist. Sadly, this isn’t Israel’s current situation. They treat people of Jewish races with higher regard, without even considering a non-jew as a “citizen,” but rather a “national.” After their recent invasion of Lebanon, they showed the world that they have no problem abusing their powers, and hold very little regard for innocents. Sure, they threw fliers from planes, telling people to escape, but only after they bombed the bridges out of there, destroyed the airports, gas stations, and virtually took away any means of escaping for the Lebanese.

3. I’m an American. In Islam, there can be no head power controlling the Muslims. A reason for this is to avoid any leader from becoming corrupt, such as what is occurring with Usoma Bin Laden and his claim that he is a “Muslim leader.” I accept that they (CAIR) are Muslims, but they cannot make rules for Muslims. They are a spoke person for the teachings and understanding of Islam, but they do not have rule over Muslims.

4. There would be no need for this. Muslims who already follow Sharia Law do it without it being in the constitution, and non-Muslims are not required to follow Sharia Law.

5. No. They are far from being Muslim. I do acknowledge that they claim to be Muslim, but they went against the teachings of the Quran, which proves their little regard for being “Muslim.”

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Al Queda and the Taliban kill Muslims, so what makes them Muslim? If you view their acts as "Islamic" then show me where it is justified anywhere in Islam.

They perceive "moderate" Muslims, or non-wahabii Muslims as apostates. The punishment for apostacy is death. They believe they are justified in killing Muslims.

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Originally posted by DJMessiah
What exactly did Iran do to change your perspective of Islam?

This thread says it all: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by DJMessiah
The "subjugation" of non-Muslims in Arab lands is not as common as you may think.

Do some research on the Egyptian Christian Copts. As far as "prosyletizing in public": Blaring Islamic prayers over loudspeakers 5 times a day is not only prosyletizing; but it also oppressive. Imagine the fate of a Christians singing hymns in public! In addition; No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Pertaining to honor killings, it’s something that is not allowed in Islam.

Then why is it so prevalent in Islamic societies? Here's an excellent article on the subject from Al Jazeera, of all places: A law making penalties serious for honor killings was rejected

Jordan’s Parliament has rejected the senate’s recommendation to uphold a law providing stiffer penalties for men who kill women in so-called "honour killings".
Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.

Murder cases carry stiff penalties in Jordan, but honour killers usually receive reduced sentences since their crimes are considered to be committed in “fits of rage” or as a “crime of passion”, sparked by “unlawful action” on the part of the victim.

There have been at least seven cases of honour killings in 2003.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Were you implying that I get rid of the text or the extremists?

Moderate Msulims around the world need to band togather against "extremists" or Wahabiists; if you like.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Do you find that the criminal who teaches crimes to others should not be held in the same account as the one who commits the crimes?

Yes. In fact it happens all the time. KKK or WAR and other white separatists preach hatred all the time. This is protected behavior. It's the act of commiting the crime that people are held accountable for. I wouldn't mind, however, if there was a law proclaiming teaching hatred to children as being child abuse. This would apply to ALL hate groups; including Islamists.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
They are doing it with no regards to the teachings of the Quran. The Quran does not permit suicide. They are far from being in the name of Islam.

Martyrdom is permitted in Islam. They don't consider what they're doing as suicide.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
The Quran mentions that an account of a woman only ½ of a man in regards to financial transactions, where two witnesses must be present whether the signer of the transaction contract is male of female.

But then there's the Hadith

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Surrah 24:6 . As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves ; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, ( swearing ) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth

You've completely turned the meaning around of that Surrah. "...let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies" refers to [the one] who accuses his wife and is comfimed by the statement that follows: "that he is of those who speak the truth".

Originally posted by DJMessiah
This Surrah describes wives who commit adultery on more than one occasion, while their husband is away.

Why would the husband "beat her lightly" when the penalty for adultery is death?

And while we're on the topic of wife beating, here is this thread about a guy who wrote an Islamic guide on how to beat your wife.

: Originally by Freedom_for_sum
Wrong!! They are justifying their cause for violence. I'm simply showing how they're doing it.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Who does this help, exactly? In your mind, you may see yourself as helping Islam, but in reality, you’re trying to hurt it (whether it’s intentional or unintentional). If you want to help, don’t just show “how they’re doing it,” but rather show why it goes against Islam.

It helps by educating people on what's going on. The notion that these things are being commited by a "tiny minority of extremists" is slowly eroding because of people like Robert Spencer.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
I can show you that for every riot that has occurred, there have been Muslim leaders condemning them.

I believe I asked before for you to show a Fatwa proclaiming riots and such as un-Islamic and demanding cesation.

Originally by Freedom_for_sum
1) Will you condemn the actions, means, and methods of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas?
2)Do you recognize Israel's right to her own statehood?
3)CAIR (Council on American-islamic Relations) is the self-proclaimed voice of American Muslims. Do you recognize them as your spokeperson for issues concerning Muslims in America (This assumes you're in the US. If not; desregard this question)?
4)Do you believe the Constitution should be amended to include aspects of Sharia Law?
5)Do you acknowledge that it was Muslims who attcked new York on 911?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
1. Yep. They’re not Muslim for the simple fact that Muslims aren’t allowed to be the offenders or kill innocents.

I think most would disagree with you. Everyone knows they are Muslims. The are Muslims actively engaged in Jihad which, in Islam, is the legal justification for attacking. And there is no word "innocent" that exists in Islam; just like there's no "infidel" in the Qur'an. There's the "House of Peace" (Dar Al Islam) or "House of War" (dar al-harb). From their perspective we are engaged in war.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
2. Israel, as a non-Zionist state where all faiths, races, and ethnicities have equal protection

Your answer shows you are anti-Israel. Your term "non-Zionist" means basically without their own statehood. In addition, it was Hezbollah who attacked Israel. Israel asserted her right to defend herself and, in my opinion, didn't go far enough to elliminating Hezbollah. Your response to this question makes you somewhat extreme--though I don't think you advocate Israel's destruction as Iran has.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
3. I’m an American. In Islam, there can be no head power controlling the Muslims.

Uh huh. What about the Caliphate? What about Mohammed himself? Are you aware that CAIR made to following statement: "Islam is not in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominate. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America, and Islam is to be the only accepted religion on earth." -- Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). What do you think about that?

Originally posted by DJMessiah
4. There would be no need for this. Muslims who already follow Sharia Law do it without it being in the constitution, and non-Muslims are not required to follow Sharia Law.

It is under Sharia law that some of the more brutal punishments are carried out; such as stoning to death. Sharia law has no place in a free society.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
5. No. They are far from being Muslim. I do acknowledge that they claim to be Muslim, but they went against the teachings of the Quran, which proves their little regard for being “Muslim.”

Again; most would disagree with you.

I know you don't hold the Hadith in the same regard as you do the Qur'an. But most fundamentalist Muslims do. It is all Islamic texts together that make Islam very intolerant of those things un-Islamic. It is the texts as a whole that subjugates women as second class. Here are some more from the Hadith:

www.usc.edu...

Hadith Book 019, Number 4366:
"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim"

www.usc.edu...

Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
"Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

www.usc.edu...

So the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones.

www.usc.edu...

Volume 8, Book 78, Number 629:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:
Two men had a dispute in the presence of Allah's Apostle. One of them said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The other who was wiser, said, "Yes, O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws and allow me to speak. The Prophet said, "Speak." He said, "My son was a laborer serving this (person) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife, The people said that my son is to be stoned to death, but I ransomed him with one-hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the learned people, who informed me that my son should receive one hundred lashes and will be exiled for one year, and stoning will be the lot for the man's wife." Allah's Apostle said, "Indeed, by Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws: As for your sheep and slave girl, they are to be returned to you." Then he scourged his son one hundred lashes and exiled him for one year. Then Unais Al-Aslami was ordered to go to the wife of the second man, and if she confessed (the crime), then stone her to death. She did confess, so he stoned her to death.

www.usc.edu...

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.'" The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." The Prophet said, "Are you married?" The man said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, 'Take him away and stone him to death." Jabir bin 'Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.

DJMessiah;

Here are four translations of 4:34: (BTW: I believe you stated before that "nushooz" means adulterer. I believe you are incorrect.)

004.034
Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisa-i bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fa-in ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

KHALIFA: The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.

So what are some examples of "nushooz" on the part of the wife:

An-Nushooz on the Part of the Wife
Here are some definitions from the scholars of nushooz when it is committed by the wife:

"It is the woman leaving the house of her husband without his permission and keeping her husband from her without due right."

"It is the woman departing from the obligatory obedience to her husband, her preventing him from her in the bed, her leaving the house without his permission to a place that she knows he would not permit her to go, her leaving the rights of Allah upon her, such as performing the purification of ghusl or fasting Ramadhan, and her locking the door on her husband, keeping him out."

"It is the wife disobeying her husband elevating herself above what Allah has obliged upon her and her raising herself above fulfilling her obligatory duties."

"It is the wife's disobedience of her husband concerning those acts of obedience that are obligatory upon her from the rights of marriage."

"It is where the wife raises herself above her husband and she is diffident towards him in the sense that she does not obey him when he calls her to his bed or she leaves the house without his permission and so forth. It is when she witholds from him his right to her obedience."

I think propaganda like this is a way to make the reader think that these people just fight because God tells them to, but in actuall fact these people are fighting for thier land and liberty, to have the freedom to be the way they want to be.
They make these people out to be a bunch of savages and that they seem to like war.
Any normal and sane person would fight back against an oppressor, for some it take awhile and for some its instant retaliation.
Dont attack thier religion, ask why they are fighting, dont dig into thier religion and try and make them seem like they are just fighting for God....silly

Originally posted by Guerilla
Dont attack thier religion, ask why they are fighting, dont dig into thier religion and try and make them seem like they are just fighting for God....silly

OK Guerilla; I'm interested to hear why you think they are fighting.

When they exploded a bomb at the twin towers in 1993 who were we oppressing then? Didn't we just liberate an Islamic country a couple years before then?

When they attacked the USS Cole; who were we oppressing?

When they kidnapped western embassy employees (Iran hostage crisis) who were we oppressing?

When they used aircraft as WMD and destroyed the twin towers and murdered almost 3000 people--who were we oppressing?

What about the Madrid train attacks? Who was/is Spain oppressing?

When the Marines barracks were bombed (Beirut and Saudi Arabia) we were guests of those countries. Who were we oppressing?

Who is England oppressing that they deserved to be attacked on 7/7/2005?

Freedom_for_sum

Do i have to get into detail about this?

I will tell you something about Chile... our 9/11, 1973!
To cut a story short the CIA was involved with bringing up a dictator into chile, they made it possible for him to get into power thus over the yrs killing an estimate of 4000 chileans and not to mention funding to help this dicktator kill a hero!
Similar things have happend in the middle eat, american secret forces have been either traced back to being involved in many incodents that have happend in the middle eat.
They have Oil for christ sake you think your government's didnt want that oil?
To control how these people use thier wealth?

Im sorry that those things have happend to the US peopl, but the only reason you get more sympothy from the world is because you can broadcast it to every tv in the world
while some Arab countries are so Poor that they get killed or harrased and nobody gives a damn about them because they cant broadcast to every TV in the world!

Originally posted by Guerilla
Do i have to get into detail about this?

Yes. When you grace a thread with your presence and make contradictory comments it is rude to not provide details that support your position.

Originally posted by Guerilla
I will tell you something about Chile... our 9/11, 1973!

Completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Guerilla
They have Oil for christ sake you think your government's didnt want that oil?
To control how these people use thier wealth?

And we BUY our oil from OPEC countries. How, exactly, do we control the way they "use their wealth"?

Originally posted by Guerilla
while some Arab countries are so Poor that they get killed or harrased and nobody gives a damn about them because they cant broadcast to every TV in the world!

We are very aware of what's going on in other parts of the world. Darfur is in the news quite frequently, for example. What Arab countries are so poor that they are getting killed or harassed that we don't know about?

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

CIA involvement in Chile is relevent, because its a small example of how your countries name gets draged into this hatred...that was very small compared to what you guys have done to the middle east and again your countries name gets put in there because of some minorty goverenrment agentcy.

This is a pretty good website i found a while back ago, its pretty detailed.
Sorry i dont have time to cut and paste need to go now, will be online later on but while im gone have a read at this:

www.cato.org...

I also have some word documents but i dont know how to upload that into the forum and dont have time.

There really is no point debating the matter any further sum...you have reached your opinions and haven't even once considered checking out any other interpertations of Islam and the Quran other than your own. You refuse to consider the context in which it was written, the time and place (early 7th century AD in a brutal backwater of the Levant....i.e. Arabia) or the fact that a large part of it was written in response to events happening then and were never meant as a practial or spiritual guide except for the events that spurred the passages you quote in the first place.

Have fun.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

From the Qur'an: 5:51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

I don't have the time to sit here and post EVERY intolerant reference in the Qur'an. So-called extremists justify their actions from Islamic texts. I challenge YOU to prove them wrong!! Also; CIFA used all Islamic texts (read the article) not just the Qur'an.

It's easy to take things out of context if you do not understand arabic.

Let me explain this to you in the original form written in Arabic.

The problem with english is that it does not contain all the words that exist in classical arabic so to describe a single arabic word you may need to use several english words. When Enlish/Arabic translations occur which are to do with the Quran the translators do not use multiple words but goto the closet "family" of words and use that word instead and thats exactly whats happened here.

please read :

This specific verse is directly talking about a friend in the sense of protectors as in a military allie or military protector.

Here is the arabic version :

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena

A Auliya is a protector/military-allie type of friend for example how Britain was the Auliya of US during the cold war where they had protection pact with each other against the soviet union hence they where friends and protectors of each other. Here i will give you another translation of the exact same verse but by Yusuf Ali

for example the Yusuf Ali translations tries to explain the word but it cannot becuase the word does not exist in english so it splits it into 2 :

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

This word is so complex to try and explain becuase it does not exist in english so some translations don't even bother to convert certain words for example this translation just kept the origanal word in place rather then to convert it :

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust).

Read that above verse carefully and you will notice that auliya is not just friend but a friend that is also "protector and helper" this is the reason why a Auliys is a special type of friend in the millitary sense.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

By the way; here's a few questions for you so I can better assess your position:

1) Will you condemn the actions, means, and methods of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Hezbollah and Hamas?

2)Do you recognize Israel's right to her own statehood?

3)CAIR (Council on American-islamic Relations) is the self-proclaimed voice of American Muslims. Do you recognize them as your spokeperson for issues concerning Muslims in America (This assumes you're in the US. If not; desregard this question)?

4)Do you believe the Constitution should be amended to include aspects of Sharia Law?

5)Do you acknowledge that it was Muslims who attcked new York on 911?

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

im not going to claim to be talking on behalf of every muslim on the planet but here goes :

1. Al-Qeada and Bin ladin are criminals just as much as those that dropped nukes on women and children in japan, and those that dropped napalm on villages in vietnam and those that carpet bombed dresden.

Hamas and Hezbollah are different to al-qeada. Hamas and Hezbollah where born during a brutal occupation by Israel you simply cannot compare that to Al-qeada. Fact is that if Israel never occupied Lebanon that Hezbollah would never have been created. So rather then condem the freedom fighters i condem Israel for having a brutal occupation of lebanon for 18 years and Palestine for 60 years.

I don;t understand why everybody wants to condem the people who rise up for there freedoms why not condem the occupiers and theifs who steal peoples land an dhumiliate them in there own country.

2. Israel does not have a right to exist becuase they where built by expelling the natives of that area. The majority of people that live in Israel are not even native. How are white skinned, Blue eyed euro jews native to the middle east?

I only recognise the true natives the arabs/jewish Palestinians to live in that area and not euro/foriegn jews to live in that area. The natives where thrown out of there homes to make a land for the jews. Why should the Palestinians suffer. Destroy Israel and send the white jews back to europe where they belong and let the native palestinians(christians, Jews, Muslims) live there.

I'm so sick and tired of everyone feeling sorry for land thiefs thats its sickning how everybody is feeling sorry for those that stole the land and screwed over the natives. Has anybody every though of the palestinians who have been sleeping in refugee camps for 60 damn years.

3. I'm not American so i don't know much about them but please read this for more info on how muslims work. Muslims generally are not what would be considered and orginised religon in the same sense as Catholics for example. Muslims mosques are also not conntected in any way. For example in my area and im talking just 5 minutes away from each other there a 2 sunni mosques both follow the same type of Islamic system but they don't even comminicate with each other to the point where you have two groups of muslims(one for each mosque) following Eid(religous holiday) on different days becuase they don't listen to each other:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

4) No 2 forms of Sharia systems are the same. Every muslims sect and sub-group has there own sharia law system. i have given examples in the above link to show the extreames to which they differ on various subjects ranging from driving, stem cell/IFV research and gentic engineering.

5) Yes. Just like how America dropped nukes on Japan, Napalmed civillians in Veitnam, Cruise missiles pharmasuticle factories in Sudan, Sanctioned to death hundreds of thousands of civillians in Iraq, Bombed the house of a muslim cleric in Iran in 1953, overthrew the democratic government in Iran and caused many other crimes in history. It's important to put things into perspective. America has killed more people in a single week in Veitnam then more terrorist groups have in there whole existance.