To all. Why can there be no questioning of Islam here?

reply to post by yeahright
Could it be that he is speaking about islam threads in general?

OP, I believe that the problem is one of political correctness though you cannot ignore the possible "fear factor". They do issue fatwas commanding the deaths of those who they feel demean their religion after all. Even give the fatwas and the head chopping, I believe the main problem is political correctness gone wild. Certain issues cannot be addressed at all due to political correctness. Until a real, unfiltered dialogue is permitted certain issues cannot be "fixed" because they cannot even be fully and openly discussed.

Originally posted by lifeissacred

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by lifeissacred

 

There is no compulsion in religion yet in warfare you have to give the unbeliever the choice between Islam and death.... And subjugation means to be ruled over... not converted. Sharia Law ,by authority of the Qur'an can be implemented forcefully. THere is a huge difference.

Sharia law applies only to the Muslims, in historic Islamic societies non-Muslim communities had their own courts and laws.

In warfare Muslims are permitted to fight only until the opposing side ceases hostilities.

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not aggressors. [2:190] Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. [60:8]

Any quotes about warfare in the Quran are related to self-defence (if you know the history of Islam you'll know that the Muslims were forbidden to fight back against their persecutors until they were faced with total war from the Meccan tribes) and are usually to do with these battles the Muslims faced after the Hijrah.

Except for those who reach a people between whom you have a covenant, or if they come to you with a reluctance in their chests to fight you or to fight their own people. Had God willed He would have given them strength and they would have fought you. But if they retire from you, and did not fight you, and they offer you peace; then God does not make for you a way against them. [4:90]

But if the enemy incline towards peace, then you also incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that hears and knows (all things). [8:61]

You know the rules of abrogation in Qur'an? The later verse ursurp the older ones because of the order they are revealed. MOst of the tolerant verses are neutered and the intolerant ones held. THey are divided into the Medina and Mecca verses. Some of teh Newer verses.

Read all of Surah 9 the Immunity. If the Qur'an does not mention one aspect of war then Islam turns to Hadith. The prophet himself during his later day executed by beheading between 500-700 jews for conspiracy to oppose Islam. Bhukari vol.7


I am not saying they are going to slaughter everyone... the religion does not agree with that.
What I am saying is that there are many situations in which it can and does happen! And one of the main goals in Islam is to subjugate the entire world into Sharia law for Allah.

Surah 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the last day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Surah 9.23 O you who believe, take not your fathers and your brothers for friends if they love disbelief above faith.And whoever of you takes them for friends, such are the wrongdoers.

Surah 9.24 Say: If your fathers and your sons and your brethren and your wives and your kinsfolk and the wealth you have acquired, and trade whose dullness you fear, and dwelling you love, are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving in his way, then wait til Allah brings His command to pass.And Allah guides not the transgressing people.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Answer me this, who is not permiting you to have an unfiltered dialogue about Islam? In my first post to the OP I specifically said that I (though I'm not a Muslim I've studied Islam for quite some time) was more than willing to talk about Islam and correct or confirm any points he (or anyone else) might make.

reply to post by lifeissacred


My topic was moved to rant forum. But it seems that Islam is off limits here. I Would like to hear yourviews on this subject. My views are backed by the Islamic texts themselves.. Although I need to get every volume of Bhukari! Those are gold!

reply to post by IamBoon


For a detailed explanation of any and all references to war in the Quran I suggest you visit this site which explains the Surahs and their content fully. The link will lead straight to the explanation of Surah 9 which you have used as an example.

reply to post by IamBoon


I'm happy to discuss the subject in this thread fully, providing that it's not just a case of us slinging quotes back and forth trying to prove each other wrong. Though instead of me laying out the arguments constantly I've saved some time by providing a link to a website which explains Quranic verses thoroughly.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by IamBoon

 

I'm happy to discuss the subject in this thread fully, providing that it's not just a case of us slinging quotes back and forth trying to prove each other wrong. Though instead of me laying out the arguments constantly I've saved some time by providing a link to a website which explains Quranic verses thoroughly.

I have 2 version of the Qur'an... which is supposed to be read literally when a parable is not used. With commentaries by Islamic scholars. I have Bhukari. Surah 9 was one of the last surahs revealed and therefore it is validated in itself. Websites are cool and all but I prefer to get my information from experts and the book themselves.

The scholars attribute the verses to moments in time during in which Islam was conquering Arabia to establish Islam. That is fine and all but the Law remains the same. While other scholars view the verses as applicable to all times during warfare or not. Almost 100% of Mulsim see the words in teh Qur'an as immutable so if it exists in teh book it can be used for violence as there are many verses that say so. You also have to take into account the Hadith, which elaborate on many of teh verses in teh Qur'an. The Hadith are saying by the Prophet and the way that he lived. Every Muslim aspires to mimic him as he was the perfect Muslim. The Prophet himself as strict in advocating for punishment and subjugation of all other creeds and transgressions.

reply to post by IamBoon


You also have to bare in mind the fact that the Hadith cannot compromise what is said in the Quran. One cannot justify offensive war based upon a saying in the Hadith if it goes against the prohibition against offensive war in the Quran. Every verse in the Quran which refers to the Muslims engaging in battle is refering specifically to the warfare Muhammad and the followers faced after the Hijrah. One of the verses most often cited by the 'extremists' and 'anti Islam' crowd alike (the one about 'slaying', I'm bit busy at the moment so I don't have time to look it up specifically) is actually confirmed in the Hadith as to be in refernce solely to the Battle of Badr and that it's not a command. Large swathes of the Quran are describing historical events, not being laid out as commands to be applied to everyday life. The authentication of the Hadith are something which Muslim scholars are still working on today. This is one of the main reasons all hadith are subordinate to the Quran, one cannot follow a saying from the hadith if it isn't in 100% compliance with the Quran.

I'm not saying people can't use the Quran and Islam to justify war and oppression, what I'm trying to get across is that the religion when followed in it's entirety instead of being cherry picked by a few radicals cannot be used as a vecile for total subjugation of all people, when such actions are expressly forbidden. (oppression is considered as great a sin as murder)

reply to post by lifeissacred


I know the order of law that Qur'an comes before Hadith. What you do not understand is that any oppression of Allah, his name, his law, and the propagation of false beliefs is an attack on Islam. This is what surah 9 is about and it realtes to other verses. Remember that if two verses contradict each other the one revealed later is the one to be followed.

The Hadith cover a HUGE ammount of subjects from bathroom etiquette to war. There are over 9,000 sayings in the Hadith about Jihad, most are very intolerant and prescribe peace only as a means to gain strength when weak. A Muslim is never allowed to go into peace with an enemy unless the Muslims are weak. The Hadith elaborates on the verses, there is not many that go against it! WHy should they since whatever Muhammad did and said is second to only Allah? The Prophet would not be put into the framework of contradicting the Qur'an so Muslims find a way for it to work out.

reply to post by IamBoon


Yes but again historical context cannot be ignored, Surah at-Tawba was written at a time of war, the entirety of the verses are in relation to the battle of Tabouk, the initial expansion of the Islamic empire and consolidation of power for the Islamic empire as until then their influence was largely nil and threatened to be dominated by the Byzantine empire which was still expanding under the influence of what is now called Orthodox Christianity (a religion which at the time of Muhammad who was likely only familiar with Ebionite style, strictly monotheistic Christianity would seem akin to paganism as it resulted in the worship of saints etc) Also lets not forget that after finally taking Mecca and with very little clout outside of the Arabian peninsula the Muslims were isolated and surrounded on all sides, faced with the expansion of opposing empires and uncertainty over the future of Islam until they could consolidate their power. One thing Surah 9 does denote is an extreme sense of urgency of either making a pact with the non-Muslims or swiftly being able to protect against them.


ETA: the last points you made I think I answered in my post above.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by IamBoon

 

Yes but again historical context cannot be ignored, Surah at-Tawba was written at a time of war, the entirety of the verses are in relation to the battle of Tabouk, the initial expansion of the Islamic empire and consolidation of power for the Islamic empire as until then their influence was largely nil and threatened to be dominated by the Byzantine empire.

Of course you shouldn't ignore the history of the matter. It still has no bearing on the interpretation and manner of which the book is used and should be used according to Islam. The fact that those surahs occurred during wartime has no bearing on the fact these verse are meant to literally enslave a world or convert the world through constant "jihad". I know estimates of up to 15% of Muslims believe in Islamic fundamentalism and act on it. It is estiated that 35-40% of Muslims agree with "jihad" attacks. This is a huge number os people out of the 1.5 billion Muslims.

reply to post by IamBoon


"estimated". By whom, with what purpose, are they accurate?

Most Muslims are very careful with regards to what extent that they follow what is written, simply because the religion is particularly hard to follow devoutly and there are varying interpretations as to how one is supposed to follow Islam (granted that most schools of Islam are pretty strict in the eyes of people used to western secular society but they vary greatly and overlap alot of the time). Surah 9 tells of Muslims before the battle of Tubrouk being told make alliances with their enemies (seek peace), otherwise to prepare for war. This seems to make sense, given the nature of the time in which Surah 9 will have been written it was kill or be killed, the Muslims had to consolidate their power and establish and protect themselves somehow (the same as every other religion in order to guarantee it's survival). I'm not doubting there are sections of the Muslim population which are under the whim of preachers and 'leaders' who cherry pick these verses to support geo-political and personal gain but to imply that this interpretation is the most widespread would be incorrect.

It's important to note that the Muslim community would have been considered heretics by the Byzantine empire (back when heresy was punishable by death) so it wasn't as if they were just going around Asia conquering people, the expansion of their control and their alliances with non-Muslims outside of their sphere of influence was in direct response to animosity they were guaranteed to face from any of the great powers at that time expanding further into Arabia. Hence why Surah 9 states that they are to make alliances and pacts, otherwise prepare to fight for survival. Everything written is directly related to the level of threat the Muslims faced at the time of this 'revelation'. Looking at it solely in a historical context we can see that the urgency of the text and the 'sword verses' are a response to the imminent danger of the expansion and encroachment into their territory by empires and religions many times more powerful and more influential than their own. It was either fight to consolidate power or become subject of another (as I said before Islam would have been considered heresy and punishable by death under the Chrisitian governments of the time)

reply to post by IamBoon


Hello again Boon, I hope you're well.

You've already received my thoughts on this matter on one of your other posts. Yes, there are some scary allowances granted muslims in islam, but christianity itself can claim no high ground because, although the christian bible commands love and tolerance, christians themselves tend to not always subscribe as closely as they ought and christian majorities in various political and military structure have wrought a very large amount of harm either directly or indirectly with motivation of their beliefs or motivation *against* Islam.

I know you've previously cast this off as political and not related to christianity itself, but there's the rub as I've explained before - it's people, and rationalizing doesn't change facts that christians tend to, on a large scale, embrace non-christian actions and ideals - as well as there being a very large amount of muslims who do not embrace or participate in such negative behaviour.

I believe there's plenty of questioning allowed here, but I also think we should take other belief structures and factors into account for a fair tally and review.

Take care.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Yes, there are some scary allowances granted muslims in islam, but christianity itself ....

Yes, I like to skin cats alive but you should see what my neighbor does. I think he does terrible stuff to hereto my actions are not really that bad in comparison to other equal and subject changing atrocity.

Standard diversion tactic really doesn't further the discussion.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


I don't know. What does this mean, to you?

Originally posted by IamBoon
I have repeatedly tried to make intelligent, well written posts on Islam and the dangers of it's political/social system of belief. Everytime I get moderated as being"insulting and negative"

reply to post by dbates




He DID ask for our thoughts on the subject, and I provided mine as well as related topics for further conversation. No diversion intended as I do concede his point, merely info for additional consideration - there are parallels to be drawn.

Thanks dbates, no harm or derailing intended, this one's just been around the block a few times already and appears only one side is being weighed.

I think this video, the philosophy behind it, and to an extent, the movement sums up my thoughts nicely about islam

I'll star and flag your thread as I have had the same problems with this issue. Been banned twice over it too

The answer of course is, Criticizing other religions is hate speech, but criticizing Christians and the Holy Bible is encouraged and rewarded. But this is SOP for any form of media, including alternative.

reply to post by KJV1611


That's complete twaddle, and if you don't know it by now, then you aren't in any better position with this account than you were with the first two.

Hate speech and personal attacks aren't permitted. Civility is required, I don't care what the topic is. Failure to remain on-topic and civil is what gets posts deleted and ultimately accounts banned. Passions run high on a good many topics, and religion and politics seem to be at the top of that list.

Discussion is good. Personal attacks aren't. When someone disagrees with your position, that isn't a personal attack. Unfortunately, some people run through multiple accounts and still don't get it. There is no agenda here other than the one posted in the lower right corner on virtually every page in the site.

This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.

Play nice, be civil, and you're golden. Don't, and you're not around long. That's it, it's no secret.

reply to post by lifeissacred

It is not just islam. It is any "politically correct" topic where you take the non-politically correct viewpoint.